Please note that our live blog can sometimes be slow to load. If it seems to be taking aa while, please refresh your browser.
Live blog: man wearing cycling gear and helmet goes on rooftop rampage in Cornwall, Lazer Helmets show support for Rachel McKinnon, Trek-Segafredo update on Steven de Jongh’s condition + more
All today’s news from the site and beyond
Tue, Oct 16, 2018 14:57
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
17 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Jakrayan 18 minutes ago
I'm criticising them for not riding in secondary position, not primary. At least 60cms (2 feet) from the edge of the road as the HC explicitly recommends. Leaving aside the small minority of riders who find mounting and dismounting a bike difficult - which sounds suspiciously similar to the motorists "but, but what about disabled drivers?" when talking about LTNs - what's wrong with able bodied riders walking the few metres over that narrow, Victorian bridge? Sure, if there's clearly no-one on it I wouldn't condemn anyone for riding it slowly, but if it's not clear forcing pedestrians to stop and squeeze to the side is, frankly, a rather entitled opinion. Plus it's easy to hold a road bike a little ahead of you and hold the saddle - normally no need to hold the bars if it's straight - so you're really not taking up much more room at all. There's a railway underpass near me that links to a shared then segregated path. It's narrow, and the path approaches at an angle so you can't see if it's clear, but many riders still choose to pedal through despite the clear 'no cycling' signage. Why?? Personally I don't go that way, except on foot, preferring the surrounding roads.
bensynnock 40 minutes ago
I think you're giving drivers too much credit. Many would not think twice about blocking the road if it makes their life easier, such as when turning right onto a busy road.
bensynnock 43 minutes ago
They might have to, but they won't. What they will do is pull out over the cycle path while they wait for a gap in motor traffic.
Safety 1 hour ago
"We have enough regulation." I agree with the exception being legally allowed to sell something which is virtually illegal to use. How many purchasers own a suitably large piece of private land?
Tradescant 5 hours ago
@jackcycles I'm not sure my grandchildren got that memo. Cycling should not be just for hardened road warriors.
DS2025 5 hours ago
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).
KiwiMike 5 hours ago
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.
Dnnnnnn 6 hours ago
@eburtthebike I've found Spanish drivers to be almost entirely excellent around cyclists.
neilmck 7 hours ago
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.
thrawed 7 hours ago
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.
17 thoughts on “Live blog: man wearing cycling gear and helmet goes on rooftop rampage in Cornwall, Lazer Helmets show support for Rachel McKinnon, Trek-Segafredo update on Steven de Jongh’s condition + more”
I am actually in favour of
I am actually in favour of punishing cyclists who are using their phones. In Copenhagen, there are far too many people texting or calling while cycling, and it is very obviously making them terrible cyclists.
As well as being a distraction, it makes it much harder to keep control of the bike itself by having just one hand on the bars. They drift around in the bike lane and are a hazard to people overtaking because they aren’t paying attention to what’s going on around them. If you absolutely need to make a call, at least use earphones so both your hands are in control of the bike (even if you’re still not listening to what’s going on).
fixedwhip wrote:
Yep, phone using cyclist is a bad cyclist. No excuse for it, especially when pulling over and stopping is a hell of a lot easier on a bicycle.
I hate those mats. Send the
I hate those mats. Send the wrong message – personal experience from a close pass “discussion” – “You’re not supposed to be more than 75cm from the kerb mush, get the fuck out of the middle of the lane” (this on a country lane not wide enough for two vehicles to pass side by side, when I was doing 27mph according to Strava)
kil0ran wrote:
That was my fear when they introduced these mats. That without the police officer explaining the inconsistancies with the measurements, they’d end up being prescriptive.
Both the 75cm and the 1.5m measurement are wrong but Cycling UK went ahead with the mat anyway.
kil0ran wrote:
Many of us CUK members told them that, they ignored it, I’ve seen an Australian version that was made up and it stated the word ‘minimum’ for both the 75cm and 1.5m part. This distinction is massive in terms of the message it would portray.
Also the distance is only suitable up to 30mph, for 40 and over it should be minimum of 2metres, i.e. overtaking in the opposite lane for most scenarios.
Cornwall police want to speak
Cornwall police want to speak to this man.
pockstone wrote:
Ah…that would explain…
“I just wish sometimes I could control these FUCKING MOOD SWINGS!”
Well, the Rachel McKinnon
Well, the Rachel McKinnon debate is over, then. If Katie f-ing Hopkins opposes something, you know that ‘something’ is alright
brooksby wrote:
Bollocks
The bloke below competed in the womens weightlifting, now tell me again that anything Katie Hopkins opposes is alright.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Am I showing my age/privilege/*something* if I do admit how difficult I find the current trans debate? My only comment to that picture is, “Errr…”
(But I do still think that you can generally work on the safe presumption that Katie f-ing Hopkins is wrong about everything
)
brooksby wrote:
It’s ok to find it difficult – it is difficult. The problem is that you’re not expected to rule on it, but the Internet expects you to have an opinion on it, and it better be a strong one, and you need to be real angry about it.
brooksby wrote:
I don’t think she knows what febrile means – it makes no sense in that phrase.
brooksby wrote:
I’d normally agree with you about Katie Hopkins.
But this example does make me scratch my head a bit about the point of having separate male and female sporting events if the line between male and female is increasingly blurred.
Do Brisbane police charge the
Do Brisbane police charge the same if a motorist is using their phone? Although its presumably more difficult to pull over a phone-using motorist…
“Dorset Police smash
“Dorset Police smash misconceptions about cyclists and the law”
Clearly not. Just click on the link and read the comments; every single driver myth about cyclists is paraded. Every. Single. One.
burtthebike wrote:
Gave up reading after the first 5 or so. They need their license taken away asap. Depressing as usual…even when they’re told something by the people who are upholding the law they make up their own shit and carry on…
Interesting that the QLD
Interesting that the QLD police state that cyclists should obey all motorists laws if they wish to cycle on Queenland’s roads, so operating their vehicle without a helmet is okay then as that is what you allow motorists to do. Basically you want them to obey other rules which doon’t protect them, has a hefty fine attached to it for not obeying said rule so by definition is discriminatory as you aren’t applying it to the other vehicle operators and from that your enforcement of such breaks your sworn oath you bent criminal cunts. No wonder cycling is going backwards numbers wise in oz!