Please note our live blog can sometimes be slow to load, so you may have to refresh your browser.
- News

Live blog: Floyd Landis to open cycling-themed cannabis shops (+ great PSA from USADA), Neil Campbell sets new European cycling speed record + more

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 £1.99. 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.
18 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
I'm criticising them for not riding in secondary position, not primary. At least 60cms (2 feet) from the edge of the road as the HC explicitly recommends. Leaving aside the small minority of riders who find mounting and dismounting a bike difficult - which sounds suspiciously similar to the motorists "but, but what about disabled drivers?" when talking about LTNs - what's wrong with able bodied riders walking the few metres over that narrow, Victorian bridge? Sure, if there's clearly no-one on it I wouldn't condemn anyone for riding it slowly, but if it's not clear forcing pedestrians to stop and squeeze to the side is, frankly, a rather entitled opinion. Plus it's easy to hold a road bike a little ahead of you and hold the saddle - normally no need to hold the bars if it's straight - so you're really not taking up much more room at all. There's a railway underpass near me that links to a shared then segregated path. It's narrow, and the path approaches at an angle so you can't see if it's clear, but many riders still choose to pedal through despite the clear 'no cycling' signage. Why?? Personally I don't go that way, except on foot, preferring the surrounding roads.
I think you're giving drivers too much credit. Many would not think twice about blocking the road if it makes their life easier, such as when turning right onto a busy road.
They might have to, but they won't. What they will do is pull out over the cycle path while they wait for a gap in motor traffic.
"We have enough regulation." I agree with the exception being legally allowed to sell something which is virtually illegal to use. How many purchasers own a suitably large piece of private land?
@jackcycles I'm not sure my grandchildren got that memo. Cycling should not be just for hardened road warriors.
Chrisonabike There are a number of police forces in England and Wales that are using portable testing equipment already... How effective it is another matter, I haven't looked into the results of failing (I would hope they just seize and crush the motorbike without any faff but I am sure there are appeal processes, promises not to use them on public roads etc).
Woah there - a precision-engineered European-made product, with unparalleled adaptability, is somehow a ‘rip off’? Compared to what - Temu? As per the article, most quality through-axles go for £50-60+, but aren’t adaptable and don’t provide any stand or trailer capability. If you want to balance your £3-4-5k suspension or carbon bike, or bikepacking setup on a budget product subject to highly focused stresses, fair play. Cycling’s a broad church.
@eburtthebike I've found Spanish drivers to be almost entirely excellent around cyclists.
I agree, the study was made after cycle paths that had been introduced in Berlin during the 70’s and 80’s caused a big increase in cycling deaths. It is an interesting study for cyclists to read in order to know what dangers exist at badly designed junctions. Here in Paris we have very few bi-directional paths. The ones I have cycled on have no building entrances or courtyards (so no cars crossing the path) and every junction is traffic lights to prevent accidents.
We have enough regulation. They're running a motorbike without insurance/registration and possibly without a licence, and the punishment for being caught with all that is pretty severe already. The problem is lack of enforcement.
18 thoughts on “Live blog: Floyd Landis to open cycling-themed cannabis shops (+ great PSA from USADA), Neil Campbell sets new European cycling speed record + more”
When you go out in high wind
When you go out in high wind with the express intention of capturing kotms, you’re measuring the weather and wind, not your performance.
At least 80% of all KOM’s are
At least 80% of all KOM’s are done if favourable weather of course.
If I target a KOM, obviously
If I target a KOM, obviously I’m going to give myself the best chance of success. For a particularaly difficult segment this may include one or more of the following:
Removing unneccessary gear from my bike and person; checking Google street view for exact start and finish markers; making my attempt when there is less trafic about; waiting for favourable wind conditions!
Who goes out to get a KOM with a headwind?!
I wholeheartedly agree with
I wholeheartedly agree with the family of the cyclist killed and I wish them success. The British justice system is a disgrace!
If you’re targeting a KoM on
If you’re targeting a KoM on anything but the most obscure segment, yes you do have to give yourself the best chance of success. Around here there are some very strong riders so to avoid them hoovering up all the KoMs you have to be ruthless and sneaky.
I wish that family success in their legal action.
Is there any point in
Is there any point in pursuing a civil action if a jury has already acquitted someone? Rightly or wrongly, they have been found not guilty and unless there is any new evidence then surely that is the end of it from a legal perspective?
On a lighter note, all sorts goes on with KOMs… drafting, etc. Lets be honest you are unlikely to take a KOM in a headwind. Fair game I say.
PRSboy wrote:
Yes there is, the standard for criminal prosecution is “beyond reasonable doubt”, i.e. there is no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime.
However, civil cases only require “balance of probablities”, which basically means there is >50% chance that the defendent is responsible for the death, even though other logical explanations may be possible. This is obviously substantially lower a burden to prove.
In effect, he could be forced to financially compensate them for any negligance in causing the death, even if the bar for a criminal conviction cannot be met.
FlyingPenguin wrote:
Yes there is, the standard for criminal prosecution is “beyond reasonable doubt”, i.e. there is no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime.
However, civil cases only require “balance of probablities”, which basically means there is >50% chance that the defendent is responsible for the death, even though other logical explanations may be possible. This is obviously substantially lower a burden to prove.
In effect, he could be forced to financially compensate them for any negligance in causing the death, even if the bar for a criminal conviction cannot be met.— PRSboy
A good explanation of the difference between criminal and civil cases, to which I would add one further distinction; in a civil case, the decision is made by aa judge, not a jury.
Gail Purcell killed Mick
Gail Purcell killed Mick Mason, killer driver Helen Measures killed Denisa Perinova and Vincent Doyle killed Janina Gehlau. The vehicle of which they were operating killed the cyclist. The courts may not have convicted them of causing death by dangerous/careless driving, but the cyclist was killed by the vehicle they were operating. For me if anything you are doing results in someones death then that must be dangerous, but that’s the law.
To add to the comments above
To add to the comments above – in addition to the standard of proof required it is worth bearing in mind that, for a civil case it will be a judge making a decision – as this is in London and one would assume a high value claim then this will likely to be a High Court Judge or one with similar standing and legal experience – therefore the person tasked with determining if the 50+1% standard has been met will not be a bunch of self righteous motorist incapable of thinking beynd “well it was a dumb cyclist and could have happened to anyone so not negligent/dangerous etc” but instead a highly qualified specialist – now admittedly the “dumb cyclist” view may still be ingrained in that individuals psyche but these are individuals who’s job is to separate a personal opinion from a legal fact – and such finding of fact can be appealed to the Court of Appeal (i.e. even more specialist and experienced).
As can be seen from the OJ case in the use, it is very possible to be guilty “on the balance of probabilities” but not “beyond reasonable doubt” its a 50% vs 95% type of equation.
(No subject)
Anyone else getting some weird adverts appearing on this site lately, or is it just me?..
a1white wrote:
Isn’t that Celine Dion?
best ad ever
best ad ever
But how are horses supposed
But how are horses supposed to dial the 0800 number? Their hooves are too big for the teeny buttons
.
I wonder why you keep posting
I wonder why you keep posting those speed records. It has nothing to do with cycling nor sport.
Maybe if more drivers saw
Maybe if more drivers saw civil action it would make them act more responsibly, especially if the chances of the decision going against you are a lot higher. I hope it sets a precedent, there’s little argument against him driving the vehicle, and being involved in the accident, there were certainly more steps he could have taken to prevent the collision, whether he was guilty of the crime, he was certainly guilty of not doing enough to avoid a collision.
I wonder if Floyd’s Fine
I wonder if Floyd’s Fine Cannabis delivers by hand, internationally, in a sealed jiffy bag?
Looks like someone has had a
Looks like someone has had a bad case of the munchies