Are bike thieves targeting doctors and teachers?; Chinese media reports theory US military cyclist who came to Wuhan was “patient zero”; Threat to close Royal Parks to cyclists if rules aren’t respected; Belgian pro’s 369km Zwift session + more

@wtjs "My only objection to the anti-helmet propaganda involves the notion that wearing a helmet makes the wearer more likely to suffer a collision and consequent head injury." I've never heard anyone claim this, perhaps you could post a few examples? What is demonstrably true, is that cyclists who wear helmets have more collisions, but no-one claims that they always involve the head. Given the levels of pro-helmet propaganda over the last thirty years, your claims of anti-helmet propaganda are risible. And I'm being very, very polite. "I resort to common sense to dispute this." No you don't. You merely assert something without evidence, and anyone resorting to the 'it's common sense' argument has already lost.

@Rendel Harris "I do try not to enter into discussion with you on this Bert, because I know you will never change your stance one iota, but I’ve crashed a motorcycle at around 35 mph and hit my head on the kerb hard enough to compress discs in my spine and tear neck ligaments but above the neck I came away with nothing worse than a mild concussion." That's BURT not Bert, and as for someone who will never change their stance, kettle, meet pot. Thanks for your anecdote, but as I'm sure you're aware, anecdotal evidence is evidence of absolutely nothing. That's the same as all those hundreds, if not thousands, of cyclists holding up a broken helmet claiming that it saved their life, when the death rate of cyclists does not fall with increased helmet wearing. "If you’re going to tell me that I could’ve done the same thing without a helmet on and walked away with the same injuries I’m going to have to say that’s nonsense." As you ought to know by now, wearing protective equipment influences behaviour. If you weren't wearing a helmet, would you have taken such risks? The answer, as I'm sure you know, is no. The evidence you provide does not prove that motorcycle helmets are effective in a direct impact at more than 16mph, it shows that helmets can reduce damage by being a sacrificial layer, not an impact absorber. You might be interested in the evidence about when helmets were made obligatory for motorcyclists in the UK: the deaths of motorcyclists fell immediately. But someone did a rather more rigorous analysis, and found that the helmets became magically effective between 10pm and 2am. Clearly they weren't magic, so something else was more likely to be the cause of reduced motorcyclist deaths, so what happened at the same time? The breathalyser. So motorcyclists and drivers weren't driving drunk, and the reduced deaths were nothing to do with helmets. The same effect has been observed in USA states, which were obliged to bring in motorcycle helmet laws or lose federal funding. The death rate didn't drop. Some of those states then withdrew the helmet law, amidst predictions of dead motorcyclists piled up on every corner, but the death rate in those states didn't rise. PPE for victims in a road scenario is largely irrelevant, as shown by the data, because those with more protection take more risks, and drivers take more risks around those perceived to be wearing protection. What really works is reducing risk, by segregation and making those posing the danger take more care. That is what has been shown to work, not more protection. Perhaps Rendel, we should all drive tanks?

Mmm - it does seem to be perfectly fine as is, apart from the odd bicycle causing havoc, of course.

Bath's transport problems could be most effectively resolved by the introduction of some gentle curves https://youtu.be/CTQ-YljDT0I?si=VVccex3AJWDTLFhp

@Nigel Garage I suppose it's typical for an accountant to imagine that numbers explain everything. Numerous factors account for the Netherland's higher death rate per capita, the primary one being that 45% of the population cycles daily and cyclists, as we all know, are more vulnerable than car drivers. You can pretty much guarantee that if nearly 30% of trips made in Britain were made by bike, as they are in the Netherlands, our casualty figures would be higher. The fatality risk for cyclists in the UK is almost ten times that for car drivers/passengers, as it is in the Netherlands. I'm sure a beancounter like yourself can figure out that means that if cycling goes up, fatality numbers go up too. The UK frequently scores well on per capita road deaths because as a population we rely so heavily on cars rather than the more vulnerable forms of transport. You, with your strange autophilia (or is that autoeroticism?), probably imagine that's a good thing, but anyone with the wellbeing of the populace and the environment at heart does not.

Unsurprisingly all bikes mentioned in the conclusion sound pretty much the same…so aesthetics and ‘sale’ prices will win as usual. …does anyone remember when Canyon cost less as a direct to consumer brand?

@chrisonabike Yes! The traffic rushing over the bridge as Georg throws himself into the river. Good knowledge sir.

@the little onion I attempted to persuade my mother to to knit this one for me, preferably in a merino heavy yarn, unfortunately she refused, claimed it would be too small for me (she might have had a point...). The pattern bit would have been a bit challenging for her, but she might have given it a go, she is quite an accomplished knitter, I have many of her Arron knits, one even in Arron wool, for best like. And I inherited all of my father's when he passed.

I ride & walk across the road where the Guided Busway (yes, the one where lots of motorists go into the 'Car Trap') crosses the A1096 in St.Ives, Cambs. Red-light jumping motorists are frequent & I have lots of videos to prove the point. However, they are too short for the police! So today I've submitted a video of a driver going through a double set of red lights at this crossing point - I'm waiting to see what happens!

Oh dear, where to start... * You brought the Netherlands into it * I merely corrected you erroneous assertion * I didn't say that the Netherlands were to be aspired to * The chart that you proved is road fatalities in general, per million population, not per billon miles travelled. * The article that you linked to clearly highlights the fact that the lower drop in casualty rates for cyclists Vs those for drivers is mostly down to the drive for in-car safety and the attendant nonchalance shown by the occupants of vehicles towards the outside world (pedestrians, cyclists, other vehicles and roadside objects) You are, as ever, desperately clutching at out of context straws.