“Making America Beautiful Again”: New Trump order could open up National Parks for e-bikers, Lime hits 1 million journeys in the West Mids + more

Pretty impressive stuff from Axel Laurance there - from sliding along prone on the tarmac to back up on his feet all in the one movement. Shame he didn't manage to land it back on the bike again for the full effect, but good going nonetheless.

This has always happened in politics. It's just easier to find out about it now.

@Kadinkski Why not go full H2G2 and bring out peril-sensitive sunglasses - they could help people develop a relaxed attitude to danger?

It's not the cycling that is the hazardous bit, it is the car drivers knocking you off with 2 tonnes of steel. The Dutch manage to survive without helmets because it's normal. Assuming cars must be the dominant form of transport is the problem.

@ajuk.uk@gmail.com I'd also note that you seem to ignore that simply changing the numbers on a sign does "work". It does bring average speeds down and there are fewer consequences. I'm assuming you would welcome fewer deaths and injuries - but perhaps you think that's overstated / think that the "principle" is more important? Or you think that's a price worth paying for some other reason / "just one of those things"? I think measurable "reduced average speed" leading to things like measurable "reduced KSIs" is an improvement and will gladly take it * - until we get round to rebuilding the roads / adding a lot more traffic police / making humans "better" somehow (increasingly unlikely outcomes)... You seem to differ here - is that fair? Is that because "respect for the law" / avoiding people getting used to breaking the law is an axiom? Or just the *most* important thing? If so is that because "it's a slippery slope" and once "respect" has lost you feel that *all* bets are off? While things like "belief" and "respect" clearly are important, I would disagree that in this instance "respect for the law" is *the* most important aspect. People have been breaking any law I can think of for as long as I can remember. But "it's complicated" - the numbers who do so vary immensely. Some laws are broken by many if not all, some of the time - but even then people may not completely ignore them. Because of this complex interplay between human behaviour, law, etc. I am less worried that "5mph over the speed limit and next they'll be 10mph and ignoring the lights". Especially since in some environments the "respect for the law" has been observed in the breach for time. I'll take "25 in a 20" over "32mph in a 30mph limit" while acknowledging that where we would want a 20mph limit the goal is to have people going at *most* 20mph. (And maybe in e.g. a car park 20mph is far too high anyway?) * I do have an ulterior motive - I would also like to see less motor traffic in urban environments and what is there being less obtrusive / noisy - and I think lower speeds help that.

I'd be interested if they could see a couple of hours ahead and tell me when I'm going to run out of energy half an hour from home, so I can cut the ride short.

@ajuk.uk@gmail.com Lots of points there - can only pick a couple. Hmm... basing road safety principles on our busy modern roads on what applied in the 1930s? Yet it sounds like you favour the 1936 version because "better than 1930". Can we not do better than that? Where I think we agree: that the *better* way of setting the speed limit is to modify the road design. And obviously that sometimes levels of compliance are sometimes extremely poor. It varies - but in fact I think the situation you describe in your last paragraph has largely come to pass - effectively speeding (in some ways) *has* become socially normalised already! It must have, because such high percentages do it! And I don't think that's something new. It likely has at least as much to do with "risk of getting caught" combined with the consequences. Of course society's view of speeding / those who speed is also involved. Where we differ - I would question the whole "goal is identifying genuinely dangerous drivers" idea. (How is that defined?). Why? I am not convinced that is in fact what our system does (even if you feel it is or should be set up to do so). Or rather - the way we do it is extremely ineffective. In practice it's reactive policing and we determine they're dangerous because after lots of "minor offences" they kept playing the odds and killed someone in such an egregious way that their lawyer can't convince other drivers that it's just "one of those things". Of course it's open to you to argue that's a problem of success - we already have reduced offending to very low levels compared with how it was...

I've been working on some glasses with an overlay that sees up to 5 seconds ahead. Idea is to warn of upcoming collision or hazard. Have developed a working software model using AI, but I'm struggling with the product design aspect - like how to get this into the glasses but in a way that doesn't distract the rider. Maybe it only appears when an imminent collision is identified? I'm kind of looking for help with developing the product - have sent PoCs to Smith, oakley, and Apple but no response - I'm excellent with the tech/software, but not partnerships or product development. Will be doing a kickstarter but let me know if anyone is interested in chat first and potentially coming onboard. Could be a complete gamechanger!

I think modern politicians need a different skillset to succeed than earlier generations. Obviously there's a lot of overlap, but the (social) media environment is now such that politicians need to always be in campaign-mode to some degree, at the expense of time spent getting to grips with their brief and governing.

@mctrials23 Yes, all of that and especially (I'm sure you meant this under the training understanding/advancements) huge blocks of altitude training which effectively legally simulates doping with EPO.