Julian Alaphilippe's stunning new rainbow stripe Tarmac SL7; Sadiq Khan responds to our bunny hop claim using VAR; A63 cycling protester; Prince Louis rides Frog balance bike on third birthday; Simon Yates wins Tour of the Alps + more on the live blog

Also,

Quote:

Another report claims the man's sign was knocked off by a bus driver in a crash.

"It broke off his sign and he stood in front of our bus near Hull Royal holding up all the traffic," a person on the bus at the time said. "He even called himself an ambulance - wasting vital NHS time.

So the person on the bus thinks bus drivers should just carry on if involved in an accident on the road?

When I was a kid (in the 70s) we use to go up to the West End and just hang out. Don't actually remember why but I think we were a nusance. Anyway, a number of my friends were hit by black cabs (both as peds and cyclists) no serious injuries or damage.  The Taxi driver always insisted that he take them to A&E - I think it was to ensure no concussion etc.. and obviously to reduce the liability. The question is why the Bus driver didn't call for an ambulance (why's that not standard procedure) and wait until they were sure he was alright.

The original article states the witness as saying the cyclist's sign collided with the bus and broke the sign. 

Quote:

One man said he was on a bus that knocked the biker's sign off: "I was on the bus yesterday that he crashed into.

"It broke off his sign and he stood in front of our bus near Hull Royal holding up all the traffic.

Now the above does change the incident quite significantly to how Road CC listed it. Whether that is them following the Reporting Code or just badly reported from both sides but as the witness is quite hostile anyway the actual sequence of events will have to be guessed at. Still a road accident needs some details swap. 

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

...causing vehicles to slow down and pull out ...

Erm - isn't that just called "overtaking"...? 

You've ridden a bike, haven't you? Slow down and pull out? To most drivers, that's not overtaking!!

I don't believe that not having a Queen would make any difference to my day-to-day life at all (I was more bummed out when Jim Steinman died than Prince Philip).

We already have a prime minister we don't like or trust, so I don't think anything would particularly change...

Quote:

We already have a prime minister we don't like or trust, so I don't think anything would particularly change...

Well we might not have an unelected head of state in our political systems as I'm sure that was one of the arguments for leaving the EU.

But it would be nice to know the job she does, the wages she gets from the tax payer to do it, an whether it can be done cheaper with a Presidency rather then heriditary system. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If you can think of anyone who would do a better job and be a better role model as head of state than the Queen do let me know.

Chris Boardman 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If you can think of anyone who would do a better job and be a better role model as head of state than the Queen do let me know.

If you can define what her practical role actually is, we might be able to start. Many other countries manage without one. We even managed to do without one for a while, but we had to do with an unelected head of state inst.... oh wait....

As it happens I have nothing really against Maj but she's not got long, and who is going to replace her? Whether she does a "good" job or not is academic, cos no one in the country gets a say. Not even you Nige....

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If you can think of anyone who would do a better job and be a better role model as head of state than the Queen do let me know.

 

Well, didn't the selection panel do well when they offered her the job. Really top job of picking through the many, many candidates. I'm sure she nailed the interview. 

Now, tell me the merits of her kids...... one is weird, one is thick and useless, one should be in prison for a VERY long time. Princess Anne seems OK though.

I have nothing against the queen per se but I believe in meritocracy a philosophy that is incompatible with a hereditary head of state.

IanMK wrote:

I have nothing against the queen per se but I believe in meritocracy a philosophy that is incompatible with a hereditary head of state.

Well there's a conundrum - if a meritocracy must exclude certain categories then it can't claim to be based on merit.

Sriracha wrote:

IanMK wrote:

I have nothing against the queen per se but I believe in meritocracy a philosophy that is incompatible with a hereditary head of state.

Well there's a conundrum - if a meritocracy must exclude certain categories then it can't claim to be based on merit.

don't think anyone is claiming the descendent of a head of state can't be head of state, only that they shouldn't be head of state just because they are a descendent of a head of state.

However given the performance of the electorate in recent examples, I have difficulty in accepting an elected head of state could be an improvement on the status quo

I'd do a better job than the Po faced lot of 'em. Oh, but then I wouldn't get the opportunity because that would be meritocracy - anathema to brexthickers. 

the little onion wrote:

I'm a proper republican who has no time for hereditary privilege, or the weird brown-nosing in England with regards the Windsors.

But it isn't it nice to see someone get to nursery on a bike? Now, could we normalise children cycling to nursery and school, by building the infrastructure necessary to make it safe. One of my most heartening cycling moments was visiting Munich, and seeing the masses of bikes locked up outside of the kindergartens.

and...and...and...he isn't wearing a HELMET!!! OMG!

The Frog would have just been pulled from  the back of the Special Branch Range Rover for the photo op. Do you really thing the Royal sprog cycled to nursery? Odd, too, how even as children, they look inbred, grown up and a bit ' nice but dim'. 

Well you seem pleasant.

you can stick two brakes on if you want, it's drilled for that. But it's good practice to start kids with a rear brake only - stops them doing the panick-grab and flipping over their handlebars. And as small kids weigh less, they don't really need two brakes.

I found the biggest challenge with teaching my kids to cycle was not the pedalling bit, but teachign them to brake safely without panicking and flipping over the handlebars.

p.s. frog bikes are ace.

Well no deets but from the pics it looks like the car pulled out onto the shared patj and hit the cyclist who had right of way on the shared path. Not sure if it is you Pyro Tim, but we have had videos on here of the same or similar road where cars should give way to cyclists but they either don't or the bushes/ trees/ furniture makes it very hard to see what is coming. 

Is the SUV coming out of a road or out of the drive of a house?

Not me, I don't video, but I saw it. It was this road. The design was always going to produce accidents like this. The shared path has priority over junction, from road markings, but the cars won't be able to see to pull out, without creeping. So they don't bother creeping and drive to where the junction used to be, across the path. I rode it once slowly, won't use it again. Was safer before with no cycle infra

Pyro Tim wrote:

Was safer before with no cycle infra

I take your point, except - what infra? Looks like they just painted bike symbols on the pavement, which is not really infrastructure, more an invitation for motorists to harass cyclists for not using the shared path whilst running down those who do (as you intimated).

They have made the shared path priority for pedestrians and cyclists so whatever cost to move, paint etc. So there is infra, just shit as shown with other videos. 

That looks like the one that garysbikechannel has posted before with a video of going downhill. No one would use it more than once before getting on the road.