Live blog: Jess Varnish tells tribunal of British Cycling’s “extreme control” ,first look video of Pearson ALLMODCONS bike, top Italian junior rider in coma, Zwift’s Tour of London is back + more

300 looks the better buy: cheaper and longer lasting for real-world use, while the 400 seems to trade endurance for a load of ANT+ features most riders won't use - 300 on the right

@chrisonabike It's difficult to decide if the 'round blue traffic signs can be ignored' comment is plain stupid or just badly executed irony. Even the police in Lancashire, where the Highway Code and associated legislation has been abrogated and police regulation abandoned, would anticipate the chaos resulting from drivers ignoring bus lanes etc

We get thoroughly gaslit in this sport that £100+ is acceptable for shorts that aren't quite right. £100+ for some bits of foam stitched into some stretchy polyester. Wow. £117 is not cheap. Might be cheap compared to PNS, Assos etc but they're just taking the mick with their prices.

@the infamous grouse pedantry but this isn't a "cycle lane" (simply another lane on the road) it's a "cycle path" (well, shared-use path). While we know in practice that the legal prohibitions on driving in non-driving spaces (eg. "the pavement" - the footway) are effectively ignored *, with cycle *lanes* these are in many cases not even ther. "Advisory" cycle lanes are meaningless, and there's a legal dodge where driving and IIRC driving or even parking in some "mandatory" cycle lanes (solid line as you mention) is allowed, depending on the date of installation. Cycling UK have some articles on this. I belive that *nobody* wants cycle *lanes*, except possibly councils who can use them to get money and tick boxes without (too much...) outrage from motorists. * Except for a couple of places in the UK which have said that no, they are interested. But even there it's highly unlikely you'd face much if any consequence.

@Rendel Harris good explanation, perhaps they were thinking of the square ones (advice)? I wonder if the "no motor vehicles" sign would be better respected? (Pretty sure here it would make no difference, it's bloody-mindedness or willful "confusion" - "you *must be able to get through, otherwise you'd have to drive miles"). More generally I think the "only" signs / blue colour may not have been the best design. Especially as for cycling there are two signs simply differing in shape. But perhaps this is just "bike blindness" - people just assuming that signs relating to cycling *must* be "info only" for motorists? For ref the UK government has info on all of this at "Bus and cycle signs and road markings".

I'm afraid you're entirely mistaken there, circular blue signs give mandatory instructions, as in this case only bicycles and pedestrians permitted. They hold the same force as a red "no cars permitted" sign and motorists absolutely do not have the right to disregard them at their discretion.

@wtjs the prohibition (as written) on using a motor vehicle in a cycle lane only exists where the road and cycle lane are co-linear and marked or seperated by a solid white line. blue signage is advisory and can be discretionally disregarded, though the sheriff might have some choice remarks if you cause a collision and were identified for prosecution.

No - they have a range with cutouts that pop up, and they lose marks if they shoot the old lady with her shopping instead of the Lime bike.

‘ In addition, two inspectors have been specifically trained to target hire e-bikes’ I wonder what that training involved; a white board, an instructor and a stick, ‘now this is a picture of a car, this is an ‘ordinary’ bike and this, ladies and gentlemen, is a LIME bike, you must only apprehend the latter’

@eburtthebike yes - good point. He is just a liar.