exdulwicher

It crops up on police social media feeds regularly. That one came from this BBC article. Police car stopped on the hard shoulder of a motorway (so as per standard police operating it'll have had it's flashing red lights on too). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw23pnde6jo Still someone drove into the back of it. Happens with those massive impact protection trucks that they deploy behind roadworkers too. Massive flashy "MOVE RIGHT" orange arrows and lots of hi-vis, still people pile into the back of them. Oh, cos a few posts back, you were suggesting that cyclists were all the same and using the "giving others a bad name" nonsense and you were seemingly suggesting that all two-wheeled contraptions should be treated the same. Now you're saying that there are good and bad ones? Maybe perhaps, "individuals". And for the record, no-one on here is suggesting that people should NOT wear hi-vis. We're pointing out that it's not the actual issue. Wear what you want, I don't care. The issue is not whether cyclists (or pedestrians) do or don't wear hi-vis or helmets (or any other clothing), what is being pointed out is that it rarely makes the blindest bit of difference. The fact that drivers can (and do) regularly crash into things painted in very bright hi-vis is an indication that it makes sod all difference. The issue is that they're not LOOKING in the first place. Not that they don't SEE. You can make yourself easier to be seen with lights or hi-vis or reflectives or cycling around wearing all-black and jumping red lights (at which point everyone sees you and posts on here about it). But the primary cause of car crashes (be that car/car, car/bike or car/pedestrian) is people not looking. And that's significantly different to not seeing. There was quite a famous article by an RAF fighter pilot about that concept translated to road safety. https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2019/06/26/things-you-should-learn-about-bike-safety-from-a-royal-air-force-pilot/

People are simply pointing out (not unreasonably) that it doesn't matter how visible you make yourself if the driver is not looking, not paying attention or doesn't care. Pictures like this crop up fairly routinely: If you can hit something like that then a cyclist can be dressed as a fluoro unicorn and it'll still make sod all difference. Already on here you've had at least one comment about how someone has been hit while wearing all the "correct" kit. A few years ago I had one of the closest near-death experiences I've ever had, coming from North Dulwich Station to the RPH / EDG crossroads (on a bike with working lights, plus I had reflective ankle tabs and a brightly coloured top and a helmet), I stopped at the just-changing-to-red lights. The driver behind knew full well I was there cos he'd been behind me for 200m by that point, he just didn't want to wait so he floored it through the lights. The wing mirror brushed against my right arm and wrist as he sailed through the red light. That, by the way, is one reason I will rarely stop if there's anything behind me and the lights are just in the process of changing. Can pretty much guarantee that at least one of the vehicles will just floor it to get through. And as per my previous comment, you all seem highly capable of not only spotting anyone on any sort of two-wheeled contraption, but also describing exactly what they're wearing and how they're riding! It's just yet another anti-cyclist tirade which, coming from someone who claims to ride a bike, is somewhat surprising.

Normally you're one of the regulars complaining that a thread goes off topic or has been hijacked by the "what about a car?" brigade. Here we have a thread nominally about the difficulty of seeing some cyclists which has now veered wildly off into the realm of e-bikes in Amsterdam! I maintain by the way that there is no issue whatsoever with cyclist visibility. You're all able to spot a cyclist at 1000 paces, state what they're wearing (usually also including the use or otherwise of a helmet / earphones), the brand of black clothing they're wearing, the pavement they're riding on, the red light they've just jumped, the type of bike they're on, the speed they're going at (which, if they're on a road is always so slow that they're holding up everything for miles around and if it's anywhere else is so fast that terrified pedestrians are leaping for cover as they hurtle along) and how much respect / empathy they deserve if they're hit by a poor innocent driver.

I was just going to say, I was sure it was you on a different thread arguing the definitions of SUV vs crossover vs off-roader and getting upset that everything was being lumped in under "SUV". Well the same applies to bikes and there is a legal difference between e-bike (or EAPC, electrically assisted pedal cycle) and illegally modified cycles or unregistered e-moped / e-motorbikes. "acknowledge" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I explained it - you seemed to be under the impression that Amsterdam was flapping around panicking about e-mopeds etc, I simply pointed out that every city authority is doing this (and similar) on a daily basis. Anticipating issues, working out possible solutions, trialling them, gathering data and acting accordingly. It's strange how it's always bikes that are the issue with you though isn't it? Paris for example has identified that the major issue is cars (of all shapes and sizes and models and engine types, Penguin!) and has taken some dramatic steps to seriously restrict them including massively increasing the parking charges for heavier vehicles (which is normally but not exclusively the SUV-style) yet you're strangely not going on about the chaos over there of too much vehicle traffic and the actions of the authorities to "ban" them (it's not a ban, it's just some restrictions and extra charges).

The point I was making Rockets is that any decent city transportation authority is doing this sort of stuff day in day out - in fact if they weren't doing it, you'd be complaining too! Is [xxxx] becoming an issue? What can we do about it? What needs improving in order to manage [xxxx]? What is the cause of [xxxx]? What possible solutions are there? So let's say the use of e-scooters has become an issue. Well 10 years ago, e-scooters didn't really exist so there were no laws around them, you may as well have suggested laws around time machines. Well now, they are an issue (and they don't actually exist in legislation because the law invariably takes a while to catch up with reality). So the solution put forward (in the UK) was to run legally recognised hire schemes using private operators (Lime, Dott, Tier etc) and use that to gather evidence as to what can / should be done about e-scooters in general. It's not a perfect solution (cos this is the UK and we're about 40 years behind Amsterdam in this respect). But it's a mostly workable one. Every city in the world is grappling with these sorts of dilemmas on a daily basis, tweaking things (mostly behind the scenes, the public will rarely be aware of a new algorithm at a set of traffic lights for example) and occasionally, it demands more public measures like saying "OK, back in the days when fatbikes made up 2% of city traffic, there were no real issues, but now they make up 10% it's probably time to move them off the cycle lanes, but we can take a bit of roadspace away from cars and pop in a special "big e-assist vehicle lane", everyone will be happy" Apart from Rockets who will treat it as some massive conspiracy.

Surely it is the responsibility of the highways authority (not sure about Amsterdam but over here it'd mostly be the local council) to manage any issues within transportation? That's literally their job to look at problems, issues etc and deal with them. That could include: buses not running on time too many cars growing use of e-motorbikes / fatbikes / e-mopeds overcrowding at a station etc A few years ago, there were very few e-motorbikes and as they came along the legislation hasn't really kept up so a blind eye might have been turned to them using cycle lanes but now there are a lot more of them, they're faster than regular bikes and e-bikes and maybe the law needs changing a bit to recognise that? That's not a "problem". It's a highways authority doing what they're paid to do. Same way as over here people are finally realising that there are simply too many cars and they might need to do something (or some things) to discourage car use a bit. Again, not really a "problem", it's just an evolution of local needs in conjunction with some regional / national strategic oversight. And yes, fatbikes are not e-bikes. Same with those delivery riders around here, they're not e-bikes. They're illegally modified / illegally used electric motorbikes, or electric mopeds It's really quite an important distinction. Normal legal e-bikes (25kph, pedal operated etc) are classed in law as bicycles. Electric mopeds / motorbikes, any form of bicycle with a throttle is classed as a motorbike. That's the law, regardless of what you want to believe or what the lazier elements of the media print.

It was irony* *Like gold-y and bronze-y but made of iron. 😉

Oh I can't see *anything* cos none of them are wearing hi-vis. That's literally just a black screen, none of those boats are in hi-vis. How careless of them! If someone paddles into one of those boats, I'll have no sympathy for it cos it's not dressed properly. Stupid boat. Where's its lifejacket and helmet? I had to look away from the rest of it, the absolute chaos of all those black things colliding with each other was traumatic. It's been a while since I saw Amsterdam actually; last time I saw it, Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L Jackson were having a massive shootout in the place. I assume Rockets must have been visiting at that time and assumed that was just normal rush hour. 😉

It's a fair question. Rockets seems to have fairly consistently complained about any and all traffic measures but maybe we've missed his thread of glowing endorsements about Dulwich Square, school streets, cycle lanes and bus lanes?? Some positivity would be nice so a list of what people like and support might be quite enlightening!

Complain to the school and the council environmental / health team. As they're commercial vehicles you can also report them to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA): https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/driver-and-vehicle-standards-agency It's a common problem - one driver a little while ago said "oh it's OK, the pollution just blows away". Those coaches have been an absolute bane of the area for years - yes I get that it stops a thousand cars or whatever but they're a law unto themselves. And the school won't even consider options like having a pull-in on their land to get them off the road and they don't seem bothered about enforcing the No Idling signs.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/we-must-separate-art-from-artist-in-singing-of-nazi-gas-chamber-songs-says-farage-20251125262249 Surprisingly, one of the more reliable sources of news. Better than the Farage Channel GB News anyway! 😉

Can we just make this a standard automatic response?!

Oh please don't go down that "give others a bad name" nonsense. Cyclists are not some identikit tribe. There is no collective responsibility. What one cyclist does or does not do has no bearing on any other cyclist anywhere else. The only time I might accept that definition is on a group club ride although even then it's tenuous at best. What you're doing is a form of outgrouping leading to the over-generalisation of negative behaviours or attributes. Same way that one driver on a mobile phone doesn't give all other drivers a bad name. Same way that Harold Shipman didn't give all GPs a bad name.

I'm quite surprised at that since Cyclist is normally fairly reputable. It's largely bollocks. The Highway Code is not law - it references law in an easy-to-understand manner and it contains guidance ("you should / should not...") and simplified law ("you MUST / MUST NOT...") You're not breaching a RULE. You're "breaching" guidance and since you can't really breach guidance, any such challenge would be thrown out. Not that it matters as such, drivers have been successfully claiming not to have seen the cyclist that they ran over for years, quite often escaping with pathetically light or even zero sentence. This was a fairly recent one which I remember cos it was reported on various cycle sport pages: https://www.thetfordandbrandontimes.co.uk/news/25511711.norfolk-driver-spared-jail-cyclist-killed-a11/ Pleased guilty to causing death by careless driving (phone use). Cyclist taking part in an organised event (so there were signs and marshals), was wearing a bright coloured top and had a flashing rear light (and it was daylight). He drove straight into the back of her cos he was using his phone. Suspended sentence and a short driving ban. Strangely, you're outraged when this sort of technicality is used in a cyclist / pedestrian case (you keep quoting the Regent's Park incident for example) but in a cyclist / vehicle one, you're ever so keen to blame the cyclist. Tell me, has any cyclist anywhere ever behaved / dressed / acted in a manner that you deem appropriate? For someone who claims to cycle, you're forever on here arguing technicalities and telling multiple anecdotes of how you've seen a cyclist doing / not doing something which they shouldn't / should (delete as applicable). Edit: what that case shows very clearly it it rarely matters how visible a cyclist is (and I made this point in an earlier post). If the driver is using a phone, having an argument, not concentrating, tired etc it doesn't matter if the cyclist is wearing a fluoro unicorn costume or is dressed in all black.

Don't worry, he's only ever indirectly racially abused people and he's never done it in a hurtful or insulting way. It's very difficult to know isn't it? I mean, is the racist man known primarily for being a racist actually a racist if he says racism is funny? Gosh, tricky one... Bit like that joke where the footballer calls the ref a **** and gets booked for it. Footballer is annoyed at this and says "well, what if I think it?" Ref says "well I can't stop you thinking can I?" Footballer says "cool, in that case, I think you're a ****" 😉