Brompton issues voluntary recall for bottom bracket on bikes sold over last three years

@ktache thanks very much, you have a good memory, the thread was about a crowdsourced site to give details of cars that would fit road bikes without a rack outside. I’ll post the links separately as they’ll be stuck in moderation. I’ve just got back from a brilliant weekend cycling in France, in Suisse Normande.

@ktache thanks very much, you have a good memory, the thread was about a crowdsourced site to give details of cars that would fit road bikes without a rack outside. I’ll post the links separately as they’ll be stuck in moderation. I’ve just got back from a brilliant weekend cycling in France, in Suisse Normande.

That's the most convoluted logic I can imagine! Cyclists don't frequent this road because there is no cycle lane. Then a cycle lane is put in for the cyclists. Now cyclists don't use the cycle lane even though there IS a cycle lane! What's the point of putting in a cycle lane and wasting all that money!!!! ("Forgot" to mention that cars park in the cycle lane.)

@ktache isn't it mostly European standards which apply for impacts with pedestrians? notjustbikes was suggesting in on of his videos that as a result of the US tariff strong-arm tactics Europe at least might be doing a deal with "reciprocal recognition of standards". That would essentially declare the US tests as good - and apparently US car makers get to mark their *own* homework also...

Cradle Care you say? "Nobody shops for their baby clothes on a bike!" "You certainly can't carry a child on a bike!" "No way can you carry *two* kids on a bike!" "These cycle paths make it too dangerous for children which is why we all drive them and need to park right outside (to minimise the danger from ... er ... cyclists" I'm being unfair, but isn't it mostly "we can't walk / cycle because places are unpleasant / feel too dangerous *because of all the motor traffic*?" Yes, I know there's quite a steep hill there...

There was a bit in the forum a while back, someone was attempting to create a web based thing. Forum went a bit sour with the upgrade, but I do remember mark1a's fine travelling tool kit...

Clearly it's hard not to do so - indeed you seem to have separated "us that ride bicycles" from others already... Ultimately concentrations of people - that is, urban spaces - work best when there is indeed a (physical) separation between quite different modes of transport *. Trains, motor vehicles, "cycles" and pedestrians. And bigger, heavier vehicles (driven by the same indifferent drivers) just make things more dangerous / put pressure on authorities to allocate even more space for their use etc. * Or as eg. the Dutch sustainable safety principle has it - homogeneity of speed / mass. And "combine where possible, separate where necessary". Note that means it *can* be sensible to share space but only where speeds / volumes of the more dangerous mode(s) are suitably controlled. Of course - "different roads for different modes" "doesn't work" if we start from the assumption that motoring is *and will/must be* the predominant mode, so that should get the existing direct routes and everything else must then be designed around it...

Well, I can only say I hope Berk have improved their QC. I’ve had numerous (due to the fact that if you break one, Berk will simply send you a new saddle, no questions asked), and only one hasn’t broken. For info, I’m under 70 kilos, so well within the weight limit. You can’t argue with the customer service though - as I say, it’s a no questions asked replacement.

Bits of a car are made to deform too, absorbing energy and increasing impact time, ain't so for a bus...

So much to unpack here. Are you perhaps another example of the armed cyclist? And if so, is the reaction because you rode in with big iron on your hip? (I know, it's the Arizona ranger... 😉)