Cyclists and scooter riders targeted in speeding crackdown; Dura-Ace 12-speed leaked?; Ram chases Canadian cyclist off the road; Children traumatised by flooded ride; Your views on road rage; Clucking bikes; The best trophy in cycling + more live blog

TBF - Its a promenade, looks very like the Thames Embankment around Waterloo, and makes Brighton Seafront look like a Motorway.

Not 100% sure this is the bit being referred to but it does seem high chance of Pedestrian/Wheeled device interfacing.   

Related what do Austrialians mean by Scooter?  If its the motorised kind - WTAF?

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/417638565425424732/

The rules for stand up scooters are this: they're a wheeled toy. E-scooters are restricted to a max 200 watt and 10kmh, if they exceed that they are treated as a motor vehicle, but being unregisterable they are illegal. The overwhelming majority of e-scooters sold in Australia are illegal to use outside of private property.

This is another example of punitive governance in Victoria. It's presented as if cyclists and scooter riders are the problem, with no mention that in Australian road rules (which also cover road related areas such as these) it's also an offence for a pedestrian to obstruct the path of another pedestrian or cyclist (rule 239). If they were even-handed and issued fines to the phone zombies and others who wander aimlessly without consideration to others, it might actually look like they cared about safety rather than targeting a minority of users.

As this capture from street view shows, some respect from all users is required. When pedestrians fill the bidirectional cycle crossing while ample space is in the separated pedestrian space, it's clear the policing needs to change.

A significant proportion of pedestrians nowadays lack consideration for others.. keep left, watch out for danger and give way when needed.. just like cycling and driving.

probably ride along South Bank 2 or 3x a week it is a direct East West route that connects to other shared trails...often get passed by runners...once had a drunk guy grab my handlebars and tell me "f'ing stupid place to ride a bike" his wife and kids sorted him out...problem is lack of pace on providing a safe alternative route....needed even more now the boulevard has been narrowed to provide socially distanced outside eating areas

Google tells me there are over 15000 car parking spaces in Southbank of which nearly 3000 are on road...think that we found out during lockdown why cyclists generally aren't allowed in shopping malls and its not because cyclists don't know how to behave around pedestrians....take someone out of their car and they still remain cyclist haters or at best inconsiderate towards cyclists...

It does seem draconian, given that the UK does not have an excess speed for cyclists (except for some specific locations).  However, what happens here is that cyclists are just banned form places they could very easily and safely go, just because some councillors have a bee in their bonnet about cyclists 'endangering' pedestrians.

6 kph is walking pace; 10 kph is jogging pace.

Correct,, but it is perfectly ok because after 40 yrs of anti-cycling government & media, the population as a whole is behind cracking down on the terrible threat to society that is "the cyclist".  Combine a high-profile tourist area with shock-jock radio coverage and you have a police crackdown

A couple of years ago a cyclist was killed in Melbourne by someone throwing open a car door, the person doing this was fined $1000 and had no conviction recorded. Here we have cyclists riding at 23km/hr being fined $1650

More than a couple of years....Feb 2015 Alberto Paulon died on Sydney rd and the road layout still has changed despite lots of consultation, an independent study and even the RACV (motorists association) actively promoting improvements for cyclists. It's in the too difficult pile and will only appear again when elections come up...like St Kilda rd....hard decisions for politicians....sadly too hard

You missed the 12spd bit!

It's been known about since last year...

Believe it or not, that is part of the Trans Pennine Trail that the Council Workers are throwing sand on. Words fail me.

What's a chicken's favourite groupset?

Ult-egg-ra.

IanMK wrote:

I once asked a colleague why he didn't like cyclists. He explained that he was very law abiding and knew the highway code. However, when he got "stuck" behind cyclists he felt pressurised /intimdated by other drivers to make an unsafe overtake. He didn't like the anxiety this caused him and applied some very dubious logic to blame the cyclists.

I hate to say it but this might apply to a number of drivers that know the rules but don't want to upset the herd and/or get too stressed when being tailgated by aggressive drivers. I've said previosly that if we could eliminate or re-educate the minority very aggressive entitled dribvers we may well find the roads becoming a much more pleasant  place for ALL the other road users.

That's a very cowardly point of view from your colleague - he should be standing his ground (maintaining his road position) to protect the vulnerable cyclists from aggressive drivers, not giving in to pressure to endanger them just so that he doesn't feel a bit anxious. I appreciate that his anxiety is tangible to him, but to put others into mortal danger because of it means that he should give up driving until he can do so safely.

hawkinspeter wrote:

....

That's a very cowardly point of view from your colleague - he should be standing his ground (maintaining his road position) to protect the vulnerable cyclists from aggressive drivers, not giving in to pressure to endanger them just so that he doesn't feel a bit anxious. I appreciate that his anxiety is tangible to him, but to put others into mortal danger because of it means that he should give up driving until he can do so safely.

Agreed, but I believe Ian is right. I was talking to a friend who is an "advanced driver" and also instructs. He has the same "Awareness" that you might be pissing off someone behind you.

I don't doubt it, but there needs to be an understanding that drivers are responsible for their own emotions (and ideally not becoming emotional over a simple get from A to B task) but more importantly drivers are responsible for everyone's safety.

Going back to my supermarket analogy - if you're in a checkout queue and some old lady is a bit slow in getting money out of her purse, would you be pushing and jostling the people in front of you to encourage them to push her out of the way or would you stand in line and just wait a minute (maybe glancing at your watch if you're particularly busy).

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't doubt it, but there needs to be an understanding that drivers are responsible for their own emotions (and ideally not becoming emotional over a simple get from A to B task) but more importantly drivers are responsible for everyone's safety.

Going back to my supermarket analogy - if you're in a checkout queue and some old lady is a bit slow in getting money out of her purse, would you be pushing and jostling the people in front of you to encourage them to push her out of the way or would you stand in line and just wait a minute (maybe glancing at your watch if you're particularly busy).

Oh HP, I'm with you there. Someone's tantrum is not (or should not be) my problem. 

If someone has a tantrum at work I blithely ignore it until they've calmed down and approach me later. Aggression is not acceptable in the workplace, and so certainly is not appropriate in the public space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceim653uPqw&ab_channel=WhatWouldYouDo%3F

grOg wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceim653uPqw&ab_channel=WhatWouldYouDo%3F

I did once have a car following behind me as I was cycling home (commuting) and then it pulled to the side and offered me a lift! As I didn't want the faff of trying to fit my bike into the boot, I declined and carried on cycling, but it was a nice gesture in my opinion.

(Coincidentally, it turned out to be Mrs HawkinsPeter driving the car)

My eldest son was taught by an instructor that encouraged him to always drive at the speed limit and explained that if you don't you're likely to piss of other drivers. Again really poor logic.

IanMK wrote:

My eldest son was taught by an instructor that encouraged him to always drive at the speed limit and explained that if you don't you're likely to piss of other drivers. Again really poor logic.

Jesus. This "driving at the speed limit" is crap instruction and equally bad logic

The speed limit is the very maximum permissible speed according to risk assessment

Under what possible scenario is it acceptable to travel at maximum speed, and then to apply that logic to all scenarios?

I was told on another forum that it was dangerous not to speed. If you drive at the limit, you will cause an accident behind you due the speed diferentials.

hirsute wrote:

I was told on another forum that it was dangerous not to speed. If you drive at the limit, you will cause an accident behind you due the speed diferentials.

Fuck me, what could possibly go wrong with that logic?