Five cool things coming soon from Giant, Assos, Santini, SunGod and Hutchinson

They've got that covered: cycles don't count as mobility vehicles currently, and "accessibility" is clearly covered by "provide motor vehicle access" because they can use taxis!

@Johnny Rags all our faves. "What's the big deal? Just go round. Where do you expect me to park? We always park here. Nobody's complaining. It's only for a minute. I'll move it if it's blocking something."

@60somethingcyclist An optimist eh. Given Andypandy's very first appointment has been an arch-Blairite corporate lobbyist, the clear maneuvering going on within the PLP to get Wes "Hammer of the Doctors" Streeting in as Chancellor, and that he began dropping previous principled stances on for example immigration and trans rights during his Makerfield campaign like a pirate chucking stuff overboard to lighten his ship, I'm less sanguine. I'm reasonably hopeful he'll at least do enough to stave off a total Reform obliteration at the next GE, and that if we're very lucky he'll actually stick to his plan to make electoral reform part of that campaign(though frankly I'd prefer if he just got on with it now and bugger the manifesto - loads of governments have ignored them, they only become graven in stone when that's a convenient excuse for inaction), but beyond that I'd take those expectations to a smithy and get them tempered.

The new proposed laws seem to be manifestly excessive and are designed to allow the police to win more prosecutions against cyclists as well as appeasing the general public who tend to overreact to any tragic mishap i.e. accident by wanting somebody to go to jail for a very long time. In the meantime where are the safe cycle spaces in the UK? They don't exist because the authorities save a lot of money by criminalising unfortunate and often unavoidable accidents that are caused as a result of inadequate infrastructure.

The argument "where else am I supposed to park?" is often used by drivers who have parked illegally. Why are you trying to make it my problem? It's your car. Park it on the fucking moon for all I care.

Yet another dumb idea. Too many variables. Just look at the latest Lorena Wiebes fiasco. Does anybody actually like UCI, can they just go the way Guy Fawkes intended the Palace of Westminster to go? Get sensible people like Adam Hansen to come up with a more sensible governing body with a set of fair but sensible rules.

I can think of some people who shouldn't be let out. Although, in fairness, the heat isn't a relevant factor there.

The outcome of this will be interesting... "A Texas woman is suing Tesla and a driver … after one of the electric vehicles crashed into her family home..." "... after a Tesla Model 3 sped into their shared home." "The Tesla driver told police that he was using the car's autonomous or "full self-driving" technology at the time of the crash." "Musk took to X ... to refute the idea that Tesla's self-driving technology was to blame for the crash because it happened at a high speed." "... the driver was going at 73mph (117 km/h) and had overridden the car's self-driving mode "by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%."" "... the driver "had the accelerator pushed even after the crash"." "... the driver was operating his Tesla on "in a reasonably foreseeable manner" with full self-driving engaged when the car's technology "failed to detect the end of the street", went into "sudden unintended acceleration" and crashed into the Barbour residence." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8x2rzke05yo

Please can cycle lanes have this sort of protection? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbjEkU26e90

It's a major retail/business destination in and off itself not just a through route, the way you frame it you'd think it was a back water, that's simply not the case, even if the bit closer to the city centre is a bus/taxi/cycle only space. Have you considered some through traffic using a different route is a success and by design? Not a failure. 🙄