Oakley launches Green Fade eyewear collection

And maybe a planning obligation to have traffic Marshalls controlling access out of the site not obstructing the path and restricting it if cyclists are likely to be obstructed …one can hope

I'll stick to my low rider with Karrimor Kalahari dry bag panniers and Karrimor Kalahari barbag thanks.

How is the Hover Air X1 Smart more jersey pocket friendly? It doesn’t fold, like the original Hover Air X1 (which is excellent BTW). Are your jersey pockets larger than standard? You did read the part about this also being available only for Japanese market?

Presumably your bike has the legal restriction to 25 km/h, in which case you're not dangerously close to the line at all, it's the high speed achievable by illegal electric motorcycles (there is a plague of them at the moment in my area of London that, I would estimate, are capable of at least 45 mph) that's causing the collisions, the actual power is fairly irrelevant.

I use this cycle path regularly. It is used by commuters during the week but it is used more and more by families with young children evenings and weekends when the weather is fine. The car boot takes place on a Sunday which conflicts with this leisure use. One problem is with cars stopping on the cycle path to wait for a gap in traffic (as in the picture). Even if the car is stopped and there is space behind it, as in the picture, you can't be sure that the driver won't reverse or the driver behind won't close the gap so you have to slow down to almost a stop to get through safely. You would have to dismount as well as you would be using the footway part of the path. This isn't a huge problem going up the hill into Cheltenham, (coming towards you in the picture) as it is relatively steep and usually against the prevailing wind if there is any, so you are going slowly anyway. Going down the hill however it is easy to reach 30mph and this is where cyclists are going to be seriously inconvenienced by having to slow down and dismount. I don't think it's a huge safety issue but it will be annoying. Obviously the driver should not be blocking the cycle path at all and should wait in the entrance, which has good visibility, until there is a gap in both the road and the cycle path traffic. This is obviously beyond the skill set of the majority of motorists who would not dream of blocking the road but can't see any problem with blocking the cycle path. The main problem, however, is with drivers from Cheltenham crossing the oncoming traffic to enter the car boot sale. There may be nothing blocking the cycle path and the drivers will be looking for gaps in the (usually continuous) oncoming traffic. When a gap appears they will go but will they have checked that there are no cyclists on the track who will expect the driver to give them priority as instructed in the highway code. A cyclist coming from Cheltenham down the hill will be travelling at speed from behind the driver and the driver will cut across them from their left if they are not seen. Experienced cyclists will be watching out for this but that is not who the cycle path is intended for, it is intended to encourage new cyclists to get on their bikes. Another concern is when a driver is turning into the site and does notice a cyclist and does give way. The driver behind may not be expecting the car in front to stop and there is potential for a rear ending incident. The speed limit is 40mph but it is only adhered to in heavy traffic. I rarely drive but I did drive the road recently and I was doing exactly 40mph when I was overtaken. None of these would be a problem if drivers could be relied upon to obey the highway code but it seems to me that it is asking too much in today's "drivers come first" and "must drive as fast as possible" mentality. Finally one time I cycled when the car boot was on there was a person in a hi vis jacket directing the traffic. If the individual has received training then it should be safer but it will still inconvenience cyclists unless we are given priority.

@KiwiMike Respectfully, I don't think "oh well people can afford it" is a valid excuse for blatantly overcharging for a product. Yes of course it's people's choice whether they want to pay for it or not, just as it's my choice to point out that in my opinion, as with so many cycling products, it's a rip-off.

I guess you’ve never been for a ride in the countryside, and wanted to stop somewhere there isn’t a perfectly-positioned tree, fence or wall? Or have always had the good fortune to have a bike rack or wall positioned perfectly where you need it, and been happy to balance your bike and trust no-one will nudge it. I accept that’s a valid use case.

If you can afford a £3000 ebike you can almost certainly afford this. Especially as it’s the last one you’ll ever need to buy. Of course people will value the utility in their own way, there’s no definitive right / wrong, there’s just choice.

@jackcycles "The idea that you need a dedicated cycleway in order to ride a bike is ludicrous and false" You might not need one because you're a brave cyclist. There are many people in this country who aren't brave, who don't like mixing with traffic, and who won't cycle if they have to. So they need a dedicated cycleway, despite your protestations. "Just be more assertive" will never, ever work as a tool to enable more cycling.

@neilmck Other studies have shown different results, however, e.g. a 2025 study in Barcelona showed injury rates on uni-directional cycle paths were slightly higher than on bi-directional ones - I'll post the link below as otherwise might end up in the black hole of link approval quarantine. The study you cite is from 1990 when in many areas cycle provision was very much in its infancy and drivers were much less accustomed to watching for cyclists in separate infrastructure than they are now. As ever, in my experience at least, the issue is not the cycle lane per se but junction design, with proper mitigating measures e.g. raised tables at junctions, different surface colours, warning signage, set back give ways etc there's no reason bidirectional lanes should be more dangerous.