£85 Assos aero socks, Rapha and Santini hot-weather jerseys, plus more summer kit from Quoc and Madison

Affordable? Starting at £6K? You 'having a larf?

@SVXY Ah, so it *is* the "flood the zone with shit" argumentation technique then? Or perhaps ... you are genuinely unclear about the difference between the Highway code and the law (and perhaps the difference between cyclists, drivers and indeed horse riders? And rusty on safe practice? As mdavidford notes you appear to be confusing rule with Rule 66 (for cyclists, which doesn't say anything about not riding x abreast) with Rule 53 (for horse riders which gives guidance not to more than double up - I don't think this is a direct summary of any law since "should" not "must"). Charitably I'm going with "*i* know what it says!" which as I noted many of people feel they do. Anyway away with you, I feel you've had your fill of attention for today.

Road tax was abolished in 1937 by Winston Churchill because, as he said, "road tax makes motorists believe they are the moral owners of our roads." He got that right.

@SVXY None of the magistrates who sentenced him said the CPS should have charged him with dangerous driving. Why should they? He was not speeding, he was not on his phone and he was not drunk or under the influence of drugs either

@SVXY The court does not decide on whether someone was driving carelessly or dangerously, they can only decide on the guilt or otherwise of the defendant on the charge the CPS decides to lay against them. The CPS is notorious for preferring to charge careless rather than dangerous because it's an easier win; this results in entirely unjust sentences such as this one.

@Rendel Harris Wearing sandals may be fine if cycling on tracks over fields or in a quiet residential street with a 20 or 30mph limit. It is not sensible cycling on a 60mph main road

@chrisonabike maybe, but things that used to be banter & jokes in the 1960s/1970s have (thankfully) become socially unacceptable , and this is mostly because enough people spoke up about it. We even managed to make drink-driving a lot less acceptable, by the same means.

@Rendel Harris Yes, he was driving at 55mph in a 60mph road. The court verdict was he was not driving dangerously but carelessly eg he should have had his visor down to keep out the sun so he could monitor the road ahead.

@SVXY He wasn't driving dangerously, he just smashed into the back of a cyclist at 55mph on a clear road in broad daylight, causing her the most horrendous injuries imaginable, because, in the very best case, most defensible, scenario, he, a driving instructor, simply couldn't be bothered to perform the most basic task of a driver which is to monitor the road ahead for hazards and vulnerable road users. Go away now, there's good chap.

@chrisonabike Kudos for the Dr Strangelove reference. I doubt that Nigel will get it, though.