Questions to all the Brits

donrhummy

1. Does it matter to you that a British rider will win the Tour for the first time? (I'm not a Brit and I think it's amazing and fantastic, but I'm curious)

2. Assuming Wiggins wins, would you prefer next year that the team again works for him or for Froome?

3. Will a British Tour de France GC victory mean more than Cavendish's domination over the last few years?

(And feel free to correct me if "Brit" is considered rude - I actually have no idea)

mroli

1. Yes
2. I think Wiggins has earned the right to defend his title. Should he chose to - like Cadel this year. If a very mountainous course, Froome should be let off the leash though.
3. Yes, but it is a close thing - what Cav has done is pretty incredible.

No_Ta_Doctor

1. Yes. I'm not very patriotic, but it means a lot to everyone treated as a second class citizen because they ride a bike on the road.

2. I like Wiggins. I'm not sure I'm keen on Froome. But horses for courses, see what the parcours is first.

3. Yellow. We've been waiting a long time.

donrhummy

Oh, and followup question:

How much of a difference do you think this will make in the acceptance of cycling/cyclists in Great Britain? Will it increase tolerance? Will more kids take it up? Will TV coverage increase?

RichN95.

1. Yes. I tend to favour Brits (not offensive BTW) in sport (and I watch more than cycling)
2. They should support whoever has the best chance of winning. Froome needs to show he can lead on a big race on his own.
3. Probably, but I'm glad we have both. International cycling history may ultimately favour Cavendish though.

Just my view. Others will differ.

No_Ta_Doctor

donrhummy wrote:

Oh, and followup question:

How much of a difference do you think this will make in the acceptance of cycling/cyclists in Great Britain? Will it increase tolerance? Will more kids take it up? Will TV coverage increase?

It comes at the right time to make a huge difference. Cycling is booming in the UK, hopefully this will take it over the threshold to just being a normal daily activity. I'm speaking as an expat living in Copenhagen, where everyone rides a bike.

cougie

1.Yes - its amazing - I've been following cycling for 30 years now and I didnt think I'd see the day that a Brit could win it.

2. Whoever is better suited for it. If its hillier it looks like Froome - but any team would kill for one potential tour winner, let alone two.

3. Yes I think it will. Cav has spoiled us now and raised the bar so high. A few years back we'd be pleased just to see the occasional glimpse of a Brit in the Tour - let alone dominating it.

As to TV -well the tour is switching to ITV 1 this weekend. It should help tolerance I think.

luckao

1. Yes.

2. Wiggins.

3. I wouldn't say so. He isn't just a rider picking up the occasional win. He's on the path to creating history with every single one. I'd put them on a par.

Stone Glider

1) Yes because it will be the first time.

2) Mr Wiggins is entitled to defend 'his' Yellow Jersey? If he has the form.

3) Mr Cavendish will have a more prominent place in the history of the Tour.

It is unlikely that the attitudes of the intolerant will change but there might be a slight adjustment.

Le Commentateur

1. I like it when a plan comes together.

2. Depends on the parcours – I bet ASO are taking this year's events into account for the final choice of stages.

3. They're cycling's supergroup. As long they don't succumb to "creative differences" it'll be fine.

alanp23

1. Yes, I too having been waiting 30 years for this moment. I cant really believe it is here.

2. Wiggins deserves to defend it and hopefully against Contador too. So we can see what the truth is.

3. Yellow wins everytime. Cav is unbelievable and to have him and Wiggins around at the same time is really special.

As for coverage. The Tour is normally shown on ITV4 which tends to be a sports and Golden Oldies channel. For the TT and the Paris stages, it has been moved onto ITV1 which is the main commercial channel in the UK. This is unprecedented!

mm1

1. No. What counts is that he's a proper bikie. The Archer (his club) were top dogs in West London when I was growing up. Remember seeing Brad race at Eastway and later when he was a pro pursuiting at Herne Hill with my kids and a non cycling mate...even he (football and cricket person) could see that we were watching pure class.

2. Must defend his title. As someone with an obvious love of the sport and its history, I'm sure he will.

3. Both inspiring.

Coverage and wider impact? Public interest will quickly fade, especially if the swimmers and runners have an ok 'Lympics. Civilians will still think we're odd and drivers will still want us off the road...but who cares...

Yellow Peril

1. Yes. I've been into cycling since the mid 90's. It didn't take long to figure out how much of a minority sport it was in Britain and how lowly Britain was regarded as a competitive cycling nation. BTW I feel personally responsible for the boom in cycling in Britain so I expect to be honoured in the New Year

2.There is no god given right to defend the jersey that is just crap sentimentalism. His employer should only pick him to lead his team if they truly believe he is the best man for the job.

3. An embarrassment of riches I'm afraid I can't call it. I worry that once this rich seam of riders retire that it will be a long time before we see their like again and British cycling returns to obscurity. British champs, a bit like buses eh?

PBo

Yellow Peril wrote:

3. An embarrassment of riches I'm afraid I can't call it. I worry that once this rich seam of riders retire that it will be a long time before we see their like again and British cycling returns to obscurity. British champs, a bit like buses eh?

Interesting one this - is it fluke, or is it the culmination of lottery funding and years of hard work by BC that has produced a great bunch of cyclists across the board? These are just the first guys to roll off the production line, and others will follow....

I tend to think the latter.....will they produce another yellow jersey? don't know - bottom line is, not many in the entire world, never mind UK, can win it. But we may produce contenders. (caveat - there will be cyclical elements and fallow years for sure, but the fundamental infrastructure and knowledge base is there now.)

I must say though, that I actually think we are much more likely to produce another Wiggo than another Cav. Cav is an absolute freak of nature - both physique wise and instinct wise. He has shown he can win with or without a train, and his wheel hopping when he doesn't have a train is amazing to watch - you can't teach that. Yesterdays win was just one of the most mind blowing I have seen from him - more so than MSR, more so than when he blew past Pettachi and Thor on the Champs.

as for 2) wiggo or froome, I hope it is wiggo on the basis of his sideboards and interviews alone...

napoleond

1 - Don't give a toss tbh, not bothered, not interested

2 - Don't mind, they won't win anyway

3 - Meh

Only joking! It's freaking AWESOME!

I can't compare Cav with Wiggo, they are both just as tops. Cav's win yesterday was something else.

Yellow Peril

PBo wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

3. An embarrassment of riches I'm afraid I can't call it. I worry that once this rich seam of riders retire that it will be a long time before we see their like again and British cycling returns to obscurity. British champs, a bit like buses eh?

Interesting one this - is it fluke, or is it the culmination of lottery funding and years of hard work by BC that has produced a great bunch of cyclists across the board? These are just the first guys to roll off the production line, and others will follow....

I tend to think the latter.....will they produce another yellow jersey? don't know - bottom line is, not many in the entire world, never mind UK, can win it. But we may produce contenders. (caveat - there will be cyclical elements and fallow years for sure, but the fundamental infrastructure and knowledge base is there now.)

I must say though, that I actually think we are much more likely to produce another Wiggo than another Cav. Cav is an absolute freak of nature - both physique wise and instinct wise. He has shown he can win with or without a train, and his wheel hopping when he doesn't have a train is amazing to watch - you can't teach that. Yesterdays win was just one of the most mind blowing I have seen from him - more so than MSR, more so than when he blew past Pettachi and Thor on the Champs.

as for 2) wiggo or froome, I hope it is wiggo on the basis of his sideboards and interviews alone...

You are right Pbo but I also fear that Britain's biggest advantage in cycling over the last few years (the scientific approach and extreme attention to detail) will soon be exhausted.

Take the 2008 Olympics and World champs on the track where Britain gave everyone a stuffing. The Aussies went away and decided that the "Formula 1" approach used by Brailsford was the way forward. They've taken that approach and regained track ascendency.

Moreover Greenedge is the road racing equivalent of Team Sky. It is a high tech top of the range totally focused approach. This Tour it has misfired (as did Sky in 2010) but you know they'll be back after smarting with jealousy at Sky's dominance this Tour.

What I can see is a decline in the fortunes of traditional cycling nations such as France and Holland. They culturally will always produce the raw talent but the scientific approach isn't in their psyche. Rick Chasey has bemoaned the lack of passion in Sky's approach this Tour but perhaps it is a sign that we are entering an age of the machine on the bike where raw talent is a smaller part of it all.

MrT

1. YES YES YES....started Cycling at 16 ...... 33 years of waiting is likely to be over v soon....I hope. My kids can have posters of a Brit....I had posters of Hinault...great but not quite the same.
2. Wait for the course details to be announced....Brad has right to defend but DB will call the shots....all Sky riders know that.....it's only the overwrought girlfriends that haven't quite get their head around that.
3. Sore arse on this one......if we can do it again soon....yes......I think Cav is going to carry on winning for some time....the +ve thing is that for now both are loved by the French media......though the French President may have a different view since at yesterday's presentation Brad clearly had no idea who he was .
4. Agree with the Doc to an extent....we need to ride this wave all the way to the shore.....amazing to see how many Brits are in France ....and with bikes....this I think will only get bigger.....as a sports fan I think the Olympics will soon be forgotten......watch 2012 it's all about the legacy.

PBo

Yellow Peril wrote:

PBo wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

3. An embarrassment of riches I'm afraid I can't call it. I worry that once this rich seam of riders retire that it will be a long time before we see their like again and British cycling returns to obscurity. British champs, a bit like buses eh?

Interesting one this - is it fluke, or is it the culmination of lottery funding and years of hard work by BC that has produced a great bunch of cyclists across the board? These are just the first guys to roll off the production line, and others will follow....

I tend to think the latter.....will they produce another yellow jersey? don't know - bottom line is, not many in the entire world, never mind UK, can win it. But we may produce contenders. (caveat - there will be cyclical elements and fallow years for sure, but the fundamental infrastructure and knowledge base is there now.)

I must say though, that I actually think we are much more likely to produce another Wiggo than another Cav. Cav is an absolute freak of nature - both physique wise and instinct wise. He has shown he can win with or without a train, and his wheel hopping when he doesn't have a train is amazing to watch - you can't teach that. Yesterdays win was just one of the most mind blowing I have seen from him - more so than MSR, more so than when he blew past Pettachi and Thor on the Champs.

as for 2) wiggo or froome, I hope it is wiggo on the basis of his sideboards and interviews alone...

You are right Pbo but I also fear that Britain's biggest advantage in cycling over the last few years (the scientific approach and extreme attention to detail) will soon be exhausted.

Take the 2008 Olympics and World champs on the track where Britain gave everyone a stuffing. The Aussies went away and decided that the "Formula 1" approach used by Brailsford was the way forward. They've taken that approach and regained track ascendency.

Moreover Greenedge is the road racing equivalent of Team Sky. It is a high tech top of the range totally focused approach. This Tour it has misfired (as did Sky in 2010) but you know they'll be back after smarting with jealousy at Sky's dominance this Tour.

What I can see is a decline in the fortunes of traditional cycling nations such as France and Holland. They culturally will always produce the raw talent but the scientific approach isn't in their psyche. Rick Chasey has bemoaned the lack of passion in Sky's approach this Tour but perhaps it is a sign that we are entering an age of the machine on the bike where raw talent is a smaller part of it all.

Good points all....

On the subject of greenedge, I had to chuckle when ITV4 were talking about their coach and how it was a metre longer than the "death star". At least they beat Sky at something!!!

TheYorkshireMan

donrhummy wrote:

How much of a difference do you think this will make in the acceptance of cycling/cyclists in Great Britain? Will it increase tolerance?

It won't make any significant difference at all. The real reasons cyclists in the UK are treated as being members of a low-status 'out group' are just too deeply embedded in the national psyche.

For example, the fact that Britain is a right-wing, hierarchical, authoritarian and status-obsessed nation where placing the needs of any low-status minority group (such as cyclists) on a par with those of a dominant, higher-status group (such as motorists) goes very much 'against the grain' or is even considered to be 'anti-democratic'. The fact that, ever since the days that the social elite took their cars onto the public's road, the general attitude has been that 'roads are for cars' and other road users must do all they can to 'keep out of the way' or suffer the consequences. The fact that in the UK the car itself and the supposed 'right to drive' are intrinsically associated with concepts such as individuality, 'freedom' status and power, and any attempts to control people's driving behaviour are widely regarded as constituting a 'war on the beleaguered motorist'. Then there is the power of the motor lobby and the pervasive influence of people like Jeremy Clarkson, The Daily Mail, and so forth.

All in all, over 100 years of car-centric and often anti-cyclist attitudes are unlikely be overridden by virtue of a Brit winning the Tour de France.

Much the same question was asked when the GB cycling team 'saved national pride' at the last Olympics. This was followed by the 'revelation' that most of Britain's 'Olympic heroes' nonetheless reported being treated as third class citizens when training, with many of them choosing to train abroad for that very reason. Nothing changed then and I see no reason why things will be any different this time.

Even if Brits hold some sort of respect for Olympic medal winners, and probably to a lesser degree winner of a bike race in the land of 'Cheese-eating surrender monkeys', they are unlikely to associate what they achieve with that guy on a bike in front of them who is 'getting in way' and who they are encouraged to think of as being a 'smug' or 'arrogant' law-breaker and 'muesli muncher' who 'unfairly' doesn't pay 'road tax' can't even afford a car!

disgruntledgoat

Bernie, how are you?

iainf72

Anyone need a bingo card?

RichN95.

Thanks, Iain, but would you mind if I use my own?

pb21

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

How much of a difference do you think this will make in the acceptance of cycling/cyclists in Great Britain? Will it increase tolerance?

It won't make any significant difference at all. The real reasons cyclists in the UK are treated as being members of a low-status 'out group' are just too deeply embedded in the national psyche.

For example, the fact that Britain is a right-wing, hierarchical, authoritarian and status-obsessed nation where placing the needs of any low-status minority group (such as cyclists) on a par with those of a dominant, higher-status group (such as motorists) goes very much 'against the grain' or is even considered to be 'anti-democratic'. The fact that, ever since the days that the social elite took their cars onto the public's road, the general attitude has been that 'roads are for cars' and other road users must do all they can to 'keep out of the way' or suffer the consequences. The fact that in the UK the car itself and the supposed 'right to drive' are intrinsically associated with concepts such as individuality, 'freedom' status and power, and any attempts to control people's driving behaviour are widely regarded as constituting a 'war on the beleaguered motorist'. Then there is the power of the motor lobby and the pervasive influence of people like Jeremy Clarkson, The Daily Mail, and so forth.

All in all, over 100 years of car-centric and often anti-cyclist attitudes are unlikely be overridden by virtue of a Brit winning the Tour de France.

Much the same question was asked when the GB cycling team 'saved national pride' at the last Olympics. This was followed by the 'revelation' that most of Britain's 'Olympic heroes' nonetheless reported being treated as third class citizens when training, with many of them choosing to train abroad for that very reason. Nothing changed then and I see no reason why things will be any different this time.

Even if Brits hold some sort of respect for Olympic medal winners, and probably to a lesser degree winner of a bike race in the land of 'Cheese-eating surrender monkeys', they are unlikely to associate what they achieve with that guy on a bike in front of them who is 'getting in way' and who they are encouraged to think of as being a 'smug' or 'arrogant' law-breaker and 'muesli muncher' who 'unfairly' doesn't pay 'road tax' can't even afford a car!

Got to agree with this.

Also has the bicycle had the same kind of history here, as it has in other countries?

It is often lauded as the greatest invention as it has allowed those of low income to move to where the money is, thus facilitating the capitilist machine.

Has the ability of the proles to increase their 'power' met with more resentment in Britain?

Tom Butcher

1 - Yes I'm glad there might be a GB winner - not a massive deal I like to see a good race whoever wins but on balance yeah I'd rather a Brit won than not.
2 - I'm warming to Froome a bit - I like Brad's persona being an ex mod myself helps but I think Froome might be a more exciting rider - hopefully anyway.
3 - I think Cav winning all the time has meant more - got to be honest and I think the whole Sky machine thing has somewhat taken the edge off WIggos win for me. It's just been so clinical and efficient - I mean well done to them for the way they've achieved it but it's not exactly the underdog winning against the odds is it.
4 - I'm sure it all helps get cycling accepted by the general public - I think the boom in cycling would have happened without the Olympic and road success - people are just getting into running, triathlon and cycling type activities anyway - but that success probably does help. Yeah a few of my non-cycling mates are taking more of an interest and probably don't comment about how we block the road riding 2 abreast quite so much.

ant41

Going off on somewhat of a tangent, I can't help thinking that the ITT is perhaps not the best first stage to show on ITV1. Don't get me wrong, I am all for increasing exposure but I would imagine that it is perhaps not the best stage to interest the average layman/newbie, and can see a lot of people tuning in and then switching off as (IMHO) it lacks the excitement factor, at least until the last 5-10 riders. As a consequence, many who would have definitely watched the final stage may stay away.

I hope I am wrong.

P.s. back to the thread (1) very excited - I tend to be patriotic at the worst of times (2) wiggins should defend (3) my vote would go to cav

rick_chasey

ant41 wrote:

Going off on somewhat of a tangent, I can't help thinking that the ITT is perhaps not the best first stage to show on ITV1. Don't get me wrong, I am all for increasing exposure but I would imagine that it is perhaps not the best stage to interest the average layman/newbie, and can see a lot of people tuning in and then switching off as (IMHO) it lacks the excitement factor, at least until the last 5-10 riders. As a consequence, many who would have definitely watched the final stage may stay away.

I hope I am wrong.

P.s. back to the thread (1) very excited - I tend to be patriotic at the worst of times (2) wiggins should defend (3) my vote would go to cav

Indeed. Will be the most boring final TT for years.

dougzz

Yes, it's tremendous
Don't care, question for next year
Wiggins will seem the bigger deal, but Cav will ultimately be more respected as a Roadie and win more.
None whatsoever. I watched a thing about traffic and cycling in Brussels, I think Frenchie posted the link, unreal, made London seem Schleckly cycle friendly. I don't see France as being a better place for cycling because of government/council efforts, it's simply got more space per person so it's less crowded. Spent middle week of Tour around Annecy, and saw plenty of crap driving and typical car I own the road behaviour.
Edit: No they didn't all have GB plates.

verylonglegs

I'll break ranks and be honest, I'm not too fussed about a British winner as cycling has always been a sport that to me I can follow largely without any taint of nationalism and I don't think a Wiggins victory will alter that for me.

I'll be watching the cricket this afternoon as a TT with nothing on it is zzzzz so I also agree about it not being a good way to sell the sport to newcomers which is a shame.

No_Ta_Doctor

pb21 wrote:

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

How much of a difference do you think this will make in the acceptance of cycling/cyclists in Great Britain? Will it increase tolerance?

It won't make any significant difference at all. The real reasons cyclists in the UK are treated as being members of a low-status 'out group' are just too deeply embedded in the national psyche.

For example, the fact that Britain is a right-wing, hierarchical, authoritarian and status-obsessed nation where placing the needs of any low-status minority group (such as cyclists) on a par with those of a dominant, higher-status group (such as motorists) goes very much 'against the grain' or is even considered to be 'anti-democratic'. The fact that, ever since the days that the social elite took their cars onto the public's road, the general attitude has been that 'roads are for cars' and other road users must do all they can to 'keep out of the way' or suffer the consequences. The fact that in the UK the car itself and the supposed 'right to drive' are intrinsically associated with concepts such as individuality, 'freedom' status and power, and any attempts to control people's driving behaviour are widely regarded as constituting a 'war on the beleaguered motorist'. Then there is the power of the motor lobby and the pervasive influence of people like Jeremy Clarkson, The Daily Mail, and so forth.

All in all, over 100 years of car-centric and often anti-cyclist attitudes are unlikely be overridden by virtue of a Brit winning the Tour de France.

Much the same question was asked when the GB cycling team 'saved national pride' at the last Olympics. This was followed by the 'revelation' that most of Britain's 'Olympic heroes' nonetheless reported being treated as third class citizens when training, with many of them choosing to train abroad for that very reason. Nothing changed then and I see no reason why things will be any different this time.

Even if Brits hold some sort of respect for Olympic medal winners, and probably to a lesser degree winner of a bike race in the land of 'Cheese-eating surrender monkeys', they are unlikely to associate what they achieve with that guy on a bike in front of them who is 'getting in way' and who they are encouraged to think of as being a 'smug' or 'arrogant' law-breaker and 'muesli muncher' who 'unfairly' doesn't pay 'road tax' can't even afford a car!

Got to agree with this.

Also has the bicycle had the same kind of history here, as it has in other countries?

It is often lauded as the greatest invention as it has allowed those of low income to move to where the money is, thus facilitating the capitilist machine.

Has the ability of the proles to increase their 'power' met with more resentment in Britain?

It's a bit of a nonsense argument that relies on a false dichotomy between cyclists and motorists. The majority of adult cyclists are probably motorists as well, but currently the majority of motorists aren't cyclists, so the argument gets away with it. As more motorists take up cycling the dichotomy will be revealed as false. It's happening already, a TdF yellow jersey could be the impetus for a critical mass of cyclists on the roads - cyclists who are also motorists - that would change current perceptions.

It's an optimistic outlook, maybe, but I'm hopeful.

Anyone that thinks that the dichotomy between cyclist and motorist is natural and pre-ordained should spend some time in Copenhagen or Amsterdam.

TheYorkshireMan

No tA Doctor wrote:

The majority of adult cyclists are probably motorists as well, but currently the majority of motorists aren't cyclists, so the argument gets away with it. As more motorists take up cycling the dichotomy will be revealed as false.

Ending the 'dichotomy' between cyclists and motorists in the UK would demand that vastly more people cycle for everyday utilitarian purposes (rather than as a lifestyle choice) than is currently the case, and as someone who was involved in the attempts to turn Prescott's excellent 'A new deal for transport' white paper into reality over ten years ago, I am sure that the last opportunity to do this has been lost. The following (taken from Claire Corbett's book Car Crime) describes well the current situation, which has remained more or less unchanged for the last 100 years.

From the car's inception, an elite of drivers welcomed the freedom to explore extended horizons; controls were not especially appreciated, and the criminal labels arising from enforcement of the few existing driving laws were vociferously rejected (Emsley 1993: 374). Pleas of 'unfair treatment' were treated seriously in Parliament and by senior police (ibid.), and what emerged was a sense that drivers were being victimised by an overzealous criminal justice system. Traffic penalties, however, were hardly onerous for the well-to-do (ibid.: 366). Rejecting criminalisation for their own 'minor' infractions, the well-off instead perceived car criminals as 'other drivers' such as 'foreign born chauffeurs' (ibid.: 369) and those who stole their cars.

Interestingly, little has changed over the intervening decades. Dangerous drivers are still 'other drivers' (never ourselves), and inappropriate speeds are never our own. Driving 'infractions' are rarely treated as crime, and powerful newspapers, purporting to represent all drivers, still portray 'the poor victimised motorist' (e.g. Daily Mail 15.9.99; Daily Express 5.3.02). Theft of vehicles, their parts and contents still represents the traditional view of car crime. The main difference is that a small car-owning elite has grown into a mass of drivers consisting of most adults. Yet importantly, elitist attitudes still prevail, boosted by the erstwhile stewardship of Mrs Thatcher, who supported a car economy and encouraged autonomy and self-responsibility under neoliberal colours, all of which may have helped legitimate drivers' wishes to decide for themselves how to drive and to use laws as guidelines if they desired.

...Elitist attitudes are so deeply rooted that we hardly question the dominant ideology of the 'car as master' (e.g. Davis 1992). Pedestrians have to avoid the car rather than the other way around, pedestrians have to use unpleasant underpasses to facilitate traffic flow. The widely perceived sacrosanct 'right to drive' has been described by Coward (2001) as 'synonymous with individual freedoms' and 'challenging them is akin to violating human rights'. Objections to cars and traffic offending can be considered prudish (ibid.). This 'car as master' attitude is epitomised by the cult appeal, political incorrectness and machismo of media pundits who regularly derogate 'bad' or 'slow' drivers (those who adhere to speed limits) and applaud high speed (e.g. Clarkson 2000, 2002a, 2002b).

...It is not surprising that so many want to be part of this culture (whether they have licences or not) because drivers are treated - and treat themselves - as superior to other road users.

...The elitism of individual drivers' beliefs in the superiority of their own driving may prove difficult to tackle, as may the elitism of drivers who see themselves as superior to other road users. The attitude shifts required to appreciate that a driving licence is a privilege and not a right, that road safety is for drivers to respect pedestrians as much as it is for pedestrians to respect vehicles, and that lack of intention to do harm when deliberately breaking a traffic law does not absolve all responsibility, may prove elusive in a social climate where victims of car culture and car crime are treated as inconvenient rather than as a major problem.

No tA Doctor wrote:

Anyone that thinks that the dichotomy between cyclist and motorist is natural and pre-ordained should spend some time in Copenhagen or Amsterdam.

This simply reinforces the point I was making, as Denmark and Holland have a history of protecting the interests of minorities and holding egalitarian values in high regard, the very opposite of the UK. (As well as many other English speaking nations such as the USA and Australia.) As such the whole social ethos is conducive to the development of cycling.

TheYorkshireMan

pb21 wrote:

has the bicycle had the same kind of history here, as it has in other countries?

Certainly not in relation to cycle sport, with massed start racing being effectively banned in the UK (with the support of the sports ruling bodies) from 1894 until 1942.

Not that much has changed...

The fourth stage of the Tour of Britain between Rotherham and Bradford was neutralised between mile 46 and 67 after the North Yorkshire Highways Authority refused to give the event permission to race on its roads.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... lised.html