NYPD cop caught ticketing non-existent cyclist resigns

This is the case for many pieces of cycling infrastructure IME - they are not actually that safe or at least not safer than riding on the road with the other traffic, often due to poor design. However, they make many inexperienced people FEEL much safer, and that is apparently more important than reality. Fortunately, just getting more people on bikes does make cycling safer for everyone who is cycling, and this seems to have worked in this case. Therefore, in a very roundabout way, having this infrastructure in place does increase overall safety. Of course, it would be even better if the infrastructure was done right / intelligently and did directly improve safety, but we can't have everything. Small steps.

In other words, they aren’t interested in preventative policing In other, other words: Get yourself KSI'd and we'll see what we can do Disclaimer: ...unless any motorist objects on the grounds of 'war against the motorist', or the cyclist swears while being hit etc. etc.

Yes, that matches my experience with reporting to Kent Police over the last 4 years (they were more responsive before that, during a period when video could be uploaded as part of the initial report). In email communication I had with them in 2022, they confirmed that they deprioritise any report that does not state that a collision occurred. In other words, they aren't interested in preventative policing.

So that when you are at the side of the road in a heap on the ground after being mowed down and the indicator is still flashing the police can ignore it?

So that you can look the person who bought this ridiculous thing directly in the eyes and ask why?

It’s become some kind of amateurish website now. Bring back the old one lads, only for the simple fact that it wasn’t janky-looking and dysfunctional.

I’m catapulted back to 2003 with this website. It’s rubbish. Nothing particularly noteworthy about the old one but at least it worked. This one looks like a suspicious hack job with no designers involved. It’s really a shame because your content is so good and now I visit the site only to skim around since the layout is just unoptimized for reading in mobile.

Another really weird review from road.cc. They take a product, use it for something it wasn't designed for and then mark it down. I've just upgraded my Boost to the Boost 3 and I can say it does the jobs it is designed for very well. I use it on rides in daylight for Saturday group rides and occasional all day epics. I feel that cars are more likely to see me and the significantly brighter day flash and doubling of battery life are significant upgrades, especially for longer rides. It's also so light that there's really no downside to using it so safety wins. I also use it for short 30-min commuting. The easy of detachment and robustness of the light here are key and it's perfect for this use case. For longer rides that involve significant unlit or off-road, such as along a canal path, at night I use the Exposure Strada RB. Again, road.cc, right tool: right job. It's also great that Exposure use common mounts for all their lights. I change the Boost and RB between multiple bikes using the mount with a red pin and it takes seconds to move from bike to bike or to detach for charging. The table for setting brightness is something I tend to set only once. Then the single button is a boon.

Yes, I can't wait: a duff BMC frame with a crap oval BB, and carbon rims set up tubeless and without a pressure -relief hole so you can pressurise the cavity and which would likely (to complete the disaster waiting to happen) be hookless/ mini-hook and explode with no notice

About time they got more of them out of cars and onto bikes. Do their fitness levels some good.