“What a load of BS”: Former pro ridicules Chris Froome’s claim that bike set-up was “centimetres” off from Tour-winning position; Tour of Britain organisers “in discussion with lawyers” over British Cycling contract termination + more on the live blog

EddyBerckx wrote:

Chris Froome has an almost life ending and most definitely life changing crash - he was lucky to walk again. So no, he wouldn't have necessarily noticed the changes in set up that some of us would have

He also conceivably could have *needed* a different position post-crash - at least initially.

Absolutely, and no one would blink an eye if anyone came on here asked for advice for what bike would fit a 6ft1 male and people posted back with a range all the way from 56 through 58, 60 maybe even 61.

There are hundreds if not thousands of such questions on bike fit like that on the Internet, a whole industry devoted to it, and there's still no definitive answer one way or the other, other than you've got to try them yourself and see how your body fits comfortably on the bike with its specific geometry.

All events should be well signposted, and police forms have to be filled in well in advanced of a planned event date. That, however, is seldom enough for some drivers.

And there is an added safety risk to racing in a 20 zone.

Most leisure cyclists travel between 10 and 15mph depending on equipment and fitness, enthusiasts between 15 and 20. In theory, not actually likely to overtake vehicles moving at the speed limit.

Time trials, however, sees riders hit speeds of 25mph or higher, and that does create a problem. Whilst there is no law saying the riders can't be going that fast, overtaking a vehicle in a built up area at those speeds adds a lot of unneccesary risks, especially when they are one after the other a minute apart.

There is uncertainty to whether an insurer for an event (yes, all events must have insurance policies in place!) would be willing to pay out if an accident occured in a 20mph zone. This is why the CTT are not willing to approve any course that passes through a 20 zone.

The so-called war on motorists has nothing to do with it.

It's politcal BS. Sharp end of most TTs is well above 30mph now, but we're not stopping TTs in 30 zones...

The "fast" TTs all still take place on dual carriageways where traffic is still going much faster.

Most Club courses, which go through 30 zones, are a lot more "sporting" and therefore still much slower, tackling more bends twists, whilst navigating much rougher roads. The fastest rider on my local club 10 this year was over 23 minutes. The course record is jointly held by two Pro riders (one is none other than Ben Healy) and only just squeezes under the 20 minute mark. There is a 1/2 mile stretch in a 30 zone near the beginning, but is quite undulating and bendy before hitting the faster sections in 50 and 60 zones. That start stretch is nowhere near smooth enough to build any momentum to gain enough speed to hit 30mph.

Insurance is also a factor, with race insurance providers unwilling to cover races that run within 20mph zones.

And so what if politics are at play a little bit? Right now the MSM is perpetuating a culture war against cycling by peddling the percieived "War on motorists" when put simply the volume of traffic mixed with ever poorer standards of driving have caused a major barrier to promoting cycling in general. Any public image of cycling bodies, regardless of how unfounded, would be heavily tainted by allowing events to run through 20mph zones as a clear and unneccesary risk. A large number of people already incorrectly percieve all cyclists as TDF wannabes who will risk their neck just to go 0.1mph faster. Watching Time Triallists in competition hurtling at 25mph through a 20 zone, overtaking slower cars will only strengthen that perception.

The CTT have been put between a rock and a hard place with this, because for general purposes, 20mph in urban areas is the right thing to do. However as the scene is so niche and small it has no clout in trying to find a compromise or to lobby exceptions.

I have started riding TTs on a semi-regular basis post-COVID having never before raced prior to the pandemic. I have no issues racing through a 30 zone, but if a course has a 20 limit I would not enter, and I am sure many of the friends I have made in the circuit would agree.

Bigfoz wrote:

It's politcal BS. Sharp end of most TTs is well above 30mph now, but we're not stopping TTs in 30 zones...

I take your point but I can think of one local course which was indeed banned due to the likelihood of TTers exceeding the 30 limit, there being a downhill leading into the village.

mctrials23 wrote:

Having a double buggy for my nippers I realise how fucking awful the general state of pavements and infrastructure around me is. When some utter prick parks their car or (very regularly) their van so far on the pavement that I can barely get past on my own I want to key the crap out of their vehicle. I don't but I want to. If I am pushing my pram and they have made it almost impossible to get through though, I am not going to put too much effort into avoiding their vehicle. 

There is a notorious place around me for this and there is clearly someone who has had enough and does key cars when they block the pavement. I have zero sympathy and quite enjoy it when I see a car parked badly, waiting for the mystery keyer. 

They should decriminalise keying or damaging vehicles that are inconsiderately parked. Ideally poor parking should be criminalised and enforced, but I can't see the underfunded police focussing on that when they've got political protests to break up instead.

when I had nippers in the pram, I never keyed the side of cars parked on the pavement. That would be awful behaviour

The pram did have a nice sticking out metal hood attachment on the sides, which might have touched parked cars as I squeezed through gaps....

Back when my son was little I took him to the supermarket and found a car parked in the pedestrian path between two sets of disabled bays blocking anyone with a wheelchair etc. I picked my son up so he wouldn't see and took off a mirror as we squeezed past. Coming out it was still there so it lost the other mirror. When Aston Villa play at home every pavement within 3 miles of the ground is usually blocked by cars but unfortunately modern mirrors just bend, still quite satisfying though.

Not in favour of criminal damage (tempting as it sometimes is), but I do like to do something innocuous like fold in their mirror or leave a note, just so they know someone's (shock, horror!) touched their car. As outraged as I am on behalf of double-buggysists and wheelchair users, I have to admit that IME most of the time it's just irritatingly entitled, pointless and unthinking, rather than positively obstructive.

If I can walk through the gap I do but if I have to inch through sideways they are losing a mirror.
Maybe the next person to come along is pushing a pram, in a wheelchair, elderly or carrying shopping and will be forced to walk in the road so the driver deserves it.

quiff wrote:

...or leave a note...

one of those fluorescent liquid chalk marker pens should work nicely on the windscreen, and no damage done. Takes a bit of elbow grease to remove, I'm told.

the little onion wrote:

when I had nippers in the pram, I never keyed the side of cars parked on the pavement. That would be awful behaviour

 

The pram did have a nice sticking out metal hood attachment on the sides, which might have touched parked cars as I squeezed through gaps....

The gap can sometimes be usefully increased by lowering the car (most cars get narrower the higher up you measure) a schraeder valve removal tool is a quick and easy way to do this in the absence of the owner and the removed valve cores can be placed on a windscreen wiper blade for the driver to refit on his return. That way everyone is happy!

ubercurmudgeon wrote:

Being called a bullshitter by Michael Rasmussen? That's got to be a new low. That's like being called a bully by Lance Armstrong, a reckless sprinter by Djamolidine Abdoujaparov, or a shameless exhibitionist by Mario Cipollini.

Which would be awful, of course, but OTOH they are all expert in their fields so know what they're talking about on those subjects.

Imagine the press riot if Sue Williams owned a bike

brooksby wrote:

https://metro.co.uk/2023/11/08/woman-62-goes-on-8000-vandalism-spree-bec...

Quote:

One of Williams’ victims, 42-year-old Natalie Hibberd, had saved up for months to afford the down payment on her £42,000 Seat Tarraco before it was keyed.

The mum-of-three told MailOnline: ‘I had to go just up on the kerb for an hour because I had just had my car serviced and we had builders here doing our extension.

‘The car was all clean and nice and I left it there when I went to do the school run and when I came back the whole side of my car was completely keyed on the driver’s side.

...

‘I don’t know Sue Williams. I only know her name because of this. I have no clue at all why she would do this.

‘Especially because if I do have to park like that it’s only because my husband is on the drive and when I do there’s more than enough room for a double buggy or a wheelchair to get through. It was just because I was getting the building work done.

‘We only bought this car because we needed more space for my children. We needed a seven-seater and there’s also ULEZ to bear in mind. I am always going back and forth from London.

I thought if I put this on 'Drivers and their problems' on the forum it would get lost...

 

Pretty confusing post...help me...
So, Froome was feeling menopausal for not reaching the handlebar of the new Factor, reason why he didn't win the last 4 TdF and then he keyed the rasmussen' s car with his 7 children inside who were playing with the froome's old pinarello while cipollini was walking around naked...is it correct?

Quote:

The mum of three [said] ‘We only bought this car because we needed more space for my children. We needed a seven-seater."

Now I'm no mathematician but…she's also moaning about the fact that she can't afford to have the damage fixed because she can't justify it because of this cost of living crisis whilst at the same time explaining that she only parked her new £42,000 car on the pavement because her husband's car was in the drive and they had building workers there doing their extension.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Quote:

The mum of three [said] ‘We only bought this car because we needed more space for my children. We needed a seven-seater."

.

It's funny. My sister has three kids and she copes with a 5 seater just fine.

'Can't afford to have the damage fixed' - isn't that what insurance is for? Or has she not bothered with that either?

"We needed a seven-seater and there’s also ULEZ to bear in mind. I am always going back and forth from London."  With 7 children?  How've you got a new car which will incur a ULEZ charge?

And your husband has a car and you've also money for redeveloping your place because "[...] if I do have to park like that it’s only because my husband is on the drive [...] It was just because I was getting the building work done."

My sympathy has slipped a bit.  However tempting as it is maybe we should just say "someone else's life and choices".  It's a little tricky (currently...) to start saying "you can't build things / you should only have one car per household and it should be a 2CV".

However - the other person quoted:

"If you’ve got a nice car and you pull up anywhere and its been vandalised, it looks like I’ve p***** someone off for doing something wrong. It’s embarrassing."

Er - you did, and it should be.

chrisonatrike wrote:

However - the other person quoted:

"If you’ve got a nice car and you pull up anywhere and its been vandalised, it looks like I’ve p***** someone off for doing something wrong. It’s embarrassing."

Er - you did, and it should be.

That was the thing I noted.  The woman they spoke to with the seven-seater vehicle: she clearly didn't understand that she had done anything wrong... 

chrisonatrike wrote:

"We needed a seven-seater and there’s also ULEZ to bear in mind."  How've you got a new car which will incur a ULEZ charge?

I assumed the logic was that they "needed" a new car so as not to incur ULEZ.

Congrats on finding logic there. I still can't.

What the mum-of-three actually meant:

"I park on the pavement because the road is kinda narrow and I don't want my car to get scratched. There are some terrible drivers out there don't you know!"