Council ridiculed for encouraging cycling...two weeks after ripping out LTNs; 10/10 kit; Insane urban downhill skills; Uninsured driver caught in cycle lane; Quick-Step tease contract news...it wasn't Cav; Bike bus trend spreads + more on the live blog

mdavidford wrote:

Picky, but

Quote:

Traveling [sic] at speed, along a dedicated cycle lane, past an unmarked traffic car isn’t the best idea when you don’t have insurance!

It would have been OK if they were insured?

No, but drawing attention to yourself when you are already commiting a crime is very foolish. It's amazin how many other offences the police uncover due to traffic stops. You'd think if crimanals are driving cars containing damning evidence (look a boot full of drugs) they would take pains to ensure their driving was unlikely to draw attention.

But then I guess the jails are full of stupid criminals, and the smart ones don't get caught.

wycombewheeler wrote:

You'd think if crimanals are driving cars containing damning evidence (look a boot full of drugs) they would take pains to ensure their driving was unlikely to draw attention.

Not necessarily. Part of the reason they're happy to drive around without insurance or with a boot full of drugs is probably due to an assumption that there won't be anyone around to catch them in the first place. The same assumption then applies to driving in the cycle lane, at 1.5x the speed limit, etc.

And the sad part is that in the large majority of cases, they're probably right to assume that.

That kit looks like the wrappers of those chewy mints you could buy back in the seventies...

Found it!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacers_(confectionery)

And it was the sweets that looked like that, apparently...

They'd be well camouflaged cycling in that lane.

Quote:

Want eight reasons why your next bike should be a mountain bike? This video may have just made that nine...

Er, really not. More likely to scare me off them for life.

Good for you.  I prefer to do it a bit quicker even more comfortably so wear clothing to facilitate that.

😂 Quicker than me you mean? Might be time for some silly commuter racing!
Not that either of us are silly, and I'm not a commuter

I like bikes wrote:

People have got a point about lycra and ballet shoes, i regularly do50-100 mile rides, and manage comfortably in normal looking clothing 🤷‍♂️

I don't understand that point at all.

There's plenty of different activities that sometimes require specialist clothing (e.g. kayaking and buoyancy jacket; swimming and speedos; cricket etc) and yes, you don't necessarily need to wear cycle specific clothing - it's just more comfortable for most people.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I like bikes wrote:

People have got a point about lycra and ballet shoes, i regularly do50-100 mile rides, and manage comfortably in normal looking clothing 🤷‍♂️

I don't understand that point at all.

There's plenty of different activities that sometimes require specialist clothing (e.g. kayaking and buoyancy jacket; swimming and speedos; cricket etc) and yes, you don't necessarily need to wear cycle specific clothing - it's just more comfortable for most people.

There's a whole fashion sector now called athleisure - half the mothers dropping off at my kids' school are wearing lycra leggings; some of them will be on their way to a keep fit class of some sort, but many won't.  Yet no-one complains about lycra then.  But suddently when someone wears it on a bike it's a point to ridicule.  As I pointed out on the Ned Boulting thread, the Times sports journalist Elizabeth Ammon was at it on twitter the other day too.  It's ridiculous.   (a) what's wrong with wearing clothing designed for the activity you are undertaking and anyway (b) who gives a toss what other people wear.

Steve K wrote:

There's a whole fashion sector now called athleisure - half the mothers dropping off at my kids' school are wearing lycra leggings; some of them will be on their way to a keep fit class of some sort, but many won't.  Yet no-one complains about lycra then.  But suddently when someone wears it on a bike it's a point to ridicule.  

Without wanting to appear in any way sexist ... could it be that the kind of people who complain about cyclists in lycra have no problem with how mums on the school run look in yoga pants, but don't feel the same way about middle aged blokes in cycling shorts. 

Just a thought. 

Jetmans Dad wrote:

  ...school run...

it's not even running

As an oldie in lycra, all I can say is that if it is about aesthetic considerations, why don't they complain about older woman in bathing costumes swimming in the sea? Exactly the same: wear correct comfortable clothing for your chosen sport and bollox to anyone else. OK, if your shorts are so worn that they are basically transparente and your arse is hanging out they may have a point, otherwise they should shutting up.

Steve K wrote:

There's a whole fashion sector now called athleisure - half the mothers dropping off at my kids' school are wearing lycra leggings; some of them will be on their way to a keep fit class of some sort, 

If you are running a sweepstake on how many can I take 5% to 10%

I like bikes wrote:

People have got a point...

What actually is "the point" about lycra (and ballet?) shoes? Some cyclists wear lycra, and, ... and what?

They do look ridiculous though

The people ? The shoes? The clothing?

Any other sports you judge people on for their attire ?

Lots of people look ridiculous, until you realise it's your own prejudices that are ridiculous.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Lots of people look ridiculous, until you realise it's your own prejudices that are ridiculous.

I'm not convinced on that pair of shoes for cycling with though. Probably fine for pootling around, but the stack height would throw off your bike's geometry a bit.

I hear he's a bit of a demon (mountain) biker although at least for MTB I think he wears flatter shoes.

What has The Rules got to say about stockings though?

chrisonatrike wrote:

I hear he's a bit of a demon (mountain) biker although at least for MTB I think he wears flatter shoes.

What has The Rules got to say about stockings though?

I think stockings would be banned by UCI just on height alone.

I like his comment on gravel bikes being the Lib Dems of cycling.

hawkinspeter wrote:

....

I'm not convinced on that pair of shoes for cycling with though. Probably fine for pootling around, but the stack height would throw off your bike's geometry a bit.

But you could raise the saddle to compensate

Are the cleats embedded into the sole to make them more practical? or is that why the sole is so thick?