By Bob Mionske

Have I ever mentioned my Uncle Leo? He doesn’t ride, and he writes me off as one of those weirdos in spandex. We all have someone like this in our lives, a nonriding friend or relative who doesn’t understand or even doesn’t like cyclists. Rather than get defensive, I prefer to think of the Uncle Leos of the world as people who offer us a chance to start a dialogue about why cycling is important to us. Because we’re not just nameless, faceless jerks getting in their way: We’re people they know and care about.

You can begin by demystifying some aspects of lawful cycling behavior that confuse drivers. You can also explain things drivers can do to help keep cyclists safe. Just don’t be surprised if the conversation is a two-way street—Uncle Leo may have a list of his own.


CONVERSATION POINTS

Cyclists have a legal right to ride on the road.
In fact, it’s often illegal for us to pedal on the sidewalk.

Cyclists are required to ride only as close to the right as is safe.
And when it comes to the road surface and traffic conditions, what looks safe to a cyclist and safe to a driver are often very different.

Pay attention.
Look for riders when you’re driving or opening the car door.

Never try to beat a cyclist to a turn.
It is easy to misjudge how fast we’re traveling.

Always use turn signals.
Even if you don’t see a cyclist, the cyclist is more likely to see you.

Pass with care.
Allow at least 3 feet between you and a cyclist, maintain a safe speed, and don’t accelerate.

Focus on driving.

Leave your other chores—eating, reading, flossing your teeth—for later. And never, ever text while driving.


POSITIVE SPIN

Cycling offers tons of benefits. Share these with family and friends.

It’s economical.
Each mile of cycling saves $1 in health costs. While cyclists don’t damage roads, we do pay taxes to maintain them. Bike infrastructure is cheaper than any other form of transportation improvement.

It reduces traffic congestion.
That makes commuting easier for motorists.

It improves your health.
Riding is one of the best ways to offset the negative effects of inactivity, which causes 5.3 million deaths annually.

Research and assistance by Rick Bernardi, J.D.

Wednesday 24 April was a big day for the UK’s cycling future. The Get Britain Cycling report could be the blueprint that makes the nation healthier, wealthier and a fundamentally more pleasant place to live

Gathered in one highly credible document, based on evidence from more than 100 experts and cycling advocates are 18 logical and achievable recommendations that will make cycling safer, more accessible and more enjoyable for everyone who rides now and hopefully will ride a bike in future.

It called for a tenfold increase in funding to £20 a head, political leadership cutting across Government departments, action on lorry danger, cycle training for all children and prioritising cycling provisions in all planning schemes.

The report and most of its findings was welcomed by campaign groups of all persuasions, from motorist organisation The AA to Sustrans and British Cycling.

They welcomed its bold ambition, its reasonableness and its affordability.

So now the next phase begins – to make sure this blueprint stays near the top of the political agenda and that Prime Minister David Cameron, Chancellor George Osborne and other senior cabinet members put cycling first.

To use one of the report’s favoured phrases, they need to be made to Think Bike.

Cameron et al need to publicly pledge to protect and serve cyclists’ needs in the same way past governments have protected and served motorists' interests.

Yesterday was a good start. Cameron was forced to publicly acknowledge and commend the Get Britain Cycling Campaign’s report in Prime Minister’s Questions. Parliamentary Under Secretary for Transport Stephen Hammond announced a working group to prevent cyclists being killed under lorries.

There are threats, though. The Government’s austerity policy will always represent a threat to funding for cycling, a mode of transport accounting for a tiny fraction of the country’s daily journeys – just two per cent. The political groups and lobbyists could let the issue slip off the agenda, though given the enthusiasm in the room yesterday and the work already done, that seems unlikely.

As  CTC’s Campaigns and Policy Director, Roger Geffen pointed out, though the transport minister Norman Baker is a knowledgeable and passionate cycling advocate, he is a junior minister in the junior coalition party. His influence extends only so far and he needs more influential backing, though he has already set up a series of cross government groups that tie in the Department for Health and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.  

There’s a big test coming up. In June, there’s another spending round. Can cycling’s position be maintained as other, bigger, pressures on public investment – health, education, welfare – lumber up to protect their share of a diminishing pot of money? 

Beyond that, the next UK general election will be the moment we really see if Think Bike has been inculcated at the heart of Government. The dream scenario would be mainstream political parties making meaningful manifesto pledges to secure the cyclist’s vote. That will be the real test.

By Bob Mionske

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, I discussed some issues to think about if you get a traffic ticket while riding your bike. Now let’s talk about your best course of action.

If you decide not to fight your ticket, you have nothing more to do except pay the fine. However, you should be aware of an alternative that may be available to you. In a handful of cities, including New York City and Portland, Oregon, cyclists can have their ticket dismissed after attending traffic school.

But what if you want to fight your ticket? Here’s what you need to do.

Contact the Court
The first step is to contact the court clerk by the date specified on the ticket. Explain that you want to contest the ticket; you will be given instructions on when and where to appear.

Make Your Plea
Some jurisdictions will require you to appear in court to enter your plea. Other jurisdictions allow you to enter your plea with the court clerk. When you are asked “How do you plead?” the only answer that the clerk wants to hear is “guilty” or “not guilty.” The clerk does not want to hear your defense, or an explanation of what happened, or anything else. If you are contesting the ticket (rather than paying it) you must plead “not guilty.” If you say “guilty,” you will be convicted and fined.

Make Your Defense
Some jurisdictions allow you to make your defense by a written declaration: You send in a written statement telling the court what happened, explaining why you are not guilty. The prosecution sends in its written declaration stating the facts and why you are guilty. The court then sends you its decision.

This is a good option is because it gives you two chances to make your case. If the court rules in your favor, you are not guilty, and the ticket is dismissed. But if you are found guilty, you can request a trial in court.

Whether you have a written trial or a trial in court, remember that you are innocent until proven guilty. This means that the prosecution must prove that you committed a violation; you do not have to prove that you are innocent. But because most traffic violations are infractions, not criminal offenses, the prosecution has a much lower bar to prove its case than it does in a criminal trial. Your job at trial will be to poke holes in the prosecution’s case. The officer will state his or her version of what happened, and you will need to find weak spots in the testimony.

Now let’s revisit the three situations I discussed in Part 2, and how you might go about crafting your defense in each case.

You Broke the Law and Got Caught
If you got caught red-handed, your options are limited. At trial, the officer will testify about what he or she observed, and if your only defense is to contradict the officer’s testimony, you will lose your case. Why? Because the court presumes that the officer has no incentive to lie, and that you do have an incentive—you want to get out of paying your ticket.

So should you just pay up if you know you’re guilty? That’s a decision only you can make. But there are a couple of reasons to consider contesting your ticket, even if you are guilty. First, the officer may not show up in court on the day of your trial. If this happens, the judge should immediately dismiss your ticket. (If the judge tries to reschedule your trial date, request that the ticket be dismissed.) Even if the officer shows up, you can admit your guilt, perhaps offer an explanation that you made a mistake, and ask the judge to give you a break and reduce your fine. If the fine will be a financial hardship, let the judge know.

You Broke the Law, But There’s An Explanation
Suppose you ran a stop sign because it was concealed from your view, perhaps by foliage, or a large truck. Technically, you ran the stop sign. However, in your defense you can make a “mistake of fact” argument—because it was impossible for you to see the stop sign, there was no way for you to know that it was there. Be sure to bring photographs to present as evidence at trial.

Now consider a different scenario—you were ticketed for riding on the sidewalk in a business district, but you were on the sidewalk because you swerved to avoid a right hook. In this situation, you can make a “necessity defense”—riding on the sidewalk at that place was illegal, but it was necessary for you to ride onto the sidewalk to avoid injury, and you intended to return to the roadway after your evasive maneuver.

You Weren’t Breaking the Law, But Got Ticketed Anyway
Sometimes, the officer is just wrong on the law. Or the officer or an eyewitness makes a mistake about what happened. Either way, you may get a ticket. If the facts are wrong, ask questions that cause doubt about the accuracy of what was witnessed. If the officer or eyewitness believes they saw you do something, did they actually see it? Or did they assume they saw something?

If the officer is simply mistaken on the law, introduce a copy of the law into evidence at trial, and argue that what the officer is saying is not what the law says.

Learn More
For more information about what to do when you get a traffic ticket, you can visit my website. Although I do not work with traffic tickets as a part of my bicycle law practice—I focus exclusively on representing cyclists who have been injured while riding—you will find tips for handling your own ticket. Good luck!

Research and assistance by Rick Bernardi, J.D.

Connect with Bob on Facebook!

Segregation, segregation, segregation it wasn't quite, but separating cyclists from cars was the silver thread running through London mayor Boris Johnson’s vision for cycling in the capital.

As well as the 15 mile Crossrail for bikes announced today, which will reduce a busy six lane road to five, with cyclists claiming one as their own, the mayor’s vision went big on channelling cyclists quite literally out of the road of vehicles and into their own space. The 12 largely segregated so-called "cycling superhighways" will be completed by 2016. Some will be slightly re-routed, and all will be renamed with either tube line and bus route label to align them with the mental maps of most Londoners.

The reallocation of a car lane for bikes reflects a general trend in Londoners’ transport choices.  “There’s been a massive fall in the number of motor vehicles and massive rise in the number of bikes,” said Andrew Gilligan, cycling commissioner for London. “At the same time bike traffic across London Bridge has increased by more than 200 per cent.”

But Johnson told Bikeradar he didn't want people to “run away with the idea that I’m segregating cyclists into reservations and into particular parts of the road. I want cyclists to feel safe everywhere.”

And despite the changes and the new off-road lanes, both tribes – cyclists and drivers – will have to continue rubbing along together the majority of the time.

Johnson said driver education was a fundamental part of the vision. Heavy goods vehicles, which, despite only making up four per cent of the city’s vehicle fleet are responsible for 53 per cent of fatalities are going to be a particular target. “I think bus drivers have really changed in their appreciation of cyclists on the road but others are less good. I think HGV drivers still find it challenging and they really need help.”

Among other plans, the vision lays out aims to restrict HGV movements during rush hour, put more HGV drivers through cyclist awareness schemes and increase the number of vehicles carrying cyclist detection equipment. And when an accident does happen there are now eight Met Police officers to investigate collisions too.

Cycling may be on the ascendency and have staked out some new territory, but Johnson had a sharp word for headstrong cyclists.  

“They’ve got to stop losing their rag when someone does something trivial, they’ve got to be less threatening and bullying sometimes. I really mean that,” he said.

“I think symmetrically, drivers shouldn’t cruise up behind cyclists and hoot very aggressively just because the cyclist is occupying the carriageway. We cyclists have a perfect right to be there; it’s our road just as much as theirs. There’s got to be understanding on both sides,” said Johnson.

The mayor’s support for cycling, which he says is shared by Prime Minister David Cameron, means cycling has surely taken a great stride towards ridding itself of the minority interest tag that has bedevilled it in the past. Only time will tell whether cyclists’ newfound mainstream status will salve their often red-raw relationship with vehicle drivers through a greater sense of security and belonging, or harden drivers’ attitudes because they feel the bike is being prioritised at their expense. 

By Bob Mionske

So you just got a ticket while riding your bike. Now what do you do? Should you fight the ticket? Or should you just pay it and move on?

The answer to that depends on a number of factors. Were you caught breaking a traffic law? Did you break the law, but feel that there are extenuating circumstances that would help a judge understand what happened? Did the officer make a mistake? Were you involved in a collision with another vehicle?

Also consider the effect a ticket can have on your life. A ticket does not mean that you are guilty. It is just a summons to appear in court and answer the charge against you. But if you are found guilty, you will likely be required to pay a fine that can range from a minimal fee to several hundred dollars or more. Additionally, a conviction on your driving record is virtually guaranteed to raise your insurance rates. And if you get ticketed too often, you can even lose your driver’s license. There’s more. Some employers ask to see the driving records of job applicants. And if you receive a ticket as a result of a traffic collision, you will be seen as the at-fault party by the other driver’s insurance company, regardless of who is actually at fault.

All of these issues are factors you should weigh in deciding what to do once you’ve been ticketed. Let’s take a closer look at a few common scenarios—and what the best course of action might be.

Scenario 1: You broke the law and got caught
Let’s say you saw the stop sign but didn’t see the police officer. Ignoring the sign, you rolled through, got pulled over, and were ticketed.

If you pay the ticket, it’s equivalent to a guilty plea and conviction. But if you decide to fight the ticket, you will be required to enter a not guilty plea and appear in court on your trial date. And here’s the problem—when you appear in court, the officer will be there as well, prepared to testify against you. If all you have to say in your defense is “I did not do what the officer says I did,” guess who the court will believe? Not you.

Should You Fight? Maybe. If you were caught red-handed and you have no defense, and if your time is more valuable than the fine, then paying the ticket might make sense to you. You might also consider saving yourself the embarrassment of having the officer’s video recording of your obvious violation of the law played back in court after you just denied breaking the law.

But if you want to keep the traffic ticket off your record, then you will either need to fight the ticket or go to traffic school for cyclists (if one is available in your town). If the violation is a misdemeanor, you are facing criminal charges and should give very serious consideration to hiring a lawyer. And if the violation is a felony, it is absolutely vital for you to hire a lawyer to defend against the charge.

Scenario 2: You broke the law, but there’s an explanation
Now let’s say that you rolled through that stop sign, but you didn’t see the sign. Was it because you weren’t paying attention? If so, that won’t get you off. But what if it was because the sign was hidden behind something that blocked your view—a large truck for example, or foliage on a tree? Now you have a defense you can use at trial.

Should You Fight? Yes.

Scenario 3: You weren’t breaking the law, but got ticketed anyway
I have seen this happen many times. Sometimes it happens because an officer is unfamiliar with the law. It also happens when officers are ordered to “crack down” on cyclists. And perhaps worst of all, it can happen when a cyclist is involved in a traffic collision and there is confusion about who did what.

For example, one cyclist whose injury case I handled was ticketed when an eyewitness said that the cyclist “came out of nowhere, so he must have been going the wrong way.” Maybe the eyewitness just didn’t see the cyclist until the moment of impact, as is often the case in collisions. But when the cyclist, who was suffering from a concussion, was unable to tell his side of what had happened, he was the one ticketed, even though the driver was also suffering a medical emergency—the real cause of the collision—and could not explain what had happened either.

These tickets can be easy to beat. If you can demonstrate to the court that the officer is wrong on the law, or even on the facts of the case, you will likely win. But what if you were ticketed as a result of a traffic collision? If you don’t beat the ticket, you probably won’t be compensated for your injuries. The driver’s insurance company will stonewall you until the deadline for resolving the case has passed. So if you want to be compensated for your injuries (and legal expenses), fighting one of these unjust tickets is a must.

Should You Fight? Yes.

Although I do not handle traffic tickets as a part of my bicycle law practice, in Part 3 of this article, I will explain how you can get the best outcome for your case, regardless of whether you actually broke the law, or it just looked that way when the officer got out his ticket book.

Research and assistance by Rick Bernardi, J.D.

Connect with Bob on Facebook!

On Monday, the final session for the Get Britain Cycling inquiry heard from two of the government ministers who should be at the forefront of cycling promotion. Transport minister Norman Baker, who described himself as cycling minister for the purposes of the investigation, and under secretary of state for transport Stephen Hammond were the last to speak, and I’m afraid I was underwhelmed by what they said. 

The inquiry has been notable for the degree to which it's been a meeting of like-minded people who broadly agree on everything. However, while the unanimous endorsement of the benefits to be gained by getting more people cycling more often is a good start, it needs some degree of political and financial support. That, ultimately, could be where the laudable objectives of Get Britain Cycling fall down. 

The two MPs made the right noises but essentially committed themselves to nothing at all. They told us how much money has recently been promised, and spoke of the need to see the number of people participating in cycling going up and the number of casualties going down. 

In response to a question from the chair they confirmed that, when the inquiry’s report is published in April, they will take its recommendations seriously. The trouble is that the passion and commitment shown by almost all the other witnesses was notably absent in Mr Baker and Mr Hammond’s responses.   

We have to hope they will pay more than lip service to the recommendations that will come out of the inquiry, which I’m sure will include some of the fresh and interesting ideas that have come out of the panel sessions. 

These include inexpensive measures, such as making cycling part of school sports, making it a legal requirement for cycling infrastructure to be taken into account in all planning decisions, putting cycle safety at the heart of driver education and reducing speed limits in urban and rural areas. There are also those additional recommendations that will require significant investment.

Unfortunately, without investment in infrastructure, the other measures are unlikely to have a significant impact. Parents won’t let their children cycle to school if they have to share the roads with cars and lorries, and the average casual cyclist won’t jump on a bike for short journeys unless they feel safe doing so. There have to be dedicated, safe cycle paths in towns and in the countryside if we’re to see a significant increase in bikes being used to get from A to B. 

It’s repeatedly been said that leadership is required from the top of politics. London mayor Boris Johnson seems to have taken this to heart and be determined to play a part in getting the UK capital cycling. But we haven’t yet seen the same personal commitment from anyone in central government. As Jon Snow pointed out yesterday, “the politician that takes leadership on cycling and really revolutionises it will leave a legacy for generations”.    

For Simon Edwards' take on the previous session of the inquiry, see Get Britain Cycling: Improving road conditions. 

Prolegal are a team of bike solicitors who specialise in representing victims of serious cycling injuries.

At the fifth session of the Get Britain Cycling inquiry, held this week, the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group turned their attention to cycling infrastructure and the role of local authorities in providing roads more fit for cyclists, particularly in rural areas.

Anyone who regularly cycles in the countryside knows that riding on narrow, winding roads where motorists routinely exceed the speed limit is highly dangerous.  Roughly half of cycling deaths happen outside cities, despite bicycle use being relatively low in rural areas. 

Ralph Smyth, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, called for lower speed limits on rural roads and highlighted that the Dutch speed limit of 50kph (31mph) on country roads has been more cost-effective than their 30kph (19mph) limit in towns. He also requested that the power to take civil action against careless drivers, granted to local authorities under the Traffic Management Act 2004 but to date not implemented, be brought into force. 

Smyth pointed out that cycling in the countryside isn’t just about sport or leisure. Public transport in rural areas tends to be sporadic and expensive, so many people would like to be able to use bikes as a cheap and convenient mode of transport. The potential benefits would be as great for low-income households as for the environment and the economy. 

The ideal, of course, would be better integration between public transport and safe bike routes, so that cycling could be an important part of longer journeys and rule out the the need to maintain a car.

Attitudes to the importance of cycling vary widely from one local authority to another. Leicester and Manchester were presented as “good news” stories, Leicester having increased cycling numbers by 1,000 per year since 2005, and Manchester seeing a 25 percent increase in people cycling to work between 2001 and 2011. Several London boroughs, however, including Barnet, Newham, Westminster and the City of London, were criticised for not having done enough for cyclists.  

Caroline Pidgeon, chair of the London Assembly’s Transport Committee, whose bid to double Transport for London’s budget allocation for cycling to 2 percent was voted down, was one of the final witnesses. Her committee’s report, Gearing Up, also called for a cycling commissioner to be appointed and for road space to be reallocated from motor vehicles to bikes.

The first government minister to give evidence to the inquiry, Anna Soubry of the public health department, described herself as “wildly enthusiastic” about cycling but admitted that she wouldn’t let her own children cycle on the road because of worries about their safety. 

Soubry agreed with many previous speakers that the government need to show leadership and take a joined-up approach across education, health and transport. Like speakers at the fourth session, she suggested that cycling be part of sport in schools. She confirmed that she felt it would be sensible for local authorities to spend some of their public health money on getting more people cycling, but stopped short of giving a commitment to issuing guidance.

Again, this week’s inquiry heard sensible suggestions from witnesses passionate about getting Britain cycling. The tone of the evidence being given is starting to feel familiar: essentially, despite it being clear that public money spent on cycling is money well spent, the sums are inadequate and things need to change. 

I look forward to the final session next week, when the topic will be the crucial question of leadership from government. Witnesses will include transport ministers Norman Baker and Stephen Hammond.  

For Simon Edwards' take on the previous session of the inquiry, see Get Britain Cycling: Health benefits of cycling. 

Prolegal are a team of bike solicitors who specialise in representing victims of serious cycling injuries.

The fourth session of the Get Britain Cycling inquiry heard about the health benefits of cycling, and how the success of British cycling in 2012 can be used as a platform to inspire more people to get on their bikes. 

The main thrust of the evidence was that getting more people cycling will tackle health problems such as obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. It would also reduce car use and ease the pressure on public transport systems. 

More cycling would lead to a healthier population, lower carbon monoxide emissions, less noise, slower depletion of fossil fuels and less expensive investment in roads and railways. Cycling is good. We heard from Dr Adrian Davis, a public health and transport expert, that every £1 spent on cycling initiatives could produce a £4 saving to the NHS. 

The inquiry also considered how local authorities might be able to make the most of taking over responsibility for public health from the NHS from April 2013. As the budget for public health is ring-fenced, this presents a big opportunity for local government to take the lead in developing cycling around the UK, through education and training, community initiatives and infrastructure improvements as a means of looking after public health. 

Several speakers expressed well-founded optimism that the new regime will bring about a more joined-up approach, binding cycling with the promotion of health and wellbeing. 

The inquiry considered how to incorporate cycling and better cycle training into the school timetable. One possibility is to make it a requirement for schools to purchase bicycles, to offer cycling as an option in PE lessons. 

Cycling, like swimming, the inquiry was told, is a life skill with which all children should be equipped. As the cliché confirms, once learned it is never forgotten. While many primary schools offer some cycle training, it’s still rare in secondary schools, and opportunities are being lost to teach children how to ride safely. 

As for cycling to school, the inquiry’s star witness, Chris Boardman, said his children were told that they couldn’t cycle to school because “what would happen if everyone started doing it?”. Clearly a change in attitude is needed, as well as sufficient cycle parking spaces in schools.

Mark Brown of the Cycle to Work Alliance took MPs by surprise by announcing that not all government departments have signed up to the government-sponsored Cycle to Work scheme. Members of the group requested more details and said they would ensure that this situation is rectified. Let’s hope they get results. 

Chris Boardman illustrated a textbook deterrent to cyclists, which is a typical example of the inadequacy of cycle tracks on the roads. He described a route where the cycle lane disappeared, required the cyclist to dismount, cross a dual carriageway and rejoin the road at a point where there was no cycle path.  

He described the inquiry as a “watershed moment” and said that, in terms of capitalising on Britain’s 2012 success, we have a window of opportunity but a finite time to get something done. He spoke of three factors necessary to achieve Get Britain Cycling’s objectives: clarity of vision, measurable, tangible goals, and the funding to do it. 

Attending the Get Britain Cycling Inquiry sessions is a comforting experience. Speakers are pleasingly united in their desire to support cyclists across the UK, and to address the fundamental problems that put cyclists at risk on our roads. 

The only slightly dissenting view tends to come from Oliver Colvile MP,  the token non-cyclist in the group, who doesn’t cycle for fear of being squashed under a bus and doesn’t see why people can’t get the requisite weekly exercise by playing a nice game of cricket.

For Simon Edwards' take on the previous session of the inquiry, see Get Britain Cycling: Justice system is failing cyclists. 

Prolegal are a team of bike solicitors who specialise in representing victims of serious cycling injuries.

How to ride safely—and legally—around parked cars

By Bob Mionske

One of the most common types of car-bike collisions occurs when a stopped motorist suddenly opens a door into the path of an approaching rider. Each year hundreds of cyclists are injured or killed in such crashes. The best way to prevent this is to avoid pedaling in the “door zone”—the 3- to 5-foot area next to a parked car. The problem: Traffic engineers typically place bike lanes as far to the right as possible, which often puts cyclists entirely within the door zone. If you ride on streets with parallel parking, consider this your open-door policy.

Be Predictable
On roads with plenty of empty parking spaces, it’s tempting to duck in and hug the curb along those vacant spots. But weaving around vehicles can confuse motorists and make you harder to see. Instead, pick a safe line and hold it.

Anticipate
If you choose to ride within the door zone, watch for occupants in parked vehicles and be prepared to come to a quick stop without swerving.

Ditch the Bike Lane
Some police officers mistakenly believe the law requires cyclists to ride as close to the right as possible. In reality, it dictates that cyclists do so only to the extent that it’s safe. You may need to ride in the traffic lane to stay out of the door zone. To reduce your risk of getting a ticket, take only as much of the lane as you need.

Make a Change
A federal study found that sharrows (see illustration, below) encourage motorists to give cyclists space and discourage riders from pedaling in the door zone. Work with local advocates to get them installed on streets where unsafe conditions exist.

ZONING RULES
Sharrows (or “shared arrows,” right) remind motorists that cyclists are entitled to take that part of the road. Some bike lanes in San ­Francisco include ­angled lines (left) that warn cyclists to ride outside the door zone. Dooring is against the law in many states—including New York and California. If you get hit, call police and file a claim with the driver’s insurance company.

Research and assistance by Rick Bernardi, J.D.

In the third session of the Get Britain Cycling inquiry, debates focused on planning and design – how to ensure that Britain’s roads make adequate provision for cyclists.

The answer to the cycling infrastructure question is simple: we need it, and soon. If the very core of the problem of cycle safety isn't addressed at the highest levels, cycling will continue to be a sport for enthusiasts rather than an everyday form of transport and recreation. The balance of power between the car and the bicycle is skewed. Until that balance is redressed, we won't see a significant increase in cycling. 

At the parliamentary inquiry,Tony Russell from Sustrans observed that cycling infrastructure must be built so that a 12-year-old can safely navigate it. Martin Gibbs of British Cycling, summing up the evidence, said a clear message had been given that “cycling needs to be put at the heart of transport policy and needs to be designed into infrastructure from the start, not added on as an afterthought”.   

The Highways Agency came in for considerable criticism for its failure to take cyclists into account when designing roads, and the organisation’s Mark Wilson acknowledged that engineers need more cycle-specific training. 

The inquiry session said nothing new. It’s widely acknowledged that our road networks, both urban and rural, are hopelessly unsuitable for cyclists and need some very radical redesigning and rebuilding. More must be done to encourage cycling as the principal means of travelling distances of a couple of miles.

Unfortunately, though, we are years behind the curve. A few decades back and safe cycling lanes could have been integrated into the road network during the expansion to its present condition. The fact that this was not done may well have contributed to limiting the uptake of cycling in the UK. 

Conversely, the Highways Agency audits claim there is no demand for cycling. We find ourselves in a vicious circle: nobody cycles because the roads are unsafe, so the Highways Agency assume nobody wants to cycle and continue to design roads that are unsafe for riders.

Of all the recommendations put before the inquiry, those on infrastructure will be the most difficult to achieve. Standard road repairs are already stretching local authority budgets, and many roads are rutted with potholes from several winters of snow and ice. It will take a large financial commitment from the government to even start making a difference. 

A good start would be for the Highways Agency to take into account what’s needed. How local authorities will be able to find the cash to do what’s required without a huge injection of dedicated funding remains to be seen.  

It’s occurred to me, when cycling into London on a busy road, that one affordable option in some places might be to convert one wide, largely empty pavement to a cycle path, leaving the other for walkers. It would involve installing more pedestrian and cycle crossings, but might enable us to expand the network of safe cycle routes more quickly.

Alongside this, a reduction of the speed limit campaigned for by many groups would be a quick and effective measure and, as CTC’s Roger Geffen pointed out in the inquiry, also an affordable one. 

There are many arguments in favour of reducing speed limits, particularly in towns. Brake, the road safety charity, have been campaigning for some time for a 20mph speed limit in urban areas, and any personal injury lawyer can tell you that a driver’s stopping distance at 30mph is nearly twice that at 20mph. 

The inquiry continues to progress well, and although little that’s being said is completely new, having it recognised in a formal setting is undoubtedly an important step forward. 

I look forward to next week’s session – the topic is active lifestyles, to see how the country’s success in sport can translate into wider participation among the general population, particularly given the lack of suitable infrastructure.

For Simon Edwards' take on the first session of the inquiry, see Get Britain Cycling: UK leadership and cycling. For his reaction to the second session, see Get Britain Cycling: Justice system is failing cyclists.

Prolegal are a team of bike solicitors who specialise in representing victims of serious cycling injuries.

The UK Government must make serious investment in cycle infrastructure and make drivers more accountable for their actions if cycling safety is to see the major improvement that it needs. 

The second session of the Get Britain Cycling inquiry shifted the focus on to the all-important issue of safety. The key message, the panel heard on Wednesday, is that the police and the courts are failing cyclists all over the country. The police were described by cycling lawyer Martin Porter QC as "spineless" in cases where cyclists are injured or killed, and Chris Peck of the CTC challenged the courts in his evidence highlighting that many drivers are being charged with careless rather than dangerous driving.

The inquiry was also told that it isn't all about infrastructure, although pivotal to improving cyclist safety. Without a doubt, measures including segregated cycle lanes and safe crossing areas will improve matters, but cycle safety needs to be incorporated into the driving test and National Curriculum, speed limits in urban areas need to be reduced, and HGVs should be banned from town centres unless fitted with sensors. Without all these measures in place, cyclists will continue to be in a position of weakness on Britain's roads.

This is all very sensible and after hearing the evidence, the inquiry committee will no doubt be able to give good advice to the Government and local authorities on what needs to be done to make cycling safer.

The question then becomes whether the Government wants to do it. Some of it is expensive: the £62m 'extra' investment in the road infrastructure announced by Transport Secretary Norman Baker on the same day won't go very far in terms of constructing dedicated cycle routes and safe crossing areas for cyclists at junctions. Although any extra investment is extremely welcome, more than this is needed to make the kind of difference the cycling community wants to see, and that the many witnesses to the inquiry are calling for.

Unfortunately, spending on road safety has been cut by nearly 80% since 2008, according to the Institute of Advanced Motoring as a result of a Freedom of Information enquiry, despite cyclist KSIs (killed and serious injured casualties) increasing year on year. A mere £53,000 will be spent on cyclist safety in 2013. The Department for Transport's excellent Think! Cyclist campaign should be more widely promoted; how many motorists have even heard of it? 

Despite this cut in spending hampering efforts to improve vital measures for cyclists, some of the reforms urged on the inquiry are not expensive and could be implemented simply if the political will existed. Tougher treatment of drivers within the criminal justice system is one measure that could have a major impact on driver behaviour and in turn reduce the number of casualties on Britain's roads. Driver behaviour has been changed over time in relation to drink driving, through the combined impact of forceful campaigns and compulsory driving bans on drink driving, and it can be achieved again to protect the country's cyclists.

The inquiry is progressing well, with the main manifesto points of the best cycling campaigns being brought inescapably to the minds of high-level decision makers. We await with interest how representations on planning and design are received in next week's inquiry session.

For Simon Edwards' take on the first session of the inquiry, see Get Britain Cycling: UK leadership and cycling

Prolegal are a team of bike solicitors who specialise in representing victims of serious cycling injuries.

By Bob Mionske

Although traffic citations are not a part of my law practice, I’d like to explain some of the issues that face cyclists who have received traffic tickets. Let’s start where your encounter with the legal system begins, at the traffic stop. Here are three important things to know.

Yes, You Have to Stop
Whether you were breaking the law and got caught, or you were riding 100 percent legally, do not ignore a police officer who orders you to stop. One of my first Road Rights columns was about a cyclist who was arrested for failing to stop. He later triumphed in court, but not before he was tased, beaten, and cuffed before being hauled off to jail. Whether you think you deserve a ticket or not, when the cop says stop, pull over.

The Officer Is Not Your Friend
When a police officer asks you if you know why you were stopped, he is not making idle chatter. He is gathering evidence. Remember the Miranda warning? Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law (even if you are only getting a traffic ticket and the officer is not legally obligated to read you your rights). The police are not kidding about that. If an officer asks about information on your driver’s license, he may be looking for evidence that the information on your license is not up-to-date, which can garner you another ticket. The best response to these fishing expeditions is to answer the question without incriminating yourself. For example, “No, I don’t know why you stopped me.”

Speaking of your driver’s license, you don’t need one to ride your bike, but in at least one state (California) you will need to present a driver’s license or its “functional equivalent” (a state ID, a passport, or a military ID) if you are stopped for a violation and the officer asks you to produce ID. Failure to produce the requested ID can lead to a trip to jail. So can lying about your identity, and not just in California.

It Pays to Be Polite
There are several reasons for this. The officer may just be planning to talk to you about the violation he witnessed (or thinks he witnessed); you don’t want to convince him to write you a ticket instead by being difficult. But even if the officer is planning on writing you a ticket, you still don’t want to be a problematic traffic stop. For one thing, you might be able to change the officer’s mind and get a verbal warning instead of a ticket. How do you do that? By asking. Politely. But there is one drawback to asking for a warning instead of a ticket—you risk saying something incriminating about your actions that can be used against you later in court. So if you do ask for a warning, be careful about what you say, unless you want your words to come back and haunt you later.

Even if the officer writes you a ticket, you want to remain polite. Why? Because the officer writes a lot of traffic tickets, and you don’t want to be the one who stands out in his mind. You don’t want to give the officer incentive to show up in court and testify against you on your trial date, and you don’t want him to remember you and everything that you did and said when your case goes to trial. So if the officer decides to write you a ticket, politely accept your ticket. Do not argue with or insult the officer. Just take your ticket and ride away to fight this battle another day.

And that is the key here. You want to argue your case in the proper venue, which is the courtroom. The roadside is not a courtroom, and being combative with the officer will only anger the officer, which will make it worse for you when your case goes to trial.

This doesn’t mean that you can’t disagree with the officer. If the officer says you broke the law, and you believe the officer is wrong, you can disagree with the officer, but the key here is to disagree politely. If the officer is unsure of the law, and you are polite and sure of the law, you may be able to persuade the officer that you did not violate the law. But if the officer insists that you violated the law, despite your best efforts to convince him that you did not, or if he doesn’t want to listen—which he is not obligated to do—you may need to accept a ticket and make your legal arguments later in traffic court. In Part 2 of this article, I will talk about what happens next, after you’ve been ticketed.

Research and assistance by Rick Bernardi, J.D.

Connect with Bob on Facebook!

On 23 January 2013, the first session of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s inquiry into Get Britain Cycling took place, with the theme of UK leadership and cycling compared to other European countries. BikeRadar asked cycling injury solicitor Simon Edwards for his response to the meeting.

"Last week, a committee formed by the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group heard representations from a number of cycling charities and individuals, essentially unanimous in the message that leadership needs to come from government if we're to bring about meaningful change and get more adults and children cycling. 

Only around two percent of us use a bike as our main method of getting around, one of the lowest levels in Europe. In the Netherlands, 20 times more journeys are made by bike by people under 17 than in the UK. Surveys show the main reason for this stark difference is a perceived lack of safety for cyclists on the UK's roads. 

The Netherlands spends €37 per person on cycling infrastructure. The figure in London, where cycling investment is far higher than elsewhere in the UK overall, is £10 per person. There is no doubt that a long-term central and local government commitment to improving cycling infrastructure is needed.  

Some interesting arguments were put forward alongside this central message. The point was made that cycling needs to be seen not as a specialist sporting activity for athletes, requiring training and special protective equipment, but as an everyday pastime for all. Just like walking, only faster and more fun. 

Phillip Darnton, one of the expert witnesses, made the point that the issue isn't cycling but what sort of streets, towns and communities we want to live in. As a seasoned cycling campaigner, he made the point several times that without political consensus the necessary investment will never be made, and cycling will remain more a sport than a way of getting from A to B.

In forthcoming sessions, the committee is likely to hear a number of suggestions on changes in the law that would improve cycle safety. I feel there are four specific, simple provisions that would dramatically improve safety at a reasonable cost:

1. All lorries entering city centres should be required to fit sensors, audible turning alarms and safety bars to stop cyclists being thrown under the wheels.
2. The Highways Agency should set aside five percent of its budget for next-generation cycle routes.
3. Improved training for both cyclists and drivers should be introduced. Cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test, and more resources need to be devoted to the Think! Cycling campaign to improve awareness of basic safety measures in both drivers and cyclists.
4. Compulsory provision of cycle safety lights on all new bikes sold in the UK.

It's almost universally agreed that cycling is a good thing – good for health and fitness, good for the environment, and a sport at which Britain excelled in the 2012 Olympics. Of course it should be encouraged. 

However as a regular cyclist, a personal injury lawyer who's acted for many cyclists who have suffered serious injuries, and someone who spent last weekend on Prolegal’s stand at the Excel London Bike Show, I am also very conscious of the dangers faced by cyclists on our roads. 

Cycling lanes are generally protected by no more than a white line, and motorists, and HGV drivers in particular navigate around as though everyone else on the road were encased, like themselves, in a metal box. Cycling should be a priority for transport planners. In particular, we need more segregated cycle lanes and safe routes for cyclists at junctions.  

A major factor in public health campaigns to tackle obesity, improve cardiovascular health and boost mental wellbeing is the drive to increase levels of physical activity. For local authorities, getting people cycling should therefore be a key objective; however, people won't take up cycling on a regular basis if they feel that it's more dangerous than their health problem.

Cycling is widely perceived as more fun and productive than going to the gym, but until central and local government address the issues of safety it's also far more dangerous. 

In its first session, the ‘Get Britain Cycling’ inquiry has made clear that safety must be improved for cyclists if it's to become a mainstream means of travel in the UK. In the next five meetings, the inquiry must find concrete proposals that lead to decisive action, the benefits of which will be felt for generations to come. 

Prolegal are a team of bike solicitors who specialise in representing victims of serious cycling injuries.

What to do if you’re forced to evade a careless or aggressive driver

By Bob Mionske

A reader recently asked an interesting question. If a car causes a cyclist to crash, but doesn’t actually collide with the rider, is the driver still at fault?

In a recent incident, a husband-and-wife tandem team ran into an abutment after a driver violated their right-of-way. Police officers told them, incorrectly, that it was “not legally an accident because there was no collision between bike and car.” The officers refused to take contact information from a witness even though the driver admitted fault at the scene. They also informed the couple that it was their responsibility to control the bike. In another incident, a driver failed to yield before ­making a right turn and nearly struck a­ cyclist. The rider crashed, and wonders if his insurance company will pay.

Although neither vehicle touched the cyclists, the drivers operated in a way that caused a crash. In fact, the only ­reason there was no contact was because the ­cyclists took evasive ­action. Here’s how to avoid this kind of situation, and how to handle it if you do hit the pavement.

Ride Defensively
Be extra vigilant near intersections and driveways, where drivers are more likely to violate your right-of-way.

Play Detective
While you may be able to file a successful­ claim after a no-contact crash, you will find it harder if you don’t have evidence of the driver’s negligence. Witnesses can provide valuable proof, so make every effort to get contact information from any bystanders who saw what happened.

Record Your Ride
You may have seen the YouTube clip of the Colorado driver who harassed two cyclists by following them and honking. He was eventually ticketed, thanks in part to that video.

Research and assistance by Rick Bernardi, J.D.

Recovering your own stolen bike is legal—but be careful

By Bob Mionske

It was a classic sting operation—and when it was posted on YouTube, Jake Gillum’s bike-recovery video went viral. The cyclist from Portland, Oregon, had spotted his stolen bike in a Craigslist ad. He arranged a meeting with the seller, then drove to the agreed-upon location with some friends and a video camera. After calling the police, he met the seller and started to talk bikes. But the officers didn’t show, and after stalling as long as he could, Gillum accused the seller of stealing his bike. The man fled, and Gillum followed, recording the chase. When police finally got there, they arrested the suspected felon.

For any cyclist who has ever had a bike stolen, it doesn’t get much better than that moment of triumph. But consider this advice before taking ­justice into your own hands.

DO…
Be able to prove it’s yours Keep records of your bike: receipts, photos,­ serial numbers, and other identifying details. If the bike is stolen and recovered, the police will want to see proof of ownership.

File a ­police report You’ll need it—along with proof of ownership—to file a claim with an insurance company.

Bring reinforcements It’s legal to pretend to be an interested buyer if you suspect that somebody is offering your stolen bike for sale. It’s also legal to confront the seller and allege that the bike belongs to you. However, be aware that the suspected thief might deny that the bike is stolen, run, or ­become aggressive. Follow the law and consider your own safety. Having friends recording­ the encounter can help, but you should also let the police know of your plans ahead of time.

DON’T…
Use force The “bike thief” you attack may be an innocent third party who doesn’t know the bike was stolen. Or the bike may not be yours. You can defend yourself if you’re attacked, but that might open a legal can of worms. Let the police handle any altercations.

Research and assistance provided by Rick Bernardi, J.D.

By Bob Mionske

The last weekend in September was ushered in by warm and sunny autumn weather in California—and across the state, cyclists were out in force. In San Francisco, 5,000 cyclists from around the world gathered to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Critical Mass, a monthly ride that began in San Francisco but has since spread around the world. And in Los Angeles, cyclists continued to redefine Los Angeles street culture by celebrating the much-feared-by-motorists Carmageddon II with—what else?—a weekend-long series of bike events.

But while California’s cyclists were riding the wave of the future, in Sacramento, California’s governor seemed more determined than ever to yank the state backward to the mid-twentieth century: For the second time in less than a year, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a law requiring California drivers to give a minimum of three feet when passing cyclists.

Governor Brown had first vetoed a three-foot passing law last October, raising his concern that the law would require drivers to slow to 15 mph to pass a cyclist. The only problem with that concern was that there was nothing in the law that required this. Instead, the law would have allowed drivers to pass cyclists at a distance closer than three feet if the driver is traveling at 15 mph or less, but would have required drivers traveling above that speed to pass cyclists with at least a three-foot buffer. Brown’s alleged concern with the law was entirely imaginary.

Nevertheless, while using his veto to protect aggressive and unsafe drivers, the governor assured California cyclists that improving bicycle safety is “a goal that I wholeheartedly support.” In fact, Brown personally promised the bill’s author, state senator Alan Lowenthal, that he would sign the legislation if the 15-mph language was removed. Taking him at his word, Senator Lowenthal revised the language and set about building the coalition of statewide support that would be necessary to get the bill through the legislature. The new legislation was sent to the governor and, confident that his concerns had been addressed, California cyclists eagerly awaited his signature.

So what went wrong this time? In his most recent veto message, Brown raised a new issue—his concern that allowing drivers to cross a double-yellow line when passing a cyclist would expose the state to a risk of “deep pocket” lawsuits. But as the California Bicycle Coalition noted:

While this provision was also contained in SB 910, last year’s 3-foot passing bill, concerns about liability were not raised by anyone during the last legislative session. Nor were they expressed during legislative hearings and floor debate about SB 1464, even by the Department of Finance, which tracks the fiscal impact of legislation. In fact, it appears that state law already gives the state immunity from the kind of liability he cites.

In other words, the governor’s concern about state liability when drivers cross a double yellow line took everybody by surprise. If Brown were truly as supportive of improving bicycling safety as he says he is, wouldn’t he have said something before his veto?

Brown says he did raise the issue with state senator Lowenthal, and claims that senator Lowenthal “declined to amend the bill.” And yet until the veto, nobody in California had heard the governor’s objections to the bill.

So what happened? According to the state senator’s chief of staff, nobody had raised any concern about lawsuits during the yearlong process of shepherding the bill through the legislature. But two weeks before the legislative session ended, CalTrans (the state transportation department) made a last-minute request for a new provision in the bill that would completely exempt the state from any and all liability for crashes where the driver crossed over the double yellow line to pass a cyclist.

This was a bombshell. Adding the new language would completely destroy the coalition of support for the legislation that Senator Lowenthal had carefully pulled together, and with two weeks before the end of the legislative session, there would be no time left to rebuild the coalition. It was pass this bill, or nothing—especially considering that this was Senator Lowenthal’s final term in the Senate. And because the governor had promised to sign the bill, and had not in any way expressed support for CalTrans’ last-minute request, the bill was passed and sent to the governor’s desk without the change.

Now the legislation is dead, and may never return. The first time the governor vetoed the safe-passing bill, he cited his concern about an imaginary provision. Is Brown’s new objection reality-based this time? Could a motorist involved in a head-on collision really sue the state? Theoretically, yes, but such a lawsuit would be highly unlikely to succeed.

Brown is claiming that because of its perceived “deep pockets,” the state is a likely magnet for lawsuits where the state has some liability. This much of the governor’s statement is true. However, there’s a world of difference between somebody wanting to sue the state, and somebody successfully suing the state. The problem with Brown’s argument is that while the law would have allowed drivers to cross the double-yellow line when passing a cyclist, it did not require them to. Instead, the law would have allowed drivers to cross the double-yellow line only when it is safe to do so. In fact, the new bill was very specific about when a driver could lawfully cross the double yellow line to pass a cyclist. Basically, the law legalized what many safety-conscious drivers already do anyway. Unsafe passes would remain illegal.

So if somebody crossed the double-yellow line when it is unsafe to do so—for example, on a blind curve, or at the crest of a hill—the state would have no liability, because the state did not allow the driver to make an unsafe pass. It’s the same as any other illegal act—the state can’t be held liable just because some driver violates the law. And even ignoring that basic legal reality, the state can only be sued under certain circumstances, and there are a number of legal defenses specified by law for those circumstances where the state can be sued. The bottom line—just because the state has deep pockets doesn’t mean that the state can be held liable for a driver violating the law.

The reality of the situation is this: While expressing his continuing support for improving bicycling safety, Governor Brown invents new excuses for doing nothing. And who benefits? Aggressive and unsafe drivers.

Research and assistance by Rick Bernardi, J.D.

Connect with Bob on Facebook!

By Deb Cosgrove

Sometimes the people you expect the least to be interested in cycling surprise you. I was fortunate enough to help one person discover his love of cycling all over again.

I try to inspire people to ride for fun, fitness, or commuting. But sometimes, after a few rides, they stop. The last time this happened, I felt dashed. Did I push too hard, go overboard with my enthusiasm? Why did they seem so into it at first and then fall flat?

Then there are the unexpected jewels you uncover like Mike, my auto mechanic. I’ve been taking my car to Mike for years. He’s honest and reasonable on car repairs, and the first person I’ve ever trusted with my Honda. One day as I dropped my car off for some work, I took my most recent test bike out of the trunk to ride home.

It was a Tern, a good-looking folding bike. The Tern had an integrated rack, fenders, a light, and the wheels were bigger than other folding bikes. Mike saw the bike and was drawn like a magnet. He was curious about the folding frame and really liked the look of it. I encouraged him to take a little ride, and he replied with, “Awww, I don’t know. It’s been years since I’ve been on a bike.”

All the while he smiled and wouldn’t take his eyes off the Tern. With a little more coaxing, he agreed to take it for a spin. I adjusted the seat for him and watched him ride, grinning ear to ear with a sparkle in his eye that the rediscovery of a bike can bring.

A few months later I called Mike to schedule an appointment for my car. He said, “You got me in trouble the last time you were here.”

When I asked what he meant he said, “I went out and bought a bike!” He told me the first time he rode up the hill to his house he thought he would die, but now he’s much better at it. His fitness level is increasing and he’s enjoying it. All because he’s beginning to ride— again.

Many of us begin cycling as children then continue through young adulthood. Maybe a bike in college was the most economical way to get around. Then comes family, work, and a house and car to maintain. Eventually casual riding is marginalized if not completely stopped. But the kids grow up, the job slows down, and then there’s time for a bike again. You might notice you’ve gained some weight and it doesn’t come off easily. You’ve put aside your fitness over the years to spend time on more pressing responsibilities. Now it’s time to take care of you again.

After years of being away from cycling you might find that bikes have changed. There are so many options to choose from. They fold, they can have skinny tires, fat tires, and in between. You can sit upright or over a dropped handlebar. There’s a comfy seat position for all body types. The gear and accessories are interesting and stylish. Yes, riding a bike can be even more fun the second time around.

What you need to know about e-bikes and the law

Illustration: Harry Campbell

For cyclists who ride for fitness, electric-assist ­bicycles, or e-bikes, may seem to miss the point. But when it comes to pedaling for transportation, more people might decide to get around on two wheels if they had access to one of these motorized machines. However, where and even ­whether it’s legal to ride an e-bike depends on a complex mix of federal, state, and local laws. Here are some of the rules involved.

Under federal law, if an e-bike has pedals that the rider can use to power the bicycle without the assistance of the electric motor, a motor of less than 1 horsepower, and a top motor speed below 20 mph, it is defined as a “low-speed electric bicycle,” and legally is considered a bicycle. But if the e-bike does not meet those requirements, it is classified as a motor ­vehicle. The federal law does not apply to e-bikes that are owner-assembled from a kit or from scratch—but some states do regulate such models. How­ever, even when e-bikes are legally considered bicycles, federal law specifies that they may not be used on bike paths that have been built with the ­assistance of federal funding, unless a state or local law specifically­ permits ­e-bikes on bicycle or pedestrian paths.

E-bikes are also regulated by each state. When checking the specifics of your local laws, consider these questions.

Is it legal to ride an e-bike?
Not everywhere. For example, it’s not permitted in New York state, regardless of maximum speed or motor size (although a bill on hold in the state legislature aims to ­legalize e-bikes). New York City specifically prohibits e-bikes, and police are increasingly strict about enforcing the rule.

How fast can the e-bike go?
Some states, including Connecticut, Maryland, and Montana, allow higher maximum speeds than the federal limit.

How powerful can the motor be?
Several states allow horsepower greater than the federal maximum. Arizona does not regulate motor power at all.

Is a helmet required?
In Georgia, New Hampshire, and Oregon, riders under 16 must wear one. In California, Connecticut, and Iowa, helmets are required for all e-bike riders.

Is there a minimum age?
It varies. For example, it’s 14 in Alabama and New Hampshire, 16 in California, Illinois, and Iowa, and 18 in the District of Columbia.

Do you need a license?
It’s required in Alabama, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Tennessee.

Research and assistance by Rick Bernardi, J.D.

Our everyday language is full of expressions like, "the hard yards" and "going the extra mile." All that changed a couple of months ago when Iron Maiden’s manager Rod Smallwood asked me, Alex Milas the editor of Metal Hammer, along to join his charity cycling group, the Truants, for a ride to benefit Nordoff Robbins, Childline, and Teenage Cancer Trust. Suddenly I was faced with the prospect of cycling 130 miles around Marrakech and toward the Atlas Mountains with about 40 other riders hand-picked by Rod to help his ambitious, long-term goal of raising a million pounds for kids in need.

Backing out wasn't an option, and so began a few adventurous weeks of dodging black taxis, London buses, and suicidal pedestrians en route to work. On weekends there was the odd 45 mile trek to Windsor with my fellow Truants William and Paul thrown in to strike down any smug sense of progress I may have stupidly developed.

With the date looming, my mind was awash with preparation for the desert - dioralyte to restore your salts, isotonic powders and power supplements to keep you going, knee supports, gel padding, first aid kits, next of kin forms, and enough Sudocrem to sink the Bismark. But with money flowing into my justgiving page and some tremendous encouragement from friends, family, and colleagues, the motivation was huge. Above all else though was a palpable sense of being able to make a difference, and that something as random as a ride through the Moroccan wilds could help change lives back home. After learning more about the work that Nordoff Robbins, Childline and Teenage Cancer Trust do, and the genuinely inspiring difference it makes in the lives of these kids, no mountain – or indeed desert plain – would be too big. 130 miles? That’s the easy bit.

Doesn't look that far?

Sadly, bravado couldn’t really prepare me for what happened when I at last set off for Morocco with a jovial bunch of riders from all walks of life. There I was, on a BA flight bound for North Africa with a group of artists, tycoons, writers, and vagabonds of all ages united by a sense of purpose to face a hard task in the name of some genuinely awesome causes. As the cabin doors unsealed a furnace-blast of heat struck my face and my heart started to flutter at the thought of how gargantuan the task ahead would be. Even more so around 7am the next morning while getting fitted for a mountain bike that’d take me across the arid expanses and up to the Atlas Mountains. First impressions: Morocco is f*ing hot, and it was gonna hurt.

The first day was largely a warm-up for the rest of the ride, an 80 wheeled march out of the chaotic din of an ancient, sun-baked city into the flat, palm tree-dotted wastes. It’s hard to imagine what the locals made of it all – this gaggle of men and some women in bright green Truants shirts with a couple of support vans in tow grunting past in the blazing sun, all drenched in sweat and eager to pile the miles on. You high-five them, wave and say ‘bonjour’ as you crawl and sometimes coast past but you never know just how bizarre it must look until reviewing pictures at the first stop. It was too soon to reminisce, though, and after a few dozen miles it was clear that the only priorities should be finding shade and getting a few pints of water peppered with isotonic powder before striking out again.

The local kids must have thought the Martians had landed

It’s quiet out there, and each leg of the journey – about 15 or 20 miles a go – was a chance to stop and stand in isolation as our troupe inevitably spread out over vast distances according to ability. As with so many pursuits, camaraderie carries you when strength alone can’t, and everything from the best Van Halen lineup to your most offensive jokes pass the time when you have a companion to slipstream with (And no, I’m not telling any). Perhaps it’s the charitable aim of it all that made it such an encouraging environment, but fast or slow, everybody got a round of applause rolling into the rest areas.

That modest optimism changed on day two. We were up at 6AM for the longest stretch of about 50 miles, give or take a few from the occasional wrong turn. Severe sunburn from the spots you missed 24 hours ago begins to emerge, your lips crack if you forgot to bring balm, aches from sitting on a saddle for hours become impossible to ignore, and genuine exhaustion at the relentless heat rising from the ground beneath begin to becomes a serious hurdle.

How much further?

The people at Classic Tours – an incredibly experienced globetrotting team of mechanics, a medic, a guide, and his support team were an incredible source of assurance as the fluffy clouds on the horizon slowly revealed themselves to be the snow-capped peaks of a mountain range so striking it’s inspired legends since antiquity. And when the five-mile inclines – soul-destroying in their subtlety - began to morph into sudden drops toward dried-out riverbeds and, cruelly, steep hills things really began to get tough. Do you step off your bike and walk? Would anyone back home – either the scores of people who’ve generously donated, or any of the charities care either way?

In the windy desolation, the only possible decision was always to press on. As with everything else, it’s for the kids, and not a single rider faltered on that hellish day, and as we pulled into a rest area for the night – a series of tents laid out under the slowly emerging milky way – we may as well have been rolling into a five star hotel. Magical doesn’t begin to cover it.

By the third day I was completely ready for action – it’s as if your body’s learned to work a bit more efficiently, and pacing yourself in the knowledge that at the end of it is a bed and a beer is the best possible incentive. There’s also a sense of melancholy – about the dwindling last hours of an adventure – that made me want to savour each passing village and breath of hot air even more. As the low-set skyline of Marrakech approached in the vast distance, the sense of triumph and pride at making it through and was overwhelming, not just at the miles completed but the funds raised. At present, we’ve surpassed £200,000. To have contributed some small bit toward that by conquering a small stretch of arid land on a bike was easy.

Going the extra mile? That’s happening back here in the UK every day as unsung heroes working for Nordoff Robbins, Childline, and Teenage Cancer Trust make a difference for children in need. That’s real mettle.

The satisfaction of finishing was hard to contain

Alex Milas's JustGiving page

Learn more about the Truants

Learn more about Nordoff Robbins

Learn more about Childline

Learn more about Teenage Cancer Trust

Cyclists ride for a lot of different reasons. For some, it’s for the love of sport. For others, it’s is an economical way to stretch a tight budget. There’s also the environmental benefit.

And of course, many people ride for their health. A new study, published in the British medical journal The Lancet, identifies physical inactivity as one of the leading causes of premature death. How bad is it? Consider these statistics:

• Inactivity causes 5.3 million deaths per year—from diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and breast and colon cancer.
• That’s more than the number of deaths caused by smoking.
• Inactivity is the cause of 1 in 10 deaths.
• People in higher-income countries are the least active.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Adults should engage in moderate exercise—for example, brisk walking, cycling, or even gardening—for at least 150 minutes each week. In the U.S., 43 percent of us don’t meet that minimum requirement. In Europe, it’s 35 percent. Worldwide, one-third of all people live a sedentary lifestyle—and for teenagers, the number rises to over 80 percent.

Pedro Hallal, a professor who led the Lancet study, said “The global challenge is clear—make physical activity a public health priority throughout the world to improve health and reduce the burden of disease.”

Which brings us back to—what else?—bicycling. Want to get some exercise in every day? Try bike commuting. If someone you know wants to ease into getting around by bike, the 1-Mile Solution is the perfect way to get started.

But despite cycling’s many benefits, there’s one big problem we must contend with when we’re trying to get people off their couches: The roads we ride on can be a hostile environment. There are several reasons for this.

First, road infrastructure is usually biased towards the automobile, and often fails to take cyclists into account at all. Even though it is legal to ride on most roads, the more biased towards automobile traffic the road infrastructure is, the more intimidating the road will feel to all but the most intrepid of cyclists. As Professor Lindsey Davies (president of the UK Faculty of Public Health) observed in response to the study on inactivity, “We need to do all we can to make it easy for people to look after their health and get active as part of their daily lives. Our environment has a significant part to play. For example, people who feel unsafe in their local park will be less likely to use it.” The same goes for our roads.

Second, our laws are usually biased towards motorists. Consider, for example, the driver who passes dangerously close to a cyclist, and injures or kills the cyclist. In too many states, the motorist will at most be ticketed for a relatively minor offense, like making an unsafe pass. And that only happens when an officer is concerned enough to write a ticket.

(continued)

To say I'm hurting right now would be an understatement. With four stages down and three still left to go, the Haute Route has proved to be every bit as demanding as billed.

While the hors d'oeuvre of stages one and two - 120km and 105km to Megeve and Courchevel - proved tough, it was stage three's unrelenting parcours from Courchevel to Alpe d'Huez that shook up the leaderboard.

138km might not seem extreme in the context of an Etape du Tour or Marmotte, but add in the fatigue built up through the two previous scorching days, ascents of Col de la Madeleine, Col du Glandon and Alpe d’Huez back-to-back and the mercury topping out at 35 degrees on another oppressively hot day, and you've got yourself a recipe for suffering.

And so it transpired. No less than 96 of the 600 riders missed the cut-off point, each of them crossing the finish line with the unsettling feeling their time was up. They would still be allowed to complete the race, and be credited with times for the remaining stages, but as far as an overall finishing time was concerned, they were done.

Overnight though, the organisers granted a few of them a stay of execution, extending the cut-off in time-honoured style, perhaps giving them the benefit of the doubt in light of the furnace-like temperatures and that almost a sixth of the competition had been wiped out.

I'm not sure the organisers - and riders for that matter - can decide whether this event is a race or a sportive. It's certainly a race up front, with the likes of former French BMX pro and runaway leader Peter Poully and his British namesake Emma Pooley in command of the overall men's and women's categories.

Many of the amateurs, too, are desperate to get as high a placing as possible and are always ready and willing to plunge themselves into the red on the ascents and take mad risks on the descents.

For many, including myself, it's a gruelling battle to just finish the race with a classification to our name. We've still got more than half of the 21,000m total elevation still to come in the next three stages and with every passing hour it becomes more of a challenge to stay in the shape you need to be to ride.

Massage is becoming increasingly vital for everyone involved and helps to make a small dent in the huge muscle damage from all day riding. And each day it gets harder to actually get one. At the summit of Alpe d'Huez yesterday, the massage room was like a war zone, with battered bodies lined up waiting for their rub down.

Rest day = mountain time trial

At least we all get a rest today - of sorts. Whether a time trial up Alpe d'Huez could ever be described as a rest is debatable, but the way I look at it, one hour of agony is better than seven hours of agony.

It was an unbelievable experience, each rider starting from a ramp in Bourg d'Oisans at 20 second intervals. According to the organisers, the last time a TT took place in a race of this size was 2004, when Lance Armstrong took victory in 39'41".

Nobody was quite that fast, although Poully gave it a good go with a stunning time of 42'20". The guy who finished second, Mickael Gallego, three minutes down on Poully, sailed past me with five corners to go, out of the saddle in the big ring and legs charging like pistons. If only I'd followed his wheel...

I was pretty content with my time of 1hr 4min though, considering what's been and what's still to come. It was good enough to edge me close to the top 200 on the day which, bearing in mind some of the cycling talent here this week, is no mean achievement.

More importantly, with just three stages remaining, and I'm still here, still fighting and, crucially, still in the game.

Bike riders often fall into two camps – those who like to go up, and those who prefer to come down. Many cyclists will say they climb to descend, preferring the thrill and adrenaline rush of a helter skelter descent to the interminable suffering of a 20km climb.

I'm sat squarely in the 'climbing for climbing's sake' corner. As ascending is primarily about fitness, it's something I've worked on during every ride since I became a cyclist and something that I've made sure I put in the training for. Have a look at my BikeRadar Training profile and you can follow my training routine.

Descending, too, is something I've increasingly become comfortable with though – on the short, mostly non-technical climbs we get in the UK anyway – and while I by no means consider myself a first-rate downhiller, it's not been something that's held me back.

Until this week, that is. Starting on Sunday in Geneva and winding up on Saturday in Nice, I'm riding the Haute Route, a 780km sportive-come-race that takes the haute (or high) road through the Alps, taking in legendary cols such as Courchevel, Glandon and Alpe d'Huez.

Believe me, this thing is brutal – even though I am just two stages in. The region is currently in the grips of a heatwave and, judging by some of the fraught-looking cyclists in bits at the roadside, the demands are starting to wreak havoc on bodies and minds.

Even a cursory glance at our roadbook shows how much we have on our plate. The basic premise of the event is that the road to the Med is almost exclusively mountainous. You're either going up or you're going down. Today, stage two's 105km from Megève to Courchevel, was the first and only time we spent a prolonged time in the valley, a stretch only included for logistical reasons.

It's the ultimate test of an amateur rider. You obviously need to have the legs to power up 19 cols, but months of training has seen to that – I've managed top half finishes on all five cols in a field that includes some of the wiriest cyclists I've ever come across.

But you also need supreme bike handling skills and, as I've said, while I'm not too bad on this score in the UK, transferring to descents of 20 to 30 minutes is a different kettle of fish entirely. Mountain descending isn't a skill I get to practise every day, so it's highly frustrating to have people I passed on the climb take it back going down the other side.

In Britain you can almost get away with a lack of downhill prowess. But in the Alps you can lose serious time in minutes, creating gaps in the peloton that are virtually impossible to bridge in the valley. Tuesday's mammoth stage includes ascents of Col de la Madeleine and Col du Glandon, before finishing on Alpe d'Huez. The trouble is, it starts with the descent from Courchevel, so I might out myself on the back foot immediately.

In Britain, descending is rarely a problem. I usually take the right lines and never overshoot corners, so why do I lose my nerve on a mountainside? Riding on the other side of the road is certainly one reason, but it's more about the gruesome plunge to an unfortunate death should I overcook a bend that worries me. So it's basically all in my head, rather than a major technical deficiency.

This wasn't helped by today's sight of one of the guys I've been riding with lying bloodied and bruised in a ditch. His inner tube had exploded just before a corner on the descent of Col des Saises while doing 60km/h.

Yes, the ditch he fell down wasn't big compared to some, but it could have been. It's an uneasy thought to have with you all the time, and a shackle I reckon will take some breaking before I feel as at home going down mountains as I do going up them.

Want to sign up for an event like this? Then head over to our fitness site BikeRadar Training. It's a free online resource for you to record and analyse all aspects of your training, log your training routes, get yourself tailoredtraining plans, see how you're doing on our leaderboards, set goals and plan your season with a comprehensive events guide.

Bike riders often fall into two camps – those who like to go up, and those who prefer to come down. Many cyclists will say they climb to descend, preferring the thrill and adrenaline rush of a helter skelter descent to the interminable suffering of a 20km climb.

I'm sat squarely in the 'climbing for climbing's sake' corner. As ascending is primarily about fitness, it's something I've worked on during every ride since I became a cyclist and something that I've made sure I put in the training for. Have a look at my BikeRadar Training profile and you can follow my training routine.

Descending, too, is something I've increasingly become comfortable with though – on the short, mostly non-technical climbs we get in the UK anyway – and while I by no means consider myself a first-rate downhiller, it's not been something that's held me back.

Until this week, that is. Starting on Sunday in Geneva and winding up on Saturday in Nice, I'm riding the Haute Route, a 780km sportive-come-race that takes the haute (or high) road through the Alps, taking in legendary cols such as Courchevel, Glandon and Alpe d'Huez.

Believe me, this thing is brutal – even though I am just two stages in. The region is currently in the grips of a heatwave and, judging by some of the fraught-looking cyclists in bits at the roadside, the demands are starting to wreak havoc on bodies and minds.

Even a cursory glance at our roadbook shows how much we have on our plate. The basic premise of the event is that the road to the Med is almost exclusively mountainous. You're either going up or you're going down. Today, stage two's 105km from Megève to Courchevel, was the first and only time we spent a prolonged time in the valley, a stretch only included for logistical reasons.

It's the ultimate test of an amateur rider. You obviously need to have the legs to power up 19 cols, but months of training has seen to that – I've managed top half finishes on all five cols in a field that includes some of the wiriest cyclists I've ever come across.

But you also need supreme bike handling skills and, as I've said, while I'm not too bad on this score in the UK, transferring to descents of 20 to 30 minutes is a different kettle of fish entirely. Mountain descending isn't a skill I get to practise every day, so it's highly frustrating to have people I passed on the climb take it back going down the other side.

In Britain you can almost get away with a lack of downhill prowess. But in the Alps you can lose serious time in minutes, creating gaps in the peloton that are virtually impossible to bridge in the valley. Tuesday's mammoth stage includes ascents of Col de la Madeleine and Col du Glandon, before finishing on Alpe d'Huez. The trouble is, it starts with the descent from Courchevel, so I might out myself on the back foot immediately.

In Britain, descending is rarely a problem. I usually take the right lines and never overshoot corners, so why do I lose my nerve on a mountainside? Riding on the other side of the road is certainly one reason, but it's more about the gruesome plunge to an unfortunate death should I overcook a bend that worries me. So it's basically all in my head, rather than a major technical deficiency.

This wasn't helped by today's sight of one of the guys I've been riding with lying bloodied and bruised in a ditch. His inner tube had exploded just before a corner on the descent of Col des Saises while doing 60km/h.

Yes, the ditch he fell down wasn't big compared to some, but it could have been. It's an uneasy thought to have with you all the time, and a shackle I reckon will take some breaking before I feel as at home going down mountains as I do going up them.

Want to sign up for an event like this? Then head over to our fitness site BikeRadar Training. It's a free online resource for you to record and analyse all aspects of your training, log your training routes, get yourself tailoredtraining plans, see how you're doing on our leaderboards, set goals and plan your season with a comprehensive events guide.

I, like everyone else who read it, was flabbergasted at the news last month that two amateurs had tested positive for EPO during May's Gran Fondo New York.

Doping to win and cheat your fellow competitors is something that I could never condone, no matter what the level. It's against everything I understood sport to be about as a kid and and now understand it to be as an adult.

For me, the question always comes back to how someone could take satisfaction from a drug-tainted victory and look in the eye family and friends who celebrate what they've achieved - and feel at ease doing it.

I can sometimes understand why athletes end up doping. You only have to read David Millar's excellent confessional autobiography Racing Through the Dark to see how a sportsman who was once adamant they would never go anywhere near banned drugs could be swayed in their direction.

Cajoling from a powerful team boss desperate for results, the threat of losing a contract they and their family rely upon - these are pressures that shouldn't be but unfortunately are part of professional sport, and have tempted sportsmen and women down the years towards the dark arts. I'm not suggesting in any way it's right, just that on occasions it's not always black and white. 

Where there are no shades of grey, however, is with an amateur injecting themselves with EPO to put on a good show in a gran fondo. 

The story of David Anthony, a 45-year-old cat 3 racer from New York City and one of those who tested positive at GFNY, was published in grim detail on Velo News earlier this month. It revealed a man who got hooked on cycling later in life and descended into EPO and Human Growth Hormone abuse in a desperate attempt to move up the lower end of the road racing ranks.

"I think that cycling is different. Somehow, it’s different than everything else. It rewards the obsessive, compulsive nature," he said in his tell-all interview.

His obsession with the sport will be familiar to many, but the final steps he took over the precipice into drug use will appall the vast majority of honest, hard working amateurs.

Here's a man without pressures from on high, who had a career outside of cycling, spending thousands of dollars on performance-enhancing drugs for his own personal, very hollow, victory.

But it's not the first instance of a doped-up amateur that's been uncovered and unfortunately it won't be the last. The testing procedure at the New York Gran Fondo came about because the prize fund exceeded $100,000, a huge sum which prompted its organisers to bring USADA (US Anti-Doping Authority) on board.

Is it reassuring that event organisers and anti-doping authorities are trying to detect drug cheats in amateur races, gran fondos and sportives or is it frightening that such procedures are even needed in these events, that there are riders willing to plumb such depths to beat their fellow competitors?

I ask the question because last week I found out I would have to comply with anti-doping regulations for the Haute Route, a seven-day sportive through the French Alps. 

This meant getting a TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) form signed by my doctor - Bricanyl, an asthma inhaler I'm prescribed, is on WADA's banned list - and submit myself to ant-doping controls at any point during the event.

Initially I was a little taken aback that I might be asked to give blood or pee into a bottle moments after reaching the summit of Alpe d'Huez or Courchevel. Yes, this is an event that's about as big as it gets when it comes to cyclosportives, but it's not a race in the true sense and there isn't a significant prize or money to be chased, so for a while I wondered why they were going to such lengths.

But the more I thought about it, the more I believed it was necessary. Forgetting all the prize money and ranking points and adulation that comes with professional sport for a second - at the end of the day, what is sport - at any level - without integrity? 

If the New York Gran Fondo, and others before it, have shown anything, it's that there are people out there willing to do whatever it takes to improve their performance. I'd hate to be passed on a climb or beaten into second place only to find out later the rider was doped to the gills.

No matter what level of sport you're at, drugs cheats compromise integrity, so having controls in place, even at amateur events like the Haute Route, is a necessary deterrent in a fight that has unfortunately pervaded all levels of sport and competition.

Food is a huge part of any road cyclist's life - for me, it's one of the biggest benefits to riding so many miles. But if there's one day I overindulge, it must be Christmas dinner.

Like the famous scene in I'm Alan Partridge where our eponymous hero arrives at the buffet armed with his 12 inch plate, I take to the dinner table on Christmas Day with the sole aim of stuffing as much food into my belly as it possible. The question of how much I want always gets the same response: as much as will physically fit on my plate. Beef or turkey? Both please. Roasts or mash? Likewise. I always believe I will conquer whatever is served up.

But this wall of food always defeats me. The only thing I'm fit to do afterwards is crawl into the living room, where I sleep off my excesses in a carb-induced slumber. When it comes to Christmas dinner, my eyes are always bigger than my belly.

The same is true of me agreeing to take part in August's Haute Route sportive. When it was pitched to me last month by Cycling Plus Editor Rob Spedding, I had little hesitation in saying yes. Here's an event that sees 600 amateur cyclists ride 780km over seven days from Geneva to Nice through the Alps. Who wouldn't accept an invitation like that?

It was first held last year and was dreamt up by the same man, Jean-Francois Alcan, who developed one of the original sportives, Etape du Tour. It's a progression for riders who can no longer be satisfied by one brutal Alpine ride - they need seven days in a row.

On the menu are 19 cols, including Alpe d'Huez (twice if you include the time trial on the 'rest day'), Madeleine, Glandon, Izoard and Colombiere. It's an incredible undertaking and one which, like at the Christmas dinner table, I approached with an attitude of 'the more, the better', with little thought to the eventual consequences or whether I'm physically capable of getting through it.

So five weeks on from signing up, I'm training like I've never trained before. My home city of Bath hardly replicates the Alps but with its handful of 600ft climbs on all sides leading out into the countryside, it's provided the ideal setting to hone my climbing legs.

Less than three weeks separate me from stage one's 120km from Geneva to Megeve. It's a day I'm approaching with excitement and trepidation in equal measure; knowing it'll be a once in a lifetime experience but also one that'll push me beyond what I previously knew to be my physical limits.

If only Christmas dinner was served at the after-race party in Nice - after what's in store for me, for once I might actually have the appetite to leave an empty plate.

I struggle to think just how many hours I've spent in the saddle over the last few years. 99 percent of my time has been on the road with the occasional foray into mountain biking. Yet not one single minute has been spent on the track, an unfortunate situation which I got the chance to put right this May at the UK's National Cycling Centre's (NCC) velodrome in Manchester.

It's not that I've never been intrigued, far from it. Each and every time I've watched the pros go hell for leather round the 250m track, I've been itching to jump out of my seat and have a tear round myself. While it doesn't quite stir the juices in the way the road does, it's been on my to-do list for some time.

So why has it taken so long to actually try it? Accessibility was the main reason, with the near 50-mile distance from my home in Bath to the nearest indoor track in Newport an obstacle I haven't always been enthusiastic to overcome. Trepidation was another; the sight of the shard of wood being removed from the bloodied leg of Malaysian cyclist Azizulhasni Awang at the World Cup in Manchester last year still looms large in my memory and has probably made me believe track racing is more dangerous than it actually is.

Despite this, I had no hesitation in accepting an invite to a track tutorial evening hosted by car firm Fiat, along with a bunch of BikeRadar competition winners. It was a perfect opportunity to break my duck and coax out an enthusiasm that I knew was lurking within.

What to expect

The four-hour session wasn't typical of what newcomers can expect at a taster session, which costs £10.50 for adults and £8.30 for under 16s. We had much more time and subsequently moved faster through the range of introductory skills. This cost will increase should you not have your own kit or equipment; track bikes (Dolan, £10.80 adults/£8.30 kids), shoes (Lake, Look Delta cleats, £4.80) and helmets (Limar, free with bike hire) are all available to hire.

The Lake hire shoes at the velodrome have Look Delta cleats, which means typical road cycling shoes will be compatible. Bring your own and save the £4.80 hire fee

After changing, we moved track side and picked up our bikes. Those of you familiar with traditional road bikes may be in for a shock - it may look like your bike from a distance, but the lack of brakes and freewheel mean it's anything but. If you're turning the pedals, the chain turns the wheel, which means to slow down, you need to decrease your cadence. You can't just stop pedalling. If you do you're in for an almighty shock, and the wrench of your knee ligaments will mean it's the last time you do it.

NCC track bikes are supplied by local Ormskirk firm Dolan Bikes

With my bike collected and size 10s on, my group of nine moved onto the track. Because there's no free wheel, it's much harder to clip into the pedals without holding onto something, which means we all started by clinging onto the barrier around the track, clicking our shoes into the pedals and pushing off with one arm. Clinging tentatively to the side, it was similar to the first time I ever went ice skating. 

The coaches gave us a couple of laps to get used to the bikes and the idea of stopping without brakes. Once that was out of the way, it was onto the light blue edge of the track itself and what the Manchester guys dub, for obvious reasons, the Côte d'Azur.

The light blue 'Côte d'Azur' strip is an intermediate section between the wooden track and the blue cement floor. It's rubberised, making it ideal for killing speed

As confidence grew we slowly moved up the track, first onto the black line, then onto the red and finally the blue. For anyone already comfortable riding bikes, there really isn't that much to learn. As long as you are riding above 18mph on the bends, the natural centrifugal and gravitational forces will ensure you get round the bend while doing very little with the bike. Simply hold your line and speed, and your momentum will do the rest.

The black, red and blue strips go right the way round the track and are the best method of gauging position

Words of warning

Once we'd got to grips with bike handling we quickly moved onto more intricate skills, such as peeling off the front of a large group to the back. This is much more tricky, as we would learn to our cost later on.

The first thing you notice when you visit the track is how steep the banking on the bends actually is. The 45 degree angle looks like a wood-lined wall in the flesh and requires high speeds - and confidence - to negotiate. One wrong move by anybody, such as a clipped wheel or a drop in speed, can mean calamity for the whole group. If that mistake occurs towards the front, it creates a domino effect that can cause carnage.

What you must never, ever do is slow down when attempting to drop to the back. You should simply maintain your speed, because the extra distance you're travelling by moving higher up the track means you will naturally lose the ground you need to. During our first attempt of this, the rider at the front moved up on the bend, but slowed to an almost halt, which meant he dropped like a sack of spuds to the foot of the track. The domino effect ensued, causing an unfortunate pile up behind him.

Olympic champion Ed Clancy, who was on hand to impart his considerable wisdom alongside Team GB teammate Andy Tennant, said crashes were common on the track - even at his level - but you shouldn't let it put you off.

Ed Clancy (left) with Team GB teammate Andy Tennant, along with two competition winners

Dusting ourselves down

Once everyone had picked up their bikes (and confidence) we had a go at a one-lap time trial. From a standing start, we made our best efforts at a 250m dash, following the track's black line - the shortest route round the track. More of a climber than out-and-out power brute (another reason why I've avoided the track), I struggled to make much of an impact at the top of the leaderboard. Crossing the line in a disappointing 21.4 seconds, I was a full two seconds behind the winner.

The evening flew by in what turned out to be a crash course in track cycling. The coach, Greg Newton, told us we'd tried out more skills than is typical at a taster session and I certainly felt I'd made huge strides. There's really not that much to say about getting started; Newton himself says as long as you arrive in sensible clothing - Lycra shorts are the best choice - and don't ride too slowly, you'll be OK. The tricky part comes, as was amply demonstrated in our spectacular crash, in overtaking and learning how to ride tightly to the wheel in front. That can all wait for another day, though, and after an exhilarating introduction like this, that day surely won't be too far away.

To find out more about taster sessions at the National Cycling Centre in Manchester, click here.

Popular opinion is already handing the 2012 Tour de France title to Bradley Wiggins, and after his display in back in stage 9’s 41.5km time trial it is easy to see why.

All of his rivals would have expected to ship time to the British specialist on this course, but for the nearest of them (with the exception of his team-mate Chris Froome) to lose 1:43 is nothing short of staggering. But the race isn’t over yet, and it is not just the possibility of an unfortunate accident that stands between Wiggins and glory in Paris.

Carrying the fight

One thing is for certain now, no one can afford to ride conservatively and hope for Wiggins to crack. It isn’t going to happen. Stages 7 and 8 exposed Sky’s expected tactic for the mountain stages… work all day to keep things together and set the pace on the climbs. It worked, but those stages were medium mountain stages and even they took their toll as Wiggins and Froome were left with only each other for company by the time Evans attempted to distance them on stage 8. They were able to keep him under control that time, but Evans, Vincenzo Nibali and the other pretenders must attempt to isolate Wiggins and Froome again and again in the Alps and Pyrénées.

Nibali and Evans have another weapon in their armoury, in that both are highly skilled descenders. Wiggins is no slouch himself, and it is only the fact that Nibali stands pretty much peerless among those in the peloton who can also arrive at the top of the mountain at the front that gives him an advantage. He has indicated, not least with a little tester on stage 8 and a bigger one on stage 10, that he recognises the opportunity his downhill skills present him, so expect some technical and long descents to be tackled full throttle. How Wiggins and Froome cope with that pressure will play a role in deciding the outcome of this Tour.

There is even talk that Nibali and Evans could collaborate against Wiggins. While a direct alliance is highly unlikely, it is in both men’s interest to use their strong BMC and Liquigas teams to take the race to Sky, and if they can isolate Wiggins perhaps attack him together. But Nibali needs to put time into Evans as well as Wiggins if he wants to emerge from the Tour’s second TT in yellow, so there is unlikely to be too much entente cordial.

Cycling News HD

An extended version of this piece is just one example of what you can find inside our new digital magazine, Cycling News HD. Delivered to your iPad every Wednesday, Cycling News HD brings you the best all-new cycling photography in the world via the best medium for viewing it, as well as reports, results and exclusive analysis of all the week’s biggest races, in-depth previews of the races and stages to watch in the week ahead, interviews, news and opinion.

With over 50 pages packed with new and original content every Wednesday, alongside all the latest reports and results, Cycling News HD is the best way to enjoy a roadside seat at all the season’s biggest and best races.

There are few things in sport more thrilling than watching an era-defining talent bludgeon its way into the public consciousness. It happened in the 2008 Tour de France, when Mark Cavendish rocketed across the line in Chateauroux with legs and arms whirring and experts hailing the arrival of a new sprint king. Exactly 15 years earlier, another buccaneering young star, Lance Armstrong, had provoked a similar epiphany with his first Tour stage win in Verdun.

Armstrong was two months short of his 22nd birthday then. Peter Sagan is older - by nine months – but his almost insultingly brilliant stage win on his second day as a Tour de France rider on Sunday, prompted immediate comparisons with the American. That he then followed it up with another on stage 3 just added to the furore.

Even the Liquigas staff couldn't help themselves: the team physiologist Paolo Slongo claimed that, with a bit of work and weight loss, Sagan might one day be contending for victory in major tours.

Is that realistic? Who can say? For now, for sure, we know that Sagan is the most prodigious young thing out there, and a probable dominator of Classics for the next three or four years. His coup de grâce on Sunday rendered superlatives as inadequate as the rivals who floundered on his wheel…

Cycling News HD

An extended version of this piece is just one example of what you can find inside our new digital magazine, Cycling News HD. Delivered to your iPad every Wednesday, Cycling News HD brings you the best all-new cycling photography in the world via the best medium for viewing it, as well as reports, results and exclusive analysis of all the week’s biggest races, in-depth previews of the races and stages to watch in the week ahead, interviews, news and opinion.

With over 50 pages packed with new and original content every Wednesday, alongside all the latest reports and results, Cycling News HD is the best way to enjoy a roadside seat at all the season’s biggest and best races.

We’re in year two of our US$1,000 mountain bike test and getting close to the conclusion. Our original best mountain bikes under $1,000 was a hit and is still pulling in interest from riders searching for the best bikes at this price. It’s a tough category, because there's a definite split between bikes that are ready to hit the trail and those aimed at people who are just dabbling with the thought of mountain biking. 

This is where a shop comes in – if you’re not sure what direction you should go, they’re likely going to be your best resource. But then again, shops don’t generally have time to demo bikes at this price and nor is there really a call for it, beyond the obligatory parking lot test. Manufacturers tend to reserve their demo budgets for the ‘serious enthusiast’ category, where the rigs cost upwards of two or three times more than the bikes we’re testing.

That's where we come in. We've gathered a selection of this year's top $1,000 bikes and have been using them to throw laps down on a trail west of Boulder, Colorado. One that’s a likely candidate for a rider’s first 'real' mountain bike ride, yet one we see local pros training on too. In fact, during testing we ran into Subaru-Trek's Heather Irmiger.

We test here, world caliber pros train here

This year we’ve got a good team throwing their legs over the saddles of these budget rigs: our new US editor-in-chief, Ben Delaney; our tech editor, James Huang; our mountain gear writer, Zach White; Bicycle Village manager and former pro cyclist Dwight DeBroux; and myself, BikeRadar's US editor.

So, after last year's experience, and putting in lots of laps leading up to this year’s yet-to-be-published 10-bike test, we’ve learned a few things that can help potential buyers, and manufacturers alike. Please note, though, this blog is based solely on my experiences of testing these bikes. For the group consensus and to hear us name names, you’ll have to wait for the full story.

Five things to think about when buying – or designing – a first timer's mountain bike

1 Who’s going to ride this thing?

Yeah, who’s going to ride this thing? Seems like a simple question, yet the 10 bikes we have on test will suit a mix of different riders. It should be the first question anyone asks when they approach the subject of a new bike, whether buying, designing or selling the thing. But we've found that while some manufacturers have clearly asked the question, others seem to have ignored it.

Some of the bikes are almost commuter style, some are pretty darn racy, and others are neutral and well sorted. And that’s just the geometry – component picks add a whole secondary layer. While, we’ll answer the hard questions and pick a winner, the fact that they’re not all seemingly designed with the same rider in mind definitely lends to ‘qualified’ recommendations.

Yes, there’s one bike that stands out as the best package, but there’s another that will be slightly more appealing to beginner racers. It's a decent suspension fork away from the total package but a fork upgrade sometime down the road may make this bike the best choice for that rider.

2 It’s about the package

The best bikes in this test showcase the effort that product managers have put into designing and outfitting them. They also demonstrate their manufacturer's ability to source the best, most well thought out parts to put the total package together. The results are mixed, and how they’re mixed is very interesting.

That racier bike we mentioned previously, the one with the inferior fork, comes from a medium-sized company, yet they’ve done the best job, hands down, of providing well designed, contemporary (wide bar, short stem), seemingly high-end supporting components: bar, stem, seatpost (two-bolt micro-adjust), comfy saddle.

3 Geometry is a key decision – or is it?

Geometry is paramount: it can make, or ruin, a bike, no matter what it’s made from (carbon, steel, aluminum) or what parts are hung from the frame. Bike companies are free to choose whatever angles they want for their frames, right? Wrong. The reality is that in this day and age, and at this pricepoint, the 'manufacturer' doesn't actually make the frame themself. 

Generally, we expect them to source the frame from China where, with one exception in this test, a third party will most likely take care of manufacturing. So, the product manager is presented with a choice: pick from a catalog and be left at the mercy of the Chinese factory’s knowledge of mountain bike geometry, or pay more and submit their own design. Looking at the bikes in this test, they've gone both ways.

4 Components in order of importance: Gearing, brakes, suspension and tires. Or is it, tires, suspension, brakes and gearing? Or is it…

What’s most important in terms of components? This is a tough one. Those that have the most potential to make or ruin a ride? That kind of describes everything, right? At this pricepoint, not really.

Here’s an example: does it matter what crankset or cassette you have? Yes and no. Who’s stamping the steel or forging the aluminum has little bearing, but what they’re forging or stamping it into has lots of bearing. A beginning rider isn't going to want a 48-tooth big chainring and a 28t low gear on the cassette. We don’t even want that. 

Similar can be said for stem length, bar width and bend, and saddle cushiness. It’s a complex question that requires a balance to be struck between how a component affects the bike's ride and how easy it is to change. A bum suspension fork is a bigger bummer than a sub-par set of tires.  

Here’s how we see the scale of importance when selecting a mountain bike:

Geometry: Should be balanced, neutral and skewed toward true mountain bike riding. Slow is likely better than fast, stable better than agile, but moderation is key – we’re looking for friendly, capable bikes here. We’ll also lump cockpit geometry in this category – we’re looking for comfort and contemporary designs that produce real trail benefits.

Gearing: Appropriately low is key. I’m only aware of one bike in our test with a 36t cassette cog, which seems rather silly, doesn’t it?

Suspension: Adjustable rebound damping is a godsend, and some form of rebound damping is a necessity – some of our test bikes lack the former, and some both!

Tires: Tires are one of the most important components on any bike and a top-end set can approach 15 percent of the total cost of these bikes. We've only put them so low on the list because they’re one of the least daunting components to swap or replace. When you’re buying a bike, you might ask the sales person what the included tires are intended for – you’ll want something with an intermediate tread that works in your region’s soil conditions.

Brakes: While brakes are pivotally important for any bike, we’re really quite happy with the performance of almost all of the brakes in the test. One thing to keep in mind: mechanical disc brakes may seem less daunting than hydraulic ones, but the reality is that there are more moving parts, they’re harder to adjust properly, they require more maintenance and generally offer less modulation. In our test, we’ve found the pecking order of hydraulic discs to look like this: Shimano and Tektro lead in features, bleed quality and performance, while Avid and Hayes' offerings are solid but lack in one of those key areas.

We've one bit of advice for product managers when it comes to the component package: don’t make a bike worse worse trying to make it better. For example, fitting a non-stock ‘custom colored’ headset preload cap that’s razor sharp is probably not the best idea. Any value the blue anodized finish adds on the showroom floor probably reverses tenfold when the newbie rider crashes and slashes their leg open on the trail.

5 What’s it called?

Sorry GT, but you’re the butt of the joke on this one. Your bike is called the Karakoram 2.0 but the first K is written backwards – I can’t figure out if it's even possible to make Ks do that on my keyboard – which immediately leads to confusion. Are the company Russian? Dyslexic? And what does this crazy spelling do for the person trying to sell the bike on the shop floor, or the person trying to buy it? Don’t make it worse, when trying to make it better.

That's supposed to say 'Karakoram'

We can also put "what's it look like?" in this category, though all the bikes achieve a passing grade this year. The Redline is loud and proud, with a finish that's almost too close to neon green, and we might pick on GT again, for the Karakoram's electric blue paint with blue anodized accents, but we won’t because they offer black too.

Anyway, there you have it: our thoughts, dreams and opinions midway through the 2012 Best Mountain Bikes Under $1,000 test. What do you think? As always, we’re happy to hear your wants and needs.