Legs may not be the only things shaved, come July…

@SVXY Of course because cycling on a 60mph road is far more dangerous than cycling in a 30mph zone and you need footwear with the strongest grip to react quicker if needed

@SVXY So sandals are permissible footwear for cycling if you're riding at 15 mph in a 30 mph zone but they are not permissible footwear for cycling if you are riding at 15 mph in a 60 mph zone? I'm afraid this is how trolls always give themselves away because clearly no human being with the capacity to operate a computer with sufficient adroitness to post a reply could genuinely be that stupid.

mdavidford It says you can ride 2 abreast and must have consideration for other road users. So if you ride three or more abreast you could be prosecuted for careless cycling with your inconsideration for other road users under the highway code used as evidence by the CPS

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.

@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 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

@SVXY This is a curious tactic - rebutting your own argument with your very next sentence.

Affordable? Starting at £6K? You 'having a larf?

@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.

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.