“According to cyclists, cyclists don’t jump red lights”: Ashley Neal’s ‘straw man’ red lights claim blasted; “Bike fetish leads to traffic misconduct” says psychologist; Anti-cycling ‘comedy’; From Busby Babes to Brailsford’s Boys? + more on the live blog

But what else would the live blog be

we could be discussing the impact of the collapse of the Sillicon Valley Bank on the Ef Education womens team as a sponsor

Or why the police commissioner in Norfolk says 20mph limits are just advisory. https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23368983.norfolk-police-commissioner-says-2...

Awavey wrote:

But what else would the live blog be

we could be discussing the impact of the collapse of the Sillicon Valley Bank on the Ef Education womens team as a sponsor

Or why the police commissioner in Norfolk says 20mph limits are just advisory. https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23368983.norfolk-police-commissioner-says-2...

The commissioner is right on zones isn't he? That's a big part if the problem. It's also why I don't sign up to the fairly regular campaigns for more 20mph zones near us, they are useless. I would sign up for 20mph limits and enforcement of them.

I believe technically a speeding offence can't be enforced, but I believe the police have a wide range of other options to deal with it.

Awavey wrote:

I believe technically a speeding offence can't be enforced, but I believe the police have a wide range of other options to deal with it.

not true.  Zone limits are enforceable assuming the underlying TRO is correct AND the requisite street furniture is in place. 

Ok well then I believed technically that was the case as its the exact same reasons we've been given by Suffolk police, though for matters of road policing they're essentially joined at the hip with Norfolk, why they won't enforce 20mph limits around us.

Though of course alot of the angst in Brighton lately has been about speed cameras enforcing 20mph limits.

So who knows

Awavey wrote:

Ok well then I believed technically that was the case as its the exact same reasons we've been given by Suffolk police, though for matters of road policing they're essentially joined at the hip with Norfolk, why they won't enforce 20mph limits around us. Though of course alot of the angst in Brighton lately has been about speed cameras enforcing 20mph limits. So who knows

zones and limits are confusingly different.  One requires repeaters, the other odesnt, one can have street furniture to calm traffic, the other must.  It's a stupid mess of a system. 

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Awavey wrote:

Ok well then I believed technically that was the case as its the exact same reasons we've been given by Suffolk police, though for matters of road policing they're essentially joined at the hip with Norfolk, why they won't enforce 20mph limits around us. Though of course alot of the angst in Brighton lately has been about speed cameras enforcing 20mph limits. So who knows

zones and limits are confusingly different.  One requires repeaters, the other odesnt, one can have street furniture to calm traffic, the other must.  It's a stupid mess of a system. 

Thank you, that's helped mu understanding

I see where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree.

The root of all the problems that cyclists face (apart from the fact that it is possible to experience a headwind in both directions, but never a tailwind...) is that we are the 'other' in society. We are regularly demonised, and famously as proven in a psychology study, never fully human. If we can consistently chip away at this, then we can get the infrastructure and culture we deserve.

I'd rather be seen uppity and petulant than seen as sub-human. 

the little onion wrote:

(apart from the fact that it is possible to experience a headwind in both directions, but never a tailwind...)

I'm glad that the wind gods aren't just after me...

THB I think Ashley should stick to his otherwise good instruction on driving - I'm mostly with him on how to drive around cyclists but already disagree with some points here ("friendly toot" / some odd things he said about overtaking cyclists).  I haven't watched all his cycling ones but I think he's shakier here.

He gets a nod for correcting himself when challenged (on one occasion).  Overall - not too bad for someone whose business is driving...

PRSboy wrote:

Sometimes I think cyclists spend too much time getting offended over very little and this makes 'us' seem petulant.  Ashley Neal has commented regularly in videos on driving safely around cyclists (and driving safely generally), yet here we are taking issue on semantics.

Including in this video in the segment around 7.50: "There should be no reason that young kid can't use the road. It's our job as motorists to look after them."   

After a weekend where the main news topic has been about language. ie whether the government used language that deliberately "othered" refugees AN uses language that deliberately others cyclicts.*

By contrast a headline in the Daily Fail "Vehicle Rams over two people in Lawless London"** It's clearly a Car and there's clearly a driver! As for evidence that London is Lawless the article goes on to say that 4 people ere arrested.

* For the record I don't think that any cyclists ever has said that there are no RLJ cyclists and even if they did they don't speak for me and I actually don't think that is a cyclist as he's not peddling. Surely an electric moped.

** I think the Fail has updated the story but you can still find this on msn.

I'm not sure if that's the case, Ashley can speak for himself, but his round up videos always seem to get decent viewing numbers, he doesnt have to provoke to be watched, obviously a tweet pile on gets more eyeballs on it, but I don't think he said it to provoke that.

Maybe he just reflects the view that alot of cyclists always discuss RLJs with a " ah but..." qualifier.

I was more interested in his horse videos actually, especially as I recognised the level crossing area one, why on earth would you drive onto a mainline crossing when the exit isn't clear.

Awavey wrote:

I'm not sure if that's the case, Ashley can speak for himself, but his round up videos always seem to get decent viewing numbers, he doesnt have to provoke to be watched, obviously a tweet pile on gets more eyeballs on it, but I don't think he said it to provoke that. Maybe he just reflects the view that alot of cyclists always discuss RLJs with a " ah but..." qualifier. I was more interested in his horse videos actually, especially as I recognised the level crossing area one, why on earth would you drive onto a mainline crossing when the exit isn't clear.

I'd be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt if he hadn't deliberately gone through all of CyclingMikey's videos to try to find something to criticise.

I wouldn't mind if he correctly summed up various cyclist opinions about RLJing as there's some important points about how traffic lights are generally designed with only the motorists' benefit in mind and how sometimes a safe way to deal with some junctions is to RLJ. He doesn't address any of the interesting talking points, but instead introduces a falsehood which seems to have belittling cyclists as the only point. His comment is neither instructive nor insightful.

My impression is Ashley tends to comes up with a point or idea he wants to make in his videos, but often has to go find footage to make it, and consequently doesn't find the best footage that unequivocally makes that point,t he pictures are always more debatable than the words that go with it.

So with Mikey, he wanted to cover some point about Mikeys videos and the way Mikey goes about what he does, did Ashley pick the best video that showed that maybe not if its something you had to dig that for back for, but does that change the point he was making, probably not, which ultimately was just a fair use comment piece, people are allowed to have opinions like " i dont think thats the way you should go about cycling safety" that differ from the collective held view.

Awavey wrote:

My impression is Ashley tends to comes up with a point or idea he wants to make in his videos, but often has to go find footage to make it, and consequently doesn't find the best footage that unequivocally makes that point,t he pictures are always more debatable than the words that go with it. So with Mikey, he wanted to cover some point about Mikeys videos and the way Mikey goes about what he does, did Ashley pick the best video that showed that maybe not if its something you had to dig that for back for, but does that change the point he was making, probably not, which ultimately was just a fair use comment piece, people are allowed to have opinions like " i dont think thats the way you should go about cycling safety" that differ from the collective held view.

It seems to me that Ashley is trying hard to portray Mikey as a threat to cyclists' safety and creating division on the roads. He's welcome to have that opinion, but I disagree with him and find some of his other comments about cyclists to be pushing his agenda of blaming cyclists for causing division on the roads.

It would be fair enough for him to push that agenda if it wasn't for cyclists getting killed due to some motorists' attitudes towards cyclists that are amplified with various bullshittery from mainstream media and now also Ashley Neal.

I for one have admitted to deliberate red-light-jumpery while on Critical Mass rides.  Not only that but there were scores of others including children and occasionally pets doing the same.

On the other hand I've also suggested reasons why others might be doing this on other occasions, that I'm "otherwise law abiding" when not protesting and why people shouldn't lose their minds over this.

I don't know London and several people here have said that there is a "problem" with this there.  I can't comment on that but that's more cyclists not saying "no-one jumps red lights" or "it's all fine".

HoarseMann wrote:

To be fair, we can't really tell if this is an illegal e-bike. However, Ashley seems to have instantly decided it's illegal, but then calls the rider a cyclist!

Was the entire middle of the frame filled up with strange plastic boxes held in place with parcel tape and duct tape?

brooksby wrote:

Was the entire middle of the frame filled up with strange plastic boxes held in place with parcel tape and duct tape?

Quite possibly, but a dodgy DIY conversion can still be legal!

As can this type of thing. Saw a lot of these being used by delivery riders in Cambridge recently. They are legally classed as an EAPC, so can use all the cycling infrastructure etc. Even with a throttle (didn't see any being actively pedalled!).

I did see a few go through red lights too - and yes, they are technically cyclists.

HoarseMann wrote:

Quite possibly, but a dodgy DIY conversion can still be legal!

<shudder>

No mention in your manufacturer's link of a throttle apart from a pushbutton walking pace throttle, which is legal. I expect the ones you have seen have been illegally modified, which with many ebikes is child's play. It does make them illegal though and opens the rider up to some fairly stiff penalties if caught, particularly if involved in an accident.

brooksby wrote:

Was the entire middle of the frame filled up with strange plastic boxes held in place with parcel tape and duct tape?

Fast moving cycles with no sign of pedalling

Bright liveried riders and warm thermal lining
Strange plastic boxes all duct-taped to frames
These are product of corporate games...

HoarseMann wrote:

Someone riding a wheeled vehicle with a motor of power greater than 250W or that can assist beyond 16mph is a MOTORIST!

To be fair, we can't really tell if this is an illegal e-bike. However, Ashley seems to have instantly decided it's illegal, but then calls the rider a cyclist!

Oh, and I found something out a while ago - it IS legal in the UK to have an e-bike with a throttle that propels the rider up to 16mph and still is considered an EAPC (electrically assisted pedal cycle).

I'm pretty sure that's not true - they have to be pedalled else are not classed the same as other e-bikes. They can be ridden if they have 3rd party insurance and the rider wears a motorbike helmet basically. Anyone else know more?

Shockingly, HoarseMann is correct
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electrically-assisted-pedal-c...

If you look at the date of that info sheet it was issued on July 22nd 2015, the law changed in 2016. It doesn't apply retrospectively though so any ebike purchased before 2016 can have a full twist and go throttle up to 25 kmh.

Thanks Rendel, I did wonder. Naively, I followed the link to the vehicle posted by HoarseMann. This led me through to the .gov website that they are quoting. They seem to be  falsely claiming that these vehicles can be used in the UK without usual restrictions. 

If I've got tyime later in the week I might try to contact Trading Standards about it.

A throttle is only permitted if it cuts out at 3.7 mph. There is a loophole in the law which means that any ebike built before 2016 (when the legislation came in) is exempt so can have a throttle. 

Personally I think that if you're going to allow twist and go electric scooters there is little point in retaining the ban on throttles for ebikes, which can actually be a useful safety feature allowing riders to get away from the lights as quickly as possible and make smooth hill starts. They are also a significant benefit to older and/or disabled riders who can sometimes be perfectly competent once underway but find actually getting started tricky.

They seem to have become de facto accepted anyway, virtually every delivery rider round our way seems to be using a throttle-operated bike and I have yet to see one stopped by the police. I think they pale into insignificance when compared with the issue of illegally overpowered 40mph ebikes and scooters charging about the place.