Ex-Sun editor “shocked” by folded bike on train seat; “Put a helmet on you helmet”: Residents unsympathetic after pavement-riding cyclist crashes into power box and cuts head open; Movistar respond to Lazkano’s doping suspension + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
"Put a helmet on you helmet": Residents unsympathetic after pavement-riding cyclist crashes into power box and cuts head open
We start today with footage of a cyclist falling over his handlebars and cracking his head open after crashing into a power box on a pavement. It’s not a great look…
The incident occurred last Tuesday in Stafford at around 7pm. Local resident Justin Livermore, who captured the footage on his home security camera, told Stoke-on-Trent Live, the cyclist “paid the price” for not wearing a helmet by cutting his head open and reportedly being taken to A&E. “You rarely see people with lights or helmets on around here,” he added.
Comments on both the original article and the Facebook post were similarly unsympathetic, with the latter attracting more than 4500 reactions and 1000 comments.
“No sympathy should not be on the pavement or racing at speed past pedestrians – not wearing a helmet too sums him up,” wrote one commenter.
“Put a helmet on you helmet,” wrote Eric Cartmann.
“I’m not sure a helmet was the issue here, just a helmet riding the bike? maybe get glasses first ?” said Matthew Criddle.
As shown in the video, the collision with the power box came as the cyclist passed two pedestrians at high speed on the pavement, who then came to his assistance after the crash. And several commenters noted how “lucky”, for want of a better word, it was that the cyclist injured only himself.
Shuggy May described his own head-cracking experience, “Cracked my head open like an egg when i was 14 fractured skull etc still have issues in my late 30s but still a keen cyclist and always wear a helmet…don’t care what people think safety over vanity all day long…(idiot shouldn’t have been on the pavement also)”
A cracked head, blood on the street, we really are starting today with a story ripe for this time of year.
"All the controls yielded a negative result": Movistar respond to Lazkano doping suspension
News of Oier Lazkano’s doping suspension shook up the cycling world yesterday, after speculation had grown for several months on the Spaniard’s lack of form in the spring followed by a complete withdrawal from racing since April. Now his former team Movistar, who he rode for during the years of alleged doping violations has released a statement.
They first quote the UCI’s official communication to the team which arrived yesterday stating that a panel of independent experts unanimously agreed that “it is highly likely that a prohibited substance or prohibited method has been used and that it is unlikely that the passport is the result of any other cause.” The passport in this case refers to Lazkano’s biological passport that tracks his medical data over a long-term period. The abnormal results in his passport are what alerted the anti-doping authorities.
The UCI statement also makes clear that the public announcement of Lazkano’s suspension comes after the rider provided evidence and supporting documentation seeking to explain the reasoning behind his anomalies, which occurred in 2022, 2023 and 2024. But in other words, the panel didn’t believe him.
In their statement Abarca Sports, which owns the Movistar team, said “all the controls to which [Lazkano] was subjected by the different national and international organisations, as well as internal to the team itself, yielded a negative result. By virtue of this, it was materially impossible to know, or even intuit, any anomaly such as the one now presented”. To summarise, paraphrasing a rather infamous quote, he had never tested positive.
“Most importantly, Abarca Sports reiterates once again with absolute firmness its unwavering commitment to a clean and transparent sport. To this end, we will redouble with absolute determination all the efforts, controls and measures that we have been promoting to date.”
Coming a day after another former Movistar rider, Brazilian Vinicius Rangel, was handed a two-year doping ban, now is not a good time for the oldest team in the peloton. It also raises broader difficult questions about the efficacy of the biological passport if offences more than two years old are only being publicly acted on now.
In that time Lazkano achieved the best results of his career, winning the Clasica Jaen and Spanish National Championships and becoming a respected name in the spring classics. Despite weighing over 70kg he also finished in the top-10 of the Criterium du Dauphine ahead of climbing specialists. It’s all really rather murky…
Mark Cavendish brands cycling “cleanest sport in the world” as Talksport suffer an attention lapse
My colleague Ryan has written up Cavendish’s latest comments as part of his ongoing book tour, where he told talkSPORT all about his perceptions of doping in the peloton. Unfortunately for him, his comments came on the same day as the biggest suspected doping announcement for a long while. Frankly it’s a relief to see Ryan apply the relevant details and context around Sir Mark’s latest statements, because talkSPORT clearly couldn’t.
According to them, Cavendish won the final stage of his final Tour de France. In case you’ve forgotten that was a hilly Time Trial from Monaco to Nice that was won by Tadej Pogacar. That’s not to say Sir Mark didn’t enjoy himself and celebrate it like it was a victory.
But it’s not quite the professional win that statisticians will approve of. Or maybe we can throw talkSPORT a bone if you want to count the Tour de France Singapore Criterium. I’m afraid to say though we most certainly don’t.
Colnago releases something a bit special
Colnago is back on the track. As we teased on yesterday’s blog, the iconic Italian brand has returned to the velodrome in the hope of having its new T1Rs raced at the 2028 Olympic Games in LA.
Dan headed down to Lee Valley Velodrome yesterday to get up close with the new bike and snap some pics. We’ll have more info in Tech of the Week tomorrow and if you’re heading down to catch some of the action at the London 3 Day, be sure to check out Colnago’s stand to get a look at this and some other famous bikes from eras past
Specialized sued by mountain biker after serious e-bike crash
According to a lawsuit filed last week, cyclist Steve Ruggiero was riding the Alpine Trail in Oakridge, Oregon, when he crashed due to an unexpected acceleration, breaking seven ribs. Read more below:
Bosch pull out of Eurobike trade fair
We reported yesterday on the struggles at Eurobike, the biggest bike show on the continent, that has seen industry associations pull out due to no “realistic chance of achieving” meaningful changes to the trade fair that they wanted. Now, an industry titan has also pulled out.
Bosch’s withdrawal was first signalled yesterday when their e-bike systems CEO Claus Fleischer warned of “fundamental change” that he expected was necessary to secure the trade fair’s future.
Despite these signals, organisers Fairnamics said they were ‘surprised’ by the withdrawals and had already begun planning for next year’s exhibitions. However, with Bosch’s confirmed withdrawal, attention has turned to Paul Lange, the remaining major exhibitor who haven’t yet released a statement on Eurobike. Their withdrawal could spell curtains for the trade fair though that was once a marquee point on the bike industry calendar. The event has suffered in recent years however with declining attendance, fewer exhibitors, and notable brand absentees.
Singapore seeks sprinters (+ Primoz Roglic) as 'official' TdF criteriums kick-off
It’s the time of year when riders look to make a bit of money and have a holiday in the process, as the official Tour de France Singapore criterium takes place this weekend.
This year’s criterium is the perfect pay day for a trio of green jersey winners as Jonathan Milan, Biniam Girmay and Jasper Philipsen will all line up, ‘battling’ for the win alongside newly crowned 36-year old Primoz Roglic and this year’s supercombativity prize winner Ben Healy. We can’t wait for the photos and videos to emerge of riders dressed in local costume and smiling for the cameras. Last year’s ‘winner’, in case you’d forgotten, could only be Mark Cavendish.
Ex-Sun editor "shocked" by train passenger "unbelievably" putting folding bicycle on seat
We mentioned talkSPORT’s Cav-related cock-up earlier, well now the station’s founder Kelvin MacKenzie has caught our attention. His source of ire this time? A passenger placing his folding bicycle on the seat next to him…
Unbelievably this passenger got on the 4.35pm at Weybridge collapsed his bike ( opposite me) and placed it on the seat next to him. Had the guard been doing his job I presume he would have asked the chap ( early thirties) to remove it. I found this shocking. Am I alone? pic.twitter.com/Mz76jMDcpj
— Kelvin MacKenzie (@kelvmackenzie) October 30, 2025
Yep, like many of the 600 comments replying to MacKenzie’s tweet, we don’t quite get his anger at this, especially considering there appears to be other seats available, like the one next to MacKenzie.
Still, this is hardly the most egregious thing the former Sun Editor has ever done (I’ll leave you to Google/Wikipedia him yourselves). But it’s another insight into the curious mind of the tabloid titan who seemingly cannot comprehend someone wanting to take their portable bike on a train.
Update: We had a chat over lunch about this, and it all comes back to available bike storage on trains! If there aren’t enough storage spaces or a large enough footwell, then what choice does a cyclist have but to put their bike on the seat? How does it compare to when a rogue passenger puts their shoes on a seat? Although as MacKenzie appears to suggest, perhaps there was adequate space for this person to store their bike on the train, and they were just being downright rude. Perhaps.
It reminded us of the podcast conversation Ryan and Jack had with railway designer and keen cyclist Gareth Dennis back in 2023 outlining how and why everything is so difficult when mixing cycling and trains. You can read and listen to that conversation below and let us know what you think!
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.
54 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
“I don’t really understand cycling anymore”: Geraint Thomas confused.... So there's no hope for me then!
Right. Not quite as pithy, though, is it?
One issue I have with this discussion is TFL controls the strategic road network. So major roads. In a huge chunk of cases there are alternative roads that make far, far more sense than building cycle lanes along the strategic road network... To use an example I use, TFL doing it would require putting the cycle lane along the A4 rather than A315; The A4 is a dual carriageway and IIRC in places a flyover designed for high capacity through traffic. The A315 is the road for accessing the town centres of Hounslow and Brentford, designed for local traffic. High quality cycling infra along either works for me riding to work. But only infra on the A315 works for most local cyclists who aren't doing a 20 mile commute all the way into central London, but instead a 2-5 mile journey into Hounslow or Brentford centre. Both options can satisfy long distance riding; Only one satisfies short distance riding... Becomes even more obvious with Chiswick High Road and Kensington High street vs Great West Road (and Hammersmith Flyover etc). (Note that the TFL vs Borough roads listed are pretty comparable in length...) Basically arguing TFL should be providing infra on Londons Strategic Road network is arguing that we should focus on long distance cycling and ignore the 'last mile section', despite the majority of bicycle users doing journeys that are too short to ever leave 'last mile' sections... (I can see arguments for making TFL responsible for key cycling routes; but step 1 to doing this is transferring control of said routes from Borough Councils to TFL...)
It is a nice bike. It would be perfect for me and my abilities. The problem is they barely changed some non-significant things and they priced way too high for any conscious amateur. An Ultegra (2021 tech...) cannot be priced over 4.5/5K€ (and I'm still "large" on my considerations). And the Force too is way overpriced. After two years research, for me it is clear there is no way I'll buy a west-world brand.
Sounds good to me - after all it would be no offence if people were hands-free / device was in a cradle "and they were not distracted" at the same time, shurely?
Something else that would help in terms of public understanding of the differences is for the brands making legal bikes to not start having a war between who has the most powerful motor. The 250 W "continuous" power rule seems to be circumvented in various ways so that far more powerful machines are now officially legal. This limitation needs to be better defined and controlled, because it seems to be meaningless based on the legal eMTBs that have been launched recently.
@mdavidford They can't see from there if he was using handsfree, and it sounded like he was sort of shouting at his phone, so probably was. On the other hand, "We'll call you a bit later to discuss your driving without due care and attention, we've been behind you on blues and two's for ages"
@mdavidford I think that's called Entrapment!
@mdavidford I think that's called Entrapment!
"Hello mate - are you on the M40?" "Yes" "OK - just to let you know you can expect a prosecution for using your phone while driving..."
54 thoughts on “Ex-Sun editor “shocked” by folded bike on train seat; “Put a helmet on you helmet”: Residents unsympathetic after pavement-riding cyclist crashes into power box and cuts head open; Movistar respond to Lazkano’s doping suspension + more on the live blog”
If he’d been going slower he
If he’d been going slower he might not have run into the box in the first place. His decision, same as not wearing helmet.
TBH looking at the crash he’s lucky it wasn’t a hell of a lot worse than a cut and a trip to A&E. That was nasty.
Still at least the pedestrians were concerned about him, they could have just given him a good shoeing and walked on.
Lucky he didn’t end up with a
Lucky he didn’t end up with a trip to Stoke Mandeville.
Mr Blackbird wrote:
Why would he go to SMH? He’s in the midlands
Acknowledged centre for
Acknowledged centre for dealing with severe spinal trauma. Think it’s where the Paralympics started.
When reporting dangerous
When reporting dangerous driving (as a cyclist) to Hertfordshire police recently I noticed they now ask whether you were wearing a helmet. You have to answer to submit the report. You also need to give the make and model of your bike (not related but something I found odd). Not sure what wearing a helmet or not has to do with the offending driver’s dangerous manoeuvre but it’s a compulsory field now.
I needed to go and chill and
I needed to go and chill and meditate after reading that. More pointless whataboutery from the police.
What do they ask of drivers?
What do they ask of drivers?
How much fuel did you have, what is the mileage, what colour is your car, when did you last wash it, what were the tyre pressures in each wheel, do you have a spare wheel, when did you last check the oil level?
I had to fill in a police
I had to fill in a police accident form recently as a car driver. One of the questions was “Were you wearing a seatbelt?”
Does anybody answer “No”?
I did, once.
I did, once.
Accidentally left the car in gear and scraped another when I started it.
Nothing came from it though.
Given that drivers/passengers
Given that drivers/passengers may suffer head/neck injuries when in a collision, presumably to keep things fair for us (cyclists) they will always ask drivers and passengers if they were wearing a helmet and HANS device when submitting reports…?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HANS_device
If not, why?
There’s a theory if you are
There’s a theory if you are not wearing a helmet a driver see you as more vulnerable or more human and gives you more space. For some reason I don’t think this is why they are asking you and its more victim blaming
Was it yes/no, tick box or
Was it yes/no, tick box or could you fill in with not appicable?
Yes/no box (apologies for
Yes/no box (apologies for slow reply, only just noticed a second page with comments on).
Bikepool wrote:
I just type ‘unknown’ in all those superflous question boxes, it seems to work.
I didn’t want to risk the
I didn’t want to risk the driver getting off on a technicality so completed it accurately but begrudgingly. No idea if it is important for prosecution or for data analysis. I’m hoping the latter. Hertfordshire police are taking ‘positive action’ against the offending driver so want all bad.
I just type ‘unknown’ in all
I just type ‘unknown’ in all those superflous question boxes, it seems to work
The police are full of dodges like this to try and discourage offence reporting. The latest Lancs Rozzer dodge I have come across involves their ReportItOnline portal. You can’t now report anything without a postcode, even if it happened on a main road. I was reporting a vehicle without MOT, and an MOT failed for serious safety defects weeks before. There was no VED for months. I observed the vehicle on the Sainsbury’s access road. I found the Sainsbury’s postcode, which was shared with several Garstang businesses and a few private houses and they were all in a long list under ‘select correct address’. If you selected Sainsbury’s, the form refused to accept it. It would only accept it if you selected one of the private houses. My guess is the police would later say: we couldn’t do anything because the complainant stated ‘Sainsbury’s in the text but quoted a different address on the form’. It’s always tricks and dodges with the police, because they think they’re cleverer than everybody else
We may have a strong
We may have a strong contender for the Worst and Most Cyclist-Hostile Police Force in the UK Award, but Garstang is the actual verified winner of the Britain in Bloom 2025 Best Small Town in the UK Award https://www.rhs.org.uk/get-involved/britain-in-bloom/bloom-awards-results#awardsandwinnerslist
Sorry, couldn’t resist it!
With a positive mindset I
With a positive mindset I would suggest they are simply collecting data on these things. What sort of bikes are people riding, are they wearing helmets, do they have lights on their bikes. Is there any correllation between any of these things and accidents.
I’m hoping that too. They
I’m hoping that too. They seem pretty decent in all my interactions and if it gives them everything then needs to get the buggers the so be it.
Bikepool wrote:
It’s an attempt to give the impression that helmets are mandatory without passing a law. Since it has no possible bearing on the behaviour of the driver, I’d be asking them why they ask irrelevant questions.
Always nice to see people
Always nice to see people gleefully cheering when a cyclist gets hurt.
Hey, if it makes you feel any
Hey, if it makes you feel any better they also fantasize about hurting us intentionally themselves.
Maybe we should celebrate car
Maybe we should celebrate car crashes
Rufford ford…
Rufford ford…
And you may get a second round: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjxv18g2p4o
SecretSam wrote:
If two idiots meet and take each other off the road for a while and no one else was hurt that’s a good reason to celebrate in my opinion.
Justin Livermore wrote:
Only one of those is a legal requirement and it’s abundantly clear from the video that the cyclist not only has bright lights but supplementary reflectives as well.
….yet you still see them
….yet you still see them (if you actually look).
Maybe if the box had reflectors and some sort pof insurance this would never have happened 😉
“It came out of nowhere”…
“It came out of nowhere”…
But was this actually “shared use” (AKA “sign it and they will come… into conflict with pedestrians”)?
When I was in the Netherlands
When I was in the Netherlands the only people I saw wearing a helmet were British tourists.
What these helmet advocates fail to understand is that cycling isn’t really dangerous at all. I usually wear one however because of all the other people around me engaging in their dangerous activities.
A helmet is a kind of personal protective equipment (PPE). Seeing as we all want to prevent accidents maybe having a look at what the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has to say on the matter…
https://www.rospa.com/health-and-safety-news/understanding-the-hierarchy-of-control-practical-applications-across-industries
Edit: just another thought, if people are always seeing cyclists without lights what do lights achieve? If they weren’t visible without lights then nobody would see cyclists unless they had lights
Also, I hope all of these people wear brightly coloured clothing if they need to walk anywhere after dark, and carry a high-vis in case they need to get out of their car.
Yes …
Yes …
… BUT … in NL I believe their version of RoSPA does favour helmets. And there is now some debate there (albeit top-down) as to whether they’ve got to the point where it is worth adding that to the mix of safety interventions.
That is *enough* cycling is happening and by a suffiently wide demographic (young, old, those with disabilities…) and they do have some stats showing that the majority of hospital admissions are essentially “cyclist crashed / fell off by themselves”. And there is some evidence that eg. cyclists are subject to more severe injuries than just pedestrians.
OTOH the most severe injuries are likely down to motor vehicles, and they could still make improvements there (the 2022 stats showed a worsening https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2024/03/06/cycling-safety-in-the-netherlands-understanding-the-challenges-and-searching-for-solutions/ ). And nobody should want to lose the real health benefits from mass cycling!
> I believe their version of
> I believe their version of RoSPA does favour helmets
The woman who heads that is a helmet nut for some reason. This /noise/ in NL for helmets largely eminates from that single person, and cause of her position she often manages to get it stamped with this “safety organisation says” imprimatur.
It’s sad.
I think it’s more than just
I think it’s more than just her (were there not others behind “Zet ‘m Op”). Although I don’t think there is widespread popular support!
I suspect even there that it likely would be slightly counterproductive.
BUT I think – uniquely on the planet – it is worth their while to run the numbers (very comprehensively and carefully). The difficulty being guessing what social impacts might be and how do you set the “costs”. So eg. would it lead to any reluctance to cycle – which would likely be an *overall* negative health impact for the population even if it “saved one life”?
Presumably putting a folding
Presumably putting a folding bike on a seat could leave it quite mucky, which would be pretty antisocial.
I don’t see the problem, you
I don’t see the problem, you’re going to clean the bike when you get home anyway aren’t you?
Is there any kind of luggage
Is there any kind of luggage facility you could pu it in? If not, then crack on. If there is, it should go there.
A French cyclist survived for
A French cyclist survived for three days after a horrendous 130-foot fall into a ravine, kept alive by the bottles of red wine he had in his shopping bag, police said.
Good job he had a corkscrew !
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cyclist-falls-ravine-survives-days-drinking-wine-france/?linkId=873364294
Found intoxicated by the
Found intoxicated by the Police, the cyclist might be fined and prosecuted for driving under the influence.
Hip-flash defence will be
Hip-flash defence will be fine
It’s a nice story and a good
It’s a nice story and a good advert for the French wine industry (“Ayez toujours une bouteille sur vous en cas d’urgence”) but given that the report says it was continually raining and the gentleman fell into a stream three times trying to scramble out (it doesn’t say whether that was before or after he consumed the wine) it doesn’t sound as though he was going to die of dehydration…
Road.cc’s rehashing of
Road.cc’s
rehashing of someone else’s articlereport also says that he had ‘some food’, but I guess CBS decided that was an inconvenient fact that ruined a perfectly good story and edited it out.Seats on trains are for the
Seats on trains are for the exclusive use of paying passengers. Even if train operators don’t arrange dedicated storage areas onboard. Regardless of the wokist considerations, vertical storage is the safest and most efficient way to store a bicycle on a moving train. Of course, that doesn’t work for ebikes weighing 30 or 40 lbs each. A well-meaning bureaucrat of the French SNCF designed a rack with 5 hooks which are so close to each other that only 2 MTBs or 3 road bikes can be hanged. Although SNCF sells 5 bicycle tickets. The Spanish Renfe sells tickets for bicycles but there is no deficated area to store them. If a inter-regional train reaches full occupancy, the train manager may ask cyclists to disembark their rides even though they hold a valid ticket ,crickey! Meanwhile, in South-East Asia there is a cargo car where it’s easy to load and lash a bicycle, a moped or a motorbike. Europe has talkers, Asia doers.
MaxiMinimalist wrote:
Is that special considerations for trains going to Woking, or to Wokingham?
(Or just meaningless nonsense?)
MaxiMinimalist wrote:
Now I’m confused – are you boiling with rage, steaming or just for giving them a roasting?
Citation needed on safety – in fact wrestling your bike on end in a congested environment doesn’t sound risk free. And as you’ve noted only a subset of bikes fit – even if people haven’t already stored their luggage there / train crew didn’t use it for supplies. Taking on bikes that then don’t fit isn’t space-efficient…
But what happens when the motorbike guy who got on 5 stations back wants to get off?
I’m all for good old low-tech human-centred mucking-in – but you’re calling for a bit of social change there! Plus I suspect in eg. big high-tech population-dense Chinese cities they require the process to be a lot more streamlined!
MaxiMinimalist wrote:
Oh. I was on the train this afternoon (in an almost deserted carriage) and I put my bag, book and phone on the seat next to me, should I ‘fess up and send the rail company a second fare? By the way, not using vertical bike storage in order to ensure that all cyclists can access a place to put their bikes and not just those lucky enough to be blessed with the strength to lift their bikes up onto it is not “woke”, it’s just fair.
MaxiMinimalist wrote:
or if your bike is anything other than a lightweight road bike with skinny narrow handlebars and you’re young and fit with decent upper body strength. The vertical bike storage on trains is the most exclusionary, badly thought out “solution” anyone could come up with
Renfe is a bit more
Renfe is a bit more complicated than that. Local, slow trains, cercanías, have a space for bikes and in practice the only limit is how many can physically fit, in that space or anywhere else. Regional trains, media distancia, also permit bikes no problem, generally. But all the fast trains, AVE, etc. demand that full size bikes be brought bagged with wheels off and usually a ticket bought, though it’s very cheap.
Quite right cycle storage on
Quite right cycle storage on U.K. trains is deficated.
mikeclarke wrote:
dedicated or defecated?
Are you the new village idiot
Are you the new village idiot?
Since helmets aren’t yet*
Since helmets aren’t yet* mandatory, cyclists are free to wear or not a helmet while cycling. In this instance, a bad decision can be deadly.
*Manufacturers must be paying lobbyists who are in constant contact with senior EU bureaucrats for them to issue a new directive
A few strips of brittle and
A few strips of brittle and soft polysyrine are not going to stop many injuries.
Bikes on seats…well, I guess
Bikes on seats…well, I guess it boils down to do you think it’s okay to put your feet on the seats, if you do then no reason you shouldn’t do the same with a bike. However if you do think that then you are an antisocial slob so…
There is easily enough space to slide a Brompton (only 27cm wide when folded) into the footwell of an unoccupied seat; there are also, on those Weybridge trains which I catch occasionally, wheelchair spaces that are virtually never occupied and bike spaces which are long enough that even if they were occupied a folded Brompton would be able to go in front of or behind a standard bike. So I’m afraid, especially as from the empty seats in front it doesn’t look like a very crowded train, as it wouldn’t be at 4:35 pm in the school holidays, it doesn’t look as if the guy has put his bike on the seat because there weren’t any other options but because he couldn’t be bothered to investigate them.
ETA of course we can’t see from the photograph if the cyclist has put a newspaper or other covering down to protect the seat, probably unlikely but if they did, no problem.
How does it compare to a
How does it compare to a rogue passenger with their feet on a seat ? Well quite, its against railway byelaws to put your feet on seats and you can get fined minimum £50 for it. So maybe not the comparison you want to make.
A bike this time of year is going to be covered in a lot of leaf mulch, water, mud, and someone’s then got to sit in that seat at some point.
So no, get your damn folding bike off the seat and on the floor,and stop making cyclists look like entitled prats.
Maybe if the head injuring
Maybe if the head injuring cyclist was a ‘car driver’ and banged his head on the steering wheel then we’d have all cried, terribly…