Shimano Dura-Ace STI levers

Giant. They're a pretty big company with a reputation to protect. They wouldn't be selling wheels if they were inherently dangerous to use. There are more compatible tyre choices than ever and most of the best ones are anyway. Conti, Vittoria, Pirelli, all have compatible tyres. If I were to look at every bike related scare story over components id never have bought carbon rims with a carbon brake surface (They're made of cheese and delaminate as soon as you touch your brakes) Disc brakes (they'll slice you in two like a red hot scalpel don't you know) Carbon handlebars (they snap and you'll fall under an 18 wheeler) , Wireless groupset (someone can hack into them or something random) A few isolated stories is enough to make people panic. But then people will happily go and buy a Chinese frameset from Aliexpress and swear its perfecto.

Helmets save lives in certain types of accidents. It baffles me that people ridicule cyclists for wearing a helmet. Do they help in every crash, no of course not. Do they help in this sort of crash? Absolutely. Do medical professionals say time and time again that helmets help? Yes they do. Anti helmet campaigning is bizarre in the extreme. Even the Dutch government now asks all riders to wear a helmet.

I think less people than you think care about it. There are plenty of vocal people who won't touch hookless but I imagine there are far more who are riding them without realising or are perfectly happy with them. I have some Zipp 303 firecrests which apart from the utterly junk hubs are hookless and I've had zero issues. I ran them with 28c tyres (25mm ID on that rim) and my system weight is about 92kg.

"The real problem is how unpopular and commonly hated hookless is" Hated is a strong word. I would say many have avoided out of unsure of it, limited tyre choice and mostly unfounded scare stories. I run a set of Zipp 404 Firecrest which are hookless and they are brilliant. Never had any issues at all. Ive covered around 7000km on them so far on bumpy roads and they are very stable.

Yep. Sometimes it feels like councils are just hitting targets and using active travel money in the easiest and least complicated way instead of actually thinking about it. No, cycle lanes aren't going to be used much unless they are in the right places and connect up to other infrastructure. Fundamentally the idea of building infrastructure is to encourage more people to use it. You encourage more people by making its usable. My partner would happily cycle around Tunbridge Wells if there was separate infrastructure for cyclists. There isn't so she doesn't. I imagine a lot of people are the same. Shes not going to walk her bike to a short cycle lane to use it. Shes just not going to bother when 95% of the journey is mingling with cars.

I bought a similar one on Amazon from Wolfbox. Looks remarkably similar to the Muc-Off version. Its great for blasting water from around the chain and hard to reach places water can settle. I found its also really good at getting a tubeless tyre started when installing a fresh tyre. Undo the core, blow in air and it seats the bead really well.

While we can all be glad that she wasn't killed, unfounded assumptions help no-one. “One thing I know for sure, my helmet saved my life." If there's one thing I know for sure, it's that she doesn't know that for sure, it's an assumption based on a damaged helmet. Unless she repeats the same collision in exactly the same way but without a helmet, and dies, her assumption is wrong. It might have saved her from some nasty injuries, but it is unlikely that it saved her life. I thought these "helmet saved my life" stories had finally disappeared, because the death rate of cyclists doesn't fall as helmet wearing rates increase. There are thousands of these stories, many more than the average death rate of cyclists, so either wearing a helmet makes you much more likely to be in a fatal crash, or they aren't true. The death rate of professional cyclists doesn't seem to have fallen since the imposition of the helmet rule, but I haven't checked recently, and the figures are too small to be confident. “Everywhere I go, I try to wear a helmet...." I'm glad to hear that, as walking has the same death rate for distance travelled as cycling, I'm just slightly puzzled about how she washes her hair in the shower with a helmet on.

reply to Velo-drone I think this decision reflects the relative quality of the prosecution and defence lawyers. As far as I can see magistrates have no legal training and are therefore swayed by the arguments of the lawyers. As mdavidford points out the offence is careless OR inconsiderate driving with the empahasis on the OR. This point has been made to the officer concerned but I guess they have to play it safe when they decide who to prosecute with resources and court time being in short supply. On the plus side Gloucestershire are now sending out advisory letters to close passing drivers when I report them so at least they know what they have done. It does seem to have improved most drivers in my local area but there are always the punishment passers. One last point. I have had one close pass report which resulted in points and a fine. NMOTD 931 https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-931-314751 However this did not go to court, apparently the driver admitted it after being shown the video and the only results I've had for close passes apart from that one are when an oncoming driver has been forced to pull in and stop, ie inconvenienced!

It does seem odd to suggest that because it doesn't remove every last bit it's no better than removing very little of it. A bit like saying "if I can't pay off all of my credit card bill this month then I shouldn't bother paying any of it off, because 'the job won't be done'".

Totally - I'd much rather have a scratched up (bike) helmet than a scratched up face. To be honest, I'm not totally convinced that her life was saved by her helmet, but I can understand her believing that after having such a tumble.