FroomeSprog – Tour de France champ announces birth of first child

I should know, I was one Must be why you're so good at writing bollocks, especially pro-police bollocks

the excuse that cycles are not fitted with speedometers seems very lame in this day and age The police just love their dodge that no cyclist speedometer is anything other than a worthless child's toy, rather like the bike it's monitoring, so I'm not keen on the idea that the b******s can suddenly choose to accept them when looking to victimise cyclists. LancsFilth initially said they couldn't do anything about offences like this because I 'might have been travelling at less than 10 mph which would make the manoeuvre legal '. https://upride.cc/incident/t27gjh_astra_dwlcross/ This was before they hit on the Master Dodge of just ignoring all reports of driver offences from cyclists.

Well done for doing the research. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/20/suv-risks-warnings-road-safety-buyers-uk-study

Not as rare as they should be after taking milage into account. Clearly part of that equation is better education of pedestrians , but I have no issues with making cyclists subject to the speed limits. The majority do not exceed 20mph, except for the rare occasions they have a good breeze or an incline in their favour. Those that have the capability are often already recording their data anyway, the excuse that cycles are not fitted with speedometers seems very lame in this day and age.

But then there would would have been grounds for prosecuting the driver in that circumstance as he would have been substantially exceeding the speed limit. The cyclist was innocent under the law but I consider him profoundly responsible for that death. We ask for considerable consideration by motorists and we have now been given legal backing for it, it does not become us to defend hairing round public park roads in substantial excess of a speed limit considered to offer reasonable safety to vulnerable road users.

Not as rare as they should be after taking milage into account. Clearly part of that equation is better education of pedestrians , but I have no issues with making cyclists subject to the speed limits. The majority do not exceed 20mph, except for the rare occasions they have a good breeze or an incline in their favour. Those that have the capability are often already recording their data anyway, the excuse that cycles are not fitted with speedometers seems very lame in this day and age.

I believe "hi-vis" isn't actually worth that much - certainly not compared to eg. the value of "reflectives" as soon as it gets darker. But even those are still just PPE though - this is the lowest rung (least effective) on the hierarchy of health and safety hazard controls. And "visual aids for drivers" do nothing if drivers don't do their part, no matter how much is worn...

Not the best timing, but not the major issue he's trying to turn it into either. Fitness amongst young people is a problem when it comes to armed forces recruitment, as many are having trouble with the requirements needed to pass the tests because of their inactive lifestyles. This investment will help deal with the problem.

Seemed pretty visible to me - and she was sporting light-coloured hair, bag, footwear and bright trousers. What if she'd been approaching a motorist "out of the sun", or passing a field of oilseed rape or stand of autumnal trees later in the year? If you think that's flippant, note that "sun" and "tree leaves" have been advanced as defense / mitigation in court despite cyclists following guidance ('should'). Frankly she's already done the best preaching possible: been a "normal person" riding a bike.

@60somethingcyclist Looks like you've stepped straight into silly comment mode without looking at all at the actual facts of the case. It has nothing to do with shared paths, the cyclist was on a public road on the vehicle carriageway, the pedestrian was standing on a traffic island waiting to cross. Evidence from independent witnesses shows that the pedestrian stepped out into the path of the cyclist without warning when he was around two metres from her. Much has been made of the fact that he was possibly riding at 5mph more than the motor vehicle speed limit for the road but he could have been riding at 10 mph and he still would have had no chance of avoiding her. The pedestrian was solely responsible for the incident and no amount of "mutual consideration and respect" would have changed that. Suggest reading the articles and evidence in future before commenting with such nonsense.