Alliance of British Drivers schooled for suggesting cyclists take test to use roads; Have you ever seen a more worn chainring?; Could you steal Pogačar's KOM?; Vaughters talks cheese; Kristoff 1-0 iPhone; CAR BACK!; Headwind hell + more on the live blog

I bought what I thought was a free speed bike but it turned out to be heavy. And I needed to pay for my ears to be cleaned.

The US has around 4x the rate of road deaths of the UK. That's 11 road deaths/100,000 of population compared with 2.8/100,000 of population in the UK. Some states are really bad. North Carolina has a population of 10.6 million compared with 67 million for the UK. and yet in 2020, over 1700 people were killed on the roads in NC, compared with just over 1500 in the UK.

During the pandemic, total distances driven around the world dropped significantly. In the UK, France and most European countries, that resulted in a major drop in road deaths also. But not in the US, where quieter roads meant more US drivers took the opportunity to speed or commit DUI offences.

And still the rabid right in the US tries to claim road safety is a cunning plot by the left to deprive Americans from driving massive SUVs and pick up trucks with shitty gas mileage while not wearing seatbelts.

I work with these people. They could never afford it if petrol costs were comparable to the UK. I have colleagues who commute 40-50 miles each way to work every day, in pickup trucks that get under 20 MPG US (24 MPG UK, 11.8 L/100 km) carrying one driver, no passengers, no cargo in the bed. Even here they're paying $100 a week in fuel just to commute. A lot of it is on roads like this, posted 45-55 MPH but driven at 65-70, not the safest.

https://goo.gl/maps/Z3ezo3FycrZAQGZX6

They do mostly wear seatbelts. Interestingly, our free life insurance at work pays an extra 1x salary benefit if we're killed on company business whilst wearing a seatbelt. I'd say a slight majority of motorcyclists (and the vast majority of Harley guys) don't wear helmets, though.

I've been to the US many, many times and some of my best friends are Americans

I've also been to a lot of the states in the middle that most visitors don't see (visited 27 states now, more than most Americans). 

Yep, I know very well how Americans like their big trucks and SUVs and how low fuel prices are. In the Southern States, vehicle condition tends to be more of a worry and seat belt use and DUI are also more of an issue in the south. Regular vehicle inspections aren't carried out in many states, which I still find astounding. 

The US states with lax/no helmet laws for motorcyclists also have the highest death and injury rates for motorcyclists, no surprise there.

I'd estimate 27 is about the number of states I've been in, too. I lived in Tennessee for a couple of years, so I've experienced the south, too. My British grandmother couldn't understand a word people said in rural Tennessee or Kentucky.

Here in Illinois, no vehicle inspections, except in Chicago and its suburbs where there are required emissions inspections. I don't think any state has the equivalent of the MOT. Large trucks do get inspected at highway weigh stations, though.

Whilst recovering at home from major surgery I have watched loads of TV shows on Discovery, and found one about a company in Salt Lake City which restores cars and creates hot rods. Bitchin' rides is the name of the show, Kindig It designs is the company. Whilst the work they do is without doubt the finest work I have ever seen during my almost 40 years in the motor trade, some of the cars they build defy belief. They have just created one from a 1960s muscle car, and dropped a new engine in it which has been 'detuned' to around produce 2000bhp. The engine is capable of between 3500-4000bhp, but the car would use a full tank of fuel to travel the length of the road outside. Every vehicle they restore or build has a new engine, which is always massive, and is tuned to the nines. Many of the customers are your typical redneck Americans who never think they're too old to wear a baseball hat and pony tail, and love to burn rubber on the main streets. 

I can't imagine what the worn chainring has got to do with the size of somebody's thighs. When I saw it my thought was that there is no way that chainring is rideable.

It surely cannot have been that rideable for quite some time, so how did it get more worn. How much slippage would there have been?

And look how good condition the little ring is.

They must have been using it a lot, in the Cotswolds, in order to wear it out.

I clearly know nothing about the Cotswolds, though it is hilly where I live and I've never got near wearing a chainring to that degree. Got big thighs though, according to a mate. I think his eyesight might have been a bit fuzzy though.

AidanR wrote:

First article wrote:

Andrew Ballard added: "What 'problem' would this solve? Let's look at how effective driving tests have been for drivers, in terms of road and street harm: five people killed per day, every day on our roads, around 70 more seriously injured. Some of those aren't even on the roads. So mandatory tests and licencing of drivers doesn't prevent road harm or property destruction. So I ask again, what 'problem' would licencing cyclists solve?"

Is this guy seriously suggesting that driving tests and licenses have no effect? Would he like to cycle on roads where no drivers had to pass a test? The obvious argument is that a car is a dangerous machine in the wrong hands in a way that a bicycle is not.

perhaps he's arguing for more stringent testing of drivers, before testing cyclists.

AidanR wrote:

First article wrote:

Andrew Ballard added: "What 'problem' would this solve? Let's look at how effective driving tests have been for drivers, in terms of road and street harm: five people killed per day, every day on our roads, around 70 more seriously injured. Some of those aren't even on the roads. So mandatory tests and licencing of drivers doesn't prevent road harm or property destruction. So I ask again, what 'problem' would licencing cyclists solve?"

Is this guy seriously suggesting that driving tests and licenses have no effect? Would he like to cycle on roads where no drivers had to pass a test? The obvious argument is that a car is a dangerous machine in the wrong hands in a way that a bicycle is not.

I think he's just calling for a solution focused approach to Road Safety. If the KPI for Road Safetly is reducing injuries and death on the roads then the solution would be to focus on those that are causing the majority of those injuries.  The question simply asks for evidence that having a cycling test would effect that KPI.

BTW, I would ask them for evidence on how many adult cyclists don't have any training - ie hold a driving licence, have taken cycling proficiency or bikeability. I think it would be a very small percentage and therefore enforcing training would have incredibly low impact and not be cost effective.

When you've had an argument with a driver, who is also a cyclist, about road positioning then you realise that more training may not have the outcome they are looking for. Who am I kidding, they want training as a barrier to entry so they hope to get less cyclists.

IanMK wrote:

I think he's just calling for a solution focused approach to Road Safety. If the KPI for Road Safetly is reducing injuries and death on the roads then the solution would be to focus on those that are causing the majority of those injuries.  The question simply asks for evidence that having a cycling test would effect that KPI.

BTW, I would ask them for evidence on how many adult cyclists don't have any training - ie hold a driving licence, have taken cycling proficiency or bikeability. I think it would be a very small percentage and therefore enforcing training would have incredibly low impact and not be cost effective.

Unfortunately there are a growing number of motorists who want to blame their failings on the new changes to the highway code..... This is one person's view on Facebook 

• "an Audi driver stopped in the middle of the road at an exit to a roundabout to allow a pedestrian to cross who was 10 yards along the road he had turned into. He stopped, 2 cars directly behind him stopped then it was my turn to stop but the driver behind me had no idea what was going on and nearly hit me.
  He clearly hasn’t seen the pedestrian from his point of view and wasn’t expecting to stop.
  I’m sure insurance companies will get fed up with this and hopefully get the government to alter the rules."
• "the driver behind me was possibly not paying enough attention, but an accident almost happened today which wouldn’t have happened last week as the Audi driver would have driven past the pedestrian.
  Let’s see how many of these type of accidents actually do happen, my guess in thousands per year.
  What I maybe didn’t stress enough though was that the driver behind me had to stop in a place that doesn’t normally have cars stopping in for a reason he couldn’t see."
• "Let’s see how this pans out, but I agree 100% with your comments regarding how drivers should behave.
  I’m not defending the driver who was behind me, I’m just saying that accidents of this nature will become more prevalent as drivers get caught not concentrating.
  Also I’ve had a few conversations with others who have been in exactly the same predicament as me this week."

between each of his comments there were a number of people saying things like 

• " let's see if I understand your problem.... cars stopped at a roundabout and a car almost ran into the back of you? You are making the problem about the pedestrian.... when its not. Or I'm guessing on the approach to a roundabout you don't think you might have to stop?"
• "so the driver wasn’t paying attention to the traffic in front. Traffic can come to a stop, anywhere any time. That’s why you’re supposed to keep at least a 2 second gap (longer in poor conditions) and pay attention. Anything can be happening further up the road. Being too close and be inattentive is not a reasonable reason for crashing into someone. If someone is tailgating you, then you should increase the gap between you and the car in front of you. This means if you see the traffic stopping, you can brake more gently and car following has more reaction time. Unfair, but that’s how you keep safe on roads full of inattentive tailgaters."

It seriously beggars belief how some of these people have not had more accidents than they have

Really! an Audi driver gave way to a pedestrian. That's obviously made up.

More seriously, can they refer to the section of the "new" Highway Code that caused the crash. 

IanMK wrote:

I think he's just calling for a solution focused approach to Road Safety. If the KPI for Road Safetly is reducing injuries and death on the roads then the solution would be to focus on those that are causing the majority of those injuries.  The question simply asks for evidence that having a cycling test would effect that KPI.

But he's making that argument with a palpably false statement, which rather undermines the point he's trying to make.

I understand your point, the line "Let's look at how effective driving tests have been for drivers" is not worded well and might be used to undermine an otherwise solid argument.

IanMK wrote:

I understand your point, the line "Let's look at how effective driving tests have been for drivers" is not worded well and might be used to undermine an otherwise solid argument.

While at the same time, it is reasonable to ask, "if every year, iro 1700 people are killed and tens of thousands seriosuly injured, and mostly attributable to motorists,  how can we improve the efficacy of driver training and licensing in this country?".

I don't disagree with cycle training (and, more emphatically, as a requisite for a driving licence), because that is very readily rolled out across primary and secondary schools, with 'booster' sessions.  It shoudl also be a requisite for CPC trianing for motorists.

GMBasix wrote:

IanMK wrote:

I understand your point, the line "Let's look at how effective driving tests have been for drivers" is not worded well and might be used to undermine an otherwise solid argument.

While at the same time, it is reasonable to ask, "if every year, iro 1700 people are killed and tens of thousands seriosuly injured, and mostly attributable to motorists,  how can we improve the efficacy of driver training and licensing in this country?".

I don't disagree with cycle training (and, more emphatically, as a requisite for a driving licence), because that is very readily rolled out across primary and secondary schools, with 'booster' sessions.  It shoudl also be a requisite for CPC trianing for motorists.

Bikability training is down to the Laocal Authority and Head of the school, some friends of mine are Bikability instructors and state that one of the largest high schools on the area,which has a joint campus with schools that cater for Year 1 upwards, refuses to allow Bikability training because the childrens bike's are not maintained. He/she also maintains that the road access to the scholl is not safe to cycle on (sic) due to the large numbers of parents dropping their children off by motor vehicle.

This is in a "ribbon town" with a population of approx 8 thousand and maximum distance from the school by road of  1.5 miles.

Not defending heads/governors per se but I have been in schools where they're scared to offer cycle training or storage for fear of legal action by parents of any kids hurt on the road for encouraging them to cycle. IANAL but I assume such action wouldn't have much chance - after all a school isn't responsible if a child's hurt walking or getting the bus home - but a government edict making it quite clear that schools cannot be held responsible for any cycling mishaps external to the school might help. 

I dont think it's about creating barriers to entry per se, it's coming from that angle that alot of motorists take on licences, insurance, MOT and VED that because they are things they have to have, to be legally using their vehicle on the road, then it's only "fair" that everyone on the same road has to have the same things.

It becomes a total blind spot to them the reasons why they have to have those things to drive their vehicle and why its ludicrous to apply the same criteria to non motorised use of the roads. They simply equate road use as being a licenceable, taxable, insurable thing and cyclists are somehow getting away with it by not having to follow the same rules.

It might be a bit too conspiracy theory but I like to think that those ultimately responsible for rhetoric with such an obvious false dichotemy know exactly what they are doing. They also understannd that "fairness" is a trump card in such arguments.

I would agree that the critical thinking in those that repeat it might be lacking.

Yes, Bikeability (I think this effectivelty replaced Cycling Proficiency - although I'm happy to be proved wrong) should be compulsary in schools - whatever the modern equivalent of Junior School is these day (I have no kids - can you tell?). It would not only improve bike handling and road skills for kids, but show them how easy and fun cycling is, and therefore encourage more of them to do it more often. A veritable win!

Maybe it could work a bit like this?

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/bicycle-training-in-the-netherlands/

There's often suggestions that children should be riding earlier rather than later (cf. Sustrans NCN expansion - "safe for 12-year-olds".

https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/08/dutch-children-must-cycle-at-earlier.html

Note that: the streets are safe enough that children can be tested in real conditions. Much younger children do play-based traffic education at school. There are also some off-road practice environments ("Traffic Gardens"). I'm not sure but presumably this is part of the national school curriculum.  Compare the UK where we do indeed have some of this in schools but we seem to rely on charities for this (albeit with government funding). (Update - this is semi-official and there's a UK national standard for training BUT I don't think it's actually formally on the curriculum of the Dept. for Education - CUK were petitioning back in 2013)

(Update on "cycling proficiency" which many will have enjoyed times ago - that was ROSPA from 1947-2007 and apparently replaced with Bikeability then. Info from here).

I live in the Netherlands (originally from England though). Checked this with my partner who has a kid. She tells me that bike lessons are part of school curriculum, both practical and theory. There's an exam to be taken during year 6, so the kids are prepared for cycling to highschool by themselves or with friends. Makes sense.