“Putting cycling behind a paywall isn’t how to grow the sport”: Fans react to “awful, disgraceful” news of ITV losing Tour de France broadcast rights, Does Pogačar lack morals for signing bumper new contract with UAE Team Emirates? + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Does this mean no more silly season rumours about four of the biggest riders for the near-future?
At least we’ll always have new rumours about Remco Evenepoel leaving Soudal Quick-Step and joining *insert team name* every three months I guess!
😳 No Tour de France on ITV from 2026 as Eurosport becomes exclusive UK broadcaster
One of the UK’s most beloved televisual sporting traditions of the summer will come to an end in 2026, following the news that the Tour de France will no longer be shown on ITV after next year, after Warner Bros. Discovery and Eurosport announced that they had agreed a new exclusive rights deal for cycling’s biggest race.
Read more: > No Tour de France on ITV from 2026 as Eurosport becomes exclusive UK broadcaster
“A testament to how popular cycling is”: Cyclists call for converting car parking spaces into e-bike docking areas after dozens of Lime bikes parked on the pavement attract hire bike critics
It might not be a the most stylishly taken photograph, but my word, if a picture could speak a thousand words…
In the foreground, we have dozens of Lime bikes — the London share bikes that just refuse to go down in popularity (remember that video from All Points East this summer?) — parked on a pavement as pedestrians walk past the white and green mosaic, with one person in the corner engaged in the process of either hiring one and riding away, or unmounting and adding their own brushstroke to the hodge-podge.
In the background, we’ve got another row of the Santander bikes on the edge of the pavement, all neatly docked in their stations — a stark contrast to the chaos imposed by the Lime bikes — all while four lanes of motor traffic, gridlocked into a prison of their making wait to be set free.
Whilst this is frustrating it is also a testament to how popular cycling is and that given the choice people would prefer to cycle. Campaign for better infrastructure and reclaiming some of the vast amount of space occupied by automobiles ( see the 4 lanes behind ) https://t.co/fJuLPAclLM
— Bob From Accounts 🚲 (@BobFromAccounts) October 24, 2024
Now, a lot of people have a lot of opinions about hire bikes, especially Lime bikes which operate on a dockless basis, having designated parking areas where they must be left by those taking them out. For some, it’s the ultimate convenience when it comes to picking their mode of transport, for others, “an eyesore”, “clutter” and “just a blight on our pavements”.
The image was shared by Sam Bowman, editor of the magazine ‘Works in Progress’ who captioned it: “This is such a pain in the ass. These e-bike companies should be required to lease out car parking spots and make their riders park them in them.”
However, popular cycling account on Twitter ‘Bob from Accounts’ took umbrage at the sentiment and said: “Whilst this is frustrating it is also a testament to how popular cycling is and that given the choice people would prefer to cycle. Campaign for better infrastructure and reclaiming some of the vast amount of space occupied by automobiles (see the 4 lanes behind ).”
And from the outset, it seems that most cyclists tended to agree. Biological scientist and journalist/filmmaker Kate Middleton (no, not that one), replied saying: “We should be converting car parking spaces to e-bike parking in areas like this. Resident’s parking in boroughs like Greenwich is around 30p a day for a tank sized SUV – let’s change some of that public space into e-bike spaces.”
David Burridge said: “It highlights the popularity of the freedom given by non-dockable cycles! Yes, there needs to be better infrastructure, but let’s keep positive: this is a great emerging tech; delivering healthy transport solutions. No to the extreme ‘regulate and ban’ people.”
Another person said: “Dozens of people travelling around a city while emitting almost no CO2 and generating almost no traffic is definitely worth the trade-off.”
However, there were some people who called for organised parking, instead of “dumping” them on the pavement, leading to some interesting replies…
Yep, common sense pic.twitter.com/u7wdwPy4We
— Bob From Accounts 🚲 (@BobFromAccounts) October 24, 2024
And cars ? pic.twitter.com/AfCGxhePuG
— cycleoptic💙💚 (@cycleoptic) October 24, 2024
What makes this situation even more interesting is the apparent battle even Transport for London seems to have picked up with Lime, either catching on to the discontent about the haphazardly-parked bikes or playing it a way to tilt attention towards its own Santander bikes.
Just this Wednesday, TfL announced that it will be upgrading its ‘Boris bikes’ fleet by by doubling its e-bike fleet to 4,000, in a bid to quell the dockless private hire bike challenge of recent years.
TfL’s head of cycle hire David Eddington even said: “What we offer is a safe, well-managed, considerate scheme – a docked scheme. People know where they have to go to get a bike, and where they have to be left.
“We provide an alternative to the more selfish customer who wants to leave their [dockless] bike anywhere and make it somebody else’s problem.”
Order vs chaos, Black and red versus white and green… you know the drill.
What do you make of it? Should there be docks for Lime bikes and if yes, then do you agree if there needs to be reclaiming of some car parking space to make way for them… or does this current system work as it is and should stay the same? Let us know in the comments.
How to keep cyclists safe when roadworks are taking place vs how not to
How to keep cyclists safe when roadworks are taking place VS how not to pic.twitter.com/pqlBLmhGIF
— Cycling in London (@Cycling_In_LDN) October 24, 2024
Halfords says new premium bike range is a hit – but cycling market remains challenging following “UK’s wettest spring since 1986”
After seeing its profits slashed last year amid “significantly worse than expected” bike sales, Halfords says its leisure cycling sector has remained a challenge throughout the first half of 2024, following the UK’s “wettest spring since 1986”.
Why did he do that?! Paddy McGuinness getting chamois cream absolutely wrong 🤦🏽♂️
You see there’s this thing called Google, that tells you how to do things when you aren’t really sure…
Is Tadej Pogačar’s new contract with UAE Team Emirates the latest in a long line of cycling sportswashing, indicating the Slovenian “lacks morals”? Or is it justified for him to stay loyal to his team (and does the sport need to look inwards?)
Lots of big questions there…
If you missed yesterday’s big pro cycling story, the best male cyclist in the world at the moment, and perhaps ever, Tadej Pogačar extended his contract with UAE Team Emirates until 2030 — and on commenced the chatter around sportswashing.
Sportswashing, if you didn’t know, is a tactic through which corporations, governments and nations use sports to improve the public perception of the entity, and cleanse any tarnished reputation they might have accumulated.
And if you’ve followed cycling in recent years at all, there’s no lack of sportswashing — from petrochemical conglomerates such as TotalEnergies and Ineos sponsoring and owning teams, to entire nation states like Israel and UAE having their names on their respective teams.
So with the world’s biggest cycling superstar who’s just had one of the greatest seasons in cycling history choosing to stay with the same team (for an alleged €8 million a year, up by €2 million from his current contract), cycling fans were quick to raise eyebrows.
Emma Bianchi asked: “Genuine question: why? With his profile, he could probably go to any team he wants. They would all free a chunk of budget to sign him. Why does he stay? Is it only the money?
“Because he’s actively contributing to the sportswashing agenda of a country that has very *questionable* human rights? I wouldn’t be allowed to exist there, so how can I be his fan? Other people might have to take the contract if they have no option, but he has all the options??”
One person pointed out that several riders choose to ride for teams with questionable entities backing and funding the machinery, the most recent example being the Aussie Ben O’Connor, runner-up at the Vuelta a España this year, choosing to leave Decathlon-AG2R Mondiale to join Jayco-AlUla, an Australian team but co-sponsored by the Saudi Arabian city of al-Ula — then, why should Pogačar be crucified for doing the same?
Bianchi responded saying: “If anyone has the options to demand the world, it’s him. I’m specifically annoyed by him because he’s the only one who’s truly free to choose.”
One more person criticised Pogačar saying: “He has already shown he clearly has no morals, so I don’t think it plays a factor in his decision making.”
However, there were once again others who defended his choice, suggesting that he’s been with the team almost all his professional career as well as knowing that they’ve built a big team around him with riders he seemingly has a great camaraderie with, giving him all the right tools to succeed and beat the odds when he’s having a bad day (as preposterous as that sounds currently).
And finally, there was yet another school of thought, which considered the sharp critique reserved for Middle Eastern countries in sportswashing as rather unfair, and called on fans to look inwards, specifically Europe.
> The UAE is investing heavily in cycling — but can we trust that its intentions are genuine?
Cycling fan account going by the name ‘Tratnikuchismo’ wrote: “In my opinion it’s highly hypocritical from the Western world to criticise Middle East for sportswashing while not mentioning how we continuously abuse Third World Countries, move our industries there, exploit slave workers and with that support dictatorial regimes without a sense of shame.
“Plus as a part of NATO we consistently invade countries for our interests. In that sense we are in no sense worse than Middle East. If you criticise sportswashing by those countries, please first criticise our own countries and regimes, before standing on the moral high ground and preach about others.
“Yes, Pogačar is sh*t for staying at UAE and supporting a bad regime. At the same time we are also sh*t by not doing anything about abusing third world countries.”
As always, we’d be more than interested to know what you think… Do you think Pogačar should have seen his previous contract out and moved to a new team (if so, which team?), or is he justified in staying loyal to the team which has helped him fulfil all his cycling goals, despite the sportswashing accusations? Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments below!
Ribble Rebellion, a brand-new cycling team aimed at “disrupting” the global Crit scene, folds just months after launch
In what can only highlight the volatile nature of domestic racing, Ribble Rebellion has decided to call it a day just months after being launched.
The young team with lofty goals of “disrupting” the global Crit scene was launched by the British bike manufacturer in March this year, and with less than one full season under its belt, the team has announced it won’t continue racing into the 2025 season, leaving many of its riders in a precarious spot, reports The British Continental.
The team had built quite the roster, with Joe Laverick whose has previously raced for Axel Merckx’s Hagens Berman Axeon, along with other British talents such as Matt Bostock and Jim Brown, who’s finished in the top 10 of two Tour of Britain stages.
The team made some big waves during its short stint, winning many races in the US and the UK, as well as winning the title of the Best Team at the National Crit Series.
James May forced to complete charity cycle in car after “busting wrist” in bike crash – and drives into bollard
“At my age, this sort of thing takes much longer to heal,” the former Top Gear presenter said after falling off his bike near Hammersmith Bridge…
“Putting cycling behind a paywall is not how to grow the sport”: Fans react to “awful” and “disgraceful” news of ITV losing Tour de France rights, making Eurosport the exclusive UK broadcaster
Shocking, disastrous, awful, disgraceful… Lots of horrible adjectives Warner Bros Discovery might not have expected to see when announcing the news that Eurosport was to become the sole broadcaster of Tour de France from 2026 onwards, meaning that all those with free-to-air television would lose out on watching cycling’s biggest event on ITV.
Besides being a subscription-based service, this also means fans would have to be content with substituting Ned Boulting’s commentary with… erm, Carlton Kirby.
road.cc contacted ITV for an official statement, and a spokesperson got back saying: “Nothing for ITV to add on this one.”
> No Tour de France on ITV from 2026 as Eurosport becomes exclusive UK broadcaster
The announcement from this morning all but means a death knell for the channel’s coverage of the race, which tonnes of fans seemed to enjoy and cherish, despite the otherwise persistent groans about cuts to adverts about life insurances, donkey sanctuaries and funeral homes.
Here’s what road.cc readers and other cycling fans have had to say about the whole deal, and yes, it’s 99.99 per cent, let’s say, not positive.
james-o: Ah well.. there goes the last of my interest in racing. Won’t be getting Eurosport just for this. I will miss the ITV coverage though, the commentary team were brilliant and part of the summer for me since the mid 80s. Maybe I’ll plan a tour out to France to see it by the roadside.
Rendel Harris: Personally I’m happy to shell out my £6.99 a month for all three GTs, all the monuments and major stage races that you get with Eurosport/Discovery but I think it’s a real mistake not to have a least a highlights package available on free to air. As I suspect many on here of my vintage did, I first got into cycle racing through seeing the Channel 4 highlights from 1984 (?) onwards and it formed the basis of a lifetime of devotion. My other two favourite sports, rugby union and cricket, have been severely damaged in terms of fanbase and encouraging young people to get involved by making shortsighted decisions to grab the cash and not have any free to air coverage, even highlights; sad to see cycling going the same way. So now any kids whose parents can’t afford/don’t want to pay for Eurosport will get to see cycle racing on TV once every couple of years at the Commonwealth Games and the Olympics?
Natrix: Wow, absolutely gutted with that news. I’ve watched every one of the tours on ITV (and lots previously on C4), really love the highlights programme. The comentators are a great bunch, was chatting with Ned a couple of days ago and he didn’t mention this.
Some more comments from social media…
“Urgh, Eurosport highlights are utterly terrible. Less ‘highlights’, more ‘randomly show however many final kilometres fit into our run time’. This plus the loss of GCN+ is continued bad news for the viewing public.”
“ITV 4 commentary was by far better than Discovery but live coverage was ruined by constant advert breaks filled with hugely depressing ads for dying donkeys and funeral plans. However, the ITV4 highlights were basically unmissable and when I was working were my main access to Coverage.”
“Very sad news for the event, Eurosport highlights are absolute garbage.”
“That’s not good, should be on more than one channel so more people have access to view. Unfortunately the biggest cheque has won again!!”
“That’s that then. Won’t be able to watch the Tour after 2026. Can’t afford Eurosport. Disappointing as really enjoy Ned Boulting and David Millar along with the rest of the ITV Cycling team.”
“That doubly sucks because ITV4’s coverage elevates a sports programme well above the usual boring sports show by being witty, non-sycophantic and informative about the wider picture. Can’t bear to watch other cycling shows without the fantastic presenters + commentators on ITV4.”
“WTF!! So ITV Cycling is going to be done with by 2026?? This isn’t right, Sky have taken football away from free tv for the most part and a sport as small as cycling, begging for more views, which help sponsors and the sport in general is now behind a paywall?? What a joke!!”
“As much as I enjoy Eurosport’s coverage, having free to air on ITV is really important. I think this is a bad thing. I feel for everyone connected with ITV cycling and everything they have built.”
And finally on a lighter note, Lance Rossiter wrote: “Carlton Kirby laughing at his own jokes is worth the subscription!!!” I don’t know if I agree with that or not…
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.
24 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
The cyclist here needs to look into Section 142 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, firstly because there was no offence, and secondly because it appears that the police mislead the Court. "A magistrates’ court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so;] and it is hereby declared that this power extends to replacing a sentence or order which for any reason appears to be invalid by another which the court has power to impose or make." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/142
I wonder how well advised the cyclist was in Court? And in this case would cycling legal insurance cover the cost of a specialist solicitor?
@quiff I would expect the police had not been trained with the change, perhaps.
@courteousdriver The Highway Code does not differentiate between cars and bikes in this instance, it says that when overtaking parked cars you must give way to oncoming traffic. It's not for you to decide whether or not they have sufficient space in your opinion, you should not drive in the oncoming traffic lane if there is any oncoming traffic, full stop. Not a difficult rule to understand and one that one would have thought a self-named courteousdriver would have no trouble obeying.
@mctrials23 It seems to me that the car moved closer to the kerb on his side of the road, and the cyclist was able to proceed entirely within his own lane - both at very slow speed. So there is no ground for an offence. The concerning point is that the copper thinks that the same "gap" should apply to the different types of vehicle. That's peak carbrain.
Peripheral to your point, but parking facing oncoming traffic is advised against at all times, but only an offence at night, I think?
@mac f 1896 If you look closely at the video you will see that the cyclist remains entirely in his own lane on his side of the white lines as he passes the oncoming vehicle, which also stays entirely within its lane. There is therefore no need for either road user to give way to the other and as they are both travelling at low speeds there is no danger to themselves or to any other road users. I would love to see a transcript of the magistrates' court proceedings as prima facie there is no justification in law for the guilty finding or for the penalty imposed.
@perce pedantry but I think Séamus Ennis would be scunnered with that ... had he not been Irish... (Uilleann pipes are bagpipes of course, though personally I'd much rather those - or small pipes - than the GHB)
@quiff I think you are probably right here - but - is that _really_ being inconsiderate to the oncoming driver? Looking again at the video, the oncoming driver appears to be over the centre line when approaching the parked vehicle and just seems to be straightening the bend a little, so you would expect them to be moving towards the kerb anyway. As driving interactions go, it's about as benign as it gets. I expect the magistrate has never ridden a bicycle, but I also wonder if they've ever driven a car?!
Thanks - I only had a quick peek on Streetview and I'm glad it works for locals, but it looked like "you say 'shared used facility', I say 'same old not-over-generous footway now with the odd blue sign". We don't need cycle paths absolutely everywhere, but looking at the size of the road, where it goes and runs though I would be thinking more like this (minus parked cars): https://maps.app.goo.gl/gswbQefKzc47nEJm8 Or... declare it an urban freeway and get rid of the junctions and houses next to it! Maximum flow...
24 thoughts on ““Putting cycling behind a paywall isn’t how to grow the sport”: Fans react to “awful, disgraceful” news of ITV losing Tour de France broadcast rights, Does Pogačar lack morals for signing bumper new contract with UAE Team Emirates? + more on the live blog”
Those Twitter X comments just
Those
TwitterX comments just demonstrate – again! – motonormativity. The people criticising the hire bikes dumped on the footway are, I imagine, genuinely blind to the problems caused by cars/vans (and literal rubbish) dumped on other footways…They’re paying “road tax”.
They’re paying “road tax”. What is Lime paying to use/block our footpaths?
Dividends?
Dividends?
To its delightful owners,
To its delightful owners, which, I believe, include Uber and Alphabet. What’s not to like?
Lime and all the other
Lime and all the other companies do pay the local authority to use bikes in the said authority. They do not get to operate for ‘free’.
Rome73 wrote:
I believe that’s not always the case, certainly in London: some boroughs have signed agreements with hire bike operators which gives them some revenue (quite a lot, e.g. Camden I believe is making northwards of £1 million a year) and some haven’t. These agreements are voluntary, as the law stands at the moment operators don’t need permission from the local authority to introduce their hire bikes to an area.
Why should the bike hire
Why should the bike hire companies have to lease out parking spaces? It not like (permitted areas aside) drivers are having to pay for the storage space, so why should they? Just direct users to leave the bikes in a convenient space, if possible.
I disagree. Car drivers pay
I disagree. Car drivers pay for parking, or at least should, in such busy areas, and I don’t like the idea that these companies are freeloading on public space. Cafes etc have to pay to use the public space if they want to put tables on the pavement.
A small tariff paid to councils, plus strict rules on storing them on these docks, would be most welcome.
the little onion wrote:
Well once they actually do, then maybe the lease argument would hold some water. But the point is (somewhat facetiously) highlighting the hypocrisy of people demanding that space for bikes should be paid for, while expecting to be able to just dump motor vehicles (including those being used for profit-making enterprises) in the same spaces for free.
Hmm… the comments about
Hmm… the comments about “what about cars on footways?” are on-point but this looks like a way to get bogged in unhelpful argument.
As always why not look at the future (hopefully): what are they doing in NL? Well, while they do have some hire companies there (e.g. here) the “big player” is … a docked bike system, anchored on transport hubs (in fact state owned because the railways are nationalised).
But what about the cars? Well their philosophy has it the right way round – in most places you can only park where it’s specifically marked rather than the UK “park anywhere unless specifically prohibited”. (So no more thousands of miles of don’t-entirely-mean-no-parking double yellows).
And “but what about the piles of bikes”? Well – NL does have a “problem of succcess” – there are a LOT of parked bikes. However a) people tend to take a little more care of things which are their private property – unlike hire machines and b) they’re still adding capacity for excellent bike parking which gets bikes out of the way in the centre of towns.
But whatabout where we are now in the UK? Why not less of both? Fewer bikes OR cars abandoned on footways / other unhelpful places.
I’m not a dockless fan. (I think NotJustBikes’ comment about this often being an attempted replacement for a lack of decent street-level public transport is about right). Do any large cycle hire systems actually make their money from the bikes? Or is it rather advertising, or venture capital speculation on market share (or selling users’ data)? Even docked bike hire companies have strugged with damage / theft. Leaving “free moveable stuff” on the streets isn’t really a good idea.
I have also wondered how
I have also wondered how profitable dockless bikes are, especially given they are apparently easy to hack.
Even stolen dockable bike users are visible in areas far distant from docking stations.
mitsky wrote:
Lime was profitable in 2022, but I doubt they’ve made money overall. A lot of the startups lost money on every rental, but made it up in volume.
mdavidford wrote:
Why argue with others when
Why argue with others when you can do it yourself?
Quote:
No it isn’t.
To be fair, it did get
To be fair, it did get brighter and drier here in Cardiff since I wrote that…
Ref Pogacar, Can I would
Ref Pogacar, Can you blame a rider for signing a big contract in a sport in which they have a limited career length? I would suggest that the teams along with the UCI need to do more to restructure the sport to make it fairer on the less fortunate. For every Pogacar or Evanapoel there is a rider busting their ass every day in support of them getting paid a mere fraction. Even some of the teams on the world tour have very limited budgets compared to UAE, Visma leaseabike or Ineos etc.
That needs dealing with along with more to encourage womens events which is ridiculously underfunded as with most womens sports.
Agree. Since when are
Agree. Since when are athletes ‘policemen’ or moral judgers… if anything they could do the most for cycling safety. And non did.
GIVERNING BODY is the one responsible for this kind of matters. And as @tratnik..sth stated we should first clean infront of our own doors before judging others. This is one of the most ridiculous topics opened uo lately.
Re the pics of the van etc.,
Re the pics of the van etc., I don’t think that’s a very good defence at all (if that’s what they’re supposed to be).
Very disappointed – how am I
Very disappointed – how am I supposed to get angry over the lack of victim blaming ?!
Good morning South Yorkshire. How are you this #Friday? Don’t forget that the clocks change this weekend which means we are heading into darker mornings & evenings. Have a look at our checklist to help you stay road safe: https://sysrp.co.uk/campaign/darknights
Hirsute wrote:
Watch the video on the linked webpage??…
When those dark nights roll in, it’s time to put away the headphones!
What gets my goat every year
What gets my goat every year when driving more in the dark is the number of drivers who use spot lamps, dazzling everyone else, even though it is illegal. I did write to Viz TopTips, but I’m not sure if they used it:
“Drivers, if you use spot lamps all the time when it’s dark, could you please strap a 14″ fluorescent pink dildo to the roof of your car so that we’ll know in daylight too.”
I find that autolights on
I find that autolights on cars have the head lights on when not needed. As soon as there is enough light to see the road surface ahead headlights only serve to dazzle other road users reducing safety. On narrow country roads when you have to pull over to pass very few drivers seem to realise that swithching to side lighs when stopped at night helps everyone. I guess this is another instance of ‘auto’ reducing brain engagement.
Dave Walker
Dave Walker