Lance Armstrong grows rabbit ears

@perce I'm not sure I agree with that. I think thats just confirming that he is take fully responsibility and recognises that the cyclist could have done nothing to mitigate it.

If we don't fight it now, we'll all end up forced to wear baggy shorts!

@Rendel Harris Agree, I am baffled that the 84 year old who is now banned from driving for year can then start driving again without a retest. We should be re-tested regularly.

@mitsky Just checking the figures and apparently the 2026 average cost is £58,000 per year per prisoner; worth noting that is only the direct cost, you then have to factor in ten years of lost tax income from the prisoner, ten years that the prisoner is making no contribution to society as a worker or as a consumer, plus the fact that if they were the primary breadwinner very likely the costs will include benefits for their family as well. None of which should be a reason for keeping violent recidivists out of prison of course, nor drug/drink drivers who kill, but it is a factor worth considering for lower-level offences.

@Surreyrider I ride in Surrey a fair bit and absolutely many do look like that but the point is they all *think* they're driving perfectly reasonably (as one discovers when remonstrating with someone who's skimmed one by 30cm, "I gave you masses of room") so deterrent penalties have little effect. That's why we need to strike at the root cause and actually train drivers properly and test them stringently (and more than once over the course of a potential 70+ years of driving, it's absolutely absurd that competence and knowledge in what for most people is the activity in their life that will run the biggest risk of killing people you never have to have your qualifications renewed).

@mitsky Imprisonment currently costs over £50k p.a. per prisoner and obviously that will rise over the course of a ten-year stretch with inflation. Regarding culpability and mitigating sentences etc, of course I'm not against condign punishment for drivers who kill (and cyclists on the tiny, tiny handful of occasions when this happens), including prison as appropriate; I was objecting to the ridiculous and oft-repeated demand of MM that drivers who kill cyclists must get ten years, "no excuses, no exceptions".

Hey, but their wool blend cycling adjacent t-shirts are/were fantastic.

@Surreyrider Still the boss. Ride one, you'll see why

@Smoggysteve "Most would happily ride on the roads and be treated with respect by drivers". But people aren't - and as far as I can see they won't be. Not until there is a lot less driving and it's slower around cyclists, and far more people driving have "skin in the game" eg. they sometimes cycle and their friends and family do also. That's what leads to the model - which is perhaps most advanced in NL - where cycling, walking and driving are all seen as separate normal transport modes. Their needs, vulnerabilities and any dangers to others are considered. And *that* leads to "mix / share when possible, separate when necessary". But "possible" is "where your 10-year old would be safe to cycle unsupervised" - so very few motor vehicles, going slow! And AFAICS everybody - even "existing cyclists" - is happy with the result. (I dunno about a few pro cyclists - but don't they tend to have training camps in different counties anyway?)

@quiff as an Edinburgh resident I can confidently say he's speaking without moving his lips in one sense: - while as I noted in a separate comment there *is* now some real separated cycle infra, all the examples i can think of have *at least as much space* for pedestrians. The rest of the "cycle infra" is essentially similar to the situation in the rest of the UK: eg. bus lanes*, cycle lanes and shared use paths (eg. "build" infra by sticking up a sign). Edinburgh is one of the places with a moderately extensive network of former railways which have been converted to "shared use" paths (completely motor traffic few). However though shared they are not narrow by UK standards. And this is all effectively a "free extra" for all non- motorised users, not like the "sign a cycle path" where pedestrians do lose space. I think this all comes from the "popular understanding" of cycling in which ultimately cyclists are the "other". They don't fit "motor vehicle" or "pedestrian" (including wheelchairs on the very rare occasions people think about that). Thus "cyclists are cheating" in multiple ways! They shouldn't get their own space as "there aren't enough" of them. And "they can just use the road / path". But being able to *choose* "on the road" or "on the footway" (shared use path) is clearly unfair - nobody else gets to do that! BUT of course even if they did pick just one of road OR pedestrian space it's still not fair anyway because they're "too slow" for the road (don't pay "road tax" etc...) and "far too fast" for pedestrians... * Though some existing cyclists may appreciate them when there are few buses, buses and bikes are a very poor mix for several reasons.