About 25 years ago I was just "getting into" proper cycling; a bike was slowly morphing from a toy, through merely a mode of transport and finally into a machine to have fun on and explore the world. I was learning to mend and replace bike parts, just starting to enter the murky world of "specialist clothing" and hanging around bike shops being an annoying teenager. I absorbed and learned from snippets of the Tour De France that were sneaking onto the television and then "The High Life" appeared on the goggle-box; a Granada TV documentary about Scottish cycling pro Robert Millar… read more
- News

Blog: A hero returns

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 £2.49. 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.
No Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
32 inch wheels are here to stay until the next new wonder product hits the market...
@Gd29 Redshift regularly have sales with 25% off, so you should be able to pick them up for under £40 at some point
@SVXY Yet again it's highly impressive how are you know the exact circumstances of this incident, now down to the exact type of footwear Ms.Tanton was sporting at the time. There are numerous types of all-terrain/hiking sandals that have far better grip than a standard pair of trainers. And once again do explain how having shoes without gaps in the uppers would have prevented Dick from driving straight into her from behind? No actually, don't bother.
@SVXY Of course because cycling on a 60mph road is far more dangerous than cycling in a 30mph zone and you need footwear with the strongest grip to react quicker if needed
@SVXY So sandals are permissible footwear for cycling if you're riding at 15 mph in a 30 mph zone but they are not permissible footwear for cycling if you are riding at 15 mph in a 60 mph zone? I'm afraid this is how trolls always give themselves away because clearly no human being with the capacity to operate a computer with sufficient adroitness to post a reply could genuinely be that stupid.
mdavidford It says you can ride 2 abreast and must have consideration for other road users. So if you ride three or more abreast you could be prosecuted for careless cycling with your inconsideration for other road users under the highway code used as evidence by the CPS
I’ve got a G-Line. I quite like the look of some of that bling. I can’t imagine any of it will be cheap though. :( It’s already quite an expensive bike.
@SVXY It does not say you can't ride three or more abreast. It does not say that to do so would be inconsiderate. I'm afraid your opinion that it would be has no particular legal status.
@SVXY Rule 66 of the highway code says you can ride two abreast but to also 'be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups.' It does not say you can ride three or four abreast which would not be considerate of the needs of other road users. As the highway code is used by prosecution lawyers as evidence to convict in Road Traffic Act offences cases you certainly could therefore be prosecuted and convicted for careless cycling if cycling three or four abreast
@SVXY This is a curious tactic - rebutting your own argument with your very next sentence.