13 massive mountain bike shopping deals, including the cheapest ways to film your ride

It's worth noting that a key prosecution witness was the passenger and cousin of Simon Richardson. I don't know what she was thinking or experienced in that car, or what she could have done differently that day, but she deserves credit for her role in providing essential evidence despite the close relationship with Simon Richardson.

@Hollis Jones I’m not sure the Rouvy acquisition was a shortcut, it’s been reported by DC Rainmaker and ZwiftInsider (both respected sources) that Zwift started this over two years ago, and the videos are completely different films (albeit similar locations). If there’s a conspiracy theory to be had, it could be that the acquisition was a cheap way out of a lawsuit.

Daily Mail calling that a "Peloton". It's far from even being an Echelon, or a Échappée. More like Chasse Patate

Every time an LTN has been introduced in London, in its initial stages it has been plagued with drivers going through no entry signs, driving the wrong way up one-way streets, driving over pavements to get round barriers etc. I'm not a regular reader of the Daily Mail, thank goodness, but I certainly can't remember seeing or hearing about any report of theirs on that behaviour and an outcry that it was only a matter of time before a driver hit somebody.

@HoarseMann Absolutely, I find it completely absurd and I can't understand why Khan, who has been so good for cyclists and active travel in so many other ways, didn't insist on it. I had a fantasy, which might have been impractical but I think would have looked very pretty, of running a sunken cycle lane down the middle of the street, say four feet deep or so, with suitably attractive pedestrian bridges over it at intervals, so it looked rather like a waterless canal. There's ample room to do it, it would've kept pedestrians and cyclists completely separated, and I think would've looked rather charmingly quirky.

@mitsky Leaving aside the fact that I, and I think most people, wouldn't want to live in a society where physically or chemically mutilating people was used by the state as a form of punishment, why do you think that would be a deterrent? In cases like this the perpetrator, vile as he is, didn't intend that day to murder somebody, he didn't sit down and think okay, I'll get life in prison but I'm not going to have my taste buds or libido removed so I'll chance it. He did one of the most appalling things I've ever heard of a driver doing but on the spur of the moment and doubtless in a panic, if capital punishment was still in place the deterrent effect wouldn't have worked on him. We all know that in the USA states that have the death penalty have no lower murder rates than those that don't, there's no reason to suppose that your proposed, and if you'll excuse me utterly barbaric, form of punishment would act as any more of a deterrent. It might make us, or some of us, feel better about getting some form of revenge on the perpetrator of such an appalling crime, but as a deterrent its effect would be negligible if not non-existent.

Oxford Street is very wide, they ought to have accommodated cycling in these plans from the start. Not least because it's going to be very difficult to police and a lack of safe alternatives will encourage many cyclists to ignore the ban. They could have added bike lanes going in both directions, separated by a pedestrian area in the middle so that pedestrians only have to deal with crossing one direction of cycling traffic at a time.

@the infamous grouse KCs and barristers don't have an awful lot of choice about accepting a case: on the "cab rank" principle they are obliged to take instruction from anyone who asks, providing the case falls into their area of competence, an appropriate fee is offered and they have room for it on their calendar. They certainly are not allowed to say no, this bloke's obviously a piece of shit and guilty as sin, I'm not defending him, and once in court they are obliged to do everything within their power within the rules of the legal system to defend their client. Hence the obligation to make speeches like the one to which you object. I'm acquainted with several barristers and a judge and they've all told me that there are times when it absolutely sticks in their craw to have to do this sort of thing but it really is the only way to ensure that everybody gets proper representation regardless of however heinous the crime of which they are accused, their race, sex, personal beliefs et cetera.

It is very disappointing. My best guess is that he personally is not interested in cycling, and he can't see beyond his own habits and wishes.

@OldTom i suppose my commentary depends on whether the KC had any choice in representing this client or not .. a Milgram disclaimer, in a way.