Funky bike racks hit New York

@mattw "I think we already have a “safety system” on our roads – that interventions are evidence based." Partially. We can - for example motorway design/rules are a fairly good example of a broader "safety first" approach. (Possible exceptions being the removal of some the hard shoulders to add capacity - more on "capacity" later). BUT contrast what happens on other roads. Particularly our "multi-function" urban roads which act as both "places" (parking, lots of pedestrians about) and "routes" (motorists wanting to pass through). Under e.g. the Dutch system that would be a fundamental conflict of interests which would need to be resolved (streets / roads should serve a single function). There is a fundamentally different starting point: the Dutch system starts from "*everyone* can travel *safely*". But baked into the UK system is the notion of "flow of *motor* traffic" being at least as important as safety. Thus it ends up making it OK to provide for vulnerable road users effectively as an afterthought - and particularly at the expense of their convenience, because that motor traffic capacity is one of the most important things. (In the machinery of local government we have all kinds of metrics related to this which ensure that happens e.g. "journey time reduction" etc. which is what Chris Boardman et al. were looking at). This also helps explain why "our roads are relatively safer than other places in Europe in that context" We have achieved safety by literally driving the vulnerable road users off the streets! As many streets have effectively become roads it then becomes logical to all that they are "for" motor traffic, and people should just get in the car. That has become self-reinforcing. And for anyone left who can't / won't it's "well ... take your chances; or use the narrow footway, wait several minutes to cross the road at the lights or descend into the occasional unpleasant and socially unsafe pit of an underpass..." Note that NL road safety is still very good *despite* having a sizeable fraction of the population cycling, including the rather young and old. (Cycling is (in isolation) probably inherently a little more risky that walking - I don't have numbers though). And IIRC it's safer specifically for *pedestrians* there (despite all those dangerous cyclists...)

In this case, it got to that speed by use of the throttle alone, when power should have cut out well before that, so it's not quite such a terrible test as the one where they turned the pedals and said "there - see - it's doing 45!". That said, reaching more than walking pace with just the throttle should be a fail*, so the actual speed it reached is neither here nor there. [*unless it's ancient]

The Mekon

LeBron's rack just looks like a Canyon LOAD front rack to me - £38 on their accessories page

"Tiger Woods gets five-year driving ban after reckless driving plea" I guess he won't be facing any exceptional hardship... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y7xvpn5kno

@chrisonabike given the incredible efficiency and effectiveness of the DVLA I am inclined to believe him I agree - the Paragons at DVLA have been insufficiently lauded as the best thing since Border Force, and I'm sure they'll get around to BF64 TGE when they get the chance. After all, they and I know where he has lived since 2021. And as for HY66 ZZB... although I don't know where HE lives

I'm curious how your tires' inflated width was so large on 21mm internal width rims. 28mm tires having WAM of 35.7mm, on 21mm internal width rims, is way out of the norm. I've got 30mm Conti GP5000 S-TRs on 25mm internal width rims, and they have a WAM of 33mm and change. The usual rule of thumb is that for 2mm of change from the design rim width, the inflated width will change 1mm. For 28mm tires, the design rim width is 19mm (ETRTO), so with 21mm internal width rims you'd expect the tires to measure a millimeter larger in width, give or take another 1mm or so due to the ETRTO tolerances on measured tire width. What tires are you using?

One thing we tend to forget until something like this happens. Even the greatest of riders can be beaten by the nature of the sport itself.

So lifting the rear wheel and hitting 58mph is still considered a meaningful test? I guarantee it never went that fast with his 51 year old arse sitting on it. But never mind that - he should have his nads removed.

@mattw I can see value in EAPCs having a cut off at 20mph, theoretically to ease traffic in 20mph zones I can't. Fortunately, it's not going to happen because of the current 'anti-ebike' climate. So, the right outcome for the wrong reasons.