Video: De Rosa 2014…

@ktache isn't it mostly European standards which apply for impacts with pedestrians? notjustbikes was suggesting in on of his videos that as a result of the US tariff strong-arm tactics Europe at least might be doing a deal with "reciprocal recognition of standards". That would essentially declare the US tests as good - and apparently US car makers get to mark their *own* homework also...

Cradle Care you say? "Nobody shops for their baby clothes on a bike!" "You certainly can't carry a child on a bike!" "No way can you carry *two* kids on a bike!" "These cycle paths make it too dangerous for children which is why we all drive them and need to park right outside (to minimise the danger from ... er ... cyclists" I'm being unfair, but isn't it mostly "we can't walk / cycle because places are unpleasant / feel too dangerous *because of all the motor traffic*?" Yes, I know there's quite a steep hill there...

There was a bit in the forum a while back, someone was attempting to create a web based thing. Forum went a bit sour with the upgrade, but I do remember mark1a's fine travelling tool kit...

Clearly it's hard not to do so - indeed you seem to have separated "us that ride bicycles" from others already... Ultimately concentrations of people - that is, urban spaces - work best when there is indeed a (physical) separation between quite different modes of transport *. Trains, motor vehicles, "cycles" and pedestrians. And bigger, heavier vehicles (driven by the same indifferent drivers) just make things more dangerous / put pressure on authorities to allocate even more space for their use etc. * Or as eg. the Dutch sustainable safety principle has it - homogeneity of speed / mass. And "combine where possible, separate where necessary". Note that means it *can* be sensible to share space but only where speeds / volumes of the more dangerous mode(s) are suitably controlled. Of course - "different roads for different modes" "doesn't work" if we start from the assumption that motoring is *and will/must be* the predominant mode, so that should get the existing direct routes and everything else must then be designed around it...

Well, I can only say I hope Berk have improved their QC. I’ve had numerous (due to the fact that if you break one, Berk will simply send you a new saddle, no questions asked), and only one hasn’t broken. For info, I’m under 70 kilos, so well within the weight limit. You can’t argue with the customer service though - as I say, it’s a no questions asked replacement.

Bits of a car are made to deform too, absorbing energy and increasing impact time, ain't so for a bus...

So much to unpack here. Are you perhaps another example of the armed cyclist? And if so, is the reaction because you rode in with big iron on your hip? (I know, it's the Arizona ranger... 😉)

Rim brake master race

This is a flawed article and creates a polarization between those that drive an SUV and people like us that ride bicycles. There’s a premise here that if somebody drives an SUV they don’t care about cyclists or pedestrians. All motor vehicle/cyclist/pedestrian accidents aren’t caused by SUVs. While it’s clear that driving an SUV might create a greater risk. It does not take into account the size of the SUV or the quality of the driver. Is it a teenage driver? An adult? Are they an extremely careful driver? Are they under the influence of anything? Is our cyclist behaving responsibly? Do they have adequate lighting and a helmet? If you were about to buy a car. Any car. And I came to you and I said your buying this car increases the risk that you will have an accident and severely injure a cyclist would you still buy the car? So I think the research is flawed. I think if they had asked the person purchasing the SUV, on a scale of 1-5 how concerned are you with harming a cyclist you would have a better picture. I just don’t think you can conclude somebody doesn’t care at all because they buy an SUV. Just as I stated earlier that you could not surmise that if somebody bought a convertible. I am HO it is articles like this that creates such a clarity between cyclists and motorist. For example, if I believe this article and I am out on the road and see an SUV I will assume they don’t care about me as a cyclist or a person.? So I don’t think this kind of article really helps to bridge the gap between motorists and those more vulnerable. I lived in Houston, Texas for many years and commuted to work on highways, freeways and beltways. Belonged to a large organized cycling group. My view is I’m a motorist that loves cycling. Now I live in Colorado and even when people scream at me as they pass, they do it from a safe distance. These are not my enemies. They’re just people doing what they do.

It may be a review of a product on the fringe of applicability, but it’s not totally irrelevant. My lad is after one to use for MTB bike park weekends. I wouldn’t mind one either for similar.