Rockets

Oh my.....FIFA.....still managing to embarrass themselves. Absolutely. Well said.

But @exdulwicher just look at your first response to Angelina's post. Now you accuse others of posting anti-cycling tirades yet Angelina's post was a statement about selfish, irresponsible and dangerous cycling and your response was very pro-cycling, or certainly anti anything negative being said about cyclists don't you think? There is an almost cultish response to anything that could be deemed critical of cycling from a lot of folks on here. There does seem to be some Pavlovian trigger for many on the obsessional pro-cycling side to launch attacks when they see anything that could be construed as anti-cycling. We see it all the time - let's be honest you didn't need to wade in as you did and that set the tone for the rest of the thread and then there was a pile-on from the usual suspects. Let's be clear, we all know there are selfish, irresponsible and dangerous drivers but Angelina's post was about cyclists yet you, and others, want to conclude that the issue is drivers. A lot of pro-cycling lobbyists love nothing more than to claim there is a culture war being waged against them but a lot of the time the culture war is actually being waged by them. I really don't buy this "restrictions" nonsense. It is something that is used as an out by the leaders of the cycle lobby for every and any measure that is suggested - often even those things that will actually keep cyclists safer (which is one of the things that many cite as the reason not to cycle). You have more faith in drivers than I do - I always wear a high-vis jacket! And bar a ludicrous left-turn cut-up move done by a driver on Battersea Park roundabout it has stood me in good stead all these years! Yes take his advice - wear "high contrast clothing" and "always wear a helmet".....perhaps some folks might listen to him! 😉

Hang on a minute @exdulwicher to be fair, you may be critical now but just look at your post in response to Angelina's first post on the issue where they commented on the number of cyclists at night without lights or bright clothing dangerously weaving in and out of traffic - yours was the first reply to Angelina's post on this thread. You seem to have taken quite a dismissive stance and then the usual suspects jumped on with the "you don't have to wear bright coloured clothes". So it's bit rich for you, some pages later, to be critical - you set the tone from the outset. Why did you feel compelled to take such a dismissive stance? Also, are you not going a bit Dulwich Roads with your picture of the smashed up police car? Are you sure it was hit by an unobservant driver or are you just jumping to that conclusion? You claim I am on some anti-cyclist tirade yet I am a cyclist - does that upset you? Are cyclists supposed to be fully paid-up members of the cultish elements of the sport for their opinions to be considered? Trust me, there are a lot of cyclists, like me, who do not like how the more cultish members of our sports behave or engage with others and who don't agree with the cycle-myopic view of the world and think that is actually doing long-term harm to the active travel transition. And I really don't see how suggesting it is commonsense to wear bright coloured clothing when cycling is an anti-cycling tirade - it sounds like perfectly reasonable advice!

Mal hasn't been deleted. Mal is getting better at self-policing and, I suspect, posted something that, in hindsight, they decided wasn't advisable and they deleted it themselves. And that is the point - making yourself as visible as possible is not a requirement or a law but seems like a perfectly sensible idea to make it easier for other road users to see you. I really could not work out why this perfectly sensible suggestion was so vehemently opposed by some - there seems to be a lot of "how dare you tell us what to do" amongst many mixed with a "the obligation is for other roads users to see us no matter what the circumstances". It seems like a very blinkered and ultimately quite daft approach.

@Earl Aelfheah I, and I suspect everybody else, have lost track on the point you are trying to make and I think you have too - you're tying yourself in knots just to, seemingly, pick a fight. If you've not got anything useful or constructive to say, or are not prepared to debate properly or cannot without taking it into a death-spiral, then just do us all a favour and don't. Your nonsense tactics are wearing thin - it seems everyone probably needs to stop responding to you to starve you of the oxygen of attention.

@first mate it’s nothing more than a distraction technique - deployed in almost every discussion anytime the debate and facts turn against them. Odd but predictable behaviour.

Spot on @first mate - with a subtle tweak to the throttle or the bike's computer a fatbike can be turned from a Fiets to a Snorfiets to a Bromfiets category without anyone being able to tell - it's why the Dutch police have invested so much in those mobile treadmill things all over the country to determine what category of bike it is based on it's maximum speed. They cannot tell by looking at it. And to be honest it is probably why they are favoured by Dutch teenagers as you can buy one perfectly legally and very quickly modify it to go really fast. A similar thing happens over here where some E-bike conversion kits come with a keyfob which controls the maximum power output - one click and you're within legal limits another click (which you will only ever use when you're offroad of course) and you're Warp factor 9. I refer my right honourable friend to my previous post.....the Dutch fatbike is a classic example where speed may be the only obvious indicator. ...it's a bike? 😉

They do @snowy and isn't the issue with Fatbikes that the very same bike (depending on whether it has been modified or not) could fit into any one of those three categorisations?

Oh @Earl Aelfheah - up to your usual tricks again - so predictable - honestly it's just not worth trying to engage in any sort of good-faith discussion with you as you seem incapable of returning the compliment. It's impossible - I have made my points very clearly; you're the one seemingly deliberately conflating things to suit your own agenda. Anyway I am off to buy a legal fatbike and ponder converting it to an illegal fatbike and make a t-shirt that says is it a e-bike or a e-moped and poll the public for their response!

But they are not already illegal - that's the point. As bought off the shelf fatbikes are, in the main, legal in the Netherlands. If the user then modifies the throttle or the computer they then become illegal but you cannot tell without testing them which is why the government says it is impossible to differentiate between them (from a point of law) and why the Amsterdam authorities are saying we have to. You seem to be deliberately missing that key point. Why might that be per chance? 😉What would you suggest as a new name for a legal fatbike and an illegal fatbike.... That wasn't the question I was asking was it - I was asking whether you think we might get to a point where new laws are required.....yes/no answer would suffice! 😉

I am not sure it does - why do you think so? It's pretty clear what it is saying but let me explain it for you - Dutch police have been stopping fatbikes (which are legal) to test their top speed to determine whether they have been modified so they reach higher speeds - they cannot tell just by looking at them. During one set of tests they found around 50% of the fatbikes had been modified but could only determine this when they used their new roadside treadmill contraption to test it. https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/news/dutch-police-have-a-roadside-device-for-identifying-illegally-fast-and-powerful-e-bikes#:~:text=247 new roller test benches,45km/h (28mph). https://nltimes.nl/2024/07/03/half-fatbikes-checked-amsterdam-tuned I am posing the question whether people think we will get to a point (like in the Netherlands) where new laws need to be brought in to protect riders (and other road users) if similar scarily upward trends of injuries to cyclists (especially young cyclists) and those hit by cyclists are seen here as they have been in the Netherlands. Do you think we will get to that point - I suspect we will - we are already, for example, hearing a lot of Lime Bike Break noise coming from A&E departments, surgeons and those who have to treat the long-term impacts of treating victims?

This is the point you seem to have not grasped - there are plenty of UK legal fatbikes for sale that do meet guidelines - not every fatbike does not meet standards - now in the Netherlands a large number of fatbikes are bought legally and then modified - this is why the Dutch police have been stopping fatbike riders and then using roller systems to test the speed of the bikes - as you cannot tell between a perfectly legal one and an illegal one. No, I actually think the vast majority of the UK public will look at a fatbike and think of it as a bike and that it is a tiny percentage of the population (seemingly a large percentage of which are some of the usual suspects on here) that we seem them as e-mopeds. It would be foolish then, by your own assertion, that the masses are "sensible"! Agree 100%. Cycling UK seemed to be suggesting that, especially at night, you may be giving a driver a potential defence if you are not wearing bright clothing and they hit you. Commonsense would suggest that wearing bright clothing at night was a very good idea. The point I was trying to make earlier was whether we are heading, like the Netherlands, to the need for more stringent laws about what you can and can't do on a bicycle - the Netherlands government has been responding to medical-led calls for change - for everything from the fact that some think there are a generation of Dutch kids who are getting less exercise due to the popularity of e-bikes and those who are concerned by the explosion of injuries (especially amongst teenagers) caused whilst riding e-bikes (many of which have been illegally modified).

Err, you'll have to help me on the points you were trying to make as I just looked at your post and it didn't really make any points at all. So surely the most sensible approach would be to do both? Interesting that the Netherlands government is making it law that some have to wear cycle helmets, does anyone think that, to better protect cyclists, similar measures may need to be taken here? The Netherlands is always held as the beacon of all that is good in the world of cycling so might it be worth pre-empting some of the issues they are having. Interesting that amongst an increase in serious head injuries their A&E departments are also flagging a growing problem with their equivalent of the "Lime bike break" which leaves many with life changing injuries.

I bet they do - it's two wheeled and has pedals.....Oh, it's "there" btw.... A good point. Well made. In darkness things may well be different.

Clearly not in the Netherlands which is, after all, what we are talking about...good grief..... But what you are doing is creating a sub-category for "boy racer" cars within the car category - it's still a car - just a car modified to drive faster often driven by an idiot. Bottom-line remains that in the Netherlands fatbikes are considered e-bikes unless they are modified and the Dutch government says it is impossible to differentiate between a fatbike and an e-bike. Very, very few people will get buzzed by a fatbike in Amsterdam and think - oooh, there goes an electric moped, well maybe @Raeburn would but where they were in Amsterdam everything was "harmonious" so one presumes they weren't buzzed by one! 😉 No-one seems too keen to offer up an alternative category for large cargo bikes - which authorities are also wanting to remove from cycle lanes - anyone got any suggestions or is that still a bike?

Errr...nope: https://nltimes.nl/2025/01/15/advisors-tell-minister-attempts-distinguish-fat-bikes-law-futile-path And the alderman was saying exactly that in the media article I first posted - this is why she is threatening to take the government to court over this. Well worth reading the article above for an explanation of the complexities of legislating against fatbikes without impacting other e-bikes. It's pretty clear and remember, most fat bikes are sold legally as e-bikes and are then converted. This is the issue. No and it's clear that's not how you are dissecting the cycle category. What you are saying is like someone trying to say a "boy-racer" car is not a car.

They're not flapping about e-mopeds but fatbikes, e-scooters and large cargo bikes as they are the main source of the issues with bike lanes in Amsterdam and many parts of the Netherlands. Well, in parts of Amsterdam they are, clearly, the issue. Maybe it would be more productive if some stopped trying to dissect the cycle category into tiny subsets so they can claim these two wheeled contraptions with pedals are not actually bikes and acknowledge there may be a problem. It's typical, and so telling, of so many that when someone suggests there may be problems being caused they now default to "THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY BIKES" and invariably follow-up with "WHAT ABOUT THE CARS". Ahem....

Perfect timing @Earl Aelfheah! Of course you, and others, don't, but the big challenge (and the point many of you seem oblivious to) is that the vast majority of the public see them as bikes and their riders as cyclists. In their minds if it has two wheels and pedals it's a bike and if they are causing a menace it is a menace caused by cyclists - and no amount of protestation is ever likely to change that. And look, if the Dutch government says you cannot differentiate between a fatbike and a normal e-bike you cannot expect the Dutch public (or any other public too) too either - and therein lies the issue. BTW given Dutch local authorities are also looking at large cargo bikes how would you categorise those to separate them from bikes?

@first mate absolutely. Fatbikes look like bikes (they have pedals etc) so people, understandably, bucket them in the bike category in the same way they do modified (and illegal) delivery e-bikes - they are still cyclists. This kind of takes us full circle as @exdulwicher acknowledges that local authorities have to course correct - often triggered when certain transport methods become problematic. Clearly, in Amsterdam and other Dutch cities, fatbikes, e-scooters and large cargo bikes have become problematic (and remember this is being driven by shocking increases in injury levels to those riding them and being injured by them). Remember this was all triggered by me saying inner-city Amsterdam was a cycle nightmare (especially for pedestrians). Now @Raeburn suggested it was anything but a nightmare and that it was "harmonious" and what I was saying was not true. Given the measures Amsterdam is trying to bring in I can't help but think that my experiences in Amsterdam and assessment is much closer to the reality.

And the Dutch government apparently...I mean that's the whole point of Amsterdam (and other cities) lobbying for change....or did you miss that element of the story?

Oh dear... @Raeburn here we go again...let me explain so you can get your facts straight. The person quoted is not the traffic police chief but the deputy mayor - she is a politician (who has responsibility for, amongst other things traffic and transport): https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/governance/the-college-of-mayor-and-alderpersons/melanie-van-der-horst/ She is saying a fatbike is very different to an e-bike because Dutch central government claims you cannot differentiate between a normal e-bike and a fatbike (most are pedal assist etc) and the local authorities know they cannot ban fatbikes because it would be legally complex to do so due to how close they are to e-bikes (the key is that fatbikes can be easily modified once purchased). She is threatening to legally challenge the Dutch government on this issue. She is a politician lobbying for more local control vs central government rules to address local problems with certain types of bikes (and e-scooters and large cargo bikes). In the eyes of the Dutch government (law?) they are and this is the whole point and remember she is also lobbying to be able to legislate against step-on e-scooters (in your eyes what are these - extremely narrow two-wheeled standing cars?) and large cargo bikes (two wheeled electric hearses?) from using bike lanes.

@first mate you must remember that only a cyclist's view of how other cyclists behave is allowed...unless it's coming from a cyclist who doesn't turn a blind eye to bad cycling! 😉 @Raeburn are you claiming that is what I said - a reminder of what I said below. At the end of the day @Raeburn is entitled to their opinion but it doesn't make mine wrong (as much as they try to project that). Maybe @Raeburnhas been visiting regularly and is basing their opinion on those visits. But what undermines their narrative and massively supports mine is that Amsterdam authorities are actively trying to police problem cycles and cyclists (in the face of rising injuries and accidents caused to and by cyclists) and no amount of protestations that a "fatbike isn't a bike but a moped" is going to change that.

Well maybe you shouldn't be so swayed by the false narratives amplified by some of your friends on here! 😉 How many times have I had to say it: never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Just perhaps @Raeburn your experience was different to others - had that not crossed your mind? It doesn't mean their experience is wrong and your protestations that my assertions were incorrect on the basis of your 30 minute run and Streetview is something of a weak argument - I am not sure anyone peer-reviewed your run did they! 😉 Clearly something is going on else I very much doubt local politicians would be trying to police the type of bikes allowed to use cycle lanes and that very much suggests that somewhere between the harmony you claim and the chaos I claim is the truth (with a strong leaning towards the chaos). BTW I do love that feed as there is a cat in the posh houseboat in shot that seems to be having a great time!

@Earl Aelfheah that's a close to an apology as I suspect I will get! Given you made that false accusation as your justification for @Raeburn calling me a "troll" I presume you don't think I am troll now after all? Again, not correct and you seemingly trying to "yeah...but" in true Vicky Pollard style. I will let others judge how some posters behave on here and whether it constitutes bullying - it certainly feels as if some wage relentless unfounded aggressive attacks on anyone who dares disagree with their particular view of the world - there is also a hell of a lot of narrative manipulation, name-calling and putting words into people's mouths going on. A lot of people who contributed massively to this forum over the years have been hounded off it. Why? Because they dared to voice an opinion that differs from others - kind of sad don't you think?

To be fair was it not the government leaks that were setting much of the tone for what was expected? I think this is the crux of the problem that this government are abysmal when it comes to communication - and absolute omni-shambles in fact. just look at the nonsense ahead of the budget and then the inside attacks on Wes Streeting. It all gives the impression they aren't properly in control of things and makes Keir and his cabinet look weak and then, post budget the suggestions Rachel Reeves was less than transparent with the public and it all looks even more of a mess. All at a time when this government is deeply, deeply unpopular - the own goals keep continuing.