The best mountain bike deals this week

and I found that I had to tighten the laces more or less to the maximum to get my long and slim feet to feel secure - a nice 🖕 to e n 1 with wide feet

@kingleo Yep. Somehow a helmet prevented any serious head injury, in an impact strong enough to break an arm (a bone comparable in strength to the skull...) And people will quote this as proof, while ignoring that the person making the statement has relatively limited expertise. For useful data on effectiveness of helmets, see skiing - similar risk, similar level of protection (to the extent that some ski helmets are certified for cycling) and better data (usage tracked by lift gate photos; milage tracked by uplift from lift passes at lift gates; injuries tracked by piste patrol rescue against lift passes; recent massive changes in rates of helmet wearing). Oh; Huge reduction in all injuries; No impact on fatalities (and minimal impact on serious injuries); Basically for skiing, wearing a helmet is well worth it, because it means you don't lose half a day and pay a small fortune for the piste patrol to take you down to the clinic at the bottom to get your cuts bandaged. But the helmet isn't preventing death. Its preventing cuts that a decent first aider can treat. I suspect this is similar to why you should wear one mountain biking - the minor cuts and bruises become a LOT more serious when your in the middle of nowhere with access requiring specialist equipment or long hikes.

@markvr It is pearl clutching to want to try and ban something because of a danger that only exists in your imagination. Cargo bike stopping distances are not actually much higher, because most of them have 203 mm discs with four pot callipers, so although they are heavier they have much more stopping power. Additionally, a cargo bike carrying 100 kg of bricks is not going to be ridden fast and so the rider will often have a better chance of seeing, anticipating and stopping than a solo cyclist. You're just making up a danger that simply doesn't exist, where are your examples of people being put in danger or hit by cargo bikes?

"AI spots nearly 19,000 'shocking' road offences" But cyclists. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39wzpegqgd9o As I've said previously, when it comes to road safety enforcement... "We have the technology. We just don't have the political will to make it happen."

@EK Spinner My guess would be because it means you can have a normal length chain. If the rear wheel was 1m further back from the normal position, it would require a chain 2m longer.

@Rendel Harris I'm surprised that they still have site access privileges given the racist comments about an MP the other day

@Rendel Harris what an absurd response. Of course I think of my children's safety. It's not pearl clutching to do that. They are much more vulnerable and less predictable than someone who is experienced at commuting every day. And whataboutery is not a valid argument. Just because something else is also dangerous doesn't negate my point. Your stopping distance is much higher on a heavy cargo bike, you are much less agile. At some point you shouldn't be mixing with vulnerable cyclists and should use the roads. Bike paths are for cyclist, not carrying heavy cargo around. At 15mph 100kg of bricks hitting you is going to do far more damage than a person would. At some point you should be on the roads, not weaving in and around pedestrians and other cyclists.

@markvr Won't somebody please think of the children! If you think about it without pearl clutching histrionics, you are much more likely to be crashed into by someone on a standard bike riding irresponsibly fast or weaving in and out on a cycle path. Because of the nature of cargo bikes and their loads they will be ridden slowly and will not be zipping in and out of the other traffic on a path. My area of London is cargo bike central both for people carrying kids et cetera and for delivery riders and I've yet to have a single incident with a cargo bike, whereas it's an unusual 25 km commute where I won't have to take evasive action against somebody riding a standard bike foolishly or inappropriately for the conditions or cirumstances. I've never even heard of somebody being hit by a cargo bike, I'm sure it must've happened somewhere but seems to be a very rare event. Your kids are far more likely to be in danger from cars and other motor vehicles, even when they are pedestrians on the pavement, than they are from cargo bikes, sensible concern is one thing but baseless paranoia is another.

@EK Spinner they are often used to carry children, which is easier when they are in front.

I don't want people carrying heavy cargo on bikes around me and my kids when we are on cycle paths! There should be a maximum weight allowed for an ebike. All these photos of people showing off about how much they can carry on a cargo bike scare me. What happens if they crash into me or my kids with hundreds of kilos of paint or whatever? At some point it's safer for everyone else for you to be on the roads in an electric van. Bikes are bikes. They shouldn't be used to carry heavy equipment around other cyclists. Your ability to steer and stop is massively reduced when carrying heavy loads and at the point you should be on the roads, not on bike paths.