Live blog: Michael Woods dedicates Vuelta stage win to stillborn son, law firm says cycle safety review means more cash for infrastructure + more

@jackcycles I'm not sure my grandchildren got that memo. Cycling should not be just for hardened road warriors.

Chrisonabike There are a number of police forces in England and Wales that are using portable testing equipment already... How effective it is another matter, I haven't looked into the results of failing (I would hope they just seize and crush the motorbike without any faff but I am sure there are appeal processes, promises not to use them on public roads etc).

Woah there - a precision-engineered European-made product, with unparalleled adaptability, is somehow a ‘rip off’? Compared to what - Temu? As per the article, most quality through-axles go for £50-60+, but aren’t adaptable and don’t provide any stand or trailer capability. If you want to balance your £3-4-5k suspension or carbon bike, or bikepacking setup on a budget product subject to highly focused stresses, fair play. Cycling’s a broad church.

@eburtthebike I've found Spanish drivers to be almost entirely excellent around cyclists.

I agree, the study was made after cycle paths that had been introduced in Berlin during the 70’s and 80’s caused a big increase in cycling deaths. It is an interesting study for cyclists to read in order to know what dangers exist at badly designed junctions. Here in Paris we have very few bi-directional paths. The ones I have cycled on have no building entrances or courtyards (so no cars crossing the path) and every junction is traffic lights to prevent accidents.

We have enough regulation. They're running a motorbike without insurance/registration and possibly without a licence, and the punishment for being caught with all that is pretty severe already. The problem is lack of enforcement.

In my experience with anything less than one of those serious mid-bike two-foot kickstands, a wall / tree / hedge is the better option, or the bike will sometimes show you the alternative and lie down by itself. Maybe I've got panniers that are just too large and the wrong balance of (too much) cargo though? And of course Edinburgh streets are great at funneling gusts of wind...

I agree there's a clear legal line * but I do see something here. Like much tech it's entirely opaque from the outside (without even invoking things like the VW emissions cheating).** I know in NL they have trialled semi-portable "test stations" to check max motor speeds. However with the latest "but there's no money" crisis I can't see that over here. Indeed it's hard to see the police being motivated to do any more roads policing, with this even further down the priority list. Hope I'm wrong... While I guess many of us *would* be fine with EAPCs as a means to attract "non-cyclists" ... perhaps there's an "attractive nuisance" element to this? We're ushering people into an apparently effortless, easy and minimal consequence mobility mode without the "learning experience" of managing a lighter, unpowered machine on roads. And it's still (busy) *roads* where the new power-assisted riders will often find themselves. Not like in more advanced countries where people usually cycle in much safer and more controlled environments. OTOH we should always balance such concerns against "but cars and full-power ICE motorbikes now" though! Number plates, licences and insurance aren't necessarily mitigating that well... * As soon as there are laws games will be played. How long can you be above the "continuous rate power" for? Can we have *multiple* legal motors on one machine? ** Is the power / speed actually regulated by software, and how long will that keep a child armed with the internet from unlocking it?

And maybe a planning obligation to have traffic Marshalls controlling access out of the site not obstructing the path and restricting it if cyclists are likely to be obstructed …one can hope

I'll stick to my low rider with Karrimor Kalahari dry bag panniers and Karrimor Kalahari barbag thanks.