CyclingMikey says second angle of Gandalf Corner stand-off with Sir Ian McKellen’s agent proves he didn’t jump onto bonnet; Cav Q&A gets existential; Shell era begins with medals galore; Aero friends + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Cav Q&A gets existential
What’s the meaning of life? Is there life after death? These probably aren’t the sort of questions Zwift expected to pop up when they put out the call for fan input for an interview with Cav…
Your chance to ask @markcavendish one question! What would it be? 👇 pic.twitter.com/kZWEPNLRA1
— Zwift (@GoZwift) October 13, 2022
Let the amusing interrogation begin…
Is death the end?
— Lord Sedegepig (@Lord_Sedgepig) October 13, 2022
If I open a can of Evaporated Milk, why is it still in there..?#AskCav
— Neon-Brown (@NeonBrown10) October 13, 2022
Shell era begins with Track Worlds medals galore
The winning moment 🔥pic.twitter.com/q1vYlOGtvZ
— British Cycling (@BritishCycling) October 13, 2022
The Great Britain men’s team pursuit squad of Dan Bigham, Ethan Hayter, Ollie Wood and Ethan Vernon became world champions last night, handing out a shellacking (sorry) to the world’s best team pursuiters.
“It was a clean, solid ride,” Bigham said of the gold medal-winning race. “All of us are on cloud nine. We really focused on executing good, clean rides and having that drilled into us. It’s not about being here to win, it’s about doing everything we can to perform to the best of our ability and getting maximum performance out of it.”
In the women’s race the British quartet, powered by a returning Katie Archibald, Neah Evans, Anna Morris and Josie Knight took silver, losing out to the Italians in the gold medal race.
Next up, it’s the Women’s Team Pursuit final!
Going for gold!!🥇🤞 pic.twitter.com/fTt0p5RZhQ
— British Cycling (@BritishCycling) October 13, 2022
Aero friends
This… @DanBiggles22 🤝 @GannaFilippo #SQY2022 pic.twitter.com/6tIB5A9TkH
— UCI Track Cycling (@UCI_Track) October 13, 2022
"Whether CyclingMikey did or did not jump on the bonnet, the driver is not safe to be on the road"
Some of your early comments have started to roll in…
OldRidgeback suggested it’s irrelevant if Mikey jumped on the bonnet or not, the driving was still dangerous… “Mr Lyon-Maris shouldn’t be allowed to drive. Whether CyclingMikey did or did not jump on the bonnet, the driver is not safe to be on the road.”
Rendel Harris agreed: “Precisely. In all these semantic debates as to whether CyclingMikey (CM) jumped on the car or was forced to pull himself on or whatever, people are overlooking (quite deliberately, in the case of the usual suspects) the fact that Lyon-Maris was illegally and dangerously driving the wrong side of the traffic island when he was stopped.
“Virtually every other driver whom CM has stopped there has, after grumbling, accepted that they were in the wrong and reversed back to join the traffic queue to take the turn legally. Lyon-Maris deliberately drove his car at a person on foot because he didn’t like being told to obey the law, that’s the bottom line. Doesn’t matter whether you think CM is a total prick and shouldn’t do what he does, the driver was breaking the law and when someone attempted to stop him doing so he drove his car at them. These are the facts of the case.”
ChasP compared someone climbing onto the bonnet to avoid being run over to “accusing someone of bullying for hitting your fist with their face”.
espressodan added: “The fact that it was a jury verdict says everything there is to say about the influence of cars on society and most drivers threshold for acceptable conduct on the road.”
CyclingMikey releases second angle of Gandalf Corner stand-off with Sir Ian McKellen's agent to prove he didn't jump onto bonnet
If you missed yesterday’s news, the agent of Sir Ian McKellen (and several other big-name actors) was cleared of assaulting CyclingMikey over an incident at Regent’s Park’s infamous Gandalf Corner in September 2021.
Dubbed Gandalf Corner due to Mikey’s ‘you shall not pass’ interventions to motorists ignoring the keep left sign to cut the corner, and beat the traffic, on the wrong side of the road, since seeing the footage some have somewhat strangely come to the conclusion the road safety campaigner might have jumped onto the bonnet deliberately…
Accusations Mikey rubbished by releasing this second angle last night…
To give the lie to all this “jumped on his bonnet” rubbish, here’s a top down view. He’s pushing me back, he drives into me several times, eventually I have to hold on to save myself from going under his car. I never go forwards to his car. pic.twitter.com/CH3WEL22Ql
— CyclingMikey (@MikeyCycling) October 13, 2022
Regardless, a jury at Southwark Crown Court acquitted the theatrical agent of dangerous driving and common assault…
"Anyone who watches this and blames CyclingMikey needs their head testing": Jeremy Vine has his say
Anyone who watches this and blames @MikeyCycling needs their head testing (and their driving licence fed through a large shredder). Feel the ❤️, Mikey, from people who actually obey the law. https://t.co/RWAffYSlud
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) October 13, 2022
"The new facility will be behind fences": Geraint Thomas' former coach slams plan to bulldoze velodrome where Tour de France winner's journey began
[Alex Whitehead/SWpix.com]
Plans to bulldoze Maindy velodrome — the outdoor Cardiff venue where Geraint Thomas first got into the sport — will be “a detriment to cycling”, according to the 2018 Tour de France winner’s former coach.
If development work goes ahead, Maindy Park would disappear under concrete as part of an expansion of the neighbouring school, Cathays High, while the velodrome would be relocated to the International Sports Village five miles away.
“The new facility is going to be extremely limited,” Alan Davies, who received an MBE for services to youth cycling in Wales, told Wales Online.
“The level of banking that is proposed I don’t think will be safe to ride anything other than the fixed wheel bikes. If you want to grow the sport you have to get kids interested at an early age.
“At no point have people been presented with options or choices. That causes me a disquiet because you’re no longer delivering a facility that the community want, you’re delivering what will fit.”
Meanwhile, Davies’ greatest talent — the Ineos Grenadiers rider — says he is undecided on if he will ride the Tour de France again, saying he has nothing left to prove and wants to “make the most of” what’s left of his career.
“When I won the Tour, it was nice to come back the next year to show it was not a fluke. And it was nice to come back this year as well, when people thought I was done. Now I feel like I have nothing else to prove.
“I don’t even know if I will do the Tour to be honest, maybe the Giro. It’s all up in the air, really. I wouldn’t mind doing something different.”
Shimano 105 Di2 - It's a GRAVEL groupset
"Cycling needs funding, yes, but surely this doesn’t have to be the answer…"
Here’s the work of Adrian Ridley, commenting on British Cycling’s Shell deal…
“Cycling needs funding, yes, but surely this doesn’t have to be the answer…” he wrote.
Powerful stuff.
Check out more of Adrian’s work on Instagram or over on his website…
Happy hi-vis man
Only one hi-vis jacket in this… and it’s not riding a bike…
You know you have a mainstream cycling culture when this is how helmets and hi-viz are used around young children.👷♀️👷
Meet the worlds happiest traffic controller: Johan Zandvliet from Zwolle.pic.twitter.com/pZy6yS8JI3
— Cycling Professor 🚲 (@fietsprofessor) October 13, 2022
By contrast, here in the UK it must be the annual ‘nights are drawing in day’ as Roads Policing Scotland have dropped a classic of the genre…
Here we go again, @polscotrpu in full on victim blaming mode, even though they know that this stuff doesn’t work!
What they should be doing is focusing on the source of the danger and enforcing speed limits which are proven to reduce KSIs… Stop the victim blaming Bullsh*t!! https://t.co/8brkot5PHg
— Kim Harding (@kim_harding) October 13, 2022
DuraAce-ic Park, DuraAce-ic Park, get it... Jurassic Park...DuraAceic Park...no? Okay...
Well, after five minutes of trying to shoehorn a groupset name pun into a 90s classic I’ve given up… there was something in it, I’m convinced. Any help from the comments would be gratefully received as my brain has reduced to mush…
Anyway…
🇲🇾 #PETRONASletourdelangkawi2022
Well, that’s one way to get up a hill faster, right @BarberoCbc? 😂 pic.twitter.com/78COWOoGSo
— Lotto Soudal (@Lotto_Soudal) October 14, 2022
Revenge is a dish best served cold...(with pasta)
The Italians got their revenge on Great Britain, Filippo Ganna and Jonathan Milan racing into the individual pursuit final, as Dan Bigham will have to settle for a bronze medal showdown against Portugal’s Manuel Alves…
Men’s Individual Pursuit Finals ⬇️
For 🥇 ➡️ @GannaFilippo 🇮🇹 vs 🇮🇹 Jonathan Milan
For 🥉 ➡️ @DanBiggles22 🇬🇧 vs 🇵🇹 Manuel Alves#SQY2022 pic.twitter.com/XMi6GZ2fGJ— UCI Track Cycling (@UCI_Track) October 14, 2022
At least Bigham won the coolest wheels comp…
In the men’s individual pursuit, @DanBiggles22 qualifies third with an impressive time of 4:05.181, putting him through to the bronze medal ride against Portuguese Ivo Manuel Alves Oliveira🥉
Will he make it two medals in two days? 👀#SQY202 pic.twitter.com/HoIDiGapqQ
— British Cycling (@BritishCycling) October 14, 2022
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 £1.99. 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.
44 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
"All that's required is an to roads policing" - that's a big all... Although no doubt the "idiots just keep coming" aspect does apply: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9lel2wz93o "Man charged after car crashes through bowling alley" - luckily they only skittled over skittles.
Almost any change to roads and streets is accompanied by a period of heightened danger, and in the UK "look out for cyclists" will need to be learned... practically. And over the time it takes for cyclists to become a regular feature. OTOH once (if...) good designs are in and frequent enough such that drivers encounter them AND the cyclists on them regularly (another big if) I don't think they should be much more difficult than a footway to deal with. These things are all over NL - don't have the collision stats but they should. (NL isn't perfect but collecting info on the safety of designs to feed back into better designs as required is part of the "sustainable safety" philosophy - if they're really a killer I think they'd be altering these.)
I'm in the happy position of agreeing with everybody here! I've never considered a bike with a stand, yet I'm impressed by the ingenuity and adaptability of this axle. I tow a Yak Bob with a Robert Axle, employing my El Cheapo Vitus gravel bike and I just have to be very careful where I stop. Hedges are generally a dead loss, and I seek walls, telegraph poles and signposts and generally lean the widest part of the Bob against it. One very awkward task is removing the two steel pins which lock the trailer arms onto the special mounting slots on the Robert axle, and when you have one out, the sodding weight in the trailer can twist the whole caboodle and bend the Bob fitting before you can get the other out and unhitch. I doubt if a stand would help with that. You can imagine that this combo is a real pain when you have to get it over the bridge at railway stations, and it nearly resulted in Merseyrail nearly parting me and the trailer on the platform from the bike on the train. It's a long story for another time. Another axle example recently featured on here, with a 12mm front axle bearing the Herculean weight limit of a monster American front rack.
This has nothing to do with the type of bike - it's the type of behaviour that's the problem. Banning the sale of such bikes will not curtail the behaviour. They'll just find another type of vehicle and continue to drive dangerously as there's such a lack of enforcement. I'd sooner see them ban the bally. But really, all that's required is an improvement to roads policing.
The EAPC Bill is welcome, but full of holes. What's to stop an overpowered but temporarily limited e-bike being sold and subsequently delimited? This is often a trivial process.
@KiwiMike Yeah, in my over four decades of riding all over Europe I've never 'been for a ride in the countryside'. That must be it. Or, and I know this is a wild concept, you just accept that I just voiced my personal experiences and never missed a kickstand, like I wrote. Anyway, what's the big horror of laying your bike on its side for the very few occasions where there is nothing to lean your bike against?
They may have looked, but did they see?
Ds2025: where they are going wrong is that they are crushing the motorbike rather than the person sat on top of it. If they did the latter this issue would be solved in less than 24 hours.
I came this way today with the car boot sale in operation. There was a marshal at the entrance, who stopped a car turning right across the cycleway as I was approaching. So that certainly works. I think it necessary for the marshal to be there, I couldn't say if the driver would have turned if he hadn't been there but you always have to suspect the worst. Unfortunately there is no marshal at the exit, and there was certainly a car stopped across the cycleway as I was approaching it. But he pulled onto the road before I reached it, and the following car stayed off the cycleway as I went through. Ideally there should have been a marshal there too. On the whole, though, it's a really high standard piece of infrastructure. Just a pity it doesn't extend a bit further.
“absolute carnage” So right! Just look at the bodies piled up, blood running in the gutters and injured people limping away. It's a bit of a problem with a road, delaying some people for minutes at a time: it isn't carnage, let alone 'absolute carnage'. Anyone who exaggerates so ridiculously really shouldn't be allowed to comment in public, unless they want to demonstrate their idiocy to all and sundry.
44 thoughts on “CyclingMikey says second angle of Gandalf Corner stand-off with Sir Ian McKellen’s agent proves he didn’t jump onto bonnet; Cav Q&A gets existential; Shell era begins with medals galore; Aero friends + more on the live blog”
The fact that it was a jury
The fact that it was a jury verdict says everything there is to say about the influence of cars on society and most drivers threshold for acceptable conduct on the road.
The contrast with Sherrilyn
The contrast with Sherrilyn Speid who nudged an eco protestor with her range rover is stark. A slick legal team works wonders for the in-justice system.
squidgy wrote:
She did plead guilty to dangerous driving though, didn’t she, so we didn’t get a chance to see what a jury would have made of her case – on this showing she probably should’ve taken her chances!
Was this video presented to
Was this video presented to the court?
Mr Lyon-Maris shouldn’t be
Mr Lyon-Maris shouldn’t be allowed to drive. Whether CyclingMikey did or did not jump on the bonnet, the driver is not safe to be on the road.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Precisely. In all these semantic debates as to whether CM jumped on the car or was forced to pull himself on or whatever, people are overlooking (quite deliberately, in the case of the usual suspects) the fact that Lyon-Maris was illegally and dangerously driving the wrong side of the traffic island when he was stopped. Virtually every other driver whom CM has stopped there has, after grumbling, accepted that they were in the wrong and reversed back to join the traffic queue to take the turn legally. Lyon-Maris deliberately drove his car at a person on foot because he didn’t like being told to obey the law, that’s the bottom line. Doesn’t matter whether you think CM is a total prick and shouldn’t do what he does, the driver was breaking the law and when someone attempted to stop him doing so he drove his car at them. These are the facts of the case.
Given widespread prejudice
Given widespread prejudice and ignorance against cyclists, there is a strong justification for not allowing jury trials of driver-ists who are accused of driving into cyclists.
My comparison would be jury trials in the southern US in the 1950s, where it was impossible due to widespread prejudice for an all-white jury to find a white person guilty of murdering or assaulting a black person.
Yes… but I’m not convinced
Yes… but I’m not convinced the judges would necessarily be able to set aside their own bias either, such is the ubiquity of motoring and all the unspoken assumptions we carry. And there is some wooly law. They’d still have to put their finger in the air and make the judgement ‘now, is it *far* below the standard of a careful, competent driver?’
If it was a learner driver
If it was a learner driver taking their driving test, would they have passed, been allowed to carry on, or been stopped & not carry on any further?
Seemingly from the verdict, they’d have passed?
Frankly, this should be the
Frankly, this should be the standard for dangerous/careless driving offences – is it so bad that it would have cuased someone to fail their driving test?
I love my bike wrote:
This should be the standard used.
I’d consider that careless driving would be non-intentional driving that would cause a driving test fail (e.g. failing to look and see a pedestrian/cyclist/driver) and dangerous driving would be intentionally flouting Highway Code recommendations (e.g. deliberately driving on the wrong side of the road) that would immediately cease and fail a driving test.
I love my bike wrote:
He was found guilty of driving offences, so they wouldn’t have passed.
In the meantime…brilliant
In the meantime…brilliant work from our (and the Italian!) team pursuiters!!
It ought to be obvious to all cyclists by now that the law thinks there is open-season on cyclists. Kill one, and you have a good chance of getting away with joke community service. We know about the police: we’ve had Essex claiming that a close pass doesn’t count ‘if you don’t wobble or brake’, Northumbria telling you not to cycle at busy periods, South Wales advising ‘no cycling in the dusk or dark’, Worcestershire saying ‘it’s too dangerous to send officers out on close pass operations’ but doing nothing about such appalling driving, Lancashire which has never conducted any close pass operation and has never prosecuted a driver for close passing (they may have issued warning letters, but are determined to ‘not notice’ such previous action when the driver does it again) etc. etc.
We’re just riding around waiting to be KSI’d
Whilst it’s tempting to see
Whilst it’s tempting to see it in that light I don’t think I’d agree. Don’t forget Mikey has had plenty of victories to accompany this defeat. As have many others.
And honestly – if you’re not a cyclist – the video Mikey’s submitted for evidence is pretty ambiguous. (Waits for the flaming). Which is how jury trials work rightly or wrongly.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Not going to flame, I agree that it is certainly ambiguous as to whether there was any danger or harm done, so one can certainly see how a jury would on balance decide that the assault charge could not lie. However, Lyon-Maris was also charged with dangerous driving, which is defined on the UKGOV website as “driving which falls far below the standard expected of a careful driver.” He drove his car at a person on foot, he admits that, the video shows that. How can deliberately driving your car at a pedestrian who is posing you no threat (I think we can discount Martin73’s ridiculous “He might have been about to rob your Rolex” excuse) not be far below the standard expected of a careful driver?
Good point which I cant
Good point which I cant really refute.
I can only speculate but I wonder if the juries logic was no assault = no danger.
I do wonder if there had been a careless driving charge whether that would have stuck. But we shall never know.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I suspect it might have done, simply on the basis that the jury took over four hours to decide and at one point returned to court to ask the judge for clarification on what exactly constitutes dangerous driving, which implies that they thought it was pretty close. It’s always struck me as odd that juries aren’t allowed to propose a lowering of the charge, it has to be either/or, e.g. (as I understand it, willing to stand corrected) if someone is on trial for murder the jury have to find them guilty or not guilty, they can’t come back and say we don’t think they are guilty of murder but we definitely think they are guilty of manslaughter.
He had already been charged
He had already been charged and accepted “Careless” for the initial wrong side of the road / cutting the corner part of his poor driving. Apparently driving down the wrong side of the road approaching a busy junction and the wrong side of the pedestrian refuge is not dangerous to anyone else on the road and a “momentary lapse”.
But then driving along with someone clinging to your bonnet as they no longer have any safe option to disembark is not dangerous either so shouldn’t be surprised.
Maybe the solution for Mikey
Maybe the solution for Mikey is to strap some porcelain statues to his legs, so that the next time some idiot tries to drive at him, he can then get them done for criminal damage. I’m sure the courts would take damage to property more seriously than an actual person that’s not particularly rich.
The latest in the Shell memes
The latest in the Shell memes.
It would have been fun to
It would have been fun to have called the drivers of the other ten or so cars that Mr Lyon-Maris happily drove past because he was IN A HURRY as witnesses, see what they thought of his
drivingentitlement…Problem is, as with the death-by-driving type cases, witnesses, juries, and judges all have an attitude of “I’m not going to find him guilty, because I might have done the same thing”.
brooksby wrote:
Haven’t there been cases (I know it happens in America but I think it’s happened here too) where the defence or prosecution have successfully applied to have a trial moved elsewhere on the basis, for example, that a Newcastle fan on trial for hooliganism in Newcastle is most likely to be facing a jury of fellow Newcastle fans (town chosen at random, no slur on Newcastle fans intended)? Seems as though some similar safety valve is required for road traffic offences.
Where were you thinking? Sark
Where were you thinking? Sark? (Or somewhere warmer…)
If Hydra was good enough for
If Hydra was good enough for Leonard Cohen for seven years I certainly wouldn’t be objecting to being called for jury service there.
Driving, and more
Driving, and more particularly, criminal driving, is so consistent and ubiquitous across all demographics that it would be very difficult to find a full jury of people who honestly didn’g have a bias for or against dangerous drivers.
If you fill the jury with those without driving licenses the bias would be way too heavy, if you take driving out as a consideration of juror validity you end up with only drivers (on average, you might have one non driver) and you have heavy bias the other way.
I agree and the same applies
I agree and the same applies for many other types of events, that’s why, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I think we should consider moving to the French system of a tribunal of highly trained legally qualified judges rather than a jury.
Patrick9-32 wrote:
Just try driving offences with a panel of three driving examiners
brooksby wrote:
And this is the crux of the issue. You don’t have to look much further than speed compliance data. Speeding is the most common driver-related factor leading to car accident fatalities, yet you’re not going to get a jury of drivers to agree to throw the book at a speeding driver when most drivers speed, most of the time.
Re Cyclng Mikey.
Re Cyclng Mikey.
More info here : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11312013/How-YouTube-vigilante-CyclingMikey-caught-thousands-drivers.html
From the article :
“However, he was slated by defence lawyer Michael Epstein, who suggested video of the incident proved his real motive to achieve online ‘notoriety’.
‘I suggest that was a conscious move on your part to get on the bonnet of his vehicle,’ he said. ‘That was a pre-determined choreographed action to grab and hold onto that bonnet.’
Mr Van Erp denied his actions were deliberate. ‘He specifically drove into me twice. Mr Lyon-Maris drove right up to me and hit me.
‘You are trying to suggest I am the antagonist here.’
‘I am,’ replied the defence lawyer.”
As I read somewhere else
As I read somewhere else today (maybe in these comments, maybe on twitter?). Reporting criminality is not vigilanteism and vigilanteism is a crime. By calling Mikey a vigilante, the mail and other similar publications are committing an act of libel. I would guess he would have a good chance to win a lawsuit on that one as they would have to prove he was committing that crime, which he is not or at least that they believed he was (which is true I have no idea, I am not a lawyer)
Patrick9-32 wrote:
Got some evidence for that claim?
I don’t believe being a
I don’t believe being a vigilante is a crime per se, the issue is that you do not have the legal protection of, for example, being a police officer who are granted additional powers under the law. Many actions taken by vigilantes can therefore lead to prosecution for assault, false imprisonment etc.
If you hit someone with your
If you hit someone with your car on purpose, you should lose your right to drive permenantly. Doesn’t matter the speed you are going or whether you are in a REALLY BIG HURRY!!
The only mitigating circumstance would be avoiding a car jacking. Someone standing in front of you holding a camera asking you to reverse doesn’t quite fall within that.
Mikey was standing with his feet planted, not moving towards the car when the driver chose to drive into him.
This fuck was allowed to drive home from court.
Where can I get that Shell
Where can I get that Shell Jersey? – thats cool. It would be great if some green-solar-energy company could sponsor them, but guess what – their business doesn’t make profit. Fossil Fuel companies are the reason we can afford to sit and complain on this website all day, rather than working in the fields. Oil has saved more lives than it will kill. How many will have died from the cold alone if there was no oil or gas? …we might even find out this christmas.
alexuk wrote:
You might like to think about how many lives have been lost in wars fought over oil before making that statement. Not to mention the seven million global deaths each year from air pollution and the death by famine of those whose farmlands have turned into deserts due to global warming. Not sure it’s quite as clear cut as you make out.
Those comments are cynical
Those comments are cynical and demonstrate a failure to grasp the scale of the problem we face and the urgency in tackling it.
Global heating is a slow-moving disaster. This glacier that threatens a 1.5m sea-level rise is just one aspect of it.
The last I heard companies
The last I heard companies supplying renewable energy to the UK were so profitable the government was planning to cap their income, in contrast to their approach to the entirely reasonable profits being made by oil and gas companies.
Or something
For me, the charge of
For me, the charge of dangerous driving in the Cycling Mikey case was excessive for the video evidence I’ve seen. The direct action approach to wrongdoing by Mikey is provocative for some, although I have taken direct action myself on the issue of unsafe parking around schools (without much success). For me the answer is simply more enforcement. Rules are made by society, but fair enforcement of those rules is required – by independent resources (like the Police). The current lack of control through enforcement is damaging for all of us.
Aldi Ludlow.
Aldi Ludlow.
How not to install cycle racks. Hard to fathom the result.
An example of this?
An example of this?
There is no point engaging
There is no point engaging with a contrarian PBU.
Theatrical agent Lyon and
Theatrical agent Lyon and Martin 73 are both unpleasant pieces of work.
GANNA!!!
GANNA!!!
Averdict delivered by a jury
Averdict delivered by a jury of drivers perhaps. Was anyone really surprised?