Its been a while coming but finally I have made the time to get the podcast up and running.
The plan is to have it monthly for the time being. There is some interaction required so please get involved.
First edition of the podcast is online or on I-Tunes
Sat, Oct 09, 2010 14:27
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.
11 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
More Opinion
Latest Comments
Rome73 1 hour ago
I’ve got a G-Line. I quite like the look of some of that bling. I can’t imagine any of it will be cheap though. :( It’s already quite an expensive bike.
mdavidford 2 hours ago
@SVXY It does not say you can't ride three or more abreast. It does not say that to do so would be inconsiderate. I'm afraid your opinion that it would be has no particular legal status.
SVXY 11 hours ago
@SVXY Rule 66 of the highway code says you can ride two abreast but to also 'be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups.' It does not say you can ride three or four abreast which would not be considerate of the needs of other road users. As the highway code is used by prosecution lawyers as evidence to convict in Road Traffic Act offences cases you certainly could therefore be prosecuted and convicted for careless cycling if cycling three or four abreast
mdavidford 11 hours ago
@SVXY This is a curious tactic - rebutting your own argument with your very next sentence.
No Reply 11 hours ago
Affordable? Starting at £6K? You 'having a larf?
chrisonabike 11 hours ago
@SVXY Ah, so it *is* the "flood the zone with shit" argumentation technique then? Or perhaps ... you are genuinely unclear about the difference between the Highway code and the law (and perhaps the difference between cyclists, drivers and indeed horse riders? And rusty on safe practice? As mdavidford notes you appear to be confusing rule with Rule 66 (for cyclists, which doesn't say anything about not riding x abreast) with Rule 53 (for horse riders which gives guidance not to more than double up - I don't think this is a direct summary of any law since "should" not "must"). Charitably I'm going with "*i* know what it says!" which as I noted many of people feel they do. Anyway away with you, I feel you've had your fill of attention for today.
kingleo 12 hours ago
Road tax was abolished in 1937 by Winston Churchill because, as he said, "road tax makes motorists believe they are the moral owners of our roads." He got that right.
SVXY 12 hours ago
@SVXY None of the magistrates who sentenced him said the CPS should have charged him with dangerous driving. Why should they? He was not speeding, he was not on his phone and he was not drunk or under the influence of drugs either
Rendel Harris 13 hours ago
@SVXY The court does not decide on whether someone was driving carelessly or dangerously, they can only decide on the guilt or otherwise of the defendant on the charge the CPS decides to lay against them. The CPS is notorious for preferring to charge careless rather than dangerous because it's an easier win; this results in entirely unjust sentences such as this one.
SVXY 13 hours ago
@Rendel Harris Wearing sandals may be fine if cycling on tracks over fields or in a quiet residential street with a 20 or 30mph limit. It is not sensible cycling on a 60mph main road
11 thoughts on “First edition of the podcast is online or on I-Tunes”
Which pro-tour team?
At this
Which pro-tour team?
At this point, I think Sky – largely because they’re not tied to things that are done because they’ve always been done that way. (Brailsford’s interviews on the topic are interesting – switching the order of massages & meals, f’rinstance). If Sky didn’t have room, then Garmin as a second choice, largely because of the anti-doping stance, the Cervelos, and presence of Thor….
Gah, I’m an idiot. Francaise
Gah, I’m an idiot. Francaise Des Jeux, of course. Best kit in the entire peloton and Lapierre bikes.
I know I gave away which team
I know I gave away which team I would choose on the podcast, but I am going to keep my reasons to myself until the next episode.
FDJ is a good choice though, but I want to ask… new or old jersey ?
Not strictly ProTour, but who
Not strictly ProTour, but who is Liz Hatch riding for now? I’d be part of her team simply cos I think it’d be fun in the showers afterwards.
Pictures Simon, or it didnt
Pictures Simon, or it didnt happen !!!
This is the best Flickr has to offer…
JEEZ! Can anyone confirm
JEEZ! Can anyone confirm whether or not the UCI’s 3:1 aero rule is enforced in situations such as these? I think I might get a pair fitted!
Calm down boys! Hmmm, the
Calm down boys! Hmmm, the people I follow on Twitter who complain about women’s cycling not being taken seriously may have a point 8|
Simon_MacMichael wrote:Hmmm,
Goodness me. I have great respect for women cyclists! In the same way I give women tennis players equal respect as the men, I look at what the great women riders are achieving these days. Brilliant stuff! But some sportsmen and women choose to sell themselves on their ‘sizzle’ rather than their ‘substance’. Tennis has Maria Sharapova, cycling has Liz Hatch. I don’t think such reactions are anything to get too hung up about or take too seriously as an overall indicator of the acceptance of the sport.
Sorry, perhaps should have
Sorry, perhaps should have used 😉 instead of 8|
😉
it works both ways doesnt it
it works both ways doesnt it – look at david beckham (if you must), not the best player in the world but he sold himself on his looks. It doesnt mean women dont take male sportspeople seriously.
a topic for the next podcast
a topic for the next podcast perhaps?