Recent comments

well, I put the bit in about embroidery Mike cos it's so neat it does look like stitching, we weren't making any connection between the gender of the welders and the quality of the welds - you brought the sexism to the table. We mentioned the fact that such a high proportion of their welders are women because it's interesting. If it makes you feel any better Spin said that their very best welder was a man.

In fact, women make up a significant part of the workforce in the bicycle industry in Asia, but mostly I had thought in the area of carbon production – where, like it or not, their work is generally felt to be superior to men's when it comes to attention to detail. I don't know if they are cheaper too, but back in the day when Taiwan produced more high end welded frames than carbon the welders tended to be men.

Pooh, I'm a 2XL in Giordana.

For anyone who hasn't tried Giordana that's a bargain.

Even at full price I reckon they more than hold their own against the likes of Assos and Castelli.

To broaden the argument:

The real issue is reaction time - or lack of it when motorists travel at speeds inappropriate for the conditions. This factor alone governs many of the mistakes that lead to accidents.

In my perfect fascist state I would introduce a speed limit of 20mph in urban and suburban areas and a 50mph limit on B roads. No one needs to travel at 60mph on a road that could contain horses, walkers and cyclists. I'd also have a compulsory one day a month cycle trip for everyone with a driving licence who can get on a bike. That way we'd all understand that the road is there to be shared.

To risk sounding 'holier than thou'. The bike was here first and it will be here long after cars become electric and are speed restricted for the safety of all. Whether that day will come in my life time I'm not sure; but the present standoff between motorists who want to ride bikes as well and expect to share the road - and motorists who don't ride bikes and don't want to share anything will have to come to an end.

Red lights are a constant irrelevant point in the argument. 'Running' a light that has turned from green to red is for idiots and they deserve what they get. Jumoping an red light is different. I see plenty of motorists who will run a red light on a pelican crossing if no one is crossing. That is wrong. When on foot I don't wave thanks at zebra crossings - as once you start thanking people for obeying the highway code they start to assume they have a choice!

However, 10 years of commuting by bike in London taught me that when you filter to the front of a line of fuming motorists and see a bottle neck across the junction you use your position to check the crosslights and when they turn to amber before your lights turn to green you go - otherwise you will be boxed in by the first two cars alongside you - desperate to show that they can still beat a cyclist.

So can we please stop talking about red lights and high vis and concentrate on the real lifesaver - a reduction in speed limits. It'll save a little fuel and extend the life of your brake pads as well.

TLA- Three letter ACRONYM

Which metal are the one piece cassettes made from?

I thought I was reading the Daily Mail circa 1950: "Interestingly, three quarters of their welders are women. The welds are so neat in some places that they look more like embroidery ..." what a load of sexist drivel - really disappointing. The gender of the welders is irrelevant - women in China (or anywhere else don't have a monopoly on emroidery either).

Now sold.

I don't think it's a holier than thou response particularly. It's important for everyone that surveys are as impartial as possible without "leading" questions and there's no differential in the above questions between cyclist and motorist.

For example: Cyclist or motorist failing to judge another road user's path or speed. Split it out and actually differentiate to get a meaningful answer, that just answers the question with "well someone involved didn't judge speed/direction".

A step in the right direction, getting people to think about safety but not the best designed survey in the world.

Is no-one allowed to criticise a crap survey which informs local government actions? Are the cycling press not allowed to comment on something where some idiot let loose on Surveymonkey can affect Council policy and road safety? Are cyclists not supposed to be aware of these things and just do as the Men In Suits tell us?

We've had enough of that kind of authoritarian tripe, thank you. Perhaps you should go and live in a Middle Eastern dictatorship, I'm sure you'd prefer that instead of democracy and an educated population.

Hmm… well I get irritated by the holier than thou attitude of some cyclists mysel - red light jumpers in particular, but I don't thin this we're taking a holier than thou response here. We're simply pointing out that an organisation that exists to promote road safety in Nottingham has put together a pretty ropey survey with the aim of helping it push the flawed argument that wearing a helmet will make you safer on the roads - it will perhaps if you fall off at low speed, but it won't if you are in collision with a car or are doing more than 12mph on point of impact.

Better driving standards is the single biggest way of making cyclist safer, and better cycle training, and more responsible cycling will undoubtedly help too. Running red lights and riding while drunk are pretty stupid, but even the former (and I can feel the red mist descending) only puts the fool doing it at risk - except of course for those people who run red lights at pelican crossings which is even less acceptable in my book.

My worry about things like this survey is that what underlies it is an attitude that at least subconsiously thinks that cycling is not a particulary rational mode of transport, but if you insist on doing it on a public road then you'd better whack some expanded polystyerene on your head and dress like a belisha beacon otherise it's gonna be your fault if I hit you with my car. That's why I'd say it's worth drawing attention to these things.

We're certainly not trying to undermine the good work road safety partnerships are doing and we certainly don't think that all cyclists are perfect and that in any incident or conflict the cyclists are always right there are plenty of idiot cyclists out there too, but on balance idiots on bikes do less harm (even to themselves) than idtiots in cars. That's not to excuse them for being dumb or selfish though.

Dear a.jumper, you might want to read the article again. I think the idea is that Sustrans are using their own route data, laid over the OS background. I imagine that Sustrans have a pretty good idea of where their routes go as you can see here: http://www.sustrans.org.uk/map?searchKey=bristol&searchType=search&Searc...

OS maps have a lot of detail in the more rural areas of the country that OSM doesn't yet show.

OSM is obviously a brilliant thing and something that I think Sustrans has supported in the past, but it's not yet finished and to argue that everyone else should stop doing things until it is is ridiculous.

"SKY SKY SKY" all over your kit anyone? I thought they were supposed to be Team GB, not Team SKY. (Oh, wait, right...)

And to dig up an old chestnut - anyone else find it a bit odd, people riding in national kit (other than actual national team members, of course)?

I was never in favour of the Stolen Valor Act, I'm all for free speech and freedom of expression, but that kit would invite all sorts of questions with embarrassing answers.

"How do you fancy your chances against that Chris Hoy bloke, then?", that sort of thing.

Or am I flattering myself / us, to think that people might actually mistake a road.cc member for one of the team?