This may not be the best bike for sale on ebay, but it is certainly the best bike description, in fact it’s probably the best product descrption bar none. Worth hitting the link and reading the "Ask the seller" questions and answers too… Sadly though, this item has ended – isn’t that just always the way.
Sickest item on ebay… probably
Tue, Mar 03, 2009 17:10
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.
road.cc’s founder and first editor, nowadays to be found riding a spreadsheet. Tony’s journey in cycling media started in 1997 as production editor and then deputy editor of Total Bike, acting editor of Total Mountain Bike and then seven years as editor of Cycling Plus. He launched his first cycling website – the Cycling Plus Forum at the turn of the century. In 2006 he left C+ to head up the launch team for Bike Radar which he edited until 2008, when he co-launched the multi-award winning road.cc – finally handing on the reins in 2021 to Jack Sexty. His favourite ride is his ‘commute’ – which he does most days inc weekends and he’s been cycle-commuting since 1994. His favourite bikes are titanium and have disc brakes, though he’d like to own a carbon bike one day.
1 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
More Opinion
Latest Comments
Gd29 19 minutes ago
These might be justifiable for a pro bike shop that might use these daily, and claim back VAT and claim them as expenses, effectively taking another 20% off. But for a consumer £50 a pair has passed the justifiable threshold for a convenience accessory that is easily misplaced! At £20, maybe £25 they would be a no-brainer. £30-35 would be justifiable. IMO
mdavidford 1 hour ago
@SVXY You're almost correct - it does say - specifically in Rule 53 However, this applies to horses. For clarification, horses are not bicycles.
SVXY 1 hour ago
@chrisonabike Add reflectives to high viz too then. You can't safely overtake a bus unless it has stopped, certainly not on a rural road and nor can you safely overtake 3 or more cyclists riding abreast. You would not be able to see what was ahead, hence it is forbidden in the highway code. People in cars on Sunday mornings might be taking their kids to their football game, going to church, seeing family for lunch etc, they also don't have time to be stuck behind cyclists all day
belugabob 1 hour ago
@ribena or we can keep on highlighting ridiculous attitudes until it finally becomes apparent to the perpetrators that it's unacceptable. Ignoring them makes them think that nobody disagrees with them.
jaymack 1 hour ago
I have a pair, they're an absolutely brilliant idea, simple to use and store in a jersey pocket. They're perfect for popping to the shop or pub from a campsite or cycling onto a ferry in normal-ish clothing and footwear. I'm not sure the review's right about indoor trainer use, I certainly found my feet just moved around too much. Mind you, that's not really what they're for. That very minor issue aside they remain this year's top purchase.
FionaJJ 2 hours ago
@mitsky That's what terrifies me. It's one thing to accept that humans make mistakes, but another to act like you never did anything wrong. He comes across as someone who is convinced he is the real victim in all of this. I'm less bothered about the lack of custodial sentence than I am about the brevity of his driving ban. If not being drunk or on his phone is considered to be mitigation, surely being an actual professional driving instructor means he really ought to have known how to watch the road!! The lack of compassion and humility should also be considered. He didn't even have the gumption to fake it. Someone else suggested that being close to the verge may have given her some protection, and I'm sure it did when it came to the actual collision, but I wonder if she'd have been a bit more visible if she had been further away from the edge?
chrisonabike 2 hours ago
@SVXY Feel free to come back when any of that relates to this case. Or indeed makes sense by itself *. Actually, don't, if you would be so kind. * As you don't need reminding: hi-viz has little to do with night visibility, what you're after is reflectives; although those have also proved of zero guarantee of effectiveness in some other "the cyclist was there to be seen..." cases. And if you can safely overtake a car and certainly a bus (4 abreast seating - with an aisle!) you should have no difficulty overtaking said group of cyclists (you appear to have an abreast-fixation - FWIW I've never encountered more than a momentary 3-some). Assuming you were a competent driver. Or indeed waiting until they had turned off / moved over. Your reminded that another thing the Highway code doesn't say is "you MUST overtake slower-moving traffic..."
SVXY 3 hours ago
@SVXY At night a cyclist not in high viz will be hard to see and 4 persons cycling abreast are not only near impossible to overtake but cycling against the highway code which states you should not cycle more than 2 abreast. There may not have been provocation from the cyclist but there was no evidence of mens rea from the driver either. No cyclist should of course ever ride in sandals unless say a track over fields, even on a 20 or 30mph limit road that would be dangerous let alone a 60mph one
SVXY 3 hours ago
@mitsky Why should you be banned for life if you weren't even judged by a court to be driving dangerously, as he wasn't? At most he should maybe have got a few years longer ban and mandatory retest
chrisonabike 4 hours ago
@SVXY Shurely some feeble attempt at humour here! Or are you saying that a person on a bicycle in daylight is invisible from behind unless wearing hi-vis (and perhaps that's contributory negligence or recklessness?) but 4 persons (not sure where you get that from?) are ... also invisible? Because per previous comments about no mens rea you couldn't possibly be suggesting that this amounts to provocation, because that wouldn't apply if it was an accident. And careful competent trained driving instructors (no doubt fully in command of their emotions and committed to safe road use) wouldn't be provoked? Also: presumably 4 persons sharing the back seat in a car or bus are exempt from this "abreast" rule, even if the conveyance is not moving at all? Unless they're ... wearing sandals??
1 thought on “Sickest item on ebay… probably”
The Skidometer has gone round the clock…
“I did once do a skid that went on for 2 weeks”…a work of genius.