You might need to give our sometimes sluggish live blog a good few seconds to load. Failing that, it usually emerges if you refresh the page.
Live blog: Cancellara v Gaimon; Strava stats reveal what athletes are eating and drinking; Movistar rider Jaime Rosón is suspended pending investigation into adverse biological passport finding + more
All the cycling news from this site and beyond…
Fri, Jun 29, 2018 13:08
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn’t especially like cake.
10 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
mattw 4 hours ago
The cyclist here needs to look into Section 142 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, firstly because there was no offence, and secondly because it appears that the police mislead the Court. "A magistrates’ court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so;] and it is hereby declared that this power extends to replacing a sentence or order which for any reason appears to be invalid by another which the court has power to impose or make." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/142
mattw 5 hours ago
I wonder how well advised the cyclist was in Court? And in this case would cycling legal insurance cover the cost of a specialist solicitor?
mattw 5 hours ago
@quiff I would expect the police had not been trained with the change, perhaps.
Rendel Harris 5 hours ago
@courteousdriver The Highway Code does not differentiate between cars and bikes in this instance, it says that when overtaking parked cars you must give way to oncoming traffic. It's not for you to decide whether or not they have sufficient space in your opinion, you should not drive in the oncoming traffic lane if there is any oncoming traffic, full stop. Not a difficult rule to understand and one that one would have thought a self-named courteousdriver would have no trouble obeying.
mattw 5 hours ago
@mctrials23 It seems to me that the car moved closer to the kerb on his side of the road, and the cyclist was able to proceed entirely within his own lane - both at very slow speed. So there is no ground for an offence. The concerning point is that the copper thinks that the same "gap" should apply to the different types of vehicle. That's peak carbrain.
quiff 6 hours ago
Peripheral to your point, but parking facing oncoming traffic is advised against at all times, but only an offence at night, I think?
Rendel Harris 6 hours ago
@mac f 1896 If you look closely at the video you will see that the cyclist remains entirely in his own lane on his side of the white lines as he passes the oncoming vehicle, which also stays entirely within its lane. There is therefore no need for either road user to give way to the other and as they are both travelling at low speeds there is no danger to themselves or to any other road users. I would love to see a transcript of the magistrates' court proceedings as prima facie there is no justification in law for the guilty finding or for the penalty imposed.
chrisonabike 6 hours ago
@perce pedantry but I think Séamus Ennis would be scunnered with that ... had he not been Irish... (Uilleann pipes are bagpipes of course, though personally I'd much rather those - or small pipes - than the GHB)
HoarseMann 6 hours ago
@quiff I think you are probably right here - but - is that _really_ being inconsiderate to the oncoming driver? Looking again at the video, the oncoming driver appears to be over the centre line when approaching the parked vehicle and just seems to be straightening the bend a little, so you would expect them to be moving towards the kerb anyway. As driving interactions go, it's about as benign as it gets. I expect the magistrate has never ridden a bicycle, but I also wonder if they've ever driven a car?!
chrisonabike 7 hours ago
Thanks - I only had a quick peek on Streetview and I'm glad it works for locals, but it looked like "you say 'shared used facility', I say 'same old not-over-generous footway now with the odd blue sign". We don't need cycle paths absolutely everywhere, but looking at the size of the road, where it goes and runs though I would be thinking more like this (minus parked cars): https://maps.app.goo.gl/gswbQefKzc47nEJm8 Or... declare it an urban freeway and get rid of the junctions and houses next to it! Maximum flow...
10 thoughts on “Live blog: Cancellara v Gaimon; Strava stats reveal what athletes are eating and drinking; Movistar rider Jaime Rosón is suspended pending investigation into adverse biological passport finding + more”
Extremely misleading headline
Extremely misleading headline on the Mottram story. Reading the copy it’s clear how out of context that headline is – making him out to be cycling’s equivalent of Gerald Ratner. This site is getting more clickbaity by the day
Zebulebu wrote:
It’s been like this for many many years.
Zebulebu wrote:
crap laggy comments double post
Zebulebu wrote:
That’s the inevitable consequence of a business model which depends on advertising – to pay the team & cover the costs, they’ve got to have revenue. One way of getting revenue is selling advertising. To sell advertising space, you’ve got to have visitors. Too attract visitors, you’ve got to have clickable headlines.
Building up a loyal, regular, valuable readership based on high quality content alone without clickbait headlines takes a very long time, and may not even be a sustainable model nowadays.
I’d agree that there are many clickbait headlines here, more than there used to be. But we’re still voting to support them with our mouse clicks, so they’re doing something right.
Don’t like it? Click elsewhere.
Almost Daily Mail esque in
Almost Daily Mail esque in creating a clickbaitable headline from something by lack of context.
N.B. If there was any doubt that’s NOT a compliment.
pastyfacepaddy wrote:
Guess what guys? This is a business. How much do you pay to read this site? I thought so.
Give them a break.
simonmb wrote:
Guess what guys? This is a business. How much do you pay to read this site? I thought so.
Give them a break.— pastyfacepaddy
Time is money. I lost £0.27 reading this site today.
Nonsense – regarding the
Nonsense – regarding the Mottram headline, it’s not clickbait it’s simple reporting.
Mottram himself said that statement himself to be ‘inflammatory’ so to the trolls above, go and piss over his chips, or Matt Barbet’s who published the interview, you’re not forced to read the site.
peted76 wrote:
Who the fuck are you calling a troll? I’m pointing out that something has been taken out of context. Or do you not understand that? If he’d said that to be inflammatory, trust me – Rapha have an army of publicists who’d do a much better job of using it – it would probably end up in a marketing brochure. There’s a big difference between pointing something out, and someone who is ‘trolling’ (eg: deliberately winding people up to get a reaction). And yes, I am aware that I have fallen spectactularly into that trap here…
I understand the need to drive revenue through clicks. Editorial content needs to be paid for somehow (hence the seemignly endless videos of people being close passed, with attendant wittering in the comments and (true) trolling. However – there is a huge amount of value to be gained in treading that line between compelling content and commercial/’sucker’ content. I’m merely pointing out that this fails to tread that line
Mottram article seems to have
Mottram article seems to have gone from the live blog now. You’ve hurt their feelings