"Cycling has just made me really happy": Jeremy Clarkson's daughter partners with Specialized; Jeremy Vine delivers a 'road tax' schooling; Chris Froome skips the Vuelta; Quads of Destiny; Marginal groins aero package + more on the live blog

Awavey wrote:

I saw JV posted a clip the other week he went sailing up the left side of a vehicle already indicating and moving across, and blamed the driver for getting in the way. I do think he treats his twitter abit like that channel 5 show he does sometimes.

Was he on a cycle lane at the time as otherwise that sounds like poor cycling?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Was he on a cycle lane at the time as otherwise that sounds like poor cycling?

He was in the one I commented on - but then the cycle lane ended at a junction, with a bus stop 50m up on the other side, he exited the bike lane behind the front of the bus then objected to it pulling into the bus stop.

One of those where the cycle lane markings just vanish before the junction IIRC, so its wrong for me to imply he was totally at fault, but it felt a very easily avoidable conflict shall we say.

I dont think most experienced cyclists would have ridden that same situation as he did, and certainly not then spent as much time on Twitter arguing about it.

I don't think driving/cycling should always be about assigning fault, but instead learning lessons about how to avoid conflict and admitting when in hindsight you'd make different choices. Twitter is all about who shouts the loudest and/or coming up with the funniest quips.

Vine has previously posted videos where you could clearly see a problem coming but he continued cycling into it just to take the moral high ground. Sometimes ease the brakes on for 2s even if you're in the right. He'd be dead if he rode a motorbike like he cycles.

Rendel Harris wrote:

That JV tweet - the person he's addressing doesn't ask for road tax for cyclists, and I don't think the axle weight formula was ever used for private cars? Isn't now anyway so fairly ridiculous argument to make. Do sometimes wonder how much JV's tweeting is a genuine desire to promote cycling and how much a desire to boost his profile...

Disclaimer: may be biased as when I very politely once suggested that one of his close pass with a bus videos was actually at least partly his responsibility he encouraged his Twitter followers to join a pile-on (got some pretty foul DMs that day!) then when I (still politely) asked why he felt the need to do that he blocked me.

Ha ha - you got blocked by Jeremy Vine!

I think the mistake is trying to use Twitter for a reasoned debate - that's not really what it's about.

Just for interest [sic] found this today, message sent to JV via his C5 and R2 shows. No response.

JV is a complete dick. I used to like him, and enjoy listening to his radio show. But he is such an idiot now that I cannot listen any more, much like the airhead Zoe Ball, I do not listen to Radio 2 any more. I accidentally caught a snip of his show when in a van with a colleague the other day, he was discussing whether it should be made against the law to rinse your dishes before putting in the dishwasher. Enough said Jeremy, time to hang up your headphones.

I don't think that the wording is vague at all.  It is the same wording used at section 44 "Take extra care at road junctions. When going straight ahead, check to make sure there are no vehicles about to cross your path from the left, the right, or overtaking you and turning left."  (my emphasis added).

Mr Brockman is nothing more than a gammon complaining about the fact that its now in writing that cyclists have to be given priority in certain circumstances.

The way I'm interpreting the new 'priority' is that cyclists may no longer have to slow/stop at each side road when using those crappy pavement cycle lanes that stop at each side road. However, I'm not sure that I'd trust drivers to always be looking out for cyclists that are just about to zoom across the side road junctions (I'll probably just stick to using the roads instead).

Meanwhile, just spotted this on The Gurdiana: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/05/cargo-bikes-deliver-faster-and-cleaner-than-vans-study-finds

Quote:

Electric cargo bikes deliver about 60% faster than vans in city centres, according to a study. It found that bikes had a higher average speed and dropped off 10 parcels an hour, compared with six for vans.

But they need to RTB more often to refill so what is the daily comparison?

Also they don't run when it is cold and wet.

hirsute wrote:

But they need to RTB more often to refill so what is the daily comparison?

Also they don't run when it is cold and wet.

I've only very briefly skimmed the study, but supposedly that headline figure is an average that accounts for time collecting packages and the fact that cargo bikes have a lower capacity. I would note that for PedalMe, the business model revolves around delivering packages from numerous different clients to numerous different customers - rather than all deliveries starting from a central hub. 

PedalMe also claim they do go out in all weather... 

My second sentence was a little joke as that is what I read a lot on the local rag website. That and the main story here shows what the scale of oppostion there is cycling.

hirsute wrote:

But they need to RTB more often to refill so what is the daily comparison?

Also they don't run when it is cold and wet.

They're using GPS data, so that should already be factored in (I don't know if they cherry-picked dry days), and from the report:

Quote:

By engaging with several local business and services, Pedal
Me aims to promote a new concept of urban logistics that
they call the Agile Urban Mobility network81. This approach
combines both point-to-point and multi-drop jobs as well as
passengers and freight transport in the same time window.
This means that cargo bikes move between a highly dense
network of pick-up and drop off points. Each cycle, once
finished with a job, rather than returning to the depot, can go
directly to the nearest pick-up point thus reducing the
distance travelled and 'dead' miles. Such an adaptive
approach to logistics, which benefits from bikes' reliability in
fluctuating traffic conditions, coupled with a direct link to
customers, allows for greater resilience to disruption and
further service reliability. Simultaneously, as we will see in the
next section, it challenges the unsustainability of the gig
economy and the costs of consolidation centres.

Sounds good.

The cold and wet is what I read on the local paper website about cycling in nearly every story plus you can't cycle up hills !

We know Amazon as an example expect 150-200 packages/parcels to be delivered per shift. If their vans could only achieve a rate of 10 per hour,let alone 6, it would take minimum 15-20hours of driving to achieve.

Evidentially they dont take that long, so the survey data doesnt appear to be reflecting real case examples of van couriers. It might well be showing bike couriers in a business model for delivering parcels by bike are quicker than a van doing the same job, but it doesnt show bike couriers are quicker than van couriers in general, however much spin is put on it.

Awavey wrote:

We know Amazon as an example expect 150-200 packages/parcels to be delivered per shift. If their vans could only achieve a rate of 10 per hour,let alone 6, it would take minimum 15-20hours of driving to achieve. Evidentially they dont take that long, so the survey data doesnt appear to be reflecting real case examples of van couriers. It might well be showing bike couriers in a business model for delivering parcels by bike are quicker than a van doing the same job, but it doesnt show bike couriers are quicker than van couriers in general, however much spin is put on it.

There's some details in the report (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d30896202a18c0001b49180/t/61091edc3acfda2f4af7d97f/1627987694676/The+Promise+of+Low-Carbon+Freight.pdf) about how they modelled the vans. They were modelling the same jobs as the cargo bike, but allowing for larger pick-ups and different routes. Interestingly, they used longer times for the vans to drop off goods which is presumably due to difficulties in parking etc. Most of the jobs were in inner London, so it'd be interesting to see how the real-world data on delivery vans in London compares.

As HP verified but I expect they are looking at central cities where the dropoffs figures are probably less due to the parking or movement. So although Amazon delivering to suburban area is 150-200 per shift, the city centre couriers would be less. 

Amazon are making a huge thing about being green at the moment, putting thousands of electric vans on the road, all this is very good, but doesn't offset Jeff Bezos for taking a rocket into space. The man is a hypocrite.

hirsute wrote:

But they need to RTB more often to refill so what is the daily comparison?

Also they don't run when it is cold and wet.

How big does a van need to be delivering 6 parcels an hour, or only 48 per day. sounds like the boxes would be rattling round in the back of an astravan, never mind a transit

wycombewheeler wrote:

hirsute wrote:

But they need to RTB more often to refill so what is the daily comparison?

Also they don't run when it is cold and wet.

How big does a van need to be delivering 6 parcels an hour, or only 48 per day. sounds like the boxes would be rattling round in the back of an astravan, never mind a transit

Pretty big if it's 6 fridges or cement mixers

Am I right in thinking that the proposed wording is to be tweaked and then presented to Parliament? Or has the DfT published its final draft?

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Am I right in thinking that the proposed wording is to be tweaked and then presented to Parliament? Or has the DfT published its final draft?

This is what gov.uk says https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-highway-code-t...

Quote:

We have carried out full analysis of all consultation responses received and, given the feedback received, we will be seeking to introduce all the proposed changes. We will now look at all the proposed changes afresh to consider what amendments are needed to the proposed wording to take account of the valid comments received. In discussion with relevant stakeholders, we will finalise the text and produce a revised version of The Highway Code that will improve the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

In accordance with section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, we will lay the revised version of The Highway Code before both House of Parliament for a period of 40 days. If Parliament agrees to the proposed changes being made, we will work with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) to update The Highway Code online and to produce a new hard copy edition in time for the next print run.

Parliamentary approval is (I think) by the negative resolution procedure - ie it gets approved unless it is objected to, rather than there is automatically a debate/vote.  So - normally anyway - it's just a formality.

GMBasix wrote:

Malcolm Brockman of Maidstone, Kent, writes, 

Quote:

"As a former traffic police officer and member of the Alliance of British Drivers, I'd like to know exactly what 'priority over motorists at junctions when travelling straight ahead' means"

Part of me agrees with Mr Brockman's dissatisfaction, as an experienced former police officer, with such vague wording that implies a disproportionate priority in all cross-road circumstances.  It is, indeed, a poor choice of wording for a policy document.

Which is why H3 doesn't say anything of the sort.

Traffic police officer has not read the highway code text as it relates to cyclists SHOCK

wycombewheeler wrote:

 

Traffic police officer has not read the highway code text as it relates to cyclists SHOCK

Former traffic police officer.  At least one step removed from the cynical dark side of the force; but as a member if the illustrious ill-conceived ABD, also one step removed from reality.