Cyclists "drive motorists somewhat insane", claims councillor; LTNs 'need time to settle'; Tokyo broken bar probe begins; Kangaroo rescued by cyclists caught attacking cyclist; Brighton bike lane debate; Gravel champs reaction + more on the live blog

Amen to that!

Mens Elite World champs road race. BBC2 14:40 Sunday (or Eurosport)

Womens Elite world champs road race BBC2 14:00 Saturday (or Eurosport 1 11am)

There, FTFY.

eburtthebike wrote:

"The authority said it was already trying to educate drivers."  But they haven't even educated their own councillors!  Cllr Stuart Parsons thinks that road tax still exists and it's illegal to ride two abreast.  Mind you, trying to educate that idiot would tax the best of teachers.

Because they probably know that that is a wall that doesn't need banging with their own heads. You can inform councillors till you're an apolitical shade of blue in the face, if it doesn't suit their particular hobby horse in that moment, it is but an inconvenient buzz in their ear.

eburtthebike wrote:

I'm so glad road.cc is questioning those figures, because they imply that in the majority of collisions between cyclist/driver, it is the cyclist's fault, whereas official police data shows exactly the opposite, with drivers much more likely to be at fault.  I look forward to reading the officers' explanation, which I'm sure will make perfect sense.  If it turns out that the officers manipulated the figures to make cyclists look bad, they must be disciplined.

It is interesting, because I don't think I've seen a split before.  Bear in mind that, even if the figures are based on an analysis of the stats19 data, broken down into rural/urban road types (definition required), and perhaps even analysed for the local area rather than national average, they are based on police giving their view of the causes. If the cause is not clear, or the only evidence is from the survivor, the conclusions may be skewed.  Still, it's the best we've got.

I thought it was a good article. Interesting to see the stats on e-scooters. 

Having done the basic research, which took me about five minutes (OK, I'm a committee wonk, it's part of my job) the troubling part is on p.68 of the committee papers (here) where the officers compiling the report appear to have assigned blame to cyclists for any accident where they have not taken 'action to ensure their mode of travel has followed appropriate safety measures or safety checks have been made, e.g., bicycle safety checks prior to travel and ensuring high visibility is displayed on the journey. '

Victim blaming or what? If you FoI that report, the request should and will be refused - it's already in the public domain, even though some buffoon at the council has tagged the agenda papers as 'Official - Sensitive' - a category of information that doesn't apply to agenda papers in local government. If you just get the raw stats, and don't know that they're based on victim blaming (e.g. not wearing Hi Viz) you may be misled into believing that all those KSI's are the fault of cyclists....

I'm sure I'm just being dense, but I couldn't find the 70% figure in those papers.

Nor me - but I did find the victim blaming bit, and I'm willing to bet the price of a new chainring that'll be the explanation of figures that look way out of kilter. The report is woefully light on analysis - there again, it's a strategy, not an in depth analysis, and the preparation of strategies, even when done by officers, relfects the desires of the politicians.

exilegareth wrote:

Having done the basic research, which took me about five minutes (OK, I'm a committee wonk, it's part of my job) the troubling part is on p.68 of the committee papers (here) where the officers compiling the report appear to have assigned blame to cyclists for any accident where they have not taken 'action to ensure their mode of travel has followed appropriate safety measures or safety checks have been made, e.g., bicycle safety checks prior to travel and ensuring high visibility is displayed on the journey. '

Victim blaming or what? If you FoI that report, the request should and will be refused - it's already in the public domain, even though some buffoon at the council has tagged the agenda papers as 'Official - Sensitive' - a category of information that doesn't apply to agenda papers in local government. If you just get the raw stats, and don't know that they're based on victim blaming (e.g. not wearing Hi Viz) you may be misled into believing that all those KSI's are the fault of cyclists....

Thanks for finding that, and while you might be right about your suggestion of where the 70% figure comes from, there are no figures attached to that statement or anywhere else in the document that I can find which support that cyclists are at fault in 70% of collisions.

I've scanned through the document and can find no supporting figures or anything which even vaguely resembles it, but the report itself is woefully inadequate and has serious omissions e.g. p71 Vulnerable groups only mentions motorcyclists, not pedestrians or cyclists.

road.cc is right and the council needs to explain the figures as quoted by council officers at the meeting, as the figures aren't in the report and therefore not in the public domain.

exilegareth wrote:

Having done the basic research, which took me about five minutes (OK, I'm a committee wonk, it's part of my job) the troubling part is on p.68 of the committee papers (here) where the officers compiling the report appear to have assigned blame to cyclists for any accident where they have not taken 'action to ensure their mode of travel has followed appropriate safety measures or safety checks have been made, e.g., bicycle safety checks prior to travel and ensuring high visibility is displayed on the journey. '

Victim blaming or what? If you FoI that report, the request should and will be refused - it's already in the public domain, even though some buffoon at the council has tagged the agenda papers as 'Official - Sensitive' - a category of information that doesn't apply to agenda papers in local government. If you just get the raw stats, and don't know that they're based on victim blaming (e.g. not wearing Hi Viz) you may be misled into believing that all those KSI's are the fault of cyclists....

 

 

 

I don't even know what to say. That's sickening. Thanks for your post

That made me smile as well. Every night there is a queue of traffic coming in to my town. I'm always appreciative if a driver pulls over a bit to let me filter more safely but it doesn't happen often.

It would be good to know what personal changes politicians have made to reduce their carbon footprint. It's called leading by example.

The inconvenient truth is that the 10% of highest earners on the planet are responisible for 50% of carbon emissions. To be in this illustrious 10% you have to be earning around £26K. So those that believe that this is an issue with emerging economies are just delusional. 

I think politicians and others do need to come clean but I would agree that it can be sold in other ways. Eg promote the health benefits - more exercise, cleaner air and better diet will lead to longer life expectancy. The trouble is that the departmental way that government is run does not lead to a holistic approach.

I rarely watch the news these days, but I'm sure that Johnson said that he was in New York to talk about climate change and a trade deal that would include beef. Talk about mixed messages! It makes you wonder what he actually knows about the causes of climate change.

IanMK wrote:

The inconvenient truth is that the 10% of highest earners on the planet are responisible for 50% of carbon emissions. To be in this illustrious 10% you have to be earning around £26K. So those that believe that this is an issue with emerging economies are just delusional.

Yes - as many of us in this forum will be in the richest 1% of the world's population and even people on benefits in the UK may be in the top 10%. (I'm certainly not suggesting that makes it easy for those on benefits before anyone starts...merely highlighting we all consume at a rate high above the world's per capita energy / resource usage.)

I wasn't even thinking of "politics" at the national level, more the local debates and relationships with our friends and neighbours that give you and me the chance to actually change something. (And in the process benefit ourselves from said relationships). Doesn't mean we shouldn't lobby or challenge MPs too of course!

For the record, this is the report I slightly misquoted 🙂
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-richest-1-cau...

Yep, same one as Ol' Man Hembrow was quoting and quibbling with both the Grauniad's reporting and the original in my link. The one thing that seems sure is we in the UK ought to tighten our belts on energy usage - unless we choose another path and say "bollocks to it".

Presumably the Mayor of London, might like to have a word, on his doorstep so to speak,with Ealing borough council then, voted to remove 7 LTNs theyd installed at last nights council meeting.