road.cc live blog: Stop Highways England banning cycling on the A63, Froome racing is “super bad” for cycling says Tony Martin, Aussie speed awareness campaign pulled (and more)

In France, the closer the cyclist gets to the Mediterranean Sea, the weirder car drivers behave. Some of them being repeat road deliquents. Encounters with 13, 31, 34 and 84 may prove hairy. Drivers with plates showing 84 (Vaucluse) think light signalling is no longer necessary before making a turn or exiting a roundabout. Pity UAE Team came to the decision not to press charges.

@MaxiMinimalist We can fear such a ban to varying degrees. But I'd be surprised if it happens. Even if it does the police don't have the resource and time to deal with dangerous drivers. So I guess they will ignore it anway.

Sooner or later, there will be public calls for cycling ban on specific roads and / or at specific times of the day. The great divide that separates cyclists from drivers of motorized vehicles with 4-plus wheels isn't going to narrow anytime soon. In spite of the net-zero madness, there is zip political ambition to allocate massive funds to cycling, build proper infrastructure, elaborate a nationwide integrated cycling network, educate all road users. Why? Because motorists of all kinds are voters and taxpayers.

@Smoggysteve Right - as I say, though - that's a separate debate, that I'll leave to others.

AS I read this, I was wondering hao many other legal e-bikes may have been seized and crushed as a result of this bogus test? As I pointed out recently in a reply to a Facebook post that stated that e-bikes are limited to 25kph/15.5mph any bike, whether a pure pedal cycle or an e-bike, can exceed this speed if the rider can pedal hard enough, or when going downhill. The regulation just states that the motor must switch off at higher speeds. If the rider can achieve higher speeds unaided, that is legal. The test that the police used just demonstrated the maximum "speed" achieved by pedal power alone with no or little resistance can be much higher than the motor cut-off speed.

@ROOTminus1 Unfortunately, people will still do all they can to get past. the MGIFs can't help themselves and are a danger to everyone not only the cyclist.

It was going to weigh them up, but they were below the limit.

Clearly driver training and the driving test need to change to meet modern time poor driving conditions. I suggest the following need to be added to the practical test : 1) Undertaking on pavements. 2) Close passing cyclists or horses at 50mph.(It is clear from the comments on this website that cyclists do not appreciate how difficult a skill this is to master). 3) Threading between bollards to park on pavements near fast food outlets. 4) Steering with the knees while using a mobile phone and eating a burger or sushi, depending on the area. 5) Fighting with cyclists at roundabouts. For the advanced driving test the fighting will be with gangs of Hell's Angels or Mods. 6) Handbrake turns. 7) Driving at speed after all night parties. 8) Selecting the wrong gear and smashing into somebody's living room. The theory test could be shortened to make room for these practical additions. Maybe it could just be distilled down to learning crucial phrases like : "The cyclist came out of nowhere!" "I had the children in the car." "I had hunger knock and urgently needed an egg Mcmuffin." "I didn't see them." "I had been to a party and was wearing different shoes."

The headline states the article will "weigh up the pros and cons" but doesn't really provide any argument for keeping the limit. Or maybe it's to "weigh up the pros (of lowering the limit) and cons (of keeping the limit)"? Beyond having a different limit for either/or women's races/smaller riders, which I can see a strong argument for, I don't really see the point of just lowering the absolute limit. What will it achieve? We'll end up with aero bikes at the new limit but instead of costing £10-15k, it'll be £15-20k and we'll still hear more complaining about everything in the bike industry being so expensive. Sure, no one's forced to buy the TdF bike, but it does anchor the price ceiling, which will have an effect on every other model. There's a focus in the article on companies being able to make lightweight bikes again, or for pros to race on them. Well, they already exist for those that want them. And the pros? We might have a few years of bike choice, but we'll still end up with everyone using the aero bike at the new weight limit but with lots of expensive R&D and new materials that need to be paid for. Especially lightweight bikes don't have a right to exist. A 7kg bike from 20 years ago is the same weight as a 7kg bike today. I think what's more interesting is the suggestion of scaling the weight limit with rider weight. That feels fairer. But could it remove an advantage that a bigger sprinter might have over their colleagues, for example? We could end up with just the same style of rider across a whole race. It also feels like it doesnt make much sense to just map the men's limit onto the women's field. But then if it's an arbitrary limit, does that matter either?

FFS France always seemed like a safe place to ride a bike, outside Paris that is. Can't see the Department number in the photo - hire cars traditionally have been registered in Oise (60) and many still are, though not all. Does make you wonder if it was a Brit on holiday. Only road rage driver I've experienced in Spain was in a hire car, and that was relatively benign - brake check and windscreen wiper / fluid squirt.