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 £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.
18 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@FionaJJ These officers deployed next-level stupidity, and it must be difficult for the police to find people this dim. It doesn't even need rolling-roads or whatever, just a reputable bike computer on a quickly changed mount for the difficult cases where a proper EAPC has been modded, although you would need to look hard in Lancashire to find a police officer who knows how to make a pedal cycle go. Most illegal electric motorbikes are immediately obvious, not least because the crim is wearing a face mask. I saw an obvious one tonight coming out of Garstang Sainsbury's, not pedalling but without a face mask because everybody knows that the police only come into the town to hide away in the police station 200 yards away.
Gustav Gullholm.. that's not a good look mate
@Chris RideFar I think what you meant to say was "REMOVE this and put it on PODCAST CC".
As Mary Whitehouse never said - one doesn't have to read the article if one doesn't want to read about an off-road bicycle.
@FionaJJ In London they're allowed to stop on single and double yellows to deliver packages or empty pillar boxes; in practice they take this as carte blanche to park wherever and whenever they want, such as this chap on the Brixton Road who pulled into the bus/cycle/motorcycle lane without indicating, as I approached at 20mph, to park on a red route, response to a remonstrance, "I suppose you never get post delivered do ya?"
@Rendel Harris We have a pavement parking ban, but around here at least, royal mail vans are already exempt, subject to certain caveats, such as allowing at least 1.5m, and only being stopped to do their work.
It was already embarrassing for the police that they made such a mess of their attempt to determine whether a bike was legal or not, but I had assumed it was a group of well intentioned, but under-trained officers acting on their own initiative, having spotted something they thought looked not quite right. I'm now discovering this was a planned activity, something sufficiently organised to have been given a name - Operation FRISLEN, designed specifically to identify and remove illegal e-bikes and scooters. It's apparent that the officers were sent out without adequate training, never mind the kind of equipment that should be used for this sort of work. I'm not saying they always need specialist equipment to spot all illegal bikes, but at least if they'd been given a demonstration with that equipment, they'd have realised why their approach was not going to end well.
Have put drop bars on a 2001 B1 mtb, a 2007 stumpy hardtail and a 2010 stumpy full suss. In all cases fairly basic conversións leaving gearing and wheels broadly the same and concentrating on correct positioning of bars and fit. Oddly, with all 3 I was happy with the result when recently done, but after a few months found that the extra speed on easy trails was more than offset by the lack of ability (probably mine) on tougher routes and finally preferred flat bar with slammed and inverted stem as best overall compromise. Good fun playing around, though.
The photos in this review look they are for a different bag?
This is a strange reactionary knee jerk overall. But what is this "are essentially motorbikes in disguise" waffle? "One letter claimed that high-powered electric ‘e-bikes’ were “essentially motorbikes” in disguise, with many being used without lights, helmets, or any hi-vis clothing." Surely, they simply ARE motorbikes?
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