Fan-tastic DIY e-bike goes viral after cyclist spotted with paramotor on his back; Family pens open letter to council over bike shed planning breach; Surprise Giro win; Ingenious infra; Pro bike handling; Search for hero cyclist + more on the live blog

I was married for 16 years to a loving mother and wife. We had 2 children together who are now 11 & 13. I reconnected with an old girlfriend from college on Facebook and we began an affair and I left my wife. The woman I had an affair with is a wonderful woman and I love her too and our kids had begun accepting the situation and my wife has kind of moved on, but not in love with the man she is seeing.  I thought I fell out of love with my wife and I felt terrible about what I did to her - she is a good woman and I don't know what came over me. I decided to try and get her back and I was recommended to Lord Zakuza for help to get reunited with my wife and within 48 hours after I made contact with Lord Zakuza my wife decided to work things out with me and now we are back together with our children living as one happy family. I really don't know the words to use in appreciation of what Lord Zakuza did for me but I will say thank you sir for reuniting I and my family back. For those in trying times with their marriages or relationship can browse through his website via: lordzakuzaspells.com or WhatsApp Lord Zakuza for help or text with this number +1 (740) 573-9483 or you can send him an email to Lordzakuza7 @ gmail. com

Re: what would it look like if we built roads the same way we built cycle lanes?

- Correct on the narrow pinch point, correct on the poor surface.

- However, road is way too wide and doesn't introduce any conflict with other road users. No glass or debris other than puddles. Also, no sign of repeated give ways to other paths or roads. It also appears to be built in a straight line and not deviating around more important road users.

Good start, but needs a little more work to be totally realistic.

The story "What would it look like if we built roads the same way we built cycle lanes?" reminds me of this picture I put together a few years ago. If this were a cycle lane it would be just fine.

Fixed it for Leicester City Council

New research from University of Wisconsin-Madison confirms cycling can positively impact global health and climate crises

Watch out for more news from Wisconsin-Madison Uni regarding digestive habits of bears in arboreal habitats.

I've managed to fall into the rabbit hole of dashcam vids on Youtube

The UK one here has a stupid bit of infra where a marked cycle lane is also the car lane. Driver is a right asshat anyway trying to undertake etc and thinking he was doing nothing wrong (like alot of them on there). 

The Pujara family risks clutching defeat from the jaws of victory.

The planning system can be tricky to navigate but, since it is a delegated decision (it could be called in, but otherwise it will be an officer making the decision; and if it is called in to the planning committee, the officer's recommendation will/should be significant to the outcome), the officer will make the decision, and will do so based on their experience and knowledge of planning legislation and the local and national policy.

The application is submitted.  If you had things to say, you do so at the application - and be thorough and factual but not argumentative.  Or you can do so on appeal.  Either way, stick to the material matters, don't play to the gallery.

The application is in the consultation phase.  Now, you keep quiet.

There's nothing wrong with the argument in principle, except it's not good planning, and it will only serve a) to prove their ignorance, and b) to antagonise the decision-maker(s).

"...In all likelihood it will deny us planning because the Town and Country Planning order states that structures like this cannot be located to the front of a property, and because we live in a conservation area we don’t have permitted development rights."

There is no need to prejudge the outcome.  Why weaken your own position?

National general permitted development orders do not stipulate they cannot have a structure like this to the front of the property; but if they did, that would take the decision out of the hands of the local planning authority (LPA), so why be critical about non-negotiable matters?

They are right that the Conservation Area status means an Article 4 direction has been made that revokes general permitted development rights in that area.  That does not mean they cannot have a shed in the front garden, it means they cannot put it there as of permitted development ('PD') - they have to apply for permission. 

That said, PD allows some things but doesn't permit others; building a shed in the front garden is not PD, so they would have to apply for permission regardless of the Article 4 direction.

I put it to you that your permitted development planning policies are now inconsistent with your environmental aims. These polices need to be updated to encourage cycling and to include all cyclists. You have the opportunity here to extend permitted development to include bike sheds. 

"I put it to you..." Don't do that. Don't ever do that!

More to the point, PD is national, not local.  The LPA has no control over it (except to revoke it for an area, subject to process).  PD is about saying what is permitted, not what is forbidden.  If development is not PD, it required planning permission, that's all.  The LPA does not have any opportunity to 'extend permitted development'.  It does have the opportunity to apply local planning policy when forming a planning decision, however.

The proposed development requires permission.  There are strong cases for supporting it already within the local planning policy (core strategy) and national policy (National Planning Policy Framework - NPPF).  The conservation area status is a spanner in the works in that, if the shed can be shown to cause harm, it should be refused unless the benefits outweigh any harm (which I personally believe they do).

It does not help that they have already installed the development.  That makes it very much more important that they do not fail the 'attitude test' at this stage (although the planning decision should really be based on the actual merits, not the timeline).

This sort of letter is harmful to their cause in that it does not invite sympathy from the organisation they are both applying to and criticising... openly.  It is a clear example of why you should not be your own lawyer planning agent.

A friend spotted this on Facebook the other day - it seems Lincs Police are cracking down on pavement cycling (or could be NIMBYism). Apparently other, similar signs are appearing elsewhere.

Didn't a transport secretary basically say it was okay to ride on pavements.

[Photo doesn't seem to appear - it's a don't cycle on pavements sign in Woodhall Spa, Lincolnshire]

Brilliant letter regarding the bike shed.

I have a historical question. In Victorian times, what did these gardens really look like? I mean, I would expect that it was not uncommon that people actually had a shed in their front garden for garden tools or even for bicycles. As bicycles were common in the Victorian era, where did people store them? Perhaps one can even make an argument that a garden shed makes it more Victorian?

Our image of what historic towns looked like is often a bit of an idealised image. In Edinburgh we have lots of arguments that street vendors or market stalls destroy the historic character, when in reality the city would've ben full of street vendors in real historic times.

boy/buy/bouy ?

I hope the lighting effect is an artefact of the video - otherwise photosensitive epilectic cyclists aren't going to have a great time with that container tunnel.

Re the paramotor, not really a big fan tbh.....

Chapeau to Kavi Pujara. That is an excellently worded letter demanding serious answers. Will he get them though? A Labour Council should understand modern realities, but I imagine that it will hide behind historical precedents for fear of scaring the horses, I mean voters.