Live blog: heart rate poll results, Your Bike History, Froome nominated for Laureus Award and more

@jackcycles If he was on the road, you can almost guarantee there would be an equally ignorant driver saying "why don't you ride on the cycle path"? No matter where he rode there will be someone who has a lack of common courtesy.

@mdavidford No I didnt.

"Driving an SUV in the UK should require a C1 category driving license." At the end of the day, this is all about safety/risk. I agree with the idea and would welcome a view from the motor insurance industry. If the risk andor claims costs of KSIs/property damage is much higher for drivers of larger vehicles, should those increased premiums/renewals be shared amongst only those drivers? Or, as is currently, all drivers including those of us who only drive smaller vehicles? As a cyclist on the road, I'm not paying "extra" insurance for damage caused by drivers. As a driver, I am.

@Smoggysteve 100% agree.

Councillor Ed Hill demonstrates perfectly how inexperienced and badly trained are Reform and ex-Reform councillors. Anybody informed on the subject would have ensured that their diatribe contained at least one example of 'I'm a cyclist myself, but......'

You're allowed to look at the cycle lane before and as you turn. Which is what this driver did, except he then also stopped and waited for a cyclist to appear in order to make this 'point'. PS if you have to stop, then turning your head to look is another option. You can also lean forwards in your seat AND turn your head. Take this person's driving licence away please.

Um - I think you missed the 'andor' at the start of mitsky's post. Prevention is better than cure, but prevention *and* cure is better than either.

@mitsky Prevention is better than cure. i wouldnt want wait until they kill someone before action is taken. And many people driving never even had to sit a theory test. So are we to take a driving test taken decades ago as enough to assume they understand many new rules that have been brought in in the mean time? When I was in the army , I had to sit a theory test once a year to keep my ability to drive military vehicles in date. I see why this shouldnt be replicated for all drivers. Standards have dropped sharply in recent years. And if it helps make roads safer and also educate many about things like priorities for vulnerable road users there is only positives to take away. any push back is , i assume, more to do with ego. Why should I have to resit a test periodically if Ive never had an incident? Personally Id rather not wait to find out. I would rather know if youre behind the wheel of a car you know exactly that the rules are cos you're up to date via a theory test. I would also suggest that if anyone fails their theory so badly or repeatedly they should have their license reviewed and a possible loss of license until a full test is passed. I know many will say, they will continue to drive without a license. I believe in the cases where this is true, they would do so even if banned after an incident anyway. At least this way we are attempting to educate and raise standards of all road users not just the very worst.

@Smoggysteve Andor if there is evidence of a driver using the vehicle in a way that would fail a test (ie dangerous fault) then they should lose their licence rather than just recieve points and a fine. If a dangerous fault on a test is enough to prevent someone gaining a full licence, Shirley that same fault should be enough to lose it.

Better still, make SUV drivers register an abnormal load every time they want to move the vehicle. 😁