Video: Women in Iran defy fatwa forbidding them from cycling

I'm going to defend Steve slightly here. I disagreed with him on the larger front lights, where in a given "programme" you an still cycle through high/medium/low/flashing modes, which is plenty to cover most use cases, without needing to change into a different programme. But with these small lights, each "programme" only consists of a single constant level and single flashing level. And with only six options in total, cycling through all of them wouldn't seem too onerous. I certainly find with my TraceR, if I'm riding by myself I'll typically use Programme 1 (the brightest option), but if I'm riding with other other people , I want to drop the power down to a lower level, which does mean changing programme. Given my usual cycling club meeting point is ~20 minutes from home, this means starting in P1, changing to P3 when I get to the meeting point, then changing back to P1 for the ride home. Again, you do get used to it and it's not the end of the world, but it ends up being more faff than just cycling through a few more options, as you would with pretty much any other light. I'm also going to agree that the button can be a bit hard to find, especially with gloves. I don't think it would be a problem for a front light where you can see what you're doing, but trying to press the button on a seatpost-mounted TraceR whilst riding can be tricky! All that said, my TraceR, like my Sirius, is still going strong after several years. I have various other lights knocking around, but the TraceR is still the one I reach for first.

I did not want to click in so I'm assuming that Lancaster Police are more interested in catching the person who sprayed the dog faeces than the person who didn't clear it up. Spraying it makes it easier to spot so that someone else doesn't tread in it, helps authorities identify it so that they can clear it up, and maybe, just maybe, the perpetrator will see it and feel a tiny bit ashamed. Shame on you Lancaster Police, but then that is what others here have been saying for a long time.

Sadly yes, the UCI does need to apply some thought before this all gets to the peleton. It can't be caught banning rider protection, but we can definitely predict: - Some riders seeing airbags as a reason to take risks that they previously would have avoided. - Rules around what happens to a rider when their airbag actually deploys (rather than the dodgy head impact roadside checks we currently see, it would allow a clean 'your out rule' - but teams are never going to like that, especially in multiday races (probably part of why the head impact accelerometers used in other sports haven't appeared in cycle helmets)). - Teams using them as a method to also sneak in aerodynamic advantages. Without some rules it will turn into an all out design war with rider cooling and actual effectiveness of the airbags taking a rear seat). - Cost. Arguments about what happens when some of a race have airbags but not all. Does it need to be mandated as all or none, and if so, at what level of racing?

Note that Deda measures handlebars outside to outside. So you need to deduct 2cm to obtain the center to center width for each listed size.

Well in a sense, it ended up being their own money they wasted, and presumably they are a tax payer, so maybe the software knew what it was doing to start with.

Victims, not witnesses, have the right to know.

Apologies for the misplaced apostrophe in taxpayers', voice recognition software does its thing once again. PLEASE can we have the edit function back?

Good to see the Mini driver got nearly £1000 of costs on top of the fine and points, maybe they will think twice in future about wasting court time and taxpayer's money when they are so clearly bang to rights. This smacks of the usual defence lawyer stratagem of taking it to court in the hope that the witness won't show up.

This is the case for many pieces of cycling infrastructure IME - they are not actually that safe or at least not safer than riding on the road with the other traffic, often due to poor design. However, they make many inexperienced people FEEL much safer, and that is apparently more important than reality. Fortunately, just getting more people on bikes does make cycling safer for everyone who is cycling, and this seems to have worked in this case. Therefore, in a very roundabout way, having this infrastructure in place does increase overall safety. Of course, it would be even better if the infrastructure was done right / intelligently and did directly improve safety, but we can't have everything. Small steps.

In other words, they aren’t interested in preventative policing In other, other words: Get yourself KSI'd and we'll see what we can do Disclaimer: ...unless any motorist objects on the grounds of 'war against the motorist', or the cyclist swears while being hit etc. etc.