Bikes to sell cars… Danny MacAskill does it again

@Terry Hutt my first thought was that it looks as if made with Lego

I don't know whether this has been linked to before but it appeared on the Cycling UK forum recently and claims that sentencing for driving offences are broadly in line with manslaughter and that stiffer sentencing does not lead to a reduction in KSIs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHRfClVJg70

Yes, I wonder what effect the excellent 2012 and W1A series had on Brompton sales. They were shown as being a bit naff, complicated to fold and unfold and with a finger trap hazard. Maybe the BBC took the opportunity to have another dig at cycling and cyclists?

Cry me a river architect guy

Hookless is still a bad idea. I agree that it should be safe when all guidelines are adhered to, but that is not always going to happen in the real world. I've had several clients come to my workshop with bikes that they've bought 2nd hand and have no idea what I mean when I ask about their hookless rims. Just yesterday I someone with a Scott bike with Zipp 303 S hookless wheels; he'd been pumping his tubed tires up to 90-100 psi on them, because that's what he's always done. I had to educate him and he's now going to be using his new 30mm tires at 60-65 psi and checking that his pump is somewhat calibrated. Why do brands like Zipp continuing to put people in dangerous situations that are totally unnecessary?

I can't think of anywhere I have seen cyclists getting more space than pedestrians unless we count the fact that twats in cars like to park blocking pavements as a matter of course around me. I would also suggest that if you want people to travel around an area effectively instead of using a car, cycling is the best way to do it. I wouldn't walk 2-3 miles to get somewhere but I would happily cycle it because it would take me about 1/4 of the time or less.

There is basically no cycling infrastructure in Edinburgh that is not either a shared footpath or shared with motor vehicles. Cyclists are subservient in both cases. On shared use paths this is by legislation and common sense. On the road it is because most cycle lanes in residential areas are parking spaces, bus lanes have busses in them and the lanes segregated by wands peppered with give ways to cars every few feet. And people still park in them. Pretty much the only exception is that side of the extremely wide path through the meadows, for a few hundred yards. The total width of the paved region is probably wide enough to land a light aircraft, there is absolutely no restriction to pedestrians and pedestrians completely ignore the cycle markings on one side anyway. Given the colossal amount of space given over to motor vehicles in the city, which are predominantly single occupancy, and the fact it is illegal to cycle on all of the pavements dedicated formpedestrians, I going to put this guy's comments in the "idiotic" category.

I believe the Miners Pension Fund has proved a nice little earner for Government coffers, generating a huge surplus and that Government has been pocketing half of it. This payment that you apparently resent so much is a partial settlement of that unfairness!

Mr Fraser would seem a perfect paraphrase of the old cartoon about the millionaire with a thousand cookies telling the working man with one cookie to watch out or the immigrants will steal his cookie...incidentally, in this age of obesity I often see pedestrians far wider than me and the bike, not to mention people with pushchairs twice as wide or more, they don't feel guilty about the amount of space they're taking from me, or so I surmise from the way they wander into the bike lane whenever it suits them...

Motor-heads are the champions of false equivalence.