road.cc live news blog: no charges relating to mystery package, school cycle number plate debate, Manchester’s missing Mobikes and more

I'm curious how your tires' inflated width was so large on 21mm internal width rims. 28mm tires having WAM of 35.7mm, on 21mm internal width rims, is way out of the norm. I've got 30mm Conti GP5000 S-TRs on 25mm internal width rims, and they have a WAM of 33mm and change. The usual rule of thumb is that for 2mm of change from the design rim width, the inflated width will change 1mm. For 28mm tires, the design rim width is 19mm (ETRTO), so with 21mm internal width rims you'd expect the tires to measure a millimeter larger in width, give or take another 1mm or so due to the ETRTO tolerances on measured tire width. What tires are you using?

One thing we tend to forget until something like this happens. Even the greatest of riders can be beaten by the nature of the sport itself.

So lifting the rear wheel and hitting 58mph is still considered a meaningful test? I guarantee it never went that fast with his 51 year old arse sitting on it. But never mind that - he should have his nads removed.

@mattw I can see value in EAPCs having a cut off at 20mph, theoretically to ease traffic in 20mph zones I can't. Fortunately, it's not going to happen because of the current 'anti-ebike' climate. So, the right outcome for the wrong reasons.

@chrisonabike I think we already have a "safety system" on our roads - that interventions are evidence based. That's why 20mph zones have been ticking up to 30%+ of residential roads over 3 decades. What we also have is politicians who are timid or cynical sometimes - and do not listen to the professionals. And the scope of the safety system is sometimes too limited, with vulnerable road users not getting enough of a look in. And we have - just like in defence - endemic short-termism from the treasury, and a mindset that is still stuck in 1976 or earlier at strategic level. I'm still not sure why our roads are relatively safer than other places in Europe in that context !

@mattw "The one I really want (as an activist for disabled accessibility) is crowd sourced (ie Op SNAP) enforcement of pavement parking everywhere. In the meantime we can do it on certain types of parking eg Zig Zags." I think that would be really helpful, but I think even that may be a major battle. I'm in Edinburgh where there's all the legal backing needed, there seems to be real support (at least, in the centre of town...) for sorting this. But (anecdata alert - and I'm several miles from the middle) I'm not seeing much of a reduction in the amount of "just stop and get out", or even use of the footway as overspill for drivers who can't be bothered to drive accurately / wait for others to move out of their way. Ultimately it does need the driving force of "social disapproval" - which I suspect is not there (unless someone's parked in "your space"...). Here's to more "entitled pedestrians"! I can see the police not getting through Op Snap stuff (I believe several forces have effectively stopped - if they started...) And someone then making the call that this should all be abandoned as more likely to be a negative to "public order" overall. (A few drivers with anger management issues start to punch "camera vigilantes" in the nose etc).

@chrisonabike I'm certainly in 2 minds, and that would cause a political firestorm amongst the culture warriors - Lord Hogan-Howe's mob in the Lords for example. And the Telegraph and the Spectator would wet their pants. I certainly think there are more important battels to win first. The one I really want (as an activist for disabled accessibility) is crowd sourced (ie Op SNAP) enforcement of pavement parking everywhere. In the meantime we can do it on certain types of parking eg Zig Zags.

Hmm. These images appear to have been 'liberated' from an ancient APPGCW report, so I'm not sure you should be claiming credit for the first one. Also, they're just used as generic illustrative filler of modified ebikes in that report. While there might be a reasonably good chance that any given modified bike is non-EAPC-compliant, I'm not sure there's any evidence that any of these specific ones are.

@kingleo Agreed. If you come to an immediate stop from 50mph, no degree of head protection is going to protect what's inside from irreparable damage. To consider helmets as part of this discussion is nothing more than a distraction.

@mattw I am not keen on "just 5mph more..." for EAPCs. People say "but safety - it will reduce irritation and overtaking because keeping up with the cars". But we all know that "MGIF" applies regardless of speed limits. In reality most people simply aren't cycling (full stop) but specifically they're consistently not keen to cycle in traffic (who is?). So we would be just upping the average speeds on the few shared use / cycle paths we have. Pedestrians will love that... The "how fast *should* cyclists be going" debate is not resolvable*, but places with the highest density of cyclists seem to have landed on "no assistance beyond 20kph". Yes - "cyclists" can keep up 18 - 20mph+ (and regular folks could on level ground with a velomobile...), but AFAICS the folks that are the target for EAPCs mostly aren't that kind of "cyclist". I have sympathy for injured / older roadies who want to have the option of being able to keep up on club runs. But that's arguing for a limited sports interest to be facilitated by rules for the general public. Nor do I think that just because they have this in the US we should. Bringing in road transport policies from the US has a ... spotty history. So I just see this as reducing everyone's reaction time and adding energy to any collision situations. * Except for the unhelpful "It's zero - they shouldn't be cycling except in velodromes..."