Mick Ives, a legend who took British cycle racing to the next level, dedicating his life to the sport, has died at the age of 84.
Hailing from Coventry, his impact on British cycling has been monumental, not only having raced for 65 years but also having managed a number of sports teams.
Besides road racing, Mick had been also an incredible part of the UK Cyclocross scene. He was a six-time UCI World Masters Cycling Champion, and stepped on the podium a further six times. He also won 85, yes 85, British national cycling champion titles, and won over 1,000 races in his lifetime!
His eight-year stint as a professional on the road was followed by a further eight years as a pro mountain biker, after which Ives moved into management both for trade teams and the national team at mountain biking and cyclo-cross world championships.
Mick managed many teams, including the Eveready road team, the British national MTB team and was also involved at Moore Large, the UK's first Scott Racing MTB team in 1991.
He also went on to form the Team Jewson MI Racing Team in 1997. The team has won more than 1,000 races all over the UK and mainland Europe.
In 2005 Mick became the first pensioner to complete the Tour de France route riding alone two days ahead of the big race itself. He completed the 3,608 km distance under par, in just 20 days, having ridden two of the stages in one day. He is the only rider in the world known to complete the race route solo!
In 2016, the veteran took his 85th national title, racing for Team Jewson-MI Racing-Polypipe and winning the Veteran Time Trial Association National 25-mile Tandem Championships on Sunday in partnership with 75-year-old Murray Kirton.
The next year, Mick Ives rode the full route of the 100th Giro d'Italia, at age 77. He aimed to raise £60,000 for four charities, including hospices and kidney research centres. Naming the challenge Mick's Italian Job, he described it as "a daunting task for anyone, but possibly the toughest task I have ever faced during my 60 years of competitive cycling."
road.cc would like to extend our thoughts and condolences to Mick's family, friends and loved ones.
Add new comment
19 comments
The cyclist shouldn't have been cycling on the footpath. The fact that someone had parked his lorry on the cycle lane doesn't change that. That said, if it wasn't possible to cycle on the road and I would probably have ridden on the footpath too, but I would have been extremely cautious (i.e. walking speed) if there had been peds around.
Re parking in bike lanes, definitely think we need a just a minute campaign in this country.
I love where the Police stop listen to the protesters and drive of. https://youtu.be/kDboYpYvT2o?feature=shared
Another drug-driver...
https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/news/thames-valley/news/2024/january/...
Another why don't cyclists use cycle lanes from Facebook this morning. Stupidly I looked at some of the comments 😞
I assume he is delivering the car behind.
That road is 3 vehicles wide by the look of it, so no reason whatsoever other than not giving a damn about anyone else for him to be parked on the cycleway blocking visibility at the junction.
Needs an ASBO.
What was preventing the cyclist from dismounting and walking on that section of pavement?
(Two wrongs don't make a right.)
The Home Office guidance, which I believe hasn't been rescinded and was supported by the National Police Officers' Council and the Department for Transport, is that it is acceptable for cyclists to ride on the pavement if they are "...responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so." Given that the cyclist would've had to get over the kerb of the protected lane, cross two lanes of traffic, ride twenty yards and then cross two lanes of traffic and get over the kerb again, it seems quite reasonable that they wouldn't want to expose themselves to the traffic there, and they certainly didn't inconvenience, hamper or endanger the single pedestrian who was on the pavement.
Imagine a different scenario where a lorry was blocking a narrow street and there were half a dozen motorists who could get past by putting one wheel up on the pavement: if there were no pedestrians present, would it be reasonable to say that all the cars should reverse back down the street and go round the block, or would it be okay to use a bit of pragmatism and common sense?
I would have slowed down a touch though.
I think it's safe to say that in such a case, drivers would be two wheels up on the pavement whether or not there were pedestrians present. Considering the frequency I have had drivers moving directly towards me forcing me to step aside, when they want to park on the pavement.
What would prevent them from getting out of the car and pushing their car on that section
I think the police had something to say about it in my case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qO2FIe5poE
And yes, annoying as the waste collection lorry was in the way and its driver could have potentially parked out of the way, it doesn't excuse the multiple drivers from going onto the narrow pavement when parents with children are walking to school.
(Not sure what happened to the vehicle reg after this was dealt with...)
Of course it doesn't, you'll note in my imaginary scenario I did say "if there were no pedestrians present."
My apologies.
My "it doesn't excuse the multiple drivers from going onto the narrow pavement when parents with children are walking to school." was specific to the incident in my clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qO2FIe5poE
1) You didn't answer my question.
2) Guidance does not override law.
I would answer your question with another question, rather than "what was preventing the cyclist getting off and walking" I would ask the question "what was preventing the cyclist riding on the pavement for a short distance", the answer being nothing as there was a single pedestrian whom the cyclist passed with plenty of room and didn't impede in any way.
No, you're right, guidance does not override law, but it is there to provide guidance (clue's in the name) as to how the law should be interpreted and in this instance I think it's perfectly clear that the Home Office guidance indicates that it is acceptable for the cyclist to use the pavement.
If you are going to post on twitter that would have been best !
(also the same with using a camera - you end up being very law abiding if you want to submit footage).
I got off and walked a short distance on the pavement yesterday as a water leak had frozen in the road. Unfortunately two cars were parked side by side outside a gym completely blocking the pavement.
Anyway, on a completely different subject, I hope broken mirrors are cheap to replace.
Judging by the number of drivers I've filmed driving on the pavement to avoid (completely legal) obstacles, not sure they're all that good at dealing with minor inconvenience either!
As absurd as it may sound, seems like a pretty routine occurrence here, doesn't it? And once again, as absurd it may sound, we all know that posting anything like this instantly brings forth the anti-cycling brigade, resorting to name-calling and accusations of "Oh, you can't deal with the slightest inconvenience, can you?!".
Well, deal with the inconvenience of not getting past me and waiting for a safe spot, then!