Mark Cavendish’s 2021 bike auctioned off by former team, as fans slam “shameful” move; Tadej Pogačar set to race the 2024 Giro d’Italia – and the cycling world is divided; Cambridge Uni spot easier to secure than bike hangar space + more on the live blog

It wouldn't bother me if it was his main bike and for the moment it is an interesting bike; long term it'll be fogotten about. Sure it's man & machine and one can't do it without the other, but at the end of the day it's Cav's acheivement that's important.

As much as a rider has used multible bikes en route to records, any bike specifically used at a historical moment provides the best timestamp for the record breaking event.

While it is a combination of rider and bike that makes the win, a rider themselves can't be placed into a museum, so the equipment they used makes a more practical and ethical exhibit.

It will only be forgotten about if Cav breaks the record outright aboard a Wilier this year.

Bikes are often documented better than you think, look at how GCN built a replica of Eddy Merckx's 1969 bike to the exact same specifications barring a couple of small components. They used exactly the same model tubing, NOS lugs from the same factory, the same geometry and as many NOS components they could find including a complete Nuovo Record groupset.

For those who can't see the study, here's the abstract

(basically, drivers who never cycle are less likely to view a close pass as dangerous compared to drivers who cycle, and people who drive for a living are more likely to see it as dangerous than people who only drive for commuting etc. angry drivers are less likely to see cyclists as legitimate road users)

Replacing motor vehicle journeys with travel by foot and bicycle is recognised as a means to help achieve a range of health, environmental and economic objectives. Close passes - where a motor vehicle overtakes a cyclist with a minimal lateral clearance - have been identified as both a prominent safety concern and a barrier to increased uptake of cycling. Close passes are the most common type of on-road incident experienced by cyclists where a motor vehicle is involved and are also associated with collisions resulting in deaths and serious injuries. The current study builds on existing research investigating the underlying causes of close passes by examining responses from a sample of drivers to videos of close passes that were submitted by cyclists as driving complaints to an English county Police force. An online survey recorded the opinions of UK drivers (n = 293) on the behaviour of the cyclist and driver featured in each of 8 video clips. The survey recorded participants’ road use habits including the range of driving purposes engaged in (“driverXP”), their self-defined identity on a driver-cyclist spectrum, and their knowledge of recommended practice for bicycle road positioning. It also included the ‘Driving Anger eXpression’ (DAX) scale, which scores tendencies towards different forms of anger expression while driving, including use of vehicle manoeuvres to express anger (“vehicleDAX”). Multiple regressions were used to determine the relationship between these independent variables, and participants’ assessment of how risky the overtake was, and the extent to which the driver or cyclist were seen as liable for what happened.

The level of liability apportioned to the cyclists featured in the clips was higher from drivers who were not cyclists themselves, compared with those who did cycle, and from drivers who scored higher on the vehicleDAX and driverXP measures (Identifies as cyclist τ = -0.377, p <.01), (driverXP τ = 0.209, p <.01), (vehicleDAX τ = 0.113, p <.05). Drivers with higher vehicleDAX scores showed lower levels of agreement with the statement “the incident was dangerous” in relation to the close pass clips. The liability apportioned to the cyclists featured was mediated by the drivers’ cycling positional knowledge score (ΔR2 = 0.139, p <.001).

This is the first time that naturalistic footage reported by cyclists to Police has been used to examine differing perceptions of the same close pass event. Findings show a need to share knowledge about cycling practice in order to help drivers navigate cycle traffic safely and considerately. This can inform road safety interventions that can contribute to safer cycling and driver behaviours that are more welcoming to existing and potential cyclists.

.

Golly! If that's the abstract, then I'm not sure I could cope with the fullstract!

.

Hirsute wrote:

Close passes paper

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984782300267X

"Close passes caught on camera – How knowledge and behavioural norms relate to perceptions of liability when cars overtake cyclists"

Not sure their results mean anything, out of 293 participants 167 claimed to ride a bike on the road at least once a week, either they are not an average sample of the population or they're lying!

Maybe the elderly couple who close passed me today should read it. You can just see how close my hand gets to their wing (door) mirror as I instinctively wave them away.

They then immediately turned left. So, I followed and caught up with them as they pulled onto a driveway. I tried to explain what they had done wrong but was met with "I've nothing to apologise for, that wasn't close" etc.

It's a jaunty angle due to the load I had on the rear rack. I think I'll send it off and see if the rozzers will do owt with it.

Had an interesting close pass at the w/e. Guy decided to overtake near a bend and was caught out by oncoming traffic , so pulled back in by me.

5 mins later I find a guy flagging me down near a side road and giving a profuse apology for his actions. I did tell him that as he had waited and apologised, I wouldn't send it off but don't do it again.

I think he wasn't concentrating, as my position, the SLOW and the sharp bend chevron sign were all good indicators that on an NSL, this was not the place to overtake.

Good on him. Sometimes a bit of polite engagement works. It's rare though. People don't like being told they've done something wrong.

I think I'll send it off and see if the rozzers will do owt with it

I could tell you the answer if you were in Lancashire- straight in the bin- but you often describe how it's different in Northamptonshire. The offenders are so frequent in Lancashire, they're starting to show up in pairs on the same video frame. This is from this morning: white Dacia Sandero WV68 FYM at the back- no MOT for 5 1/2 months and first identified and reported in September; white Qashqai VA65 EVL SORN-ed but parked on the road- police here are very keen to state that VED offences are nothing to do with them.

Special festive bonus feature, already binned by OpSnap Lancs

https://upride.cc/incident/pj23vmc_honda125_redlightcross/

Even then, if Pidcock's choice is down to taste then I doubt having a non-alcoholic version would change his reaction. Especially nowadays as the modern alternatives on sale now pretty closely match the taste of their original counterparts.

By choice I stopped drinking 4 years ago and I have been highly impressed with some of the alternatives on offer. Adnam's Ghost Ship, Doom Bar, Guinness, all very close if not indistinguishable between their non/low alcohol and standard versions. If you don't like the regular, you won't like the alcohol free.

Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:

By choice I stopped drinking 4 years ago and I have been highly impressed with some of the alternatives on offer. Adnam's Ghost Ship, Doom Bar, Guinness, all very close if not indistinguishable between their non/low alcohol and standard versions. If you don't like the regular, you won't like the alcohol free.

Snap.  Stopped drinking at the start of 2020 and now drink a lot of non-aloholic beer.

Erdinger Alkoholfrei is my favourite of the non-alcoholic beers. I tried some non-alcoholic sparkling wine recently that was actually fermented tea, bit strange but quite drinkable.

I have had Erdinger, not a bad option but I was never a fan of pilsners and lagers, so I will only go for it if it is the only option not counting Becks or Heineken, otherwise it's cola for me.

I found the Guinness 0.0 to be very drinkable.

Great for making Guinness cake for my Muslim workmates.

ktache wrote:

I found the Guinness 0.0 to be very drinkable.

Very much agree, it's the only alcohol-free one I really find acceptable, tend to stick to Coke if it's not available. I do think it's a bit of a cheek that it tends to be only a few pence cheaper a pint/can though, if that, considering there's no 30% duty!

Steve K wrote:

Snap.  Stopped drinking at the start of 2020 and now drink a lot of non-aloholic beer.

Never understood why people drink non-alcoholic beer or other non alcoholic beverages. Just drink juice or something, a beer's only really a beer if it's alcoholic. 

Bit like vegans trying to replicate burgers, if they don't like meat why try to eat something that looks and feels like it 

Small beer?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_beer

For many people who used to drink but no longer do by choice, or are cutting down, or are the designated driver, drinking something that tastes of what you normally drink, but without the negative affects of alcohol, are very appealing.

Quite frankly, there's only so much fruit juice you can drink before it gives you the shits, and sodas are packed so full of sugar (or artificial sweeteners for diet versins) that they get sickly very quickly. Being able to mix it up is a much more pleasant experience.

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

Bit like vegans trying to replicate burgers, if they don't like meat why try to eat something that looks and feels like it 

Because lots of vegetarians/vegans love meat but give it up on ethical, moral and/or environmental principles, and so very much welcome any simulacrum which can provide the texture and taste of meat without the harm. It's hilarious how much it bothers the Daily Mail readers that some people choose to eat plant-based foods formed into a burger or sausage shape, worth doing just for the sake of annoying them alone.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

Bit like vegans trying to replicate burgers, if they don't like meat why try to eat something that looks and feels like it 

Because lots of vegetarians/vegans love meat but give it up on ethical, moral and/or environmental principles, and so very much welcome any simulacrum which can provide the texture and taste of meat without the harm. It's hilarious how much it bothers the Daily Mail readers that some people choose to eat plant-based foods formed into a burger or sausage shape, worth doing just for the sake of annoying them alone.

When I was a teenager, a guy I knew was DEFINITELY a vegetarian.*

*except for bacon… 

(sorry, just needed to share that anecdote)

brooksby wrote:

When I was a teenager, a guy I knew was DEFINITELY a vegetarian.*

*except for bacon… 

(sorry, just needed to share that anecdote)

A friend of mine used to say "I'm 98% vegetarian, I have fruit and toast for breakfast and salad and cheese for lunch, sure I have steak for dinner but for 23.5 hours of the day I'm vegetarian…"

Rendel Harris wrote:

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

Bit like vegans trying to replicate burgers, if they don't like meat why try to eat something that looks and feels like it 

Because lots of vegetarians/vegans love meat but give it up on ethical, moral and/or environmental principles, and so very much welcome any simulacrum which can provide the texture and taste of meat without the harm. It's hilarious how much it bothers the Daily Mail readers that some people choose to eat plant-based foods formed into a burger or sausage shape, worth doing just for the sake of annoying them alone.

Also, it's about the form factor. A burger is a nice familiar meal, but you don't have to put meat in it, same goes for sausages. That's why there's also a massive selection of vegan/vegetarian sausages/burgers that make absolutely no attempt to look, feel, smell, or taste anything like meat.

Also, to address the initial statement (not that there's any point, as I'm sure Nige thinks he's got an amazing 'gotcha' to discredit the entire concept of veganism), but a lot of these "exactly like meat" products exist as sort of the food equivalent of nicotine patches, and are aimed more at meat-eaters looking to cut down, rather than "seasoned" vegans that are used to cooking and eating vegan food. In the same way, 0% beer is aimed at people that like the taste and want to go out for a pint with their friends, but either need to drive, or want to cut down for health reasons (in which case, drinking pints of liquid sugar would be a bit strange).

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

Never understood why people drink non-alcoholic beer or other non alcoholic beverages. Just drink juice or something, a beer's only really a beer if it's alcoholic.

I like the taste of beer, and mostly I am driving. Doesn't seem hard to wrap your brain around. 

Quote:

Bit like vegans trying to replicate burgers, if they don't like meat why try to eat something that looks and feels like it 

Going vegan can be a challenge, and having plant-based substitutes that you can use/cook in the exact same way that have always used/cooked the meat equivalents is incredibly useful, and can help minimise the fuss among family members you might also be cooking for. 

You can still cook your trademark spaghetti bolognese (for example), using a plant-based substitute for the minced beef content. 

Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:

Even then, if Pidcock's choice is down to taste then I doubt having a non-alcoholic version would change his reaction. 

Indeed. Unpopular opinion but, even as someone who enjoys the wide variety of beer (I'm partial to geuze, porters, stouts and the heady end of the Trappists) and noting the better range of "no and low" now available, beer is probably not something most people would get into if it wasn't for the booze.

quiff wrote:

Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:

Even then, if Pidcock's choice is down to taste then I doubt having a non-alcoholic version would change his reaction. 

Indeed. Unpopular opinion but, even as someone who enjoys the wide variety of beer (I'm partial to geuze, porters, stouts and the heady end of the Trappists) and noting the better range of "no and low" now available, beer is probably not something most people would get into if it wasn't for the booze.

Maybe not, but having drunk from underage until I was 50, I like the taste even though I no longer want the alcohol.

Brooklyn Special Effects is very nice.  

I'm in a similar boat - drinking less now and while it might be an acquired taste, I've already acquired it! Agreed on the Brooklyn - super hoppy!