The live blog is sometimes slow to load, so please give it chance, or maybe try refreshing the page if it’s really sluggish.
- News

Live blog: When to take a nap during the Tour de France; Sky booed at team presentation + more

Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
27 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
David Icke rides a bike.
Would you like to take another run at that?
That's what Big Brother tells you...
Can only go on what's in the article myself - can't actually read the report itself as none of the links on that page seem to work - how did you get to it?
1984 was written by George Orwell not Orson Wells.
Very brief look at this but I'm not sure it says anything much new, or particularly useful. Yes, they point to "some women who rode a hire bike possibly didn't ride before but might ride after". OTOH the *number* of women vs men surveyed didn't appear to be stated (except for one graph with a n=... - which was a lot less than the 5000 mentioned, and there only about half as many women responding there). Otherwise I think it just covers what regularly comes up (albeit perhaps it has to be repeated): - much fewer women from minority ethnic backgrounds. - Women care about socially safe parking locations far more than men do. - Women feel less safe on the roads due to external issues that they have no control over: traffic, road conditions and infrastructure, and harassment.
Interesting counterpoint to the 'hire bike menace' narrative (obviously with the caveat that the report authors have a vested interest in selling the benefits, but...) Appears hire bike schemes go some way to addressing the cycling gender imbalance and, given the point about parking immediately outside the destination, dockless schemes particularly so. https://micromobilitybiz.com/forest-report-finds-shared-e-bikes-are-helping-close-london-cycling-gender-gap/
@chrisonabike True, things went back to normal once the pandemic was over. In this case, however the problems are still ongoing, and aren't likely to be resolved in the near future. If anything, they're going to get worse. Food shortages are predicted because of the effect that the heatwave has had on crops. This is bound to push prices up. The Straits of Hormuz aren't likely to reopen anytime soon and the strategic oil reserves are running low. Russia is having to import petrol because its own refineries have been badly hit, so that's even more competition for an even more scarce resource. I think that more and more people are going to see cycling as a way of cutting household bills.
I think if "grown up" cyclists * are quibbling about ASLs we've very much missed the road safety point anyway. (Not to mention the wider "better transport choices" picture). ASLs are poor-to-useless "cycling infra", even for their design intent. If the idea is "for less confident cyclists" then a design that requires that you re-position in front of the motor traffic - waiting to accelerate - seems unhelpful. Of course they're only designed to help when traffic is stopped, and you can reach the front in time and if vehicles aren't already occupying them. As we're noting here drivers frequently ignore them - whether that be deliberate, a lack of road craft, because they were concentrating on following the vehicle in front, or because the paint has rubbed off. * Aside: shouldn't cycling also be safe and accessible for kids? Or should they only be allowed to do this when accompanied by sufficient qualified adults? Or be limited to parks and otherwise being driven around by their carers? Perhaps there is another way...?
Hi Bungle, I saw you follow-up comment. I can't imaging there's a tolerance of 4 seconds on camera enforced lights, seems an odd decision - an offence is committed if a vehicle starts crossing on a red, any tolerance is discretionary. There does seem to be some odd thinking about 'advanced stop lines' where the rules relating to them are identical to a regular stop line, as explained correctly elsewhere in the Highway Code. It does seem a regular offence. Where I live it doesn't help that some of them are very faint and disappear in rain.
27 thoughts on “Live blog: When to take a nap during the Tour de France; Sky booed at team presentation + more”
That seems a bit harsh… I
That seems a bit harsh… I lose track, but haven’t we now all agreed that if there was no case to answer on Froome’s salbutamol matter, and the various governing bodies are all happy, then everything is copacetic…?
brooksby wrote:
I had to look that up.
Chateau!
davel wrote:
Are you sure you didn’t mean Gateau!
So if there’s no drug case to
So if there’s no drug case to answer for and no one in the Sky team has recently crashed/abused/tripped a popular rival, then the only thing left to blaim must be….
Brexit!
Disgusting behaviour from the
Disgusting behaviour from the alleged supporters of cycling. You could see the team were not impressed.
Pathetic. I hope Sky do
Pathetic. I hope Sky do really well in the Tour. And not just because I have a tenner on G. Each way, mind.
S_P_A_C_E_M_A_N wrote:
To win or to crash? 😉
Disgusting behaviour, such
Disgusting behaviour, such ignorant barbaric people. Team Sky can shove it in their faces by winning it.
This is what happens when the
This is what happens when the media, assisted by the UCI leaker, Hinault & others, feed the barbarism. We’ve seen it repeatedly on this website and many others. The sport is the poorer for it.
Vaughters is expressing concerns about security: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/05/team-sky-tour-de-france-rival-education-first-chris-froome-jonathan-vaughters
Thanks to all the haters for screwing things up, you fucking morons.
All this booing is pretty
All this booing is pretty poor, but no worse than being called a fucking moron for having a fact based differing opinion.
Go figure.
don simon wrote:
opinion
əˈpɪnjən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
1.
a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
fact
fakt/
noun
noun: fact; plural noun: facts
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
So you can’t really have a differing opinion about something that is fact. It is fact, that’s it. No question.
Obviously you can have an opinion about the methods used to reach that fact and apply the appropriate debate skills to discuss such a subject.
Martyn_K wrote:
opinion
əˈpɪnjən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
1.
a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
fact
fakt/
noun
noun: fact; plural noun: facts
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
So you can’t really have a differing opinion about something that is fact. It is fact, that’s it. No question.
Obviously you can have an opinion about the methods used to reach that fact and apply the appropriate debate skills to discuss such a subject.— don simon
Back out of the woodwork, are we?
WADA & UCI decided to drop charges as they weren’t able to do a reliable test. That is the fact. He hasn’t been proven innocent, just not guilty. You think he’s innocent based on that fact, I think that I’d be naive in thinking that the peloton is clean and that he’s had a lucky escape. If you can’t deal with that, it most certainly isn’t my problem. I will get more robust with responses hereon in.
[/quote] Back out of the
[/quote] Back out of the woodwork, are we? WADA & UCI decided to drop charges as they weren’t able to do a reliable test. That is the fact. He hasn’t been proven innocent, just not guilty. You think he’s innocent based on that fact, I think that I’d be naive in thinking that the peloton is clean and that he’s had a lucky escape. If you can’t deal with that, it most certainly isn’t my problem. I will get more robust with responses hereon in.[/quote]
Wrong.
WADA and the UCI never raised ANY charges, therefore there were no charges to drop. The FACT is that those bodies found an adverse test result that needed investigation and decided not to progress with the matter as evidence indicated that there is/ was no wrong doing. This is not my opinion as it has been detailed in all communications from the UCI & WADA.
Your blatant flaming and trolling regarding this matter is tiresome.
If you really think that he is guilty then i suggest you focus your energy on attaining a position or role within WADA or the UCI where you can officially progres your vendetta to reach an endpoint that is obviously badly needed by you. Good luck.
Martyn_K wrote:
I agree.
Jonathan Vaughters, definitely not a Sky fanboy, has a clearer view of the process than the morons. From the link I posted:
In this case, it was public, which is really unfortunate and whoever leaked it — because somebody inside the UCI leaked it — it’s just nasty, vindictive behaviour to do that,” he said. “It doesn’t actually allow the system to work in the way that it should in a case involving a restricted substance, as opposed to a banned substance.”
So before you all cry ‘foul’ and ask for beheading, bear in mind the… oh sod it I give up, you simply don’t give a shit about facts. <sigh>
And if you don’t like being called a moron try being a bit less moronic.
Martyn_K wrote:
Wrong.
WADA and the UCI never raised ANY charges, therefore there were no charges to drop. The FACT is that those bodies found an adverse test result that needed investigation and decided not to progress with the matter as evidence indicated that there is/ was no wrong doing. This is not my opinion as it has been detailed in all communications from the UCI & WADA.
Your blatant flaming and trolling regarding this matter is tiresome.
If you really think that he is guilty then i suggest you focus your energy on attaining a position or role within WADA or the UCI where you can officially progres your vendetta to reach an endpoint that is obviously badly needed by you. Good luck.
You’ll have no problem going into detail about what the evidence is then, will you? Repeating that there is evidence, isn’t evidence in itself. This moron is perfectly happy that the hard of thinking can’t stand that there is an opposing view.
Challenging a position is not rolling, so grow the fuck up. If you’re tired,you know what you can do too.
Keep on supporting Froome, I don’t fucking care. Let him race (UCIsay he can) I don’t fucking care.
I’m surprised it took so long to not raise charges after an AAF. You seem to think it was simple, 9 months says it wasn’t. Not being charged does not prove innocent.
Sad really.
Sad really.
Let’s just hope that all they
Let’s just hope that all they do is boo. If i was Froome i’d rather that than having piss thrown at me or even worse.
The best way to answer these people is to go and win the thing.
If Froome is on the podium for any stage or even at the end the meeting with the badger is going to be an interesting watch!
Or will he take his own
Or will he take his own advice and strike!
Sky should be twinned with
Sky should be twinned with Millwall FC – No one likes us, we don’t care!
In the meantime the Froome fans will be happy that he’s competing and the anti-Sky can please themselves by asking how if Froome won the Giro sans asthma nebuliser, why did he need one at last year’s tour?
The rest of us can just hope to enjoy some cracking sprint finishes, at least one successful breakaway and some beastly days in the mountains.
Froome needs to go on the
Froome needs to go on the counter attack and have a bottle of piss to squirt at ‘fans’.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
That’s not a bad idea at all. He should definitely make sure his bidons are clearly labelled though
.
StraelGuy wrote:
“Bleurghh..!! Don’t remember having asparagus last night!”
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
With or without salbutamol?
Sad shameful behaviour. Mob
Sad shameful behaviour. Mob mentality.
Eat Gateaux wearing your
Eat Gateaux wearing your chapeaux in the chateau on the plateau.
It is just strange that all
It is just strange that all other riders previously caught with AAFs remain so silent. Don’t they deserve equal treatment, i.e. to be exonerated?
Really fascinating and
Really fascinating and illuminating words from Jonathan Vaughters talking to The Cycling Podcast about Froome, anti-doping, WADA and more:
https://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/a-pre-tour-de-france-ramble-part-two-episode-23
Those wishing to remain ignorant should not listen to in case they accidentally learn something.