- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Add new comment
3 comments
Can we find a radical young British artist who could do a state-of-the-art cycle facility and call it a kinetic sculpture?
There are plenty of young aspiring artists who'd no doubt love to have their work exhibited in such an environment. And the best part is, they wouldn't want £160,000. They'd want a fraction of that, to cover their costs.
Creating attractive public spaces and creating serviceable cycling infrastructure should not be set against each other in this way. The budget involved is sufficient to do the former but would not go very far on the latter. One toucan crossing and fifty metres of armadillos. Or, to be fair, a lot of white paint. Getting caught up in side shows to take money from useful public realm or even public art is not the way to build a consensus on cycle proofed roads and living streets.