This week on road.cc

The comments on Facebook where this was shared were fairly standard, 95% anti-cyclist split fairly evenly between: - If you can't see that you shouldn't be on the road [I did try to suggest that at night in the rain with ground mist it might not be easy to spot, "Well you shouldn't be riding then"] - Good, traps for cyclists, hope they catch plenty - When cyclists pay to use the roads they're entitled to ask for repairs and not before - Bike tyres do more damage to roads than car tyres [made me wonder if Nige was spreading his bread far and wide] and of course - When the cracks are big enough to damage my Porsche Cayenne alloys I'll worry. Lovely.

RE: e-bike ban I'm not clear what they're banning here? Is it e-bikes that pupils ride to school on being stored on school grounds? If pupils are riding e-bikes to school they should be at least 14 (in the UK). The school I work in has told me that their buildings insurance doesn't cover them for e-bikes unless they are stored a minimum distance from the school building - apparently our insecure bike rack with no roof isn't far enough from the building. I keep my ebike in my classroom. If there's a problem I'm happy to remove the battery so it's no longer an ebike (the battery will be behind my desk, plugged into a charger). So maybe it's a problem with insurance if ebikes are left in the bike racks/shelter? If they're saying parents can't take kids to school on e-cargo or similar bikes, they can f... off. It's none of the school's business what mode of transport parents choose to use - unless it's illegal or being used illegally (such as all the SUVs stopping on the zigzags outside the gate).

@mctrials23 Same. Ditch. Crash into it if needed.

How do congratulate the BBC for not running that story with an 'e-bike menace' headline?

Free Tim!!!

Bought a couple of bottles, taking one for the team. Will report back.

@mdavidford Yeah, I'm dead suttle.

@Bungle_52 Blimey, I'd be a bit concerned that a school principal could put out such an illiterate message. I make it a round dozen errors in seven sentences. Let Tim ride free!

@Bungle_52 The truck driver is, of course, making a meaningful journey from A to B, so...

Except that it doesn't say anything about fire risk, and unassisted bikes can just as easily be ridden in a dangerous manner (in which case, punish the offenders, not everyone else). They don't seem to have given any particular reason* for it, apart from a vague reference to changes in the law. If they'd said "There's a fire risk from dodgy ones and we don't have the capacity to check which are which" then people might not be so annoyed. As it is, it just gives the impression that they've made an arbitrary decision without much thought or reasoning at all. Tim, on the other hand, is just trouble, and deserves to have special measures taken against him. [* Apparently there was a letter to parents that hasn't been posted, but whatever the contents of that, it doesn't seem to have made the reasoning any clearer to them, judging by the social media comments.]