Video: Danny Stewart rides Scotland’s skateparks – and pulls some top tricks

Hoey's comment heavily implies that it's OK for drivers to use their phone at a red light, or whenever else they determine, at their sole discretion, that it is safe to do so. Why did she not advance this position in her role as a law maker? As to her suggestion that such drivers will disengage from their phone the moment the situation changes - laughable!

The problem is that "bicycles" is being used here to describe unregistered electric motorbikes, and the speed limit does apply to them. (As do the laws requiring motorcyclists to have licences, insurance, helmets, etc.) Nick Freeman knows they don't apply to pedal cyclists because he's a lawyer, but he's using deliberately misleading language because he's a dick and the Daily Mail pay him.

Absolutely, when I had an ebike, Orbea Gain e-road bike, it was very easy to ride at 20 mph, in fact on a commute easier than on my standard bikes because so much of the energy in riding goes into spinning up to speed, once you get to 20 mph it's fairly easy to sustain. The extra weight of an ebike makes little difference once you're up to speed because at 20 mph nearly all your effort is going into overcoming wind resistance; I actually felt that the flywheel effect of the non-running hub motor actually provided a significant aid to maintaining a good cruising speed.

Unfortunately the UK is covered with ill conceived cycle routes built in a rush with no real strategy. The "build it and they will come" mindset taking over from common sense. Routes, often costing millions, built where nobody actually wants them and patchwork provisions in places where they do. We need to sit down and think what we actually want and then plan where it can go. Birmingham is the prime example. A massively complex and over engineered bike route from the university to the city centre, built at the cost of a dedicated bus way, now stands largely unused, with ridership decreasing year on year with a sudden massive drop in the last few months. Why? Well it was built in the wrong place. Campaigning cyclists got it built despite being told it was the wrong route to the wrong destination. Exeter has, it seems, fallen into the same trap. No clear idea of where the demand is, result, a route with no purpose to the many. We can and should do so much better.

Bike, helmet, lycra. That's all most people see and it inevitably ends up as lowest common denominator because all that gets discussed is the bad stuff, true or not.

Bike, helmet, lycra. That's all most people see and it inevitably ends up as lowest common denominator because all that gets discussed is the bad stuff, true or not.

It's only natural that they'd try to use the huge active travel pot as we all know that there's never any money available for new roads etc.

From what I remember of it, it was plausible that it could have been a balancing reflex, but from the timing of it, it looked more deliberate to me. Personally, I wouldn't stick my knee out for balancing, but would be using my upper body as it's more effective for that due to it being heavier and further from the ground, thus a longer "lever". Certainly, the cyclist's actions immediately afterwards and with the legal action suggest that they're not the nicest person.

Not sure what ebike you have but specialized ones are much easier to use above 15mph. I can do 20 on the flat if the wind is not against me.

“The worst thing is the funding to do this, which will increase danger to cyclists, is coming from the active travel pot,” cycling writer Edward Pickering, the vice-chair of the Exeter Cycling Campaign, told road.cc on Friday." How can it be that funds to make cycling safer will be used to make it less safer? I hope Active Travel England will be casting a very sharp eye on this, and demanding that the money is used for what it is intended for, not the opposite. If it is used to make cycling more dangerous, they should demand that it is returned, so that the cost falls on the tax-payers of Exeter. The article doesn't mention whether there has been an examination of the economic case, which I suspect would show that there wasn't one, with re-opening costing more in the long term than leaving it closed to motor traffic.