Awards and citations:


1997: Le Prix du Champagne Lanson Noble Cuvée Award for investigations into Champagne for the Millennium investment scams

2001: Le Prix Champagne Lanson Ivory Award for investdrinks.org

2011: Vindic d'Or MMXI – 'Meilleur blog anti-1855'

2011: Robert M. Parker, Jnr: ‘This blogger...’:

2012: Born Digital Wine Awards: No Pay No Jay – best investigative wine story

2012: International Wine Challenge – Personality of the Year Award




Showing posts with label motorists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label motorists. Show all posts

Saturday, 4 November 2017

Where's the outrage – three motorists in a week jailed for killing pedestrians and cyclists?



 Charlie Aliston jailed for for 18 months 


Back in September the jailing of Charlie Alliston for killing a pedestrian through cycling dangerously provoked huge media coverage. Not for one moment defending Alliston but the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists in 2016 was very few compared to the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed due to collisions with motors vehicles of all types.  
  


(3rd November 2017)



 



Here are three motorists jailed for dangerous driving just this last week – one pedestrian killed, one cyclist killed and one cyclist left with a broken spine. You have to search through the news to find them. There is no media storm over these three examples of dangerous and in two cases of lethal driving. 

Commented on in this opinion piece:The light sentencing of a 'road rage' driver is sadly all too familiar to cyclists

We now have the technology to make our roads safer for all users – enforcing rules on speeding, stopping at traffic lights, not driving thoughtlessly and recklessly etc. Sadly the political will is not there as this story on speed cameras in the Guardian today illustrates:   

Three motorists jailed for dangerous driving this week but only half of Britain's speed cameras are active!





Saturday, 26 August 2017

Double standards over motorists and cyclists


363 Bus attempted dangerous overtake 
while advertising Ride London

The Charlie Alliston case has provoked much comment as well as driving some motorists hysterical. Given that this case is unusual it is not surprising that it has created interest. However, this cannot justify the hysterical reaction against cyclists and cycling. 

Of course cyclists like any other road user much obey the laws but there is clear evidence that motorists are too often treated with undue leniency for dangerous and reckless driving. Any road death is regrettable and terrible for the victim's family and friends but the number of deaths caused by cycles is tiny compared to the number killed by motorists. 

The terrible crash today on the M1 with eight killed in a mini-bus collision involving two lorries ought to bring a sense of proportion to the debate. 

'Eight dead in M1 minibus and lorry crash'

According to BBC the two lorries drivers have been arrested for possible 'dangerous driving' with one driver possible over the alcohol limit. 

Here are two very good blogs on the Alliston case from the The Road Danger Reduction Forum. 

The Alliston case: after the verdict

The previous post has had more views than any other in our history. We have received significant support for its content in comments and on Twitter, and also – as one must expect in the age of social media – abuse and insult. Although readers will judge for themselves, it is striking how the insults have been based on a lack of evidence and – above all – misreading of what the piece was about.
So, to repudiate the insults, let’s clarify what the piece was – and more importantly was not – about. We can then move on to an assessment of where we are now after an extraordinary week.

The piece was written before the verdict in the trial of Mr Charles Alliston. This meant we could not legally comment on whether he was guilty of the offences he was charged with. One accusation made on twitter ( from Richard Williams‏ @richw1986 ) was that “Moreover – my point is more that by trying to defend a guy who doesn’t deserve it you’re not encouraging sympathy toward cyclists who do imo”. As I replied, “There is not one single thing in my piece which tries to defend him or his actions.”


Read the rest here from The Road Danger Reduction Forum. 

Eight dead in M1 minibus and lorry crash

Friday, 11 August 2017

Cycling: reducing the hostility (part 1)

29th July 2017: 75,000 cyclists rode around the 
centre of London on closed roads

In Wednesday's post I looked at the substantial health and environmental benefits that cycling can bring but also alluded to the very regrettable hostility that too often exists between motorists and cyclists, especially in large UK cities London. 

Cycling has increased enormously in popularity over the past 20 to 30 years both in the number of people that cycle as well as the number who follow cycle sport, especially the Tour de France, which this year was broadcast in its entirety.  Ride London's fun ride in through the centre of London on Saturday 29th July attracted an amazing 75,000 people. 

This is a great development but to encourage even more people to take to cycling we need to build greater understanding between motorists and cyclists. We also need to build suitable infrastructure to encourage cycling by making it feel much safer. A start has been made but much more needs to be done.  It would be great if the UK could become a new Holland

Building a suitable infrastructure takes time but in the meantime, can we reduce the hostility between motorists and cyclists? 

In this post I look at some of the things that pisses off motorists about cyclists. Tomorrow it is the turn of what pisses of cyclists.     

What upsets motorists?

Jumping red lights 
I agree cyclists should obey traffic lights and not jump them, although many motorists go through lights that have turned red. In contrast some cyclists go through red lights at all points of the sequence. 

Riding in the middle of the road 
There are many occasions when riding well out into the road makes perfect sense for a cyclist. You are likely to get more puncture by riding close to the gutter as there is more grit here than in the centre of the road.  

When passing a row of parked cars it again makes sense to ride well out in case someone suddenly opens a car door. 

The last 20 years or so has seen a big increase in road furniture, which is very useful to enable pedestrians to cross the road safely, but is usually an obstacle for cyclists as there is rarely enough space for a car and certainly not a lorry to overtake a cyclist while passing through a piece of road furniture, which is why I ride protectively in the centre of the road when passing through pieces of road furniture. When I can I swing off once I'm through the obstacle – not easy when there are a series of street furniture. 

There is nothing in the Highway Code that requires cyclists to ride in the gutter. 

Overtaking on the inside 
As cyclist you often have to be very careful attempting to pass vehicles on the inside as the driver may well not see you.  
    
Being visible especially at night
I am amazed by the number of cyclists in London who ride at night without lights and very frequently wearing dark clothing. It is utterly stupid not to make yourself as visible possible to motorists. There is a big choice of both reflective clothing and effective lights, so why take risks by making your self invisible?  

Not paying road tax This is a frequent but ignorant complaint as nobody pays road tax. Instead cars and lorries pay vehicle tax, which has been greatly reduced for people driving 'greener' cars. In any case cars and, especially, lorries cause far more wear and tear on roads than cyclists do and also require much more space. Then if you take into account the health benefits that flow from cycling, so saving on NHS bills, there is a very good case why cyclists don't pay vehicle tax. 

(Tomorrow I look at what upsets cyclists.)