Bike vs Car? Are "Road Wars" a thing?

"Road Wars" is a phrase sometimes used to describe the state on the roads between cyclists and drivers. I'm a cyclist. I'm also a driver. Most people who cycle also drive- so it is a bit of a weird concept... 

War implies death on both sides. This is less "War of the Roses" and more "Amritsar". Lets look at some of the stats:

Cyclists killed by drivers: 141 in 2020 (and 18,336 seriously injured)

People in Cars killed by cyclists: 0 in 2020 (and 0 seriously injured)

Ok, ok, so there is the argument "what about all the crazy cyclists killing pedestrians?". Let's have a look at those stats:

Pedestrians killed by cyclists: 5 (in 2019)

Pedestrians killed by people in cars: 305 (in 2019) (Sorry, can't get any more up to date figures.... unless someone has any?)

So it isn't really a war... it's rather one-sided, so you can understand why the ones who tend to be on the receiving end of the grimness want at least *something* to vaguely protect them. That has seemed to take the form of cameras.

Cameras

There have been a few stories in the press recently talking about "vigilante cyclists" running around with video cameras trying to "grass up" motorists for breaking the law. Let's put the "breaking the law" to one side for a moment - and start with video cameras. 

The amount of Dashcams in cars has risen hugely in the past few years. I suppose the question should probably be "why is this?" If your answer is "to catch people out and grass them up for breaking the law" then fine, but I suspect this probably isn't your answer. As a driver, a dashcam is there "in case" of an accident. Some kind of record to prove who may or may not have been at fault. 

The vast majority of these cases are about who did what damage to what car- which is all well and good. Most of the time there is crash damage, but the occupants of the vehicles, by and large, are ok. Let's think about this from a cyclists perspective, taking into account the stats from above. 

If I get hit by a car at virtually any speed, I haven't got a steel cage around me with extra inflatable bags and crumple zones to keep me safe. I have skin, bones and lycra. If I get hit, the video recording is there as evidence to show what happened- hopefully to me after the fact, but, if necessary to accident investigators and loved ones. This is not really a device to "grass people up", but if someone is breaking the law or endangering life on a road through thoughtlessness and carelessness, then yes, it will be recorded. 

Perhaps the best way to not be "caught" doing something irresponsible is not to do it. 

Let's look at intimidation:

Driving past someone at speed, giving them a small amount of space on the road is not pleasant for the cyclist- or indeed pedestrian- if you close pass them. The faster you go, the scarier it is. The closer you are, the scarier it is. The faster AND closer you go- the more intimidating it becomes. I was passed by a motorbiker doing what must have been well over 100mph on a standard A-road. Granted, there was about 1.5 metres of space between us when he passed, but HOLY CRAP it scared the living shit out of me. I went home and cried through sheer relief of still being alive.

If you think that going past someone at speed- at a close range- is "fine", I encourage you to do two things. 

1) stand on a train platform, right next to the yellow line as a high speed train goes past and 

2) ride a bike and get passed by a load of people doing high speed and not giving you any space. It might give you a different perspective. 

Now some might say that "lycra clad louts totally deserve any intimidation they get". Let's think about this for a moment. What exactly have they done to deserve intimidation, and what level of intimidation are you enacting?

First up- the intimidation itself. Although you might not realise it, close passing, driving at someone, shouting as you go past in a car is pretty scary. A false move either way and someone either loses their life or gets very very mangled. The conseqence to the car? You might get a ding. The consequence to the cyclists? Much more serious. It's kind of the equivalent of going around with a kitchen knife and threatening pretty much anyone who happens to be wearing something you don't like, or is doing something you don't like. 

I'd like to think that we live in a society where threatening random people with kitchen knives is frowned upon, and the vast majority of people just wouldn't even consider it, no matter *how* mad they get. So why is the equivalent- threatening someone with a car- something that people don't really consider to be a problem? 

Maybe it's because they aren't the ones being threatened? 

Maybe it's because they can drive away without consequence?

 Maybe it is a lack of empathy? 

I don't really know, but it would be nice to think that someone who reads this might make the connection between intimidating driving and threatening someone with a knife. It might seem like a silly connection if you're behind a wheel of a car, but it is a very real connection if you're on the wrong end of the threat. 

But what about cyclists being idiots?

Ok ok. So there are a lot of these things- let's see if we can get through them:

Red light jumping. 

This is a huge one that gets me. Having commuted in London, and indeed up here around the Peak district there are a number of cyclists who jump red lights. It annoys me and I wish they didn't do it. That being said, the amount of people in cars who jump red lights is insane as well. If you don't see cars jumping red lights, you really aren't looking properly. Now cast your mind back to those figures at the top of the post- how many KSI's are there....? The main reason for shouting at cyclists jumping lights is for "safety". How many pedestrians have been killed by cyclists? and how many have been killed by drivers? Quite. 

Yes. Some cyclists jump red lights. Annoying. Dangerous (mostly to them). BUT- Some drivers jump red lights- Annoying and Dangerous to literally everyone else except them. It doesn't make it right in either direction, but have a think about who is or isn't vulnerable. 

Roads are built for cars- cyclists shouldn't even be there. 

This is correct in only one case. Motorways. Motorways are definitely built for cars. They came along a long time after cars were invented and are there for cars to drive along at great speed. Absolutely. Roads in general, however? Nope. Originally built for horse and cart, and in the past, cycling was the main form of transport. Unless you're on a motorway, I'm afraid that roads were not actually built for cars. 

Lycra louts!

Ah- the perennial shouting at "lycra louts" who talk loudly and "take up the road" and "think they own the road" and "ride 2 abreast" etc. etc. The cliches are often trotted out- now, let's again have some perspective. Think about the knife threat example earlier, and use that as your level of intimidation rather than "just" close passing. 

You see someone dressed in something you don't like or appreciate. Do you get out a kitchen knife and scare them?

You hear people going along the road talking in loud voices. Do you get out a kitchen knife and scare them?

You are stuck behind a car that isn't travelling very fast and it is 2 minutes before it is safe to overtake. Do you get out a kitchen knife and scare them?

You are stuck behind 2 cyclists who are riding 2 abreast on a road. You have to wait for 2 minutes before it is safe to overtake. Do you get out a kitchen knife and scare them?

See where I'm going with this? 

Every person on a bike, no matter the speed they are going at, what they are wearing, what volume they are talking at, whatever- if you're happy to get out a kitchen knife to intimidate them, I think you're probably not quite right in the head. Equally, if you think it is quite ok to close pass, shout at or otherwise intimidate a cyclist- who quite legitamately could be killed or seriously injured in such an encounter, you really need to take a step back and think about your priorities in life. 

But cyclists should have number plates so they can be identified and prosecuted. Its not fair!

Fair? Let's talk about fair for a moment. 

If a cyclist kills a pedestrian, of which, as I remind you, there have been 5 in the past year- what happens? The cyclist invariably is identified, caught, prosecuted and ends up in jail or with a stonking fine. The main one people think of is Charlie Alliston.

If a driver kills or serverely injures a cyclist- no matter how many points they have on their licence prior, if they're drunk, drug driving or on a phone, they pretty much get away with a very very minor fine or some more points. It is a *rare* occasion for a driver to get sent down, or even lose their licence over something where another person and family have such a huge consequence down the line. If you don't believe me, then check out this twitter thread, and consider- you can pretty easily remember the name of a person on a bike who killed a pedestrian and got sent to jail. Can you remember ANY court cases of a driver killing a cyclist? I highly doubt it- and as mentioned, look at the stats above.... it's not like there aren't any.

Now - is it a war? 

If so, it seems remarkably one sided. One side has all the guns and the other has all the dead people. More of a massacre? I suppose we should really think about what can be done...

The most obvious point, for me at least, would be to get more people to cycle, maybe even for just a week a year, to realise what it actually feels like to be intimidated by other drivers. Being in that position must *surely* change the mindset of all but the most unempathic monster. Having suggested it to people, the response is generally "Oh, I wouldn't do that, it's far too unsafe". 

WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT. The roads are unsafe for cyclists because of the drivers who aren't acting responsibly. If more of us thought about the consequences of our actions more, and were placed in a position of vulnerablility more often, then the roads might actually become a safer place. 

Which, I suppose, brings me onto the "new changes" in the Highway code- on which there have been a LOT of column inches written. Shall we have a look at the "changes"? - I use the quotation marks simply because a lot of the changes are not actually changes, they are merely clarifications. 

Here we go:

The main point is that there is now an offical "heirachy of road users". If you have more speed, power and killing potential, then you are further down the chain. Think of it like Spiderman. "With great power comes great responsibility". If you're running around with the untapped potential to kill people, for goodness sakes be careful. There is a reason we are taught to keep knives in sheaths, guns with safety catches on and nuclear codes not with nuclear missiles. Things that kill people tend to need some semblence of responsibility around them. Cars should be no different. 

What threat does a cyclist, horse rider or pedestrian pose to you in a car? Very little. It is your responsibility to make sure harm does not come to them. If you don't like that concept then maybe you need to hand in your licence and have a good hard think about it. Imagine having a shotgun and not having responsibility to ensure that someone doesn't get killed by it. Doesn't bear thinking about, does it? You'd (I hope) hand in your licence and get rid of the gun. 

Cyclists riding 2 abreast. 

This is a hugely contraversial one- but it really isn't new. The main grumble appears to be that it is now harder to overtake cyclists if they are 2 abreast. If you can't overtake a bike on it's own without endangering them, then you can't do it when there are 2. I get it- with one person on a bike you don't have to go ALL the way into the other carriageway to overtake, making it "easier" to overtake- but you'd never consider that when overtaking another car. If you can't see, don't overtake. It's quite simple. At best it's going to cost you a few minutes. Is that REALLY worth getting riled up over? Is it something that you'd take a knife out and threaten someone over?

Cycling does not make me, you, or anyone else a second class citizen. It should be a safe mode of transport without the risk of intimidation or death around every corner. The reason for a lot of angst from cyclists is because of the feeling of vulnerability- of knowing that our safety is pretty much in YOUR hands as a driver. 

Outtro

As a coda, it has to be said that cycling around drivers who are courteous, safe and aware is an absolute pleasure. Thank you to all you who are such people. 

Cycling around drivers who seem to be out for my blood, no matter what- is no pleasure at all.

Are YOU running the Spine? How not to fail at the first hurdle

 It happens every year. A load of people pay an insane amount of money to race up the Pennine Way in the dead of winter. There are those at the front, who might complete in 85-100 hours, there are those that will come in a fair way behind, some will test the cut offs to breaking point, others will try, and ultimately come unstuck due to conditions.... and a few will barely make it even 15 miles from the start before quitting.

What possesses people to consider starting a 268mile race, believe they can do it, or at least, do justice to the starting price, and yet barely even get 1/16th of the way. And, if you are one of those who is on the startline in January, how can you stop yourself from being one of those that crash and burn before the race has barely begun?

Having raced the "fun run"(Challenger), being on local MR and now a Race Safety Team this year, I suppose I have a couple of observations that might be of use to anyone attempting this for the first (or maybe even second) time.

 

1) know your navigational kit. You should know this by now- it's a non-marked course. You should either know your way, or be able to follow your gps device very easily- and know how it works. There was one racer who ended up bailing pretty early because his GPS was "playing up". Having looked at it, he had it zoomed out to the point where you could see Birmingham AND Bolton- so effectively half of the country- and was still trying to micronav across Kinder with it. It didn't go well.

Know how it works!

Know how your GPS works, and be able to follow it. 

2) Know, and have practiced in your kit. These are long old races. There really isn't any excuse to get 20k in and start complaining of blisters because you are in shoes or boots you haven't worn before-or there is a new piece of kit that isn't working like you expected it to. You might be about to spend the best part of a week in virtual perpetual motion. If you haven't practiced with your kit, or you aren't sure about how something is going to blend with everything else you have- you are about to make a fairly painful and expensive trip that is going to end up being cut short. 

Practice with your kit!

3) Don't underestimate the first section across Kinder and Bleaklow. It isn't the highest part of the race. It probably isn't the boggiest part of the race, but the terrain here doesn't pull punches just because it is at the beginning of the race. It's easy to get turned around and mistake somewhere for somewhere else. ,The Pennine Way isn't always the biggest of the paths around. The people watching your trackers are just sitting there waiting to see if you end up firtling your way to a trig point un-necessarily. If you can, recce it. If you can't, at least virtual recce it on Google earth or something- but make no mistake, it isn't an easy start to the race. 

Kinder and Bleaklow. Not innocuous.

4) It's a LONG way to CP1. 40 miles, if I remember rightly. Ever travelled that far, with ALL your gear, while navigating- in the dark- in a oner before? Don't kid yourself... this is not a trail run which is laid out for you to bimble along from CP to CP. If you aren't prepared, you won't even get there. 

"old" glossop fell race AL

 So a while ago I put out a post talking about the New Glossop Fell Race AL, which was all well and good. It was a great day out and much "fun" was had. On that post I alluded to the "Old" Glossop fell race AL as well. 

It isn't call the Old Glossop race for the reason that it goes from Old Glossop- the New one goes from Old Glossop as well. I think it comes from the fact that it was the original "Glossop" fell race, but had to be changed due to permissions, and hence to distinguish it from the newer route, "old" and "new" nomenclatures were used. 

Anyhow. 

It's a fair old route with some fun lines to be taken. I've done it 4 times now, maybe the fastest took me 3:24, so faster than I managed on the "new" route. (there was a heck of  headwind on the way back as well). It doesn't make it "easier" by any means, but it definitely gives you a decent run out from Glossop. With optimal lines you're looking at somewhere around 30k and 1400m ascent. 

Your checkpoints are as follows:

Old Glossop (I think it originally started from Manor Park). 

1- Pond at the bottom of Ashton Clough

2- Higher Shelf Trig point

3- The Cottages at the shooting range. (I'd suggest that you use the stile over the wall onto the Trail as your CP here). 

4- Ruined hut at the north end of Crowden Little Brook

5- Top of Laddow Rocks

6- Gate on Pennine Way

7- Lads Leap (not sure if this was actually a checkpoint)

8- Car park at Didsbury Intake

9- Bottom of Torside clough

10- Ruined hut on Glossop Low

11- Bottom of Lightside

End- turning circle. 

Technically you can take any line between these points. There are obviously optimal, and somewhat suboptimal ones, depending on your strengths. 

This is a view of the route I took:

 The start is pretty obvious- from Old Glossop along the Drs. Gate Bridleway out past Mossy Lea Farm. There is a bog just after the "big" bridge which is pretty unavoidable. Up the hill, and along- the pond itself is off the Bridleway, down to the left- don't miss it- that's the checkpoint. 

Cross the stream, and now it's the first of the choices- which way up to Higher Shelf? The "race line" would trend up the nose to the right of Ashton Clough. When I did it with Jules we decided to scramble up the Ashton Clough line... it really isn't a decent race line, but it makes it fun. 

Bang up to Higher Shelf Trig Point and then- well. How do you want to get to the North side of the moor? Personally I headed over to Wainstones via Hern stones- then the Wain, and then- well, bash north trying to not get caught in the drainage too much. There is NO ideal line across the moor, no trods going over there... so if you don't know the area, get a compass bearing and run. 

Getting off the moor at the north end is a little more fun- whatever you do, DON'T fall off Lawrence Edge. It can be a little dodgy getting down there. Best line seems to be to "skiers left" of the crag, down and round to the right and then off. There are a number of lines off- some good, some bad, some ok. Take your pick. 

Off to the East of the old Clay range, and down to the stile in the wall that goes over onto the Trail. Now, at the moment the path across lower than the dam and over to Crowden is closed (has been for... oh, 3 years now?) I took the route direct across the dam and crossing the road on the dodgy corner - if you do this- its totally at your own risk (as is everything really), and then up the cobbled trail past the old chapel, then left below the quarry until you hit the track going up Crowden Little Brook. 

From here- easy blat up the path to the northen end of Crowden Little Brook- or at least- where the brook takes a sharp eastward turn- cross the brook to get to the ruined hut- Checkpoint!

Make sure you've been taking in food up til now, coz it's about to get fun. 

You've got to get from here to Laddow rocks- and there are any number of ways to do this. You have to go over Bareholme moss somehow- I've done this quite far North (ending a bit south of the Meteor wrecks) and onto the Pennine Way, quite a bit south, and then down pretty much the Holme moss race route and then up the Steep way to the top of Laddow, and I've also headed across and through the Castles- which is pretty fun, because you don't often go through the castles- and then up a steep slope to get to the Pennine Way. (don't get sidetracked onto the Old Pennine way which is quite a lot lower on the hill). 

Once on the Pennine Way (this might take a WHILE) its a simple matter of hitting the top of Laddow rocks and then head south until you get to the gate above the YHA, then hang a right and go up the Lads Leap climb. Something that seems easy enough when youre on an AS, but after more than half of an AL it's a bit of a slog. Up and over Lads leap, down to the top of the Tintwistle Knarr track and bash down the forest track, and down to Didsbury intake back to the A628 and a bit of a gnarly road crossing. 

With these 2 road crossings- and the ever increasing number of cars on the road, you can see why these 2 races have gone the way of the dodo. It's not fun to cross a road in any race, let alone a major A road with large volumes of heavy traffic. 

From here it's whack a gel down, hammer across the dam and up the Trail til you get to Reaps, and then crawl up Torside and up to Glossop Low cabin (Checkpoint!) before the run off down to Glossop. 

But not so fast! It isn't a simple run off, you've got to go via Lightside. You could hack across the top of Shittern Clough and down lightside, or you could go down past the quarry workings and a direct steep line off into the bottom of Shittern and to the gate at Lightside- before a run off to the final bimble to the end of the trail and the turning circle. 

And relax. 

It's a great route with some superb rough running. Not one to race nowadays, unfortunately.