Live blog: “When I die” – ex-pro Phil Gaimon’s powerful YouTube film about vulnerability of cyclists; Horrific TdF crash; fallout from THAT Channel 5 documentary + more

Mark_1973_ wrote:

Loved the fact that, despite the taxi drivers being so concerned for cyclists' safety, with one of them even gritting his teeth in anger at the lack of a cycling helmet, not one of them had a seatbelt on. You couldn't make it up....

Perhaps because they don't have to. From Gov.uk:

When you don't need to wear a seat belt

You don’t need to wear a seat belt if you’re:

a driver who is reversing, or supervising a learner driver who is reversing
in a vehicle being used for police, fire and rescue services
a passenger in a trade vehicle and you’re investigating a fault
driving a goods vehicle on deliveries that is travelling no more than 50 metres between stops
a licensed taxi driver who is ‘plying for hire’ or carrying passengers

Not sure why, but I'm absolutely fine with this!

Kendalred wrote:

Mark_1973_ wrote:

Loved the fact that, despite the taxi drivers being so concerned for cyclists' safety, with one of them even gritting his teeth in anger at the lack of a cycling helmet, not one of them had a seatbelt on. You couldn't make it up....

Perhaps because they don't have to. From Gov.uk:

When you don't need to wear a seat belt

You don’t need to wear a seat belt if you’re:

a driver who is reversing, or supervising a learner driver who is reversing
in a vehicle being used for police, fire and rescue services
a passenger in a trade vehicle and you’re investigating a fault
driving a goods vehicle on deliveries that is travelling no more than 50 metres between stops
a licensed taxi driver who is ‘plying for hire’ or carrying passengers

Not sure why, but I'm absolutely fine with this!

Yes, but the point being that neither are helmets mandatory for cyclists, so getting hot under the collar about someone not doing something they don't have to do while you're not doing something you don't have to do either is seriously hypocritical.  But then, that's humans for you.  Probably our defining characteristic.

burtthebike wrote:

Kendalred wrote:

Mark_1973_ wrote:

Loved the fact that, despite the taxi drivers being so concerned for cyclists' safety, with one of them even gritting his teeth in anger at the lack of a cycling helmet, not one of them had a seatbelt on. You couldn't make it up....

Perhaps because they don't have to. From Gov.uk:

When you don't need to wear a seat belt

You don’t need to wear a seat belt if you’re:

a driver who is reversing, or supervising a learner driver who is reversing
in a vehicle being used for police, fire and rescue services
a passenger in a trade vehicle and you’re investigating a fault
driving a goods vehicle on deliveries that is travelling no more than 50 metres between stops
a licensed taxi driver who is ‘plying for hire’ or carrying passengers

Not sure why, but I'm absolutely fine with this!

Yes, but the point being that neither are helmets mandatory for cyclists, so getting hot under the collar about someone not doing something they don't have to do while you're not doing something you don't have to do either is seriously hypocritical.  But then, that's humans for you.  Probably our defining characteristic.

Yeah, sorry, I kind of missed the irony.

IanEdward wrote:

Quote:

No pasta??

Um... Gnocchi is pasta isn't it? Delicious, stodgy pasta, especially when cooked in a saffron broth with chorizo, red onion and topped with roasted cauliflower and cherry tomatoes... 

Nope - they're potato dumplings. You've made me hungry now with that description now (as a veggie, I'd skip the chorizo - maybe throw in some olives instead).

iandusud wrote:

Re setencing for driving offences, clearly the courts need to be more severe but one thing that strikes me as logical is that anyone who gets a driviing ban should be made to redo their driving test. The standard of many drivers is apauling and I'm sure many of them would have difficulty passing a test. However this seems perfectly reasonable to me as they have clearly demonstrated that their driving is not up to standard and they should therefore have to prove that it is before being given a licence back. 

Why should they ever be given their license back? Once you've proven yourself incapable of doing it safely then you should lose the right permanently.

fixation80 wrote:

Could hardly believe what I was seeing in the channel 5 doc. Woman is pulled, while being spoken to by the officer was repeatedly trying to use her mobile and after being told not to it seemed the phone was still uppermost in her mind.  

I didn't watch the garbage TV program, but it's exactly that kind of driver behaviour which epitomises the main issue with the law and car drivers today. Break the law and there is simply NO punishment worth worrying about:

Three points is an annoyance, six is bearable for most

A fine affects people in different ways but a couple of hundred quid won't worry most drivers, half a grand might make you think a bit more carefully, maybe.. 

Being made to go on an awareness course is a total relief/joke overtaking the penalty points

If someone drives to or for work and has dependents, then every driver knows a judge probably won't enforce a ban

The law is simply not appropriate nowadays. It might have been great or more suitable in previous times/years (?), but nowadays with so much traffic on the roads and air pollution where it is, the law doesn't appear to represent the 21st Century very well at all. 

If I were Queen and had a magic corgi, I'd ban petrol or diesel cabs and ubers straight off the bat, electric vehicles only or no taxi licenses issued.  I'd have a width limit put on new cars (a land rover disco is near enough half a metre wider than a honda CRV (inc. wing mirrors). And of course, I'd change punishments for driving offences including ensuring that holding a driving license is something to be treasured and not a right.