Win cool Garmin stuff on Facebook with the Cycle Show!

Agree re speed limiting. Why is there no mention of 25km/hr limit in the article?

Does anyone know if ‘the police’ even read all these Roadcc road safety articles? Does anyone send them all to the relevant authorities on a daily basis? …if not we’re all wasting our breath.

@KiwiMike The pannier carrying capacity is similar 18kg vs 15kg. The quote was about carrying panniers not the deck. That aside I agree they are not really comparable but for different reasons: - the Tubus Duo is made of chromoly steel which won't crack anywhere near as easily as an aluminium rack - and to demonstrate Tubus' belief in their products they offer a 30-year guarantee vs the Old Man Mountain's "reasonable lifetime of the product" warranty which is entirely up to OMM whatever that means.

If you crash, obvs. If a weld fails or a boss cracks five years hence, chances are they’ll warranty it.

That’s … really not even comparable. In therms of weight capacity, mounting, top stowage, light mounting, etc. As per article, you can get the mass a fair way rearward of the axle using the OMM rack.

@Rendel Harris Hmm.... I stand corrected. I still think Obree had a /lot/ more talent. And Jan-Willem today clearly has dropped in levels, relative to those he's racing against.

I cycled a lot on the continent and have done fir many years. I've never been close passed, and only once had a scary overtake by an oncoming vehicle. Im close passed almost daily in the UK and dangerous overtakes are common. Some serious driver education is needed here, not to mention presumed liability legislation.

@TrainWalkWheel at least one person on here seems to have better understanding of these than I do but AFAICS the model is even less likely to lead to good outcomes than happened with eg. a certain UK bus company. The one notorious for moving into an area, putting the existing providers out of business by running more services for pence and losing money, then - having captured the market - jacking up the price and dropping services. At least in that case the intention was presumably to deliver a self-sustaining service in the end (albeit perhaps a worse, overpriced one). But AFAIK mass bike share itself has never made money directly. So one wonders what the end plan is if any one of these market-share-capture firms actually won? (Presumably that isn't important and it's all about trading / financial shenanigans in some way. I doubt they could hold the local authority to ransom for the extra cash...)

Alas it's another part of "because cars / 'change', we can't just copy a well-proven design eg. from NL" On top of this is the UK "not invented here" making it up / no expertise or standard designs AND a "we must fit cyclists in around existing road space" causing strange contorted layouts. So what happens is we get things like bi-directional cycle *lanes* (not separated cycle paths) because cheapest / easiest to patch in. So that means that pedestrians don't have a space to wait *after* crossing the cycle space and *before* they have to deal with the road. (It also puts another block in the way of cycling convenience at traffic lights - say at a T-junction - because unlike NL the lights then apply to cyclists going straight on, whereas in NL that would be an informal cycle path crossing for pedestrians with no lights applying to the cycle path part - so cyclists just keep rolling).

In 2019, Shanghai and other Chinese major cities implemented strict regulations and clean-up operations tp remove millopns of abondoned dockless bicycles that had created public nuisances and blocked pavements. One can't blame local authorities for taking actions in order to stop a messy situation triggered by unruly users.