Garmin announces ride-specific map improvements and faster route calculations for Edge computers

"And if you are cycling up the Cavehill Road, they expect you to stop, cross the busy road before the fire station, cycle 100 yards and then cross back across the busy road at the lights again. Who thinks that anyone would do that? Cycling down the Cavehill Road, I would not stop, cross the busy road to get on the cycle path, I’ll stay on the road." If that's true then I'd do the same. Poorly designed infrastructure is worse than none at all.

If drivers all over the UK adhered to speed limits and drove in accordance with the highway code, cyclists/scooter riders etc wouldn't need all these traffic calming. cycle lane changes, and maybe drivers wouldn't kill 300+ children every year.

@Pub bike I don't think they can prove it. Thats what they are saying. They can use it as an indication to guide further testing but as an actual "gotcha" its not going to work. I don't know if this is all part of a strategy to make people so paranoid about getting caught that they don't even try to get away with it.

@Gravel1-2 If that was going to be a smoking gun the teams would likely just be circumventing it. Fiddle the power data either pre-flight or post-flight based on the motor usage. If someone has gone to enough effort and expense to create an invisible motor inside a WT team bike that doesn't set off any more obvious red flags like weight, random buttons, scanning etc then they will get around this one as well.

Also rather confused that they appear to be concerned that people might not be able to park outside a fire station. 🤔

I think you'll need to take that up with the media and society more widely. These things only tend to get attention / become 'news' when people make a fuss about them, and people are much more likely to make a fuss about things they're against than they are things they're in favour of. If road.cc were only to pick up stories where people were being universally positive about them, there basically wouldn't be any.

The irony of people complaining about cycle lanes making it harder to drive to a fun run.

(Some) people are always "not against change" as long as it's the kind of change that doesn't... change things. Or at least not anything that changes their current convenience. OTOH it's hard to get beyond "me, my kids, my elderly parents and my sick ferrets *need to* (something involving driving or cars) - now you're saying I just can't do that?"

As we spend some time on formal campsites we often see these, and are genuinely mystified. Compared to a high quality lightweight tent that boringly goes on the ground they cost far more, seem to take at least as long to set up, have less space inside, don't let you so easily cook in bed or easily get to all your stuff, and require you to get in and out via a ladder, as well as taking up all your roofbar space and making your fuel ecomomy worse. Our bikepacking tent cost a fraction of that, is easier to get in and out of, judging from setup times I see at campsites isn't really more of a problem to put up, leaves all our kit immediately to hand and being 48 Kg lighter and packing much, much, much smaller means we can take it by bike if we want. 🤷‍♂️

It's a bit tiring that any good news about new, decent cycle infra is always written through the lens of angry locals' "concerns" on road.cc. We all know that there will always be some whiny antis people when it comes building anything for cycling, and it's about time these moaners were given far less column inches – especially on a cycling website! 21 local residents is fewer than the number of people in my local pub on a Thursday night, yet almost the whole article is dedicated to platforming their NIMBY views. It would be much better to read about how this scheme fits into the wider context of new routes and plans in Belfast, as well as some specific details about where the route will be, if its fully segregated, etc.