Paris-Roubaix

@OnYerBike for sure, there's congestion and ULEZ zones, but I don't remember any "investigative journalism expose's" looking into the inexorable rise of the motor vehicle and it's detrimental effect on society. There have however, been multiple "war on motorist" and "parking wars" style programmes...with a string emphasis on how hard done by, the motorists are. Having said that, I find it baffling that dockless schemes were allowed to go ahead - especially as the "Boris bikes" weren't.

@Boopop The correct question is: What makes you think the world actually looks like in that photo? Can't you really see how distorted the contrast is, how badly unreal the colours are, how unbelievably white anything illuminated is etc.? Either the photo was doctored or it was taken to present a VERY distorted picture. Either way, they knew exactly what was getting published and sorry, but with professional marketers and multi-million budgets I just don't believe in innocent ignorance. And I do feel responsible to spot such obvious BS.

So they're unsuitable for gravel, simple as that. A gravel wheelset that can only take champagne gravel and an official system weight limit of 100 kg is in my book a road wheelset. At best. As seen, if the force is relatively high, even a 72 kg system weight will wreck the rim. Who hasn't ever dinged a rock or made a mistake while selecting a line and hit something with a bone-jarring thud? You want your rims to survive that. What's a 100, 200, 300 gram weight saving worth if it costs you the race or worse, you end up in hospital? Thanks for the fair review and the warning!

@tomlew That was my first thought but we don't know the effective ISO, f-stop, or exposure time. It is a meaningless photo without that information. The real test is how many drivers flash their brights at you :-)

@BroomBroomBroom "These are profit-seeking enterprises taking over pavements..." Aren't they currently seeking profits in the sense of "not making any yet"? I think the issue is that mass public cycle hire schemes don't even cover their costs from the actual users. (High costs because relatively fragile, portable property, and an "attractive nuisance" for youth. Low income because they're competing with "free" - many people have access to bikes and/or feel that bike stuff should be very cheap). So they need things like council funding, advertising etc. That can be an issue because - unless the money is from the local authority - their motivation is not particularly aligned with the cyclists OR the locality. And worse - in these cases doesn't much of the money still come from venture capital? So I don't think they're necessarily great. But as the article notes - two things can be true. I bet a *far* greater acreage of footway is in fact covered by the products of profit-seeking enterprises. That is vehicles which are definitely illegal there*, completely immovable when stopped, more dangerous when moving. * Oh sorry, it's only illegal in practice when you've got a policemen or two there to witness them being driven there and they're bothered - and they'd probably get in trouble with their boss if they did.

Make sure you put the soft side of the velcro straps against the paint. Get it wrong and you'll have a lasting reminder on your top tube...

@riggbeck I'm a skinny 5'10" and go for Small in Sportful and Lusso (if anything the Lusso straps were a bit too long and loose)

I enjoyed the cyclist apparently riding through a red light on camera (5:19) and, for a bit of BBC balance, the police van parked on the pavement (4:35).

I love a 'but cars' argument as much as the next cycling menace, but come on: we can all see that the ebike situation is ridiculous. It discredits the promotion of active travel to pretend otherwise. These are profit-seeking enterprises taking over pavements without a second thought for the externalities. And it's absurd to have one provider in this borough and a different one in the next. This situation should never have been allowed to develop.

@Rendel Harris I recorded it too and then watched it as live on HBO (as only had part of the race), where they explained what I already knew. It was on TNT, But then they switched to snooker. And when that was done they said it would return to TNT and they seemed to think that was really good the way they presented it.