Paris-Roubaix: Why the fat tyres?

@yodhrin A brilliant story told by one Ed Solomon: he was sitting in a café in LA and he heard two young ladies arguing over a point in the original Men in Black movie. "I can help clear that up for you," he said to them. "Thanks," came the reply, "we don't actually need an explanation from a middle-aged white guy to tell us what to think." "Okay, no problem," said Solomon and went back to his coffee. Ed Solomon wrote the screenplay for the original Men in Black movie.

Yes all the post war clearances & developments with the car centre stage is / was pretty universal. I think it helps that the NL is pretty flat & easy going so historically has very many cyclists from all ages & walks (or should it be rides) of life, who wanted to keep pedalling & presumably built up a lobbying force to save what they still had & build it back up. I notice the flatter UK towns have far more cyclists than much of West Yorkshire, although York's not too bad. If I lived in a flatter place I would cycle more; I dont mind hill climbs but you always arrive at your destination with a sweat on! The hilly nature is probably still a physical barrier for many resulting in fewer cyclists & lower use of cycle lanes - to be fair most of the lanes are on easier gradient routes, more likely to be used. There's none on the steep climb to our area which as its a dual carriageway is not much fun & feels a lot safer on the footpath. Overall it seems to be more of a sport activity here, rather than mum or dad or gran popping out for a quick shop or kids cycling to school. There are some pretty fierce climbs in most directions. Also the "broken" routes where C lanes stop & start awkwardly, usually at junctions, means you cannot just flow along, you have negotiate some tricky bit of kerbed channel with tight bends or something. All there with safety in mind I'm sure but not good cycling. Its easy to see why some cyclists who just want to crack on with their ride, don't use them. (Not just the freestyle lads who cycle thru every set of lights or diagonally across busy junctions regardless). The C lanes are always subservient to cars, I think largely for economic reasons; so many have to travel miles to get to work & for all its faults the car does the job but of course there are many counter arguments. I heard the NL have experimented in a few smaller towns with removing all kerbs & signage (?) etc so cars no longer have priority. I dont know how successful it has been. I've been in Indian towns where few rules were followed & seemed like an insane free for all, virtually constant gridlock, which I'm not convinced was an improvement! Even with a million pound cycle lane in the park, with all the best intentions, how much difference will it make, given human propensity to do what suits us best regardless of others. Who is going to police it, presuming that the current / previous free for all presumably was not policed? (This obvs is a wider issue) Have there been a spate of cyclist - pedestrian accidents that raised the notion of formal laning? Was it pedestrians who wanted to reduce cycling risks for themselves or the reverse? Is it a minority pressure group/s getting their way when the general park using public actually have other concerns such as better lighting & personal safety & actually arent bothered about the cycling issue either way? I should read up on it I guess!

@eburtthebike The normalisation of lifetime bans would be a good start to changing perception back to the pre-war understanding that driving is a privilege, not a right. And then a reinforcement of Sentencing guidelines can get underway, with a focus on "does the offender pose a continued risk to society?" In the case of the 15y/o's, their parents may not be culpable for the life changing injuries, but they are responsible for neglecting their kids to give them access to such egregious weapons on two wheels. CPS just needs to look further than ends of their noses and i doubt they'll fail to find substantive evidence of negligence.

@lesterama Thats even better.

@qwerty360 Thanks for this info. I've had two failure to identify in my reporting "career". One got away with it completely as it was a hire car through two different companies and they ran out of time to prosecute and one got points and a fine. The latter was NMOTD 946. I won't put a link in or you may never see this comment. If I've had two it must be quite common occurrence. Yet another loophole condoned by the legal system for the well off and unscrupulous.

@stulemanski wrote It depends on the situation but generally I prefer to stay on my bike as it takes up less room than walking by the side of it with pedals ready to catch the ankles of other pedestrians. If it's a no cycling area then it's get off and walk unless it is completely deserted. As for driving in cycle lanes be prepared to be pissed off and be prepared for the police to take no action when you report it with video evidence.

Yes I'm managing to avoid it. Living 60 miles away really helps there... The change to pedestrianisation happening when there isn't a plan for the large number of cyclists in London is really regressive.

@mitsky KSIs are not "usually accidental"; they are preventable. Even the Government's Road Safety Strategy says that - Vision Zero.

NGL, it's quite easy to avoid Oxford St. I mean, who on earth wants to ride through iPeds and their zombie ilk? I say let it go.

Poor Tom, forever remembered for one Code Brown.