Deals for the Dirt from SRAM, Schwalbe, Mvic, IXS and more

"Both the rider and Birmingham Bike Foundry have launched a legal appeal, supported by Cycling UK’s Cyclists’ Defence Fund, arguing that the process employed which led to the destruction of a £6,500 legal e-bike was “fundamentally flawed”." Good to see my money being put to good use. Keep it up! As others have said, if the police can just confiscate and destroy something which has broken no laws with no attempt to contact the owners, there is something seriously wrong that needs to be sorted out in court. I hope the owners are adequately compensated, including legal costs, and the police learn how to test an ebike.

Good idea asking Google

@Mr Blackbird and what would you say to cyclists who think there are already too many motorists on the road?

Interesting the article on e-bikes having the statement that many English councils encourage pavement parking at the same time Scotland is moving in the polar opposite direction of fining drivers that do. This isnt just in the major cities either, the area I live in, Houston, Bridge of Weir which are medium sized villages have had people fined for even marginally encroaching walkways with their cars. If only English councils would follow this common sense approach. If they want to bag on about cyclists being on the roads, you have zero argument if you then allow cars to block the paths and cycle lanes you want them them to use instead.

“And what would you say to motorists who think there are already too many cyclists on the road?” "Get a grip!"?

Agreed for the most part, especially on mileages. I took a punt and added a Silca Endurance chip AND 1/3rd bottle Synergetic to my wax pot (after seeing a Silca YouTube video suggesting trying this). Still runs clean like a good hot wax, but seems to ladt longer in the wet, I've managed ~200km of mixed gravel and tarmac in a ride, including rain and river crossings, with the chain only just starting to grumble. I would have topped up with pure Synergetic to get me the final few km but as you say, then I would have to deal with the black goo cleanup!

Media such as the BBC help fuel the resentment towards cyclists. Lizzie Deignan was on BBC breakfast this morning talking about a podcast that acted as a couch to cycle for about an hour programme to encourage people to cycle to get fit and lose weight. The BBC presenters were John Kay and Sally Nugent, who always seem to argue from Daily Mail readers' viewpoint. At the end of the interview, John Kay asked "And what would you say to motorists who think there are already too many cyclists on the road?" A totally meaningless argument, which translates as "What would you say to motorists who believe based on no evidence that any cyclists on the road, slow down their journey and mean they have to allow realistic journey times to reach their destinations while avoiding speeding etc?"

.

I'm a cyclist and many of my friends are house clearance auction specialists. Surprisingly they aren't all arses. Maybe it's the Grimsby factor? Wasn't it Grimsby where that tosser mayor banned all cyclists within 40 miles of the town centre?

Agree that cycle lanes are pretty poor "infra". But although that "taking away and suffocating the freedom of other road users" is a weird phrase *... ... there is a "fairness" perception at work here. But simply "riding like a car" won't fix it at all! That means cyclists fall foul of the psychological "cheater detection" mechanism: we're using the same space but not playing by the same rules (not paying "road tax", we can filter past etc. ) Cyclists are visibly an "other" and people have been shown to expect "respect" (submissive behaviour) in those circumstances. But cyclists can't help being "provocative" - we're "in the way"! People may tolerate cyclists where they're a rare occurrence. But for mass cycling either the cyclists have to be in their own distinct space OR motorists have to be cued to be "guests". So not many of them, cyclists likely to be in the majority, speed reduced to that of cycling, in environments where there isn't an expectation of rapid progress such as residential areas with plants etc. * I think that's not even in the heads of most who are irked by cyclists. Reminds me of Monty Python - "Help, help, I'm being repressed!" For one it sounds like that concern is only for the road users who are a lot "more equal than others" (by design) - the motorised ones. And in reality NO "freedoms" are being lost! In fact the reverse is true: the growth of mass motoring has literally taken away freedoms. Like the freedom to get places - other than by driving (dual carriageway in the way now). And the freedom from serious "inconvenience" - but not "being delayed by a few seconds" / having to walk a few extra tens of meters than the minimum possible - inconvenience to vulnerable road users includes injury to health or even death...