- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Richard Madeley getting tetchy (via ITV).jpgCycling UK spokesman invites Richard Madeley on bike ride after being subjected to Partridgesque meltdown on live TV
Cycling UK has invited Richard Madeley for a nice calming bike ride after the Good Morning Britain (GMB) presenter had a full-on Alan Partridge-style exasperated rant at its spokesman. The exchange took place during a debate that was supposed to be about whether a ‘death by dangerous cycling’ law should be introduced, but which quickly descended into Madeley asking why all cyclists aren’t insured.
The segment came after fixed-gear cyclist Charlie Alliston was this week found guilty of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving for causing the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs and Briggs’ husband’s subsequent call for the law to be updated.
Early in the interview, Cycling UK spokesman Duncan Dollimore was asked by Madeley’s fellow presenter Kate Garraway whether there should be more accountability for cyclists in collisions or traffic incidents.
Wary of the debate becoming a ‘cyclists v motorists’ thing, Dollimore attempted to make a point about a broader lack of accountability on the roads due to the reduction in road traffic police officers.
However, he was swiftly halted by Madeley, who wasn’t happy.
“Sir, you’re here to answer the questions,” said the presenter. “We didn’t ask you about policing on the roads.”
“You asked me about accountability,” countered Dollimore.
Madeley apparently disagreed and suggested that Dollimore was changing the subject.
After much talking over one another due to a slight delay on the line, Dollimore tried to reset the conversation. “I’m asking you which question you’re asking me to answer.”
“God! Stop playing games,” exclaimed Madeley, manfully suppressing 30 years of broadcasting experience by failing to appreciate that delay. “Would you listen to a question?”
And what was that question…?
It was: “Why aren’t cyclists insured?”
That hadn’t been the original question. But Dollimore answered it anyway.
“There are 25,000 people in this country with bikes [He meant 25 million]. That includes something like 70 per cent of people between five and 12. The logistics of making an insurance system that required children to have insurance would be completely unworkable.
“Bikes also change hands more readily than cars because you have an issue with the sale of bikes because they’re not the value of a car. If you required children as young as six, seven, eight to have insurance, you’d have a system where many people would be discouraged from cycling and it would not be something where the cost would be proportionate.
“The incident with Charlie Alliston and Kim Briggs, which was appalling, had nothing to do with the fact that he was or was not insured.”
Madeley responded: “I have to say your answer to cyclists not being insured seems to me close to suspicious because you’re basically not accepting the point that adult cyclists should carry insurance; of course they should if they’re using the road. You’re just saying it’s too complicated because kids use bikes.”
When asked about the interview by road.cc, Dollimore said: “I did fourteen interviews for TV and radio yesterday in relation to the Alliston case, but was surprised how quickly the GMB piece turned to insurance, licensing and other issues rather than Matt Bridges’ call for new legislation around cycling offences.
“Unfortunately, the time lag on the line also complicated matters, with Richard Madeley clearly thinking I was talking over him, whilst I thought he was interrupting me.
“The papers seem to suggest he was having a bad day yesterday. I don’t know about that, but I do know cycling is great for improving your mental wellbeing, so hope he’ll accept my offer of going for a bike ride sometime.
“We can discuss why Cycling UK isn’t keen to introduce measures which might be a barrier to or put people off cycling, and what needs to be done to actually get more people out cycling, such as space for cycling.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Destroyer666 40 min 58 sec ago
Nonono, not those, but those that have constructed Italian cars and motorcycles that have been driven to hundreds of race and championship...
- RoubaixCube 49 min 44 sec ago
This may well be the case although Im unaware of the brands popularity on their home turf. I used to see them being advertised more in the UK...
- qwerty360 1 hour 20 min ago
Arguably sticking it in a bank account is bad....
- Sredlums 2 hours 19 min ago
I'd counter that those brakes were in fact so inadequate that they eventually developed a whole new type of bicycle that was actually suited for it...
- levestane 2 hours 20 min ago
Unfortunately, Africa is heavily exploited both for resource extraction...
- CitizenSmith 2 hours 47 min ago
There seems to be no support for TOO) now - their email and website are defunct. They are inactive on Facebook. Aftter less than a year the rails...
- Pub bike 2 hours 52 min ago
"Bike theft hotspot"? This is just like having a sign that says "Police don't bother enforcing the law in this area. Thieves you have free reign!"
- Laz 3 hours 44 min ago
I used to daily 1hr sufferfests on indoor rollers, I drank a fair bit of water before during, and after- I noticed my sweat wasnt stinging in my...
- matthewn5 4 hours 16 min ago
I did the four windows on my Victorian flat. I replaced the parting beads (between the panes) and the staff moulds with new timber ones that have a...
Add new comment
69 comments
"and how does the law interpret that?"
Easy:
Car* hits pedestrian - pedestrians fault
Cyclist hits pedestrian** - cyclists fault
* Of course I mean driver but see footnote below. This rule still applies if car is unroadworthy, not taxed or insured, travelling too fast, on the wrong side of the road or the driver is pissed
** Especially if said cyclist isn't wearing high viz, a helmet or dares to be doing half the speed limit.
Footnote:
"A cyclist has suffered serious leg injuries after a car crashed into a lorry then collided with the rider in Marble Arch"
These rogue cars eh, taking themselves on little trips out without their owners knowledge.
Neither right of way or priority make crossing the road 6 feet in front of a moving object a good idea. Never underestimate stupidity!
but I think we need to nix this idea which is why the likes of Madeley brings it up all the time, that a certificate of insurance is anyway a certificate to allow you to use the roads and by not having one means you are somehow a weird out group using the roads illicitly.
Because insurance is just about paying out to fix things,when things go wrong, and it became compulsory for motorised vehicles because the propensity for things going wrong is very high, and increasingly they were finding people unable to pay to fix things themselves. So we created an industry where we transfer the risk of paying to fix things,because some people need things fixing alot, some dont, to a second party for a fee, and called it insurance.
so it doesnt matter if I have insurance riding my bike or not, if my negligence has led to causing damage to a third partys property, then Im personally liable for the costs to fix it,and that third party has all the legal power behind them in the UK, to make me pay up for it, its that simple.
Which is generally fine if we are talking about a bike hitting a car, the damage would be at a level where most of us can afford to fix it. But if you severely injure a pedestrian you could be liable for costs you can't afford. Or if the actions of a cyclist cause a car to hit another car again repair costs will be higher.
But I don't believe personal injury claims are limited by my ability to pay out or not,they maybe limited by other aspects but the value is determined and Id be expected to pay up or face,potentially more serious,legal consequences if I didn't.
The phrase "You can't get blood out of a stone" comes to mind, not least because it was a judge I was talking to that said it last I heard it.
Ultimately, if the losing side has no money or assets, the "winning" side is stuck having to pay their own legal bill and has zero chance of getting anything they've been awarded. Before you start a claim you have to assess if you can afford to "win".
This is where the calls for compulsory insurance come from as insurance companies have money.
"Hence as the vast majority of cyclists have household insurance..."
They do??
"In fact there will be a lower proportion of uninsured drivers than uninsured drivers."
I would have said probably about equal...
This won't be popular with the militant cyclists but pedestrians have right of way... and that includes on the road, footpaths, and on open access land even if it is on a popular moutain bike run.
Just imagine the outcry on these pages if a car ran over a cyclist, or a bad driver drives too close to a cyclist, or beeps their horn excessively for a cyclist to move out of the way... now you've got an idea of how pedestrians and hikers feel about poor cyclists who don't follow the rules.
Doesn't matter about insurance, doesn't matter about breaks, all that matters is that the pedestrian had right of way.
Um, but those things happen all the time, hundreds of times a day. And almost nothing is done about it. Also - are you assuming no-one who cycles has ever walked anywhere? I walk a lot (I suspect a lot more than you do), and experience that sort of thing from motorists a heck of a lot more than I do from cyclists.
You might be surprised.
What's less popular is lazily posting a bit of a rant and not bothering to read the viewpoints and debate on the many threads devoted to a particular topic.
Much of the internet calls that 'trolling'.
Ironically enough, it could also be called 'hit and run' posting.
Don't confuse right of way with priority. Cyclists also have right if way.
I was trying to find out the details of "right of way" laws - can you post a link to the actual law? The Highway Code only mentions priority and is somewhat vague about that.
I think Nymeria just made it up to fit her emotional needs. People lose all touch with reality when the subject of cycling (and, in the reverse way, driving) comes up. It's a fascinating insight into other topics, e.g. how people end up supporting Trump and insisting there are 'fine people' among demonstrators waving swastikas.
Human beings aren't very good at thinking.
When discussing the attitude of some drivers towards cyclists my wife can reel off the names of a number of friends - generally kind, generous and caring women, the majority of them mothers - who have this glaring blind spot about people riding bikes. It is shocking and unnerving to hear how deeply this attitude is ingrained in a lot of ordinary people who drive cars. But it is deeply disturbing to see Madeley losing the plot on national television. I can only hope that, as we have seen the mask slip, that the subject gets more attention and that this kind of behaviour is recognised as a form of bigotry that should not be tolerated.
I think you're right.
“There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking.”
Joshua Reynolds 1723 - 1792
I suspect that this may apply to some women as well
As far as the HC code goes, it only specifically offers up priority when a vehicle is turning into a side road and a ped is already crossing.
I know you're just being mischievous because she has confused right of way and priority, but just in case you really want to know, it's easily found:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga?title=highways
Thanks, that's really helpful. Any idea where in those documents?
The only mention of "right of way" in the HC is to warn you that none of the rules in the HC infer a right of way. See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158
You have to give way to another user who has priority in specific cases. Giving way does not infer upon them a right. A footpath or a bridleway is different as a right has been created by the granting of an easement by the private owner to others or that an easement has been created through 20 years use or "loss of modern grant" or some other quite peculiar bits of law.
Rights and having priority are quite different things with specific meanings in law. I don't think the HC is at all vague about the subject once you understand this.
The Highway Code only mentions priority in a few places and doesn't specify that pedestrians have priority except when crossing a road when a car is trying to turn into it. What does it say about who has priority when a pedestrian crosses a road and would cause a vehicle to have to slow down? How about when a pedestrian crossing is nearby?
That seems a bit vague to me.
Fairly simple. If the HC doesn't say you have to give way then they don't have priority. That's what I meant by there only being quite specific rules that mention priority.
On the other hand there is a general rule that anyone should give way to avoid an incedent. So if a pedestrian steps off a curb, even though they do not have priority, the general rule is you avoid a collision by giving way. Fairly common sense one would hope.
What "giving way" means seems to be open to debate recently.
Exactly. Rule 0 as a road user: don't kill or injure anyone.
I think I understand the basic idea of not driving/cycling/walking into stuff and other people, but the vagueness doesn't go away by invoking "common sense" (which these days seems more akin to being a super power).
If a pedestrian crosses a road in front of a vehicle, then ideally the vehicle should give way to the pedestrian, but also, the pedestrian should give way to the vehicle. Who has priority in that instance according to the Highway Code and how does the law interpret that?
But the Highway Code says "stop, look, listen" https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35
BBC news is just as biased as most of the media, and more so on some subjects. For instance, not once have I seen or heard in the BBC news any mention of Mrs Briggs walking out into the road whilst looking at her mobile phone.
As far as I undertsand it , I may be wrong, Mr Alliston lied about Mrs Briggs being on the phone but it seems to have become something that people believe on a lot of postings.
Well, it has certainly been mentioned in other media, apparently without being challenged or refuted. Why do you think he lied? Given that this is a regular occurence in any British city, it appears to be likely to be true and certainly credible.
Or even: did he actively lie or was he just mistaken? Was she just carrying a phone but not using it? (the problem we have with this case, as I see it, is that Mr Alliston came across as a bit of an @rse and that makes it really hard to try and interpret/explain him or his actions or motivations).
You're probably right and he is a typical, arrogant teenager, but he'd still be that if he was riding a moped or driving a car or walking. As opposed to the upright appearing drivers who lie convincingly through their teeth and get off scot free.
Still haven't seen any evidence that he was lying about the mobile phone, or that it has been disputed. Surely if he had claimed that she was looking at her phone, and used it in mitigation, the prosecution would have checked the phone records and disproved it?
Pages