• Bianchi Oltre XR2 road bike1 year 8 weeks ago"...jumps into action with a

    "...jumps into action with a ridiculous amount of energy, making it that little bit easier to get away or close down an attack off the front..."

    So a ridiculous amount of energy makes it only a little bit easier? We know magazine reviews are written as entertainment but the spiral of hyperbole and subjectivity endemic in the cycle media devalues every article.

  • Devon pub launches cycling club & sets sights on Spain1 year 8 weeks agoChequers Inn, Laddingford in

    Chequers Inn, Laddingford in Kent, has a cycling club "The Chequers Racers" ( I know, a bit grandiose!) we've done Paris, Mallorca, Northern Spain and this year Nice to Pisa...
    ..there's also a running group, Chequers Chasers, and the excellently named fresh water swimmers, the Chequers Otters!

    ...sometimes people don't want the formality of a "proper" club but still want the companionship of a group, I guess.

    http://www.chequersracers.com/index.html

  • Devon pub launches cycling club & sets sights on Spain1 year 8 weeks agocress wrote:Pub based cycle

    cress wrote:
    Pub based cycle clubs - that is the model on which Belgium operates. It seems to work well here. the village i live in is 2500 people and get around 80 on a sunday morning ride of which around 50 end up in the bar straight after.

    What a perfect start to a sunday.

    An 80-strong clubrun from a village of 2,500?! That sounds ace, is that all people in lycra wanting to ride quickly, or are many just out for a casual pedal?

  • Japanese court awards over £270k in damages to family of woman killed by cyclist1 year 8 weeks agoHoly Japan.. Don't ride

    Holy Japan.. Don't ride there!

  • 2014 WorldTour bikes: Katusha’s Canyon Ultimate, Speedmax + Aeroad1 year 8 weeks agoThat Ultimate SLX looks mean

    That Ultimate SLX looks mean with the negative-rise stem - WANT!!

  • MPs debate tougher sentences for drivers who kill while banned1 year 8 weeks agooozaveared wrote: It's not

    oozaveared wrote:

    It's not what I said. My point is that there is a difference within the same offence (causing death by dangerous driving) between someon that is guilty of the offence because they did something really really dumb and let's say overtook a lorry, misjudged the speed and someone ended up dead. Thaey are guilty of the offence and should be punished for it.

    However if a banned driver or someone that doesn't even have a licence and has never taken a test, gets tanked up on drugs or booze, steals a fast car to go joyriding, deliberately drive dangerously for the kicks and they kill someone, than that is still the same offence (causing death by dangerous driving) but the factors invoved mean that they should be treated more severely than the first example.

    I do agree, all I am trying to say is that, can you know it was a moments stupidity or merely they have been lucky so far.

    In cases of drink driving, no licence, it is a bit clearer. No insurance, does that mean they deliberately chose no insurance, or are they a bit forgetful?

    As said, I am concerned that when things are grey the system always assumes the best. Which may or may not be the reality. Which is also why I do believe there should be no flexibility in the points system. Think of it as an imperfect early warning system, if you have been caught enough times to get to 12, which as I understand it almost always means multiple offences, why should you get another chance?

  • Boris Johnson in moves to get deadly lorries off London roads1 year 8 weeks agocongokid wrote:paulrbarnard

    congokid wrote:
    paulrbarnard wrote:
    If the vehicle is not fitted with the safety equipment simply confiscate the vehicle. Much more effective than a £130 fine.

    If the recent police check of HGVs at three sites in London last November is anything to go by, most of the vehicles will be breaking some safety rule or other. Of the 20 lorries stopped then, only five were satisfactory.

    If those checking do their jobs properly, most of those vehicles checked should be removed from the roads.

    The police only stopped HGVs they thought might be defective, and sure enough, a significant percentage were.

    It takes no great skill to spot defective vehicles on the road network. There are so many of them. Usuallythis may be due to things that can be easily remedied, such as flat tyres or broken tail lights. But the problems can also be much more serious.

    As a cyclist/motorcyclist (and engineering graduate) I've developed a pretty good awareness of suspect vehicles. General rule - if a car/truck/bus looks dirty and bashed up, then keep your distance.

  • Beginner's advice on pedals & shoes?1 year 8 weeks agoI ride SPD SLs on my road

    I ride SPD SLs on my road bike and SPDs on my winter/commuter hydrid but I can remember using double toe straps and leather boots with a slot in the cleat

    Agree with the comments on SPDs, if you are riding in traffic then they are safer, easier to get in and out of with minimal loss of benefit. Certainly the best starting point then change later once more confident.

    Remember, everyone falls off at least once when they start to use them, the key is to anticipate and clip out a bit earlier than you think. SPDs make that easier

  • Minibus driver cleared over Southampton cyclist death1 year 8 weeks agoVery sad but expected, best

    Very sad but expected, best case scenario the driver got 3 month ban, 25 com hours and £18 victim charge as usual.

    My sympathy to the family.

  • Devon pub launches cycling club & sets sights on Spain1 year 8 weeks agoPub based cycle clubs - that

    Pub based cycle clubs - that is the model on which Belgium operates. It seems to work well here. the village i live in is 2500 people and get around 80 on a sunday morning ride of which around 50 end up in the bar straight after.

    What a perfect start to a sunday.

  • Hell of the North East: Newcastle's Cycle Hub puts on Paris-Roubaix inspired ride - and it's free (+ video)1 year 8 weeks agoFor those who like this kind

    For those who like this kind of thing - there is also the rather wonderful/evil Enfer du Saddleworth

  • Hydrophobic Spray1 year 8 weeks agoIf you haven't tried them,

    If you haven't tried them, mudguards are really useful in the rain, stopping loads of surface water spray up onto your legs

  • Devon pub launches cycling club & sets sights on Spain1 year 8 weeks agoThe Augustus John in

    The Augustus John in Fordingbridge, Hants. The AJ Wheelers hit the local roads every Wednesday night throughout the year.

    https://www.facebook.com/AugustusJohnFordingbridge

  • Beginner's advice on pedals & shoes?1 year 8 weeks agoI've got SPD-SLs on my road

    I've got SPD-SLs on my road bike at the moment, but if I were buying again now I'd probably go for SPDs instead.
    If I'm honest I probably went for SLs because of some vague 'it's the rules' roadie thing. I think for most people the actual performance difference when you're in the saddle is basically zero, and SPDs are better in pretty much every other respect.
    I won't be binning my SLs anytime soon, but I were starting from scratch that's the route I'd go. And I wouldn't even consider commuting on SLs.

  • ASA withdraws ban on Cycling Scotland advert pending "independent review"1 year 8 weeks agohairyairey wrote:"Rabid

    hairyairey wrote:
    "Rabid hordes of Internet cyclists" - great description of the commenters on this site (self included)!

    Yep, we must be hydrophobic or summat. Anyone got any WD40?
    Smile

  • Core Bike wheel round-up: DT Swiss, Vision, Novatec, Rolf Prima, 3T, FFWD, Token and Campagnolo1 year 8 weeks agoNovatec wheels are available

    Novatec wheels are available from:

    http://www.primera-sports.com

    (I've no connection to them, just found them through Google after reading the article)

  • MPs debate tougher sentences for drivers who kill while banned1 year 8 weeks agooozaveared wrote:teaboy

    oozaveared wrote:
    teaboy wrote:
    2 words - vehicular manslaughter.

    Having lived a while in the US (California) that American offence is almost exactly the same as our offence of "Causing death by dangerous driving".

    The difference is that the US set out the aggravating factors with a tariff. If you are drunk or if you have prior convictions. Basically for vehicular manslaughter sober with a clean licence you get about a year in the county jail. If you were drugged or drunk that becomes Gross Vehicular Manslaughter and that will get you between 4 - 10 years probably in state prison (tougher crowd). If you are drugged up or drunk and have priors it'll get you 15 years to life in a state prison. In some circumstances where it's more than negligence ie if you were speeding away from a crime you could be tried for murder. That's mandatory life. You'd be unlikely to receive the death sentence and even if you did it wouldn't be carried out. The only people that ever get the sentence carried out (even in Texas) are the really nasty viscious murderers.

    At the normal end of the spectrum the posted sentences are about the same as the UK. The difference is that you probably will get a custodial sentence in California (you probably won't in the UK) if you get a sentence in California it's likely to be longer than the one you get in the UK and you probably will serve most of it. In the UK you'll get out again in less than half.

    People drive more carefully in California.

    Hmm, it's true that California has a better safety record than most US states. But overall, the road safety record in the US is significantly worse than the UK. Drink driving is still a far more common occurence in the US than in the UK. There is a lot of data available and if you go to the NHTSA and DfT websites, you can pull this up and do a comparative analysis.

    The UK road network is amongst the safest in the world, along with other top rated countries including Sweden and Norway. Despite the recent spate of fatal incidents involving cyclists in the UK and despite poor understanding amongst drivers of how to behave around vulnerable road users in the UK, it really is much worse in other countries.

    As for all the talk of penalties against offenders, it's worth bearing in mind that preventing the offences in the first place would be preferable.

  • Boris Johnson in moves to get deadly lorries off London roads1 year 8 weeks agoOk, there are laws against

    Ok, there are laws against pavement cycling and fines - bear with me - presumably because pedestrians are deemed to be vulnerable (compared with cyclists) and society has decided they shouldn't have to interact with cyclists in their dedicated "protected space".

    I can see the wisdom of this (although there are more and more cars on pavements these days), but if it's true, how is it possibly ever reasonable to expect cyclists to interact with massive HGVs without any protection, whether the lorries have mirrors or not.

    Well done Boris for making the effort though. At least we're moving in the right direction on this one.

  • Hydrophobic Spray1 year 8 weeks agoallez neg wrote:What have you

    allez neg wrote:
    What have you got against hydros?

    Hydrophobe. Big Grin

    Could be rabies!

  • MPs debate tougher sentences for drivers who kill while banned1 year 8 weeks agocrazy-legs wrote:Quote:I

    crazy-legs wrote:
    Quote:
    I think sentences for causing dangerous driving are pretty limp. I think a lot of drivers are excused far to easily. That's not my point. My point is that causing death by dangerous driving has a spectrum all the way from stupid and dumb up to knowingly homicidal. And the accused have a spectrum all the way from decent people who are mortified by the consequences of their actions and utterly remorseful and will henceforth be the most careful considerate driver on the roads all the way to people that killed and couldn't give a monkeys and will drive in similar fashion again as soon as they are given the chance whether legally or illegally.

    Doesn't matter. The character of a person is irrelevant. Recently, there have been high-profile cases where a "good Christian who was a bell-ringer at her local church" killed a cyclist while overtaking round a blind bend. She was let off. And only the other day, that Youth worker driving the minibus who hit a cyclist with his wing mirror, killing him. He was let off for being an honest Youth worker, helping deprived children etc.

    Bollocks. Sorry but I don't care if you're a saint or a sinner. Doesn't make a difference if you're the Pope or you've just come out of jail for the umpteenth time. You've just killed someone - whether through "a moments inattention" or through reckless endangerment. The crime should be causing death by driving. Do away with the subjective "careless" or "dangerous". Your actions, which you were in control of the whole time*, have killed someone.

    *I'll accept the very very rare cases of someone having a heart attack at the wheel.

    You then set the sentence to reflect the circumstances but I'd insist on a driving ban, a retest before you're back on the roads and a sliding scale of jail sentence based on the circumstances - more severe for the reckless/wilful endangerment or if the driver was drunk, on drugs, already banned etc, less severe for the "moment of inattention".

    Just read what I wrote again and then think about it for a while. No one is letting anyone off. But the offence covers a spectrum of circumstances and therefore the sentences have a spectrum of severity.

    You know the trouble with giving every convicted person the same sentence whatever the circumstances means that the maximum sentence will probably be reduced to nearer the mean average sentence so no-one someone even those who deserves the full 14 years will get that. And people at the lesser end will probably end up not even being charged let alone convicted because the CPS knows that a jury will think the mandatory 6 years is wildly harsh for that offence and won't convict.

    It happens now in the case of so-called mercy killings where one of an old couple kills the other to stop their suffering. That is murder. The CPS find it hard not to prosecute because a coroner has made a finding of unlawful death. But they know they won't get a conviction because the jury won't convict.

    If you only have one sentence for a crime that encompasses a whole range of factors then that really will let the worst off too easy and let guilty people get away with it.

  • MPs debate tougher sentences for drivers who kill while banned1 year 8 weeks agomrmo wrote:oozaveared

    mrmo wrote:
    oozaveared wrote:

    If on the other hand you have a spotless driving record are completely sober, and through a moment's stupidity a reckless overtake or similar you may still be guilty of dangerous driving but your sentence will likely be less severe.

    But is it a reckless moment, or just indicative of the lack of traffic policing that means you haven't been caught before?

    I do understand that people do things, people make rash judgements, a bad day at work, an argument, running late, etc etc etc. I just worry that the moment things become grey, the legal system starts to think there by the grace of god go I.

    It's not what I said. My point is that there is a difference within the same offence (causing death by dangerous driving) between someon that is guilty of the offence because they did something really really dumb and let's say overtook a lorry, misjudged the speed and someone ended up dead. Thaey are guilty of the offence and should be punished for it.

    However if a banned driver or someone that doesn't even have a licence and has never taken a test, gets tanked up on drugs or booze, steals a fast car to go joyriding, deliberately drive dangerously for the kicks and they kill someone, than that is still the same offence (causing death by dangerous driving) but the factors invoved mean that they should be treated more severely than the first example.

    That's all.

    Same as for murder. World of difference between a cold blooded, premeditated murder for money and a fit of rage that ends up with someone getting killed. Both murders but very different factors involved.

  • MPs debate tougher sentences for drivers who kill while banned1 year 8 weeks agoQuote:I think sentences for

    Quote:
    I think sentences for causing dangerous driving are pretty limp. I think a lot of drivers are excused far to easily. That's not my point. My point is that causing death by dangerous driving has a spectrum all the way from stupid and dumb up to knowingly homicidal. And the accused have a spectrum all the way from decent people who are mortified by the consequences of their actions and utterly remorseful and will henceforth be the most careful considerate driver on the roads all the way to people that killed and couldn't give a monkeys and will drive in similar fashion again as soon as they are given the chance whether legally or illegally.

    Doesn't matter. The character of a person is irrelevant. Recently, there have been high-profile cases where a "good Christian who was a bell-ringer at her local church" killed a cyclist while overtaking round a blind bend. She was let off. And only the other day, that Youth worker driving the minibus who hit a cyclist with his wing mirror, killing him. He was let off for being an honest Youth worker, helping deprived children etc.

    Bollocks. Sorry but I don't care if you're a saint or a sinner. Doesn't make a difference if you're the Pope or you've just come out of jail for the umpteenth time. You've just killed someone - whether through "a moments inattention" or through reckless endangerment. The crime should be causing death by driving. Do away with the subjective "careless" or "dangerous". Your actions, which you were in control of the whole time*, have killed someone.

    *I'll accept the very very rare cases of someone having a heart attack at the wheel.

    You then set the sentence to reflect the circumstances but I'd insist on a driving ban, a retest before you're back on the roads and a sliding scale of jail sentence based on the circumstances - more severe for the reckless/wilful endangerment or if the driver was drunk, on drugs, already banned etc, less severe for the "moment of inattention".

  • Hell of the North East: Newcastle's Cycle Hub puts on Paris-Roubaix inspired ride - and it's free (+ video)1 year 8 weeks agoEntry in.

    Entry in.

  • Hell of the North East: Newcastle's Cycle Hub puts on Paris-Roubaix inspired ride - and it's free (+ video)1 year 8 weeks agoGreat concept / idea

    Great concept / idea Applause

    Riding with a friend from Herne Hill Velodrome to Roubaix Velodrome to watch the race this year, but hope this becomes an annual thing as would be great to take part in the future

  • MPs debate tougher sentences for drivers who kill while banned1 year 8 weeks agoteaboy wrote:2 words -

    teaboy wrote:
    2 words - vehicular manslaughter.

    Having lived a while in the US (California) that American offence is almost exactly the same as our offence of "Causing death by dangerous driving".

    The difference is that the US set out the aggravating factors with a tariff. If you are drunk or if you have prior convictions. Basically for vehicular manslaughter sober with a clean licence you get about a year in the county jail. If you were drugged or drunk that becomes Gross Vehicular Manslaughter and that will get you between 4 - 10 years probably in state prison (tougher crowd). If you are drugged up or drunk and have priors it'll get you 15 years to life in a state prison. In some circumstances where it's more than negligence ie if you were speeding away from a crime you could be tried for murder. That's mandatory life. You'd be unlikely to receive the death sentence and even if you did it wouldn't be carried out. The only people that ever get the sentence carried out (even in Texas) are the really nasty viscious murderers.

    At the normal end of the spectrum the posted sentences are about the same as the UK. The difference is that you probably will get a custodial sentence in California (you probably won't in the UK) if you get a sentence in California it's likely to be longer than the one you get in the UK and you probably will serve most of it. In the UK you'll get out again in less than half.

    People drive more carefully in California.