Videos: Crowd-pleasers Peter Sagan and Fernando Gaviria wow fans in US and Italy

Hookless is still a bad idea. I agree that it should be safe when all guidelines are adhered to, but that is not always going to happen in the real world. I've had several clients come to my workshop with bikes that they've bought 2nd hand and have no idea what I mean when I ask about their hookless rims. Just yesterday I someone with a Scott bike with Zipp 303 S hookless wheels; he'd been pumping his tubed tires up to 90-100 psi on them, because that's what he's always done. I had to educate him and he's now going to be using his new 30mm tires at 60-65 psi and checking that his pump is somewhat calibrated. Why do brands like Zipp continuing to put people in dangerous situations that are totally unnecessary?

I can't think of anywhere I have seen cyclists getting more space than pedestrians unless we count the fact that twats in cars like to park blocking pavements as a matter of course around me. I would also suggest that if you want people to travel around an area effectively instead of using a car, cycling is the best way to do it. I wouldn't walk 2-3 miles to get somewhere but I would happily cycle it because it would take me about 1/4 of the time or less.

There is basically no cycling infrastructure in Edinburgh that is not either a shared footpath or shared with motor vehicles. Cyclists are subservient in both cases. On shared use paths this is by legislation and common sense. On the road it is because most cycle lanes in residential areas are parking spaces, bus lanes have busses in them and the lanes segregated by wands peppered with give ways to cars every few feet. And people still park in them. Pretty much the only exception is that side of the extremely wide path through the meadows, for a few hundred yards. The total width of the paved region is probably wide enough to land a light aircraft, there is absolutely no restriction to pedestrians and pedestrians completely ignore the cycle markings on one side anyway. Given the colossal amount of space given over to motor vehicles in the city, which are predominantly single occupancy, and the fact it is illegal to cycle on all of the pavements dedicated formpedestrians, I going to put this guy's comments in the "idiotic" category.

I believe the Miners Pension Fund has proved a nice little earner for Government coffers, generating a huge surplus and that Government has been pocketing half of it. This payment that you apparently resent so much is a partial settlement of that unfairness!

Mr Fraser would seem a perfect paraphrase of the old cartoon about the millionaire with a thousand cookies telling the working man with one cookie to watch out or the immigrants will steal his cookie...incidentally, in this age of obesity I often see pedestrians far wider than me and the bike, not to mention people with pushchairs twice as wide or more, they don't feel guilty about the amount of space they're taking from me, or so I surmise from the way they wander into the bike lane whenever it suits them...

Motor-heads are the champions of false equivalence.

10 years in prison for killing a cyclist should be the minimum sentence. The objective is to raise awareness and remind motorists they must remain vigilant at all times when behind the wheel. Drivers who harm people and/or damage properties shall be sent to retest. No excuses. No exceptions.

@wtjs No remorse from the 84 year old driver though. " He fully accepts responsibility and places no blame on the cyclist whatsoever". Which seems to imply he'd like to blame the cyclist if he could.

Hookless and yet still ‘just 1585’ grams. No and no . The only thing ‘industry leading’ is their marketing team that convinces folk to part with their money for this product.

@wtjs That's how it works, though. The defendant expresses remorse. You can believe it or not, as can the judge. On the face of it, he is remorseful. Accepted. The Judge goes on to clarify that his remorse is effectively nullified: the defendant knew (or ought to have known) better; he had all the information he needed to know not to do it. So the judge has done what he needs to do: he acknowledges the remorse, takes it at face value and shows his balancing of the circumstances. If he did not, there is a chance it could be part of a sentencing appeal - "the judge did not take into account my remorse"... Well he did, and you're still a See You Next Tuesday! Now, whether 9 years and a time-limited ban are sufficient is a matter for sentencing guidelines which, without evidence to the contrary, I shall assume the judge has followed. My opinion is that the extended re-test needs to have a strong attitude test component, for a start, but that anybody who has caused death through such negligent regard for safety should not be permitted to operate a sewing machine, let alone a motor vehicle.