London Marathon Events, the organisers behind the annual RideLondon cycling event, says it is “seeking further information as a matter of priority” after it was revealed this week that the company’s chair, Terence Duddy, was convicted of careless driving for seriously injuring a cyclist.
Duddy, who earlier this month was also appointed as chair of BBC Children in Need, a post from which he has since resigned, was handed an eight-month prison sentence, suspended for a year and a half, and banned from driving for 18 months following the incident, which left a woman in her 50s with serious injuries.
The 69-year-old was driving his BMW SUV in the village of Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire, in June when he cut across the opposite lane and into the path of the oncoming cyclist, striking her and second her flying over her handlebars.
road.cc approached Thames Valley Police for an update on the injured cyclist’s condition, but were told by the force that the rider, who is “recovering”, did not wish to provide any further details.
Sharing video footage of the collision, Thames Valley Police also confirmed that Duddy was ordered by a judge to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work and pay costs totalling £272.
The conviction prompted Duddy to resign from his new role as chair of BBC Children in Need. His appointment as the charity’s chair was only confirmed last month, by which time Duddy would have already received his court date, raising questions as to the scrutiny that went into his appointment.
Duddy, a former boss of Argos and Homebase’s parent company, is credited with ‘inventing’ click and collect catalogue ordering. He stepped down as Chief Executive in 2013 amid growing scrutiny of his £1.6 million salary.
Since then, he has chaired the board of welfare charity Catch 22 and London Marathon Events, the latter being the organiser of the RideLondon sportive that last took place in 2024.
Duddy was appointed to London Marathan Events’ board of directors in December 2020, when he was also appointed as a trustee and director of the London Marathon Foundation, the company’s charitable trust.
On Wednesday, we reported that Duddy’s resignation from his role at Children in Need was confirmed to staff that morning, just days after this year’s telethon fundraising appeal raised £45.5 million. He had been due to join the Board of Trustees on Friday and would have led the process for appointing a new chief executive of the charity.
Children in Need told road.cc that it did not know about Duddy’s legal troubles prior to his appointment.
The charity said: “On Tuesday 18 November, our new Chair Terry Duddy informed us that he had been convicted last week of causing serious injury through careless driving.
“In light of this he offered his resignation, which the board accepted, agreeing he could not continue in this role. James Fairclough, a Trustee since 2021, has been formally appointed Chair with immediate effect. We remain focused on helping children and young people thrive.
“We were not aware of the court case before he was appointed.”
When approached by road.cc, London Marathon Events – which also organises the London and Brighton marathons and the London T100 Triathlon – admitted on Thursday that it was not fully aware of the details surrounding Duddy’s court case.
“We are seeking further information as a matter of priority,” a London Marathon Events spokesperson told road.cc.
That response was echoed by Catch 22, who also said this week that they are “assessing what this means for his role as a matter of urgency”.
RideLondon, the annual cycling festival held in the capital and around Essex to celebrate the legacy of the 2012 Olympics, was last held in 2024, after London Marathon Events cancelled the 2025 event, claiming that a “hiatus” would allow them to return with “new concept” to involve “more riders of all ages and abilities”.
The 2024 edition of RideLondon, the event’s tenth, included the three-day Women’s UCI World Tour RideLondon Classique race (which was also cancelled for 2025), mass participation rides over 100 miles, 60 miles, and 30 miles incorporating a loop of Essex, and FreeCycle, a seven-mile traffic-free route through central London for cyclists of all abilities.
However, putting a halt to the festivities for 2025, and announcing that all entrants who had registered early for next year’s event will receive a full refund, the event’s organisers announced in September 2024 that change was needed for the “world’s greatest festival of cycling” in the future.
“We feel the time is right to take a pause this year and bring all stakeholders together to work on a new concept for the world’s greatest festival of cycling,” Hugh Brasher, the CEO of London Marathon Events, said at the time.
“We have now staged 10 hugely successful editions of the event which has inspired more than 300,000 people to get back on a bike or cycle more and also raised more than £85 million for charity.
“No event in 2025 means that we can focus on a full strategic review of RideLondon, which was first held as a London 2012 Olympic legacy event back in 2013, and design a new concept which will engage more riders of all ages and abilities and inspire hundreds of thousands more people to cycle more often.”
82 thoughts on “RideLondon cycling event organiser “seeking further information as a matter of priority” after company chair revealed to have seriously injured cyclist in collision”
“The 69-year-old was driving
“The 69-year-old was driving his BMW SUV.” At the end of the 18-month ban, this dude shall retake both the theory and driving tests. Also, he should be ordered to drive a smaller vehicle that causes less injuries in case of collision with a cyclist, scooter driver or pedestrian.
Thats a good idea.
Thats a good idea.
Like the recent ideas for graduated licences for new drivers, maybe anyone convicted of causing a collision/injury/death when driving a large car/vehicle should only be able to driver smaller ones once their bans are over?
TBH I’m not sure being hit by
TBH I’m not sure being hit by a driver in say a Smart car versus a driver in an SUV makes that much difference.
If there is a difference it is that the visability out of the Smart car is better and the driver is less likely to take risks given they are not driving a tank.
I’d rather not be hit by
I’d rather not be hit by either, but the front end of the smart looks to be better designed for minimising injuries to vulnerable road users.
You’d be wrong.
You’d be wrong.
“The likelihood of a pedestrian or cyclist being fatally injured is 44% higher if they are hit by a sports utility vehicle (SUV) or light truck vehicle (LTV) compared with smaller passenger cars, new research shows. For children there is an even larger effect, with a child hit by a SUV or LTV being 82% more likely to be killed than a child hit by a passenger car”
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2025/being-hit-suv-increases-likelihood-death-or-serious-injury
He didn’t perform an illegal
He didn’t perform an illegal manoeuvre, he overtook and made a right turn with no sign forbidding it, he just needed to check again for cyclists. We also need cycle lanes on main roads to make cyclists easier for drivers to see
We need drivers to look and
We need drivers to look and be punished when the don’t and nearly kill somone
We also need cyclists to be
We also need cyclists to be easier to see, especially ones travelling fast like these two were in a road with plenty of traffic. He did indicate even if he should also have checked again for cyclists before turning right
SVXY wrote:
I’m willing to bet they weren’t exceeding the posted speed limit (even though it doesn’t apply to them).
The easiest way for cyclists to be easier to see would be for drivers to actually bother to look.
Have cycle lanes on all main
Have cycle lanes on all main roads too
He was but it should just
He was but it should just have been a driving ban as suits the offence
If he was, he wouldn’t have
If he was, he wouldn’t have nearly killed someone, its not rocket science to understand.
SVXY wrote:
You could paint all the lines you want on the road but drivers still won’t look for cyclists, what will work is stiffer punishments and publicising them in the national press. You keep repeating that he didn’t perform an illegal manoeuvre but if that was the case he wouldn’t have turned into the path of a cyclist.
For careless driving? Of
For careless driving? Of course not, this was not an intentional act and the cyclist was coming quite fast through heavy traffic. There was no sign forbidding a right turn in that road and he had to overtake a car in front before his right turn even if he could also have checked again for cyclists before turning
SVXY wrote:
You’re obviously not a cyclist or you would know that this type of “careless driving” happens far too often and kills or injures hundreds if not thousands of cycists every year.The only serious way to stop it is to make itboth financially and socially expensive and if that means naming and shaming then I’m fine with that. You keep going on about him having to overtake the parked car but you fail to recognise that he should not be proceeding unless it is safe to do so, he drove into a narrow gap between a parked car and an oncoming vehicle but you can bet that he wouldn’t have done that if the oncoming vehicle had been a bus.
A busy road like that will
A busy road like that will nearly always have traffic on it, there was no car oncoming, just cyclists which are harder to see than cars or buses though he should have checked for them before turning right. At most it should have been the driving ban as suits the offence
SVXY wrote:
The video shows that the road was not busy at that time, the cyclist was right in front of him with a bright yellow top and nothing to obstruct his view. Just admit that he wasn’t looking and deserves the punishment he was given and that this is relevant to the position he was applying for at Children in Need because it could just have easily been a child on the bike.
It was busy, there was a car
It was busy, there was a car in front of him and a car he had to overtake even before he got to turn in the road when he needed to check for the cyclist. At most he deserved a driving ban, he did not deserve a suspended prison sentence when he was not drunk, was not speeding and was not even on his phone and when there was no sign forbidding right turns. It was also not relevant to his job at all, a child on a bike would also not be going as fast as that cyclist was going
SVXY wrote:
One car in front of him and a parked car does not make the road busy, if he can’t handle that much traffic he should never drive again.
The court obviously felt otherwise and they have more expertise in this than you do
The speed of the cyclist is irrelevant since he wasn’t looking, there could have been dozens of children walking or cycling across that junction and he wouldn’t have seen them because he wasn’t paying attention to his surroundings.
It was clearly a busy road
It was clearly a busy road with traffic and parked cars. The court was only following the legislation now, the Road Traffic Act in 2023 should only have been amended by parliament to make a mandatory driving ban for careless driving causing injury rather than just normally a fine and penalty points as before. Adding a potential prison sentence as well even if suspended was not proportionate to an offence where no speeding, no over drink drive limit and not on phone. The speed of the cyclist was relevant as you would have less time to look and see them, though yes he should have checked for them
SVXY wrote:
You’re not looking at the same video we are if you think it was busy.
And you’re another wannabe dictator who knows better than the government
As I pointed out earlier if you are not looking then no amount of “time to look” will make a difference.
You don’t seem very keen to win this argument, you just keep repeating the same old rubbish about speeding, drinking and phone use which none of us are disputing as it is totally irrelevant. **Last sentence has been deleted for Hirsute.**
Last sentence – please don’t.
Last sentence – please don’t.
Thanks for the edit !
Backladder wrote:
We are a democracy and I am entitled to say when I disagree with a government decision
SVXY wrote:
And you’ve said it about a hundred times over the last couple of days, its getting to be an obsession.
SVXY wrote:
road.cc isn’t a democracy – it’s a benign davetatorship.
SVXY wrote:
Those woke courts, paying no attention to the law as you see it and just persecuting innocent people, eh?
It was the last government
It was the last parliament which made careless driving causing injury an imprisonable offence when a driving ban would have been fine
SVXY wrote:
Not as far as I’m concerned! Cycle lanes a) have little to do with cyclist visibility and may even make cyclists less visible to drivers b) they are very poor “infra”.
What we *need* is a good look at the *networks* needed by different modes *. Then we can rearrange the space so that eg. it’s easier to walk and especially cycle in urban areas (cycling is much more efficient than walking).
That will reduce the need for allocating vast areas of asphalt “because we have to drive” – with cost and “nicer places” benefits. Also avoids mixing vulnerable road users and high volumes of motor traffic. That improves safety and is much more pleasant for all.
… and finally, where we still need to, apply quality separate footways and cycle paths. These will still be needed where the main road is the “desire line” and we can’t send all the motor traffic elsewhere.
Finally if it’s really a “main road” then it shouldn’t have parking on it as the point of the space is efficiently moving motor traffic *through it*, not stopping and starting.
Job done!
* for more on that search eg. “Hoofdnetten” (“home networks” or more loosely “core networks”). Example here https://maps.amsterdam.nl/plushoofdnetten/
They keep cyclists out of
They keep cyclists out of traffic and at the side of the road so drivers can spot them more easily. Agree on cycle paths and not parking on main roads
SVXY wrote:
Really? So you can see someone behind your A pillar more easily than you can see someone in front of your windscreen! Where do I buy this superman style X-ray vision?
SVXY wrote:
Why would having cyclists at the left side of the lane(s) make them more visible? That is further from drivers’ central field of vision, and closer to anyone emerging from driveways and side roads (so less time and space to deal with that). That would be why riding in “primary” (directly in drivers eye-line) is mentioned in eg. the Highway Code. (point 72.1)
Do you really mean “They keep cyclists out of the *way* of *motor* traffic”? You might think pedantry – but cyclists *are* part of the traffic. So drivers *do* have to look out for them. Even if it is harder than looking out for a truck or car. Drivers are even required to look out for horse riders or … pedestrians crossing the road.
Where there is well-designed * separate provision for cycling that is the safer and note convenient option for all. But cycle lanes aren’t it… https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2020/08/12/cycle-lanes-in-the-netherlands/
* The main issue is handling junctions and driveways / minor side roads. And it’s better if we can minimise the number of (signalised) junctions, that’s why the mention of considering the network first. On making smaller junctions safer (improving sight lines etc.) this may interest, though the primary focus is on pedestrian safety (competent drivers are expected to look out for them also…) https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2025/10/what-makes-side-road-junctions.html?m=1
As cyclists would be more separated from the main traffic and clearly on the far left. They are more difficult to spot than cars and buses and lorries, as are motorbikes who on busy A roads should also have their own lane like in some Far East nations. It would also remind drivers turning or pulling out to check for cyclists with more visible cycle lanes on main roads. Horse riders and pedestrians rarely go along busy A roads and pedestrians use set crossings and there are sometimes signs forbidding cyclists on some parts of A roads. Sight line improvement would help, agreed
SVXY wrote:
Simply moving them about (especially *out* of natural sight lines) alone is not going to help though. That’s merely displacing the issue – replacing drivers not looking or not well enough on the main road with the same on a cycle lane.
The point would be that if separation is needed * we need several things to make a worthwhile safety improvement.
Luckily we can again look to well-explored and tested ideas from other places. For places with lower speed motor traffic something like “continuous footway / cycleway”, or “set back cycle path” at junctions, with stuff like parking- blocking build-outs and bollards, entry kerbs, road height changes, reduced side road widths and corner radii etc.
However because we need to consider drivers, cyclists AND pedestrians the devil is in the detail. Indeed doing this effectively requires looking at the current existing driving conditions on both the main road and side roads (eg at minimum the current motor traffic volumes and the actual speeds, not just the posted ones… plus parking rules and behaviours, considering those with visual impairments and disabilities or just moving more slowly because of youth or old age etc).
Otherwise – as people in many places in the UK will know – we can make dozens of cargo-cult versions which “look like” the infra where it works, and yet it will have little effect on people’s behaviour.
For a very deep rabbit hole the series of articles here and linked may be of interest:
* And it’s not just A roads we’re considering here – in the UK “organic growth” – or deliberate policy choices – has meant that what were our high streets, or even streets primarily for residential access have become high motor traffic volume high-enough speed to be significantly risky to vulnerable road users and forbidding to cross our ride on.
Even more reason to have
Even more reason to have cycle lanes in high streets too then
SVXY wrote:
Well, only if there is lots of through motor traffic. Or even lots of through cycle traffic. Neither *has* to be the case – and even a few places in the UK are realising that!
Most high streets have lots
Most high streets have lots of motor and cycle traffic
SVXY wrote:
Most UK high streets have lots of *motor* traffic. I would be interested to know which ones currently have lots of cycle traffic. Cambridge? Camden? Any others?
It’s not the case in Edinburgh – although that’s a cobbled hill usually with a LOT of pedestrians! But it’s not the case elsewhere yet either – certainly not if you ignore the fast food delivery riders.
We can of course choose to call anything a”High Street” – but I take that to be a major “place” with shopping, perhaps other attractions and amenities. I suggest the ideal would be that is pedestrianised – but the least safe and pleasant option is routing motor traffic through there, like the common UK case.
How to get people to and from there? In bigger places trams are the most efficient and safest motorised option (safer mixing with people than buses – and can actually be cheaper long-term). Cycling is a great idea – they can more safely and quickly negotiate with pedestrians. And a high capacity cycle garage is much smaller than a similar motor garage.
I don’t know about anyone
I don’t know about anyone else, but as soon as RideLondon was sponsored by Ford, my opinion of the event and its organisers was about as low as it could go.
I wish someone made a car
I wish someone made a car-shaped mattress that we could require drivers to place on their cars as they come off a driving ban. It could be lettered “WARNING – BAD DRIVER”
Terry Hutt wrote:
Isn’t that similar to the “Bad Machine Wrangler” badges they put on some cars?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Or those ones with “Attention: User Drives Incompetently” with the symbol of two pairs of spectacles overlapping?
He got off rather lightly in
He got off rather lightly in court for causing life changing injuries.
I hope the cyclist recovers as well as possible.
Why? He was not speeding, not
Why? He was not speeding, not on his phone and not drunk.. He should have checked again for cyclists yes but only had a few seconds after overtaking and turning right to see the cyclist
SVXY wrote:
Then he should have slowed down and, if necessary, stopped, to ensure he had time to be certain it was clear for him to turn.
A manoeuvre made without being sure that it’s safe to make is illegal – it’s called driving without due care and attention, which he admitted to.
He wasn’t speeding when
He wasn’t speeding when overtaking. Yes he should have triple checked before turning right for cyclists but the driver parked in front blocked his view
SVXY wrote:
Irrelevant. It’s his responsibility to make sure that he’s only proceeding at a speed where he can be sure it’s safe, even if that’s well below the posted speed limit.
He was, he just needed to
He was, he just needed to triple check in front for cyclists
Clearly not, or he wouldn’t
Clearly not, or he wouldn’t have driven into someone.
You can see from the video he
You can see from the video he was not driving over 30mph, he just needed to check again after overtaking the parked vehicle for cyclists before turning right
SVXY wrote:
Which is just as irrelevant as the last time you said it.
SVXY wrote:
The driver parked in fromt did not block his view as is obvious from the video and that is not the get out that you seem to think it is, it is an admission of dangerous driving (what else can you call it when you don’t look where you’re going). I think he is very luck that you weren’t representing him in court!
The car in front did, at
The car in front did, at least until he had overtaken him, it also clearly was not dangerous driving as he was not charged with that, only with careless driving.
SVXY wrote:
I wonder why the Highway Code doesn’t make a point of not overtaking by junctions and not making a maneouvre without checking that it is safe to do so?
He didn’t overtake at the
He didn’t overtake at the junction but before and only had to as the driver in front was parked just before the junction
SVXY wrote:
He didn’t have to overtake at all, he could have stopped and waited until the road was clear or do his brakes not work as well as his eyes?
How often is a busy road like
How often is a busy road like that going to be completely clear? Very rarely even if he should have checked for cyclists before turning right
SVXY wrote:
A quick look on google street view suggests that it will be clear more often than it is busy and “I had to turn because I might have been delayed if I didn’t” isn’t a valid excuse for the collision.
Given he had to overtake a
Given he had to overtake a car in front and a parked car before even turning right it was a busy road
I think you are Rod Stewart.
I think you are Rod Stewart.
SVXY wrote:
No it wasn’t, the car ahead was parked on a double yellow line (not necessarily illegally if it was a blue badge holder), the car he passed (the silver Range Rover) is in a legal parking bay. Even if it was illegally parked, he didn’t “have” to pass it, he could have slowed and waited to see clearly ahead before his turn. The excuse you’re trying to make for him has no validity.
Yes he did have to pass it as
Yes he did have to pass it as he had no other way of turning right without getting past it.
SVXY wrote:
You’re not reading our posts are you, you’re just cutting and pasting the same stupid comments in as many places as you can.
SVXY wrote:
He did not have to pass it at that particular moment in time, he could have very slightly slowed down and waited for the car in front to get further ahead so that he could get a proper clear view of the oncoming traffic and know whether it was safe to turn or not. His unwillingness to give up those 1.5 seconds of his life for the safety of others has resulted in severe damage to his own life and reputation and 100 times greater damage to the life of the blameless cyclist. Just stop trying to make excuses for him, you’re making yourself look utterly ridiculous.
Are you some kind of
Are you some kind of Communist? This is a very important man we’re talking about, who has had very highly paid jobs!
Or alternatively “why are you sticking the boot in, he has done great things for cycling you ingrate, simple momentary mistake any of us could make, otherwise entirely responsible and law-abiding…”
chrisonabike wrote:
And who is tragically now reduced to sitting in his garden shed with his laptop leaving ever more desperate defences of his actions on cycling websites?
Someone in such a position,
Someone in such a position, who (checks notes) merely made a sin of omission *?
More likely he employed some reps to get onto it, I imagine he’s got far more important things to do.
(Ultimately it seems the best results do come from “going *with* human nature” and bringing in a “systematic safety” approach (avoid mixing drivers with vulnerable road users where necessary, especially where they may be distracted eg. at junctions). Even “careful considerate” drivers are human and humans sometimes forget things, miss things or misinterpret things, get overloaded or otherwise take terrible decisions).
* Really just a simple mistake while lawfully going about his business; that can hardly be called criminal. Certainly not like all the bad criminal drivers who deliberately *chose* not to drive in accordance with the conditions of their licence by speeding, being drunk, being on the phone, being high, not being insured or licenced or being banned… Those are the people the legal system should be chasing! And we know that is a *category difference* because the courts quite rightly “throw the book at them”…?
Your last 2 paragraphs I
Your last 2 paragraphs I mostly agree with too
I am not Mr Duddy
I am not Mr Duddy
No. You’re his mum.
No. You’re his mum.
perce wrote:
I remember Ken Dodd and the Duddymen – think I caught them at the Hammersmith Apollo? Opening for Frank Zappa was it? Always a tough slot that and the audience didn’t give them much sympathy!
Yep I remember that – Peter
Yep I remember that – Peter Cooke and Duddy Moore were on the same bill. As for Zappa, he was offered a part on the Sooty show but turned it down because he thought it would ruin his credibility. Well, the Shadows were on Crackerjack every other week and it didn’t do them any harm did it?
SVXY wrote:
Then is Duddy your daddy? A colleague? A friend? You surely can’t write the extraordinary amount of utter tripe you’ve managed in the last twenty-four hours or so without some ulterior motive.
Your last paragraph is
Your last paragraph is largely correct
SVXY wrote:
Unfortunately… except the bit about “throwing the book at” is either very rarely true … or you subscribe to the “sadly if you’re in the road and not in an armoured carapace you’re bringing whatever happens to you on yourself”.
Luckily I think there’s a middle way where we don’t make poor driving any less legally culpable* but we can acknowledge that humans make mistakes or poor decisions, try to guide them towards better ones, and try to reduce the physical consequences – especially the potential harm to others. (We know that lots of us are currently driving while tired, seriously distracted, some of us have a low level of impulse control, or just declining abilities as we get older…)
That involves a couple of changes in philosophy. First a change from prioritising motor capacity and *then* applying safety, and considering *convenience* for non-motorised traffic last (motor traffic takes the direct route, move the pedestrians / cyclists out of the way). Then not just leaning on the law (which by nature tries to see things in isolation) to sort things out after the fact. And – perhaps – deter, even though we often say “but they didn’t mean to” when the bad thing happens.
Instead while we can keep the law we can also apply a “health and safety” approach – “safe systems” or “sustainable safety”. (We already do this kind of thing in some areas eg. quite extensively for the benefit of drivers on motorways). Example overview:
* Road offenses are pretty minimally policed and sanctioned currently. And as your continued references to “but not very bad like actually being drunk…” bear testament to, merely maiming or even killing people through not driving to the minimal legal standards is still seen as an “oh dear how sad”…
chrisonabike wrote:
I wonder if certain people are posting while tired and suffering a low level of impulse control – would explain a lot.
The car in front could also
The car in front could also have waited, it also has not done severe damage to his reputation, he was not drunk, not speeding and not on his phone and there was no sign forbidding a right turn. Yes he should have checked for cyclists before turning right but this type of offence would have been a fine and penalty points maximum 5 years ago as simple careless driving before careless driving causing injury came in as a law in 2023
Our new troll isn’t very good
Our new troll isn’t very good at their self appointed task are they.
Our new troll isn’t very good
Our new troll isn’t very good…
He isn’t very good if you assume that his aim is rehabilitating the reputation of the offending toff. However, as a dedicated troll (and I don’t recall seeing this username before) his real sad-git objective is to accrue credibility to himself by persuading people to respond to him following his obviously barmy stated opinions. eburt has quoted:
He was described as bringing “a wealth …
He’s certainly bringing that, and there’s no doubt about where his next GrossPanzer is coming from, never mind his next meal. Duddy is guilty, and received a not totally unreasonable sentence, given that the prisons are full because of the absence of deterrents due to the relative absence of enforcement. He has to be forcibly erased from any connection with ‘Ride London’, and I think he will be. When British Cycling took it upon itself to decree that cyclists shouldn’t cycle on the day of the Queen’s funeral, while drivers were not so advised, somebody had to go (I think- anybody know?). My suspicion is that Duddy is yet another I’m a Cyclist Myself, but thinks very little about cyclists and cycling- he’s just another Rent-an-Exec, of which there is no shortage, who can be easily replaced
Real Cyclists who want to remain alive do not turn right into oncoming traffic without looking ahead very carefully. He didn’t do that because cyclists do not cross his mind. Children in Need and Ride London will be well rid of him
wtjs wrote:
Worth noting that he’s chair of London Marathon Events which runs Ride London as a sideshow so no guarantee that he has any interest in cycling at all. It was telling that this year’s event was cancelled; one would’ve thought that a chair with a genuine commitment to cycling wouldn’t have allowed that.
Ride London should continue
Ride London and Children in Need should continue to use Mr Duddy’s experience and there is no British driving group for all drivers but well done British Cycling for recommending no cycling on the day of the funeral of our dear late Queen when we should all have been in national mourning
To SVXY. Could you please let
To SVXY. Could you please let me know next time you are driving in Gloucestershire so I can leave my bike at home. Thank you.
I am beginning to think he is
I am beginning to think he is more likely to spend his time in Essex.
Defending the indefensible was a trait of our multiple PBU.