Category - News

Speed Limit Bingo

06/01/2014

Note that this idea by the government has been shelved as of July 2014.

Three years ago, the bunch of vegetables otherwise known as our coalition government were talking about raising the speed limit to 80mph on motorways. Incredibly, they had cited “improved business travel times” as a justification, even though you would only save about 20 minutes if you could travel all the way from London to Liverpool at a steady 80mph.

So it beggars belief that in todays news that they are now talking about reducing motorway speed limits to “cut pollution”. Even more ridiculous is the RAC citing “negative impact on business efficiency” as a downside. The stretch of M1 involved at this stage is 35 miles long, and the reduction would simply mean that it would take 5 minutes longer to travel the distance – even if you could actually do 60mph at all, which during the rush hour you can’t.

I am against such a move on the grounds that it is just an unnecessary change. Pollution is an absolute and direct function of the area in question – since the first time I drove that way aeons ago I have always been struck by the smell drifting across the road as you approach Sheffield. Any pollution is created from within – not by cars on the M1.

It’s also amusing that the report says:

The normal speed limit would still apply to the rest of the M1, which runs from north London to Leeds.

Obviously – and especially combined with the biased attitude of government when it comes to any sort of dealing with Londoners – London doesn’t suffer pollution and so can keep the more sensible 70mph limit. God forbid that we should upset anyone in London, eh?

All of this is a last minute knee-jerk reaction to European legislation which comes into force this year. Instead of dealing with the issue properly, the government has left it to the Highways Agency to pick up the tab (although the Agency is just an extension of the government anyway). I say again, the areas involved – Mansfield, Chesterfield, Sheffield, and Rotherham – are polluted already and always have been. They are polluted because of the industry around them, and not because the M1 passes through.

The same RAC comedian who said it would impact on business significantly is also quoted:

This very powerfully demonstrates the impact that speed has on emissions and many will be surprised to hear that a reduction of just 10mph can have such a significant effect on improving air quality.

Yes, they most certainly would be surprised to hear that. Actually, they’d be surprised to hear that you can go faster than 60mph in the first place, especially during peak hours – where less than 30mph is common. But what about the emissions themselves? Take a look at this document from 2006. On page 2 there is this graph. Vehicle Emmissions vs Speed

The authors of that document (and anyone supporting this change) glibly speak of how many “million tonnes of carbon” will be cut by lopping 10mph of the speed limit. Anything with the word “million” is carefully crafted to sound dramatic. But let’s look a bit closer.

Emissions are calculated from fuel consumption, It’s no more scientific than that, so you can stop imagining a car with lots of wires and special sensors stuck up the tail pipe. A car is at its most efficient when driven at 55mph (published mpg figures always use that speed), and the car is 3% less efficient than this at 60mph and 17% less efficient at 70mph.

Just for the record, it’s 28% less efficient at 80mph – the speed the jackasses were going to up limits to three years ago.

The problem is that mpg figures are always just a starting point. You may well get the published 50mpg (for example) at a steady 55mph, but you are unlikely to be able to maintain a steady 55mph under day-to-day driving conditions. Much of the time you will be stationary – how do you convert that to mpg when your engine is still running? Well, you don’t. You just accept that the average mpg will be less than the theoretical published figure as a result.

Referring back to the graph, above, there is another problem. It’s all very well talking about the emissions per se when the scope is the entire world, but as soon as you cut that scope to a smaller area, such as a county – or a specific 35-mile stretch of road – the transit time becomes significant. In other words, you don’t get the full advantage of the reduced emissions by dropping traffic speed, because said traffic will be there for longer as a result, which pushes the emissions the other way again.

Let me try and illustrate this in a different way, because some people seem unable to grasp the importance of transit time in the proposal.

A car travelling at a fixed speed of 70mph will burn fuel less efficiently than one travelling at a fixed speed of 60mph. If you just talk in terms of overall emissions (i.e. pollution in general) then 60mph is obviously better. However, as soon as you start talking about driving and pollution inside a specific 35-mile long bubble – as the government is doing in order to reduce measured pollution within that bubble – you have to consider the length of time you are in in it.

Imagine that you have a large balloon – one that is 35 miles across – and you are measuring the pollution level inside it. If you have a car on a rolling road driving at 70mph, and you put it inside the balloon for 30 minutes (the length of time it takes to drive 35 miles at 70mph), then it will produce a certain amount of pollution. If you repeat this with another car, but this time driving at 60mph, then you will measure about 12-14% less pollution over 30 minutes. However, if you left the 60mph car inside the balloon for an extra 5 minutes (that’s how much longer it takes to travel 35 miles at 60mph) then it would produce 15% more pollution than it did in just 30 minutes. It’s quite simple: it was inside the balloon for 15% longer.

Relating this back to some real figures, the graph shows that 70mph corresponds to emissions of about 58 gC/km (grammes of carbon per kilometre), and 60mph to 51 gC/km at 60mph. This 12% reduction is equivalent to around 0.4kg less “carbon” emissions per km, and the greenies are obviously all over it.

But using figures from the graph, at 70mph a typical car would produce 3.27kg of “carbon” over that fixed 35-mile range. At 60mph, this would be 2.87kg. But since the 60mph car would be in the range for 5 minutes (15%) longer than the 70mph one, the emissions are emitted for 15% longer – which takes the figure back up to 3.3kg of carbon! It’s a tricky calculation to do, and difficult to get your head around, but it is arguable that a car which is 14% more efficient than another (i.e. the difference between mpg at 60 and 70mph), but which is there for 15% longer than that other (i.e. travelling through a range for which pollution is specifically being monitored) is actually worse than the other as far as emissions are concerned in the enclosed range in question.

In the case of the figures in the above graph, the extra 5 minutes means that the car travelling at 60mph will produce just as much carbon as the one travelling at 70mph within the 35-mile range (technically, slightly more). Of course, stationary traffic would really mess up the figures for you. And the real situation is immeasurably for complicated, with air currents and atmospheric conditions, not to mention volume of traffic, road closures and tail backs, and so on.

I stress that this is very approximate, but it illustrates the point that reducing speed limits to 60mph is a massive red herring – especially when you consider that they wanted to increase it to 80mph three years ago.

Cheques: Too Little, Too Late!

27/12/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Computers & Tech, News

Note that this is an old article. iZettle let me down badly and I switched to PayPal in 2015. Apart from that, the comments are still valid.

Back in September I wrote that I had acquired the ability/facility to take take credit and debit card payments from pupils in the car, thanks to my iZettle chip & pin card reader. It has been a real boon, and has saved me a lot of money in various ways. In an earlier article, I explained how I nearly went for the PayPal reader, but sent it back because PayPal couldn’t make up their mind how the system worked, and so convinced me the service was next to useless.

Being able to take card payments was something I’d wanted to do for the last ten years or so, but until this new – and long overdue – series of devices became available the cost was just too prohibitive, and the services far from convenient.

When it comes to taking payments from people, by far the biggest pain in the neck for the sole trader is the cheque. These have been used since the 17th Century (there is evidence that similar systems were in use as far back as 300BC). The problem is that the method of honouring a cheque has hardly changed in all that time. They are cumbersome and – if one bounces – a major headache. For me, the worst part was having to go and pay them in to a physical bank. The fact that it had to be MY physical bank was just as bad, as was the length of time they took to clear.

It made me smile, therefore, when I saw this story on the BBC’s website. There are plans – well, proposals – to allow you to take a photo of your cheque using your smartphone, and send it in electronically. Cheques will clear in two days rather than the current six. The thing is, they COULD make cheques clear in two days right now – something which should have been implemented years ago.

Apparently, this system of using smartphones has been possible in the USA for the last decade. I didn’t know that, and it makes the situation over here even more annoying. Britain seems to deliberately want to keep itself in the dark ages with some things, which is evidenced by the apparent u-turn on abolishing cheques altogether as a result of “public opposition” (read: “from the Luddites”).

Barclays is going to be trialling the service from early in 2014. But there are already rumblings from people about branch closures as a result.

People in this country need to get a grip and stop keep rattling on about the past. Banks are a major pain in the backside and always have been. As far as I am concerned, you either put money in or take money out, and that takes a few minutes at the most (which could be a few seconds if banks weren’t so bloody inefficient). But unless you’re the only one in there, every other customer is guaranteed to be a total prat who will keep the cashier occupied for 15 minutes over something stupid.

We should be going for instant money transfer systems, and a merger of individual financial systems so that you can access your account anywhere.

Thankfully, the days of the cheque are gone for me. Anyone who has a cheque book will have a chip & pin card, so they can pay me using that through my iZettle.

Nottingham’s Tram Really Is Controlled By Total Morons

23/12/2013

DOAADI

News, Transport

Nottingham is experiencing utter chaos on the roads at the moment. I’ve already mentioned the Aspley Lane “improvement” which has created more congestion than was ever there before (unless you’re a bus, on a bike, or live in Broxtowe and want to go into town). The tens of thousands of motorists using the so-called “ring road” have been completely screwed by the Council’s continued pandering to the less glamorous areas in the county.

But all of that is being exacerbated by the on going tram works, which are forcing people to take routes intended to avoid the black spots. Rather than list the numerous articles I’ve written concerning the tram, just type “tram” into the search box on the right and you’ll be able to see them. Back in November 2012, I referred to the works as a case of criminal incompetence on the part of the City Council. Every day that has passed since then has simply reinforced that statement.

The City Council is repeatedly telling the media that the extension lines will open on time, and yet there have seen repeated delays caused by accidents and “unforeseen” problems. For example, back in September a bridge intended to span the Fairham Brook (an expanse of water so wide we used to paddle in it as kids, and in most places you could jump across it if you took a good run up) collapsed. Naturally, absolutely no delay to the estimated completion dates was envisaged at Prat Central. And in this latest episode concerning the Chilwell works, it appears that numerous further delays have occurred.

Let’s just take note that back in November in a separate story some idiot was quoted:

Nottingham’s tram extension will finish on time at the end of 2014 despite recent delays, a tram spokesman said.

But this latest story reports that there have been further delays due to:

“technical difficulties” (current – no timeframe given)
Chilwell works 6-10 weeks behind schedule (September 2013)
Chilwell a “further month” behind (November 2013 – due to ageing pipes)

And yet the same article concludes:

Nottingham City Council said it still plans to see trams running by the end of 2014, despite the delays.

I repeat once more: criminal incompetence. How can these absolute idiots make a statement like that when – on top of already being at least 3 months behind schedule – there are current “technical difficulties” with no resolution time frame given? I mean, if those involved actually knew how long it would take they’d be anxious to publicise it, wouldn’t they? It could take them 6 months or a year to overcome these “difficulties” for all anyone knows, and yet those morons on the Council keep repeating the same mantra.

And if they do manage to get the thing running on time, why did they build in so much slack when they knew what problems it was going to cause to tens of thousands of motorists and retailers while it was taking place?

The damage to businesses anywhere near the tram works – indeed, for most businesses in Nottingham as traffic has either been held up by or attempted to avoid those works – is immense and irreparable. Businesses have already gone under because of it, and more are bound to follow. The Council is directly responsible.

Furthermore, the additional pollution due to congestion and longer transit times – something the Glorious Tram System is supposed to alleviate, and which have since been made permanently worse by the equally incompetent Aspley Lane “improvements” – will take decades to claw back, and that’s even if you believe the misleading hype about how green the tram is in the first place. The trams already run empty most of the day.

And one final little detail. All work has stopped for the Christmas period.

Make Cycle Awareness Part Of The Driving Test?

14/12/2013

DOAADI

Bad Drivers, Driving Tests, DVSA, News, Transport

This story appears on a bicycle-oriented website. I’m sure there is a word to describe what is going on here, but the nearest I can get is “obtuse”:

ob·tuse

adj. ob·tus·er, ob·tus·est

a. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.

b. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity

At the moment, all those taking the side of the cyclist appear incapable of using logic and identifying the root cause of the problems which have resulted in a number of rider fatalities over the last couple of months. In this case, a survey has revealed that…

One in three drivers in a new survey have said that among issues outside their control, cyclists are the biggest risk to road safety…

This, of course, means that pro-cycling people like David Williams, the motoring correspondent of the London Evening Standard, conclude…

…[that] cycle awareness training [should] be made part of the driving test.

It reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon, where in response to his obtuse boss using similar warped logic, Dilbert says:

It looks like you’ve gained weight. Would you like me to exercise to take care of that too?

This is exactly the same. The overall problem is with the cyclists, not the drivers. In fact, this is the article where it is mentioned that cycling participation in London has trebled in the last decade, but Boris Johnson wants to at least double it again. And Williams’ naive response to this is that motorists “…will have a lot more adapting to master.”

Williams calls for cycle awareness to be made a compulsory part of the driving test. How does he think they would do this?

Cyclists are a major road hazard that virtually all learner drivers have to deal with on lessons. They KNOW that they have to give them a wide berth – often, the problem is pulling them back so they don’t end up driving into someone’s garden on the opposite side of the road! They KNOW that hitting a cyclist is bad. And there are so many cyclists out there behaving like morons that they get LOTS of practice dealing with them. No driving instructor will be teaching anything that goes against these principles. Therefore, not one learner going to test is under any sort of dangerous delusion concerning cyclists.

Of course, Williams doesn’t explain how his brilliant idea would actually be assessed on test, and I don’t suppose for a second that he has considered how many tests already involve dealing with cyclists – above and beyond the experience they get on lessons.

It’s amusing that the article also goes into detail about drivers using mobile phones and social media while driving. As you might expect from a pro-cycling website, it makes no mention of the number of cyclists who routinely engage in these things, or that there is no Law covering their behaviour.

Note the earlier comments I made on this subject over a year ago.

The Public’s Solutions To The Cyclist Problem

14/12/2013

DOAADI

Bad Drivers, News, Transport

This BBC story makes highly entertaining reading. If nothing else, it shows clearly why there should be a minimum IQ required in order to be allowed to vote!

In the wake of the recent spate of cyclist fatalities the BBC asked its readers if they had any solutions to the problem. You can read the full article for yourself, but here’s a selection of some of the stupidest comments.

I am absolutely shocked that nobody suggested a network of cycle paths with its own traffic lights etc. It is time that some of the UK population drop their ‘island’ mentality and look how other places deal with cyclists e.g. Germany and the Netherlands. I stopped cycling when I moved to the UK 20 years ago because it is just too dangerous. Anjalika Baier, Warminster, UK

Great idea. All we’d need to do is increase the area of the UK by about 10 times and this would work perfectly. But why the hell is it that people see fit to compare us to other countries, when we are NOT other countries? The UK is different from Germany and the Netherlands on about a million different fronts, and it simply isn’t possible to turn the clock back by a century and try to copy them (which goes for trams, incidentally – just because they work in German cities doesn’t mean cramming one into Nottingham’s less salubrious areas is going to work).

What about requiring that in order to get a driving licence, every driver has to cycle for three miles along a dual carriageway. This seems to me the best way to make drivers realise that cyclists have a right to use the road and not to be squeezed into the gutter. Most cyclists are drivers too or have been at one time but most drivers have no experience of what it’s like to cycle in traffic and don’t seem to believe that cyclists have any right to be on the road. Pedal Pusher, London

Yeah, right. No one who drives a car cycles, do they? In this example we see the typical mentality of the average serious cyclist, and the reason why it’s a good job IQ testing isn’t mandatory in order to be a pedal pusher.

Lorries should have “beepers” when turning, like they do when reversing. Chris Hammond, Facebook

Can you imagine the environmental impact of every lorry making that loud, piercing beep-beep-beep sound that they currently have while reversing? Or an annoying voice going “Warning! Vehicle turning” at all hours?

You missed the big one – making lorries and buses install sensors and cams for the sides of the vehicles so drivers can check for cyclists and pedestrians when turning. Also heavier penalties for drivers guilty of death by careless driving or dangerous driving. Maybe a 10-year ban from driving would make them more careful. Phil Furneaux, Brampton, Cumbria

That one is right up there with making lorry cockpits out of transparent material for better all-round vision. To go hand in hand with this one, another jackass comments:

More needs to be done with vehicle design. I have never understood how being in someone’s blind spot is an excuse for being maimed. A vehicle operator who is in effect moving their vehicle into space which they cannot see is clear, is simply not acceptable, especially with all the technology now available. This is where the majority of cyclists get killed and injured by lorries turning left and crushing them. Also, if a lorry driver kills or injures a fellow colleague in the depot, the HSE would be all over it, yet the same lorry driver can kill an individual on a public road (while still carrying out a job) it is no longer an issue for the HSE. It’s an absurd disconnect where we accept death and injury on our roads, yet don’t accept it in the workplace. Rob, Essex

Er, Rob. The cyclist shouldn’t be on the left of a lorry at a junction. Period. It’s like trying to blame the manufacturer of a gun if some prat shoots himself in the foot with it.

A good idea I think is if there were special roads made for cyclists like the Netherlands. Cyclists could have to pay a certain amount to travel on the special cycle roads. The toll could be very cheap. This would make road tax seem fair for cyclist and driver, help keep the bike roads/routes maintained and updated, and would be extremely cheap. Alexander, Birmingham

Oh, God! Again with the Netherlands. And British cyclists wouldn’t stick to those routes anyway for the simple reason that their respective destinations would be OFF those roads. Get real, for crying out loud.

If any collision between a bicycle and a motor vehicle was dealt with by a mandatory prosecution for the motorist, then this would immediately cut accidents between cars and bicycles. Steve Canning, Plymouth, Devon

Obviously, there is a sort of gravity well in Devon when it comes to IQs. And this idea would address the problem of cyclists not following rules how?

Cyclists often won’t use cycle tracks because they are littered with rubbish, making them hazardous. So perhaps the government could think of sweeping them to make them usable. Hilary Tesh, Facebook

I’d lay odds she comes from Devon, too. Could it be that simple? That cyclist fatalities are ultimately caused by litter?

The simple fact is that cyclists and motor vehicles don’t mix. If you have a small number of cyclists doing their level best to keep out of traffic and using cycle paths wherever possible then the situation is tolerable for all parties. Add Spandex or green politics to the mix and you automatically have a major, major problem. Add Boris Johnson, and it is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

The number of cyclists in London alone has tripled in the last decade, and Johnson wants to at least double that if he can.

Pregnant Driver Blames Baby For Crash

14/12/2013

DOAADI

Bad Drivers, News

Rebecca Knowles-Dixon, 28, lost control of her car on a country road and ploughed into an elderly cyclist. The cyclist suffered severe head and chest injuries as he was thrown some distance from his bike.

Knowles-Dixon blamed the accident in Devon on her unborn child, who she claimed kicked her hard in the ribs.

Magistrates bought the story and she was fined just £150 and given 3 points on her licence. Anyone else, particularly if they were male, would undoubtedly have suffered far more severe penalties.

As you might expect, no one has raised the obvious point that pregnant women maybe ought not to be allowed anywhere near a car if they are capable of such dangerous actions.

Cycling Activists Attempt To Sell Votes

09/12/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, News, Transport

I’m not sure if this is legal – but even if it is, it’s totally wrong from a moral standpoint. It’s a story in The Independent about how “cycling activists” are attempting to sway the results of local council elections by offering their votes to “bike-friendly candidates”.

Various activist groups are involved. To quote one:

Chris Peck, campaigns co-ordinator at national cycling charity CTC, said the elections were a “major opportunity to ensure that cycling is still seen as a high priority”. “Councils have huge budgets and huge power,” he said. “They are places where we need to spend a lot more effort on converting people to support cycling.”

Note how this comedian misses the point completely – as do all these radical cycling numpties. His aim is to get cyclists on roads whether it’s safe or not – and he’ll sell his vote to get his way.

The article also mentions a Birmingham cell who are calling for changes on a major link road on the strength of a single fatality of a 13-year old over two years ago, even though the driver of the lorry was jailed for dangerous driving. Again, they miss the point entirely – if the driver was at fault, what is wrong with the road? What is there that specifically needs to be changed that would have prevented the incident?

The problem is that if you asked any Spandex-wearing activist, they would have every single road in the country changed. None of them can understand that roads are dangerous by virtue of the fact that big, heavy machinery travels on them. There are those whose political maturity is still in the womb on this topic, and who seriously see banning those nasty machines from roads as a genuine solution. They forget that there are already “roads” where traffic is banned. Those roads are called “cycle paths”, and many of these Spandex-wearing politicos refuse point blank to go anywhere near them.

Those last two articles I wrote concerning cyclists have generated a lot of blog traffic via Twitter and Facebook. As I’ve pointed out before, I don’t allow comments on this blog because they’re just an excuse for juvenile prats to swear and post links to pornography sites. And the contact form makes it clear that any abuse through that will immediately be reported to the sender’s ISP (and you CAN be traced, so don’t kid yourself that you can’t), and I guess that’s why hits to that page also skyrocketed, but only produced one actual submission.

The reader who responded refers to the “idiotic” cyclist shown in the photograph in the post about HGV drivers being forced to take mandatory cycling lessons in Islington. He asks where I think he should ride instead (I’ve included the picture again). Well, the answer is simple: anywhere else – just not there!

Cyclists seem unable to comprehend anything that doesn’t go 100% in their favour. In this case, it just amazes me that they cannot understand that although the cyclist in the picture may well have every right to do what he’s doing, he would have to be a complete and utter pillock to actually do it.

It’s like sticking your hand in a blender or an open fire – yes, you have every right to do it if you choose to do so, but if you get injured (and even if you don’t) you’re going to have to accept that you’re still a prat.

Irrespective of who would be to blame, if one of those lorries swerved – to avoid another cyclist, for example – the cyclist would be dead. And no doubt the Spandex-clad fingers would then start pointing at the HGVs again.

The simple fact is that the degree of danger for a cyclist varies from nothing to almost total, depending on where (and how) he rides. Riding between lorries, or in among large numbers of lorries, is right up at the bad end.

Nothing can alter that, including the ridiculous idea from the Greenies that lorries should be constructed out of glass to give 360° vision in all three dimensions (or possibly all four dimensions if it’s an activist-led idea). Even if that ever happened – and it won’t – it would take decades to implement.

It’s also worth me repeating what I said to that reader in response to various other accusations:

I ride a bike
I use cycle paths
I avoid riding among traffic, especially on purpose
I teach pupils to be careful around cyclists
I teach pupils what cyclists behave like
My pupils see frequent examples of what cyclists behave like

So there is no point whatsoever trying to pretend that all cyclists are angels. They aren’t.

Shortly after I published this I received another email from a reader. Here it is in full (with his permission):

Cyclists

I have to say, I really enjoy reading your views on cyclists as they are more or less exactly the same as mine.

Where I live and teach Corby and Kettering) there is an elderly guy, who I’m told by one of my pupils used to be her geography teacher. He ‘rides’ one of those contraptions where the user is pretty much lying down, and will do so regardless of the queues of traffic building up behind him. We currently have a lot of major road works in the area, notably the A6003 between Corby and Kettering, where there are lane closures and contra flow systems in place. It’s a fairly common sight to see a queue a couple of miles long behind this idiot as he will exercise his right to ride it anywhere he wants regardless of how much chaos he creates. He’s retired, and as such I can only assume he does it for the exercise and enjoyment, I’m just not sure if the thing he’s riding is even road legs, much less how he’s not dead yet, being no more than 18 inches off the ground.

Just thought I’d get that off my chest!

I’ve mentioned these lying-down bikes before – their proper name is “recumbent bike”. Around my way you usually see them on a Sunday on narrow country lanes, surrounded by a group of middle-aged men riding two or three abreast and travelling at low speed. The rider of the recumbent usually has a beard and legs that look like something out of a toothpaste tube. All of them are trying to act as if they were 20 years younger.

The cycling militia can rant on all they like about driving instructors feeling this way, but we are just talking sense.The simple fact is that eventually someone in authority is going to see have to see sense too and stop keep trying to pander to the Spandex Corps all the time.

Roads are for motor vehicles, and cycle paths are for bicycles. And as the number of people having absolutely no road sense but being encouraged to start riding a bike increases, the Law needs to start forcing cyclists to stay off roads and keep to cycle paths.

Cyclist Safety Is… A Laser Beam

08/12/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Computers & Tech, News

As the previous story shows, cyclist road safety is a hot topic at the moment. So it should come as no surprise that people are trying to cash in on it.

This BBC story tells of an apparently “hi-tech” solution “invented” by a woman from a company called Blaze. It isn’t hi-tech at all – not unless you class everything incorporating a laser as hi-tech.

What it does is project a cycle symbol on to the road ahead. That is, if it’s adjusted properly. If it isn’t, the cycle symbol will be projected into the air, or anywhere else the Neanderthal on the bike chooses to aim it. There’s also no mention of what happens to the projected light when it hits a puddle or bus shelter. We scientists would know that as something called “reflection”, and God only knows what is likely to happen if a bright green laser is reflected off a bus shelter into the eyes of a passing motorist, or off a puddle into the eyes of a pedestrian.

The spreading infestation on our roads of people on two wheels who only think of themselves means that badly adjusted hi-brightness white LED lamps is already a growing safety issue. A badly adjusted laser is going to be a hundred times worse.

Quite how the people responsible for this dangerous toy think it will improve safety is anyone’s guess. Because when some jackass ignores every safety guideline going and tries to cut up an 18-wheeler attempting to turn left on the inside, I can’t imagine having a laser torch will make much difference to the outcome. And if you’re in an HGV (or any other vehicle) and you see ten of these things flashing away at you from all angles on the road, confusion is the most likely outcome – not safety.

The About page on the Blaze website says it all:

Cycling is about independence. But it’s also about community. It’s different things to different people. A dawn riser racing to work to get her adrenaline fix. A student saving up for a weekend gig. A nature-lover doing his bit for the environment.

Currently, urban cycling favours the brave, the reckless even, the ones willing to fight for their place on the road. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

I couldn’t have written a better reason for introducing mandatory IQ tests for cyclists if I tried.

The best thing London’s councillors could do is ban this thing before too many are sold. It needs proper safety testing by independent testers – not by pro-cycling commercial groups.