What was your stand-out pro cycling moment from the weekend? Was it Matteo Jorgenson’s dominant, inch-perfect ride at Paris-Nice, which secured the American his second consecutive overall triumph at the Race to the Sun?
Or was it Elisa Balsamo’s canny, powerful sprint – and career hat-trick – at the Trofeo Alfredo Binda? Or 18-year-old Cat Ferguson’s hugely impressive third place on her WorldTour debut at the Italian classic? Or the flying Juan Ayuso’s dismantling of his Tirreno–Adriatico rivals?
Well, you’re all wrong. Because the real highlight of that bumper weekend of cycling actually came late last night, courtesy of Slovakian light entertainment TV.
Yes, that’s right. On week three of Slovakia’s version of Strictly, Let’s Dance, former Flanders and Roubaix winner Peter Sagan channelled his inner Ryan Gosling by discarding his top, plonking on a blonde wig, and spraying on an impressive set of abs (at least I’m pretty sure they’re sprayed on) to dance a potentially career-defining Barbie-themed cha-cha-cha… as the Ken doll himself:
Now that’s what I call a proper world champion.
The legs could have been straighter in places, allowing for more hip action, mind you – but still, who had ‘Peter Sagan dancing as Ken from Barbie’ on their 2025 cycling bingo card?
And it’s fair to say, after a shaky opening jive, the seven-times Tour de France green jersey winner has really grown into the celebrity dancing competition.
Last week, Sagan and his pro partner Eliška Lenčešová scored a highly respectable 26 out of 40 for their waltz to Nat King Cole’s Unforgettable.
And for Movie Week (which explains the Barbie theme, in case you’ve never seen Strictly before), his topless cha-cha earned him a 24, even garnering him Len Goodman-approved sevens from two of the judges.
> “My dancing idol is Patrick Swayze”: Peter Sagan signs up for Strictly Slovakia – but how have other pro cyclists who swapped their bikes for the ballroom fared?
And what’s more, the three-time rainbow jersey winner’s performances have been ‘Kenough’ to see him sail safely through to week four’s tissue-laden ‘dedication’ segment of the competition, which will see Sagan dedicate his dance to someone very important to him. I’m assuming it’ll be Oleg Tinkov, but who knows?
Plus, I think it’s safe to say the Slovakian public are loving every minute of Sagan’s ‘journey’ on Let’s Dance… which may have something to do with his lack of clothing (they did the same with poor Nico Roche on the Irish version of Dancing with the Stars, too. Can someone please throw these retired pro cyclists a t-shirt?).
“I’m gonna eat it. He’s on fire. I always look forward to his performance. I don’t care how he dances, but I’m really entertained,” wrote Janka on Instagram. Alright, calm down…
“Well, Peter was extreme! I will watch this dance every night now, wish I had such a Ken at home,” added Kristina.
I sense a theme emerging.
However, Mayo noted: “Peter must be missing his bike, I can’t imagine him enjoying playing Ken.”
“But he did! And a lot!” replied a very enthusiastic Monika.
Alright everyone, altogether now – ‘He’s just Peter, anywhere else he’d be a leader…’
Add new comment
19 comments
Someone seems pretty taken with Pete Sagan and his dance routine; I quite thought I'd landed on the wrong website there.
Re. diversions - in case you thought this kind of nonsense was reserved exclusively for cyclists...
Highways staff need training - everyone knows that sign on the right should be placed in the cycle path...
Bristol pedestrians to have immediate priority over vehicles at traffic light crossings (Bristol Post)
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-pedestrians-imme...
I see it's just a proposal up for acceptance at the council. So we'll see if the councillors give way to the inevitable onslaught of prophecies of Armageddon from drivists distraught at the possibility they may have to wait. Active travel cannot progress until it's accepted that things will get worse for drivers - that's the point!
Well, yeah: you can imagine the comments BTL…
It's always struck me as odd that there should be a delay for pedestrians after pressing the button at crossings. What's the purpose of the delay? To punish pedestrians for having the temerity to halt vehicles?
Once the button is pressed, the lights will turn red for drivers sooner or later. The same number of drivers will get held up for the same time, whether the light change instantly or after a minute.
I've lost count of the number of times I've pressed the button at a crossing and it's taken so long for the lights to turn that there's a break in the stream of vehicles long enough for me to cross, and then of course for lights turn afterward I've crossed and drivers have to stop with nobody left to cross the road.
the car brains haven't disappointed so far
Just wait 'till they realise that in some places there are "default green for active travel" signals which only turn green for motorists when a driver turns up and stops!
Small plea. Can we not platform Travis who as well as showing himself to be a bit of knob on multiple occasions, is a fine one to talk about selfishness given he imposes his desire for 15 minutes of fame on his pet?
Not a fan then ?
Anyone who cycles around London regularly, whether showing off and putting their cat in danger for TikTok likes or not, knows perfectly well that this is utter nonsense. Whilst many/most of the capital's cyclists look out for others and cycle sympathetically, a significant minority from every level of cycling from spliffed-up teenager on a stolen bike to city broker on a Pinarello ride appallingly badly, ignore all lights, slalom through pedestrians walking across crossings, jump on and off pavements at speed as they please et cetera. I am vehemently, or rabidly, according to some, pro-cycling/cyclist and very much against the selfish and unnecessary car use that blights my hometown but pretending that all cyclists are lovely people who treat others with sympathy and respect is just silly and severely undermines the credibility of anyone who makes such claims.
I agree with that but, to take a tangetn for a moment, I take exception to people criticising cyclists for not having lights/hi-viz/helmets when cyclists are almost always perfectly visible, day or night, to anybody exercising reasonable care and attention.
One thing that limits that statement is the increasing dazzle from car headlights. Either way, we should be in a position to see that the road is clear, rather than assuming the road is clear unless we notice something, before we proceed on the road.
In other words, we can criticise the errant, unlit cycle with riders in dark clothes; but we must also criticise the drivers' failure* to observe them.
(* except, of course, they don't: they notice them only too well, otherwise they wouldn't be able to criticise them)
I entirely agree with what you say but I believe that Travis and the estimable Mr May were referring to cyclists not needing traffic lights, rather than not needing lights on their bikes.
Ah right. Even so, I think I'd put some air between the two of them on some points. If May is arguing that no cycle traffic lights are needed, I'd disagree. If I thought he was referring to occasions where cyclists should be given the freedom to advance through a junction on their own judgement rather than having to wait for a separate green cycle, I think there are often cases where that is appropriate.
Time for some nuance.
If he's saying "cyclists are basically pedestrians..." he will hopefully be somewhat correct ... in the future in the UK.
It all comes back to thinking about concepts like those in the "Sustainable Safety" programme.
So considering mass, speed and direction of road users: while cyclists are neither "tiny cars" nor "pedestrians on wheels" they and pedestrians are indeed pretty close in speed - and in mass *. Where there are only cyclists and pedestrians it is true that traffic lights aren't really necessary - neither for cyclists themselves nor for pedestrians. Apparently not even on the busiest bike route in the world.
However ... in the UK people are used to relying on traffic lights (because motorists) and cyclists are a tiny minority, so we're probably stuck with unnecessarily inconveniencing cyclists because everyone is used to the current system.
Motor vehicles are far faster and heavier than either cyclists or pedestrians. They absolutely need more control measures. And mixing them and the others is only sensible with very stringent controls (speed and volume of traffic), otherwise they just dominate the space.
* In speed - where there is mass cycling in urban areas (e.g. almost nowhere in the UK) - average speeds are close enough and slow enough for interactions to be very safe. Mass - chunkier e-bikes - especially those not type-legal non-EAPC ones - and delivery vehicles can change this equation (plus may be fast to acellerate and have higher speeds) - a good reason for caution about allowing them into the mix.
This leads on beyond just "safety" to "convenience" *.
It's still better - even for modes as similar in speed, mass and vulnerability as cyclists and pedestrians - to have their own spaces. This gives us "predictability (of road course and road user behavior by a recognizable road design)" Everyone knows where they should be and where to expect other modes. That is not just safer but keeps everyone flowing in their own fashion.
Mixing - for e.g. cyclists and pedestrians - "works" only to the degree that there are hardly any of either mode, or one mode dominates (and essentially keeps the other in check). Beyond that, it becomes inconvenient for the faster mode (cyclists) and feels unpleasant for the pedestrians.
Finally - cycling derives much of its efficiency from maintaining momentum. So even where we expect speeds to be pretty low we should design cycle infra for good speeds (more like the 15.5mph than the 3-4mph of pedestrians) AND avoid making cyclists stop as much as we can.
* For without convenience, people generally aren't going to do take up active travel. That means more driving, which generally brings down safety and certainly goes against "nice places" and better health at population level (including via road noise...).
Perhaps they're just a bit ahead of their time?
I agree - it's not necessarily a great description of people's behaviour now. And while I am certainly not for alarming people or making them not want to cross the cycle path (just like drivers "I didn't hit you, what's the problem") ... we should also keep the casualty figures in mind. Should be obvious if there been a massive upswing in people mown down in the cycle paths by cyclists (e.g. from "around zero" to something more than "two this year - an infinite percentage increase!"?)