Wannabe TikTok star sends cyclist sprawling; Alexandar Richardson rides London to Brighton + back at 39.5km/h; Kenny considering retirement; Khan warns of huge cuts to London cycle schemes; Manchester 'UK cycle commuter capital' + more on the live blog

GMBasix wrote:

Quote:

Who is this mythical cyclist who rides at night wearing black with no lights?

Every driver has seen him. Loads of times, apparently.

Now, I'm not recommending it - I'm lit like a Christmas tree and I'm only sitting at my desk right now! - but if everybody sees him, isn't the point that "I didn't see him" is as fake an answer as a Boris comment from the dispatch box?

Don't hide behind what the cyclist should have done, or what the pedestrian was wearing. Your job, motorist, is to take effective observation. If it's more difficult because it's darker, or raining, slow down and look harder.

It's important to distinguish the two kinds of invisible cyclist. There's the one that drivers can't see that they often tell you about, dressed in black, no lights, ninja skills of blending into the background and being exactly where motorists would least expect. Then there's the even more sinister kind that motorists don't see, normally to be found exactly in the correct position on the road, frequently wearing hi-vis, carrying lights, appearing on long straight roads in daylight and yet so utterly invisible that often drivers get all the way home without having noticed that they hit them.

chrisonatrike wrote:

There's the one that drivers can't see that they often tell you about, dressed in black, no lights, ninja skills of blending into the background and being exactly where motorists would least expect.

 ...  should be looking because, y'know, responsibility.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Then there's the even more sinister kind that motorists don't see, normally to be found exactly in the correct position on the road, frequently wearing hi-vis, carrying lights, appearing on long straight roads in daylight and yet so utterly invisible that often drivers get all the way home without having noticed that they hit them.

Fiends!

Tragically true, but I take the view that (a) I'd rather give them every chance to see me from a long way off and (b) if [insert preferred deity] forbid, one of them does hit me, I don't want them to be able to use my clothing etc as mitigation. 

Sub5orange wrote:

Greater Manchester needs to sort out the yobs mugging people on the Fallowfield loop. Was mugged on it February last year. Went on it this week for the first time because i was fed up with the busy alternative and  and saw a cyclist walking along it without a bike, with 6 policemen  appearing at the next access point. Depressing that a perfect cycling route is unrideable unless you accept that you will get jumped for your bike at some point.

This is part of the answer to the astonishment from some non-cycling transport planners that indirect, wiggly routes away from key arterial roads are somehow a suitable proxy for direct, segregated cycle infra along the routes people already travel in their metal boxes.

The Floop is acutally an amazing network. Just a pity that you need to be tooled up and, ideally, not alone to use it.

GMBasix wrote:

Sub5orange wrote:

Greater Manchester needs to sort out the yobs mugging people on the Fallowfield loop. Was mugged on it February last year. Went on it this week for the first time because i was fed up with the busy alternative and  and saw a cyclist walking along it without a bike, with 6 policemen  appearing at the next access point. Depressing that a perfect cycling route is unrideable unless you accept that you will get jumped for your bike at some point.

This is part of the answer to the astonishment from some non-cycling transport planners that indirect, wiggly routes away from key arterial roads are somehow a suitable proxy for direct, segregated cycle infra along the routes people already travel in their metal boxes.

The Floop is acutally an amazing network. Just a pity that you need to be tooled up and, ideally, not alone to use it.

It's very sad though because completely segregated cycling infrastruture is much more pleasant, riding away from the noise and the fumes. So in an ideal world with no bike muggers, it actually makes sense

Maybe it's better to divert the cars down the wiggly indirect routes (safe from muggers inside their locked metals boxes), and then remove motor vehicles from the high streets with shops and people.

Can't argue with that the need for pleasant, pollution-free routes. But we also need routes to go the places people want to go, and to target the popular commuter routes.  That is part of the way we can have modal shift for utility journeys.  The more successful that is (and as the motor fleet shifts towards EV and regen braking), the AQ along those routes will improve.

No Ditchling Beacon?  FAIL

Secret_squirrel wrote:

No Ditchling Beacon?  FAIL

He did it N/S but avoided it S/N by going over Devil's Dyke, thereby saving himself at least 30m of climb, the slacker.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Secret_squirrel wrote:

No Ditchling Beacon?  FAIL

He did it N/S but avoided it S/N by going over Devil's Dyke, thereby saving himself at least 30m of climb, the slacker.

There's more to it than that.  Leaving Brighton and going north over Devils Dyke is a much more gradual climb than any other way I can think of, so his average speed for that section would be way higher than on any other direct route out of the city.  Might be more exposed to wind though...

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Secret_squirrel wrote:

No Ditchling Beacon?  FAIL

He did it N/S but avoided it S/N by going over Devil's Dyke, thereby saving himself at least 30m of climb, the slacker.

 

There's more to it than that.  Leaving Brighton and going north over Devils Dyke is a much more gradual climb than any other way I can think of, so his average speed for that section would be way higher than on any other direct route out of the city.  Might be more exposed to wind though...

I find that maximum average speed is best with steep climbs and long gradual descents.

Riding up a steep hill and then down the long gradual hill on the other side is always quicker than climbing the gradual hill and descending the steep one.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Secret_squirrel wrote:

No Ditchling Beacon?  FAIL

He did it N/S but avoided it S/N by going over Devil's Dyke, thereby saving himself at least 30m of climb, the slacker.

 

There's more to it than that.  Leaving Brighton and going north over Devils Dyke is a much more gradual climb than any other way I can think of, so his average speed for that section would be way higher than on any other direct route out of the city.  Might be more exposed to wind though...

I find that maximum average speed is best with steep climbs and long gradual descents.

Riding up a steep hill and then down the long gradual hill on the other side is always quicker than climbing the gradual hill and descending the steep one.

Ah, I hadn't thought about the descent part though.   The South Downs geography makes the north faces steeper than the south faces...but he went a different way back.  If he had gone back the way he came, it's a harder climb, and the descent of Ditchling is much more technical than that of DD.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Riding up a steep hill and then down the long gradual hill on the other side is always quicker than climbing the gradual hill and descending the steep one.

Definitely in this case, Ditchling N/S is a lungbusting shortish period of hell followed by a lovely long coast downhill, coming back it seems to go on forever, a real grind, then the descent is over in the blink of an eye, doesn't really feel like one's had value for all the climbing. The only plus is there's usually an onshore breeze, which helps.

[/quote]

There's more to it than that.  Leaving Brighton and going north over Devils Dyke is a much more gradual climb than any other way I can think of, so his average speed for that section would be way higher than on any other direct route out of the city.  Might be more exposed to wind though...

[/quote]

very likely I'd say if his lead out rider had the egg sandwich instead of pasta

Rendel Harris wrote:

Superb effort from Richardson which makes the thighs ache just to read it. However, he started from Wimbledon, not central London, didn't do the Beacon coming and going, and didn't stop for a pint and chips on the promenade, so I'm afraid my 9:37:26 must still be considered the official record. 

More to the point, he didn't have to watch a dire 0-0 draw at the Amex stadium and get kettled after the match like last time I cycled to Brighton and back.

Steve K wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Superb effort from Richardson which makes the thighs ache just to read it. However, he started from Wimbledon, not central London, didn't do the Beacon coming and going, and didn't stop for a pint and chips on the promenade, so I'm afraid my 9:37:26 must still be considered the official record. 

More to the point, he didn't have to watch a dire 0-0 draw at the Amex stadium and get kettled after the match like last time I cycled to Brighton and back.

Each man chooses his own form of punishment

I've got 7:05:05 (moving time), coming from North of the river (just - Fulham), went over the Beacon and stopped on the beach for fish and chips. Kudos to Richardson who somehow managed to best my time by 2 andf a half hours!

Should the offcial BHF ride be renamd Clapham to Brighton seeing as it hasn't started from Westminster Sq in 4 decades?

I was having bit of a wee joke old son, I didn't really think his effort should be struck off for not having a pint and chips either.

Mind you, if you started in Coulsdon, still technically in London, and turned back as you reached the northern boundary of Brighton, I reckon you could cut the roundtrip distance to about 120kms whilst still technically doing a London-Brighton...sadly I don't think even that would get me within range of Alexandar...

Rendel Harris wrote:

Superb effort from Richardson which makes the thighs ache just to read it. However, he started from Wimbledon, not central London, didn't do the Beacon coming and going, and didn't stop for a pint and chips on the promenade, so I'm afraid my 9:37:26 must still be considered the official record. 

Gauntlet thrown down to road.cc readers there, Rendel.

The RRA official record is 4:15:08 (male) / 4:55:28 (female), which seems to be from Marble Arch, turning at the Aquarium in Brighton. The proliferation of obstructions and new roads means many of the place-to-place records are difficult or impossible. That's probably why the RRA have created a set of circuit records in sparsely populated corners of this island. I like riding circuits, I could probably create my own loop or find ones done on Strava by local cyclists, though any I won't be clocking 177km in a single ride!

@Secret_squirrel - strava shows he rode over Ditchling southbound and took the KOM on the 'Ditchling Beacon Up and Over' segment, among others.

I'm always sceptical of conclusions from data that I cant review myself, and we shouldn't forget Strava is only a subset of (keen) cyclists, and those that record commutes,tagged or otherwise, an even smaller subset of that Strava community.

I've seen councils produce cycling strategies based on Strava metro data that completely ignores what cyclists really need from those routes, and it's very easy for councils to claim the data shows their existing rubbish shared cycle routes are working, even when a majority of cyclists stick to the road still, because just like with segments Strava wont always record accurate position data. And there could be a world of difference between what you are actually riding on and what they think you rode on.

However so these factors will apply everywhere, so ranking cities on commute per capita should be accurate. Most places will either under read or over read by the same percentage.

But are they ? Because we dont know if its just raw numbers or an estimated number based on sample size and some funky survey style maths they are using.

And they are quoting against 'general population', which is what kind of metric anyway ? For instance Manchester is generally believed to have a population of just over half a million people, Greater Manchester, which is considered to be the metro county and includes surrounding places like Stockport, Salford,Bury, Trafford and a host more, 2.75million. It's why Chris Boardman is the Greater Manchester transport commissioner, not just the Manchester one.

Now Old Trafford, in Stretford Greater Manchester,not Manchester, is only about a 3mile cycle ride away from the city centre, easily commutable distance and youd probably use the Bridgewater Canal,one of Stravas top 3 popular commuting routes, rather than the A56 to do it. But are cyclists travelling
between Greater Manchester & Manchester, being counted against a Manchester or a Greater Manchester population? Or just excluded completely?

Those are rhetorical questions btw, but that's why I'm sceptical of data presented this way, and we know the purpose really is Strava trying to promote themselves and jusy monetise the information they have.