Another award winning night for road.cc!

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.

I cannot tell if they relate to my report or someone else’s Yes, that's the point - the aim of the pseudo - database is to shut the punters up and deceive them about how little the police have done. They know the deception scheme has been successful when people report on here that they have achieved successful outcomes from most of their reports. They haven't.

Mayor Adams perverted a lot of laws, hence the fact that he is no longer Mayor. New York cyclists have had an ongoing problem with members of the ultra-orthodox Satmar Jewish community in Williamsburg. They don't like people in cycle shorts and skimpy tops cycling through the neighbourhood. They used their political influence to get a cycle lane removed from a local highway. There was talk of a naked bike ride through the area but I think wiser counsels prevailed.

This is disgusting. Cycling is for everyone; no-one should feel intimidated out of the hobby. The kind of "men" who think it's ok to harass women would think twice about doing it to a man. If we are going to persuade large numbers of motorists to become cyclists then the issue of harassment has to be addressed.

I've a memory the poster may be Edinburgh-adjacent (is that right?) - in which case it *may* be possible as the shared use paths (former railways) (plus a bit of more recent infra) can allow you to do this. Highly dependent on your journey though. That's not the case most places in NL. There you may be using motor-traffic-reduced and slowed *streets* there but most roads have alternatives. But here in the north-west I can cycle for several miles in a couple of directions using them. Of course if I needed to eg. go east-west in the south of the city it's back to more usual UK conditions...

According to the website as seen on my mobile this is an outstanding deal - the price in the box at the top by the weight etc. is showing as £0.00 ! (sorry due to site redesign I can't post a screenshot - besides I'm ignoring the price points which *are* quoted later in the article and am off to claim my free machine...)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Then ... it will be easy to see that in the casualty numbers, no? And (albeit this is looking a decade back) indeed you can *see* the truth! https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2017/09/29/a-year-of-death-and-injury-2016/ Do you mean is "we are used to *looking for the cars*" (or even "looking with our ears" - which is real) and thus cyclists are often surprising? Or is it "cyclists are in or space, we know that motorists are only on the roads"? * But ... it is true that cyclists are a bit less visible and quieter than motorists. And it is true that some cyclists don't make efforts to be visible. And indeed some are too relaxed about cycling in accordance with the law. The latter points are not good ... but then the damage caused by cyclists in a collision is on average much less than a with a motor vehicle. And while people often think that motorists are more likely to be motivated to obey the law because of legal consequences (because eg. "They've got number plates") that it's debatable. Unlike cyclists motorists aren't going to be motivated to proceed carefully because of worries about being injured or killed in a collision with a pedestrian... * Excluding all those motorists who reach year kill more people on the footways than cyclists do altogether...

The cross checking is limited but I do have the matching data fields on my own records which correspond with the police's data fields: 'Offence Date', Offending Vehicle Type', 'Reporter' ('Cyclist' for me), 'Location Town or City', 'Primary Offence'. If that isn't replicated in the database for an incident I have reported it tells me something is wrong with the database. If I have reported an incident and there are several matching possibilities then, yes, I cannot tell if they relate to my report or someone else's.