F1-inspired aero helmet tech, smart cooling innovation for your indoor training fan, plus more cool things from Scicon Sports, Altura and Nook Hack

PS re the cyclist ringing a bell (or as a sports cyclist more likely shouting a warning), they would have no reason to: the lady wasn't "approaching the road", she had got to the island in the middle of the road and was standing still, then she stepped out. As far as I can see there was no reason to think anything but that she had seen him and was waiting for him to pass before crossing the lane.

@bensynnock We, and car drivers, must indeed exercise the utmost care for vulnerable road users, but if you take it to the logical extreme the only way you can absolutely guarantee never hitting a vulnerable road user is not to cycle or drive at all under any circumstances. As the Highway Code makes clear, "The hierarchy places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. It does not remove the need for everyone to behave responsibly." In a case like this where the pedestrian has made an absolutely suicidal move by stepping onto the roadway into the path of a fast-moving cyclist when they were two metres away you can't say that the cyclist has failed in their duty of care, the cyclist was approaching on a clear straight road in good visibility, the lady was standing still on the island then suddenly stepped out when he was so close that he had no time to make any reaction at all, let alone brake or swerve round her. She, sadly, for unknown reasons, failed in her "need to behave responsibly". Unless duty of care encompasses coming to a complete stop when one sees a pedestrian waiting to cross (when there is no marked crossing) I don't think it was breached here.

@C3a Presumably it's to do with turnover stability while moving. I saw a Tentbox today, just being driven through Garstang. I can certainly see the advantage of these boxes over tents, because I have suffered lifelong from the 'Get orf my land' brigade, and there's a much greater tolerance among them for those 'camping' in vehicles than for those much more worthy real campers in tents. Add to that the convenience of just stopping in any old free spot by the roadside, where there isn't a decent site for a tent, and you can see the attraction.

Most of the cars that I have owned have had a roof-box limit (bars, box and contents) of 70kg. How does a textbox fit with that? Is the limit only applicable when the vehicle is moving?

@Chris RideFar For starters, by being 1,5 m above the ground you are mostly protected from dew. In many countries it also protects you from frost or really low temperatures. You'd be surprised how much of a difference it actually makes. Bugs, ants, spiders etc. are another thing, as is the purely mental feeling of security by being isolated from the ground. You'd be surprised how much that means to some of us and our better halves ;-) Sleeping on the ground also means more mechanical damage to the floor from rocks, hard roots etc., which could make a big difference in some areas and on longer trips, where a ripped tent floor could really break your holiday. I'm not saying a roof tent is the answer to all one's troubles with camping. But these factors definitely to make a difference to many of us.

It was counting on you thinking that.

When was the last time you had a groundsheet with a built in mattress? The point is predictable comfort.

My old boss loved his 2nd hand trailer tent.

Is it because cars and driving are about convenience (for a price), so there is mileage in selling more (quite expensive) related things that are about convenience?

@FionaJJ that's the crux of the issue i guess. Minority causes can have this where the mainstream has the power to steamroll you (figuratively and literally). There's always "fear of angering the giant" (or alienating the decision makers / majority, where any politician has the temptation to gain attention by criticising this. And business salespeople stand to gain by selling "convenience and status" instead). But ... it's also easy to keep getting "small wins" while losing the main argument. (That would be where rules and public space remain suited to or are further modified to reinforce motor dependency and thus reduce active travel - even if perhaps it's now autonomous vehicles and "they're more efficient / much safer than human drivers").