Village transforms phone box into bicycle maintenance hub; Residents fear cycle path will ruin green space; Cyclist hitches a lift; Could NASA's Mars rover tech be your next tyre?; Former NBA star paralysed after crash with driver + more on the live blog

GMBasix wrote:

Why does road.cc keep provoking a top hat debate that never gets resolved?!

Wearing a top hat is optional, and may or may not prevent injury if you fall off a safety bicycle, but not if you're hit by a 6 1/2 ton Garrett 4CD!

The real danger in wearing a top hat is all the mercury used in their production (assuming you don't wear some modern version).

At least they're safer than the ridiculous beehive hairstyles you see around

Surely if you wear a top hat then you'd be riding a dandy horse?

brooksby wrote:

I find it hard to believe a cyclist would be wearing a top hat.

Surely the bowler (or Coke) was invented for just such a purpose...?

Must have been Mogg...

MattieKempy wrote:

Re: the Heaton Mersey Common story, it's clear that a cycle path running on the edge of a large, open green space would completely spoil the area for everyone, isn't it? Equally, the removal of one tree, to be replaced by three trees, should be regarded as a disaster. And lighting of shared-use paths is guaranteed to . . . drive the doggers out? NIMBYs.

I'm assuming there is no pedestrian path else they would be massive hypocrites...

Amazing how the Nimby's always state that they are a cyclist themselves!

looks from the photos in the paper just your average muddy wood path, apparently theyd accept a proper footpath to make it less muddy to walk in, but not to allow cycling which might disrupt the rich local wildlife of parakeets...hmm and herons and woodpeckers apparently. its ok though the people objecting are cyclists themselves so (sarcasm) Im sure they arent just being nimbys about it

I live in the area and the NIMBYs have definitely come out in force. It's pathetic. There are two existing paths that go round the edge of the common. They are currently unsurfaced so a mudbath. The council is proposing to give them a 3m wide hard surface and light them in the evenings (time to be decided based on an ecological survey). The paths would provide an off road link to three local schools and link with the heatons cycleway and the trans Pennine trail . Sounds great IMHO. Local kids can walk to school, not get muddy feet and do so in the winter. The NIMBYs have been out in force with scare tactics of speeding cyclists risking harm to the elderly, people needing blackout blinds in houses adjacent, the lights ruining the character of the common and spoiling it for wildlife. It's pathetic.

I guess the driver didn't spot you in his wing mirror?

The Slate has an article about Bradley and the incident - It’s Never a “Bicycle Accident”

https://slate.com/business/2021/03/shawn-bradley-bicycle-hit-by-car.html

A friend of mine uploaded a dangerous overtake by an HGV to Dyfed-Powys in June (double white lines on a bend, it endangered an oncoming driver, not my mate cycling). £320 and 3 points for due care & attention. I was surprised that the police let him know the outcome.

bobrayner wrote:

I'll confess to slipstreaming a few times when I was a foolish youth.

But more importantly, what's the point on a training ride? If you don't want to burn calories, save time & money by staying at home.

Saving energy for the next Strava segment.

If you want to hold onto a vehicle, you'd be better off using one of the corners so that you can see ahead and have room to go up the side if the vehicle needs to brake. I've only done that once or twice as a teenager and if the vehicle's going a similar speed to you then the risks can be manageable but I don't recommend it.

Kendalred wrote:

"There’s so many road works on this stretch at the moment it’s all start stop traffic. This trailer may well have had to jam on"

Nobody has to 'jam on' with roadworks - roadworks should be, and in my experience always are, adequately signposted. They should therefore cause nobody to brake suddenly. Something or someone running out into the road on the other hand...

Yes, a bit daft to hang on like that not being able to see what's going on up front - but how fast was the tractor going? 8-10mph if that. 

I'm not condoning it by the way.

Ooh I could tell you a tale or two about roadworks jumping out at me. Come out of nowhere, no warning. They're a law unto themselves, taking up the road 3 and 4 abreast. Never wearing hi-viz, you can't even see them. No insurance or road tax. blah, squit, quack....

I couldn't see anyone on twitter answering the question and referring to HC Rule 68, not even the police. Perhaps they do not want to acknowledge the existence of the HC and reveal the inconvenient truth that they do a really poor job in enforcing it.

Unless he was "bright enough" to hold it far out on his left, the camera does seem to be from the passengers side of the vehicle. 

Yes, Death wish does seem over the top unless the tractor suddenly decided to reverse. 

Paradoxically, the risk of death seems to come principally from driver of the following vehicle, more interested in approaching for a good video shot than in staying further back for the safety of the cyclist for whom he feigns concern. I can't see much else in this scenario that would actually kill the cyclist than the driver behind running him over, or squishing him against the trailer in the event of it "jamming on the brakes".

If he’d have fallen off it would have been very difficult for us traveling behind to avoid him.

I kid you not

https://twitter.com/Evsthetractor/status/1371849619731275782

You do know how zooms on cameras work do you? The car never went any closer and was on a 2-3 second response. Yes, might have dropped back further but they would have had manouvre room which the cyclist definitely didn't. 
 

I was not equating the zoom of the camera with the approach of the vehicle, so please contain your supercilious airs. 2-3 seconds is enough for reaction time only, it gives the driver time to react to the vehicle in front suddenly braking. However if the cyclist fell over and basically came to an abrupt halt sprawled on the tarmac, then 2-3 seconds is insufficient distance for the following vehicle to come to a halt. So if concern for the cyclist's safety was uppermost in their mind they would have held themselves much further back.