Gipiemme wheels are back

Given the Murdoch and Rothermere brainwashing latrine is only interested in siphoning off £millions from the Great British sheep, drivers should note on their Daily Fail newsfeed while driving, that consuming this shite is as life-shortening as their spreading waistline and buttocks from sitting in their income-draining PCP Wankpanzer Turbo, going nowhere fast.

@qwerty360 That's exactly what Adrian says normally happens: “It is always busy here, there’s no cycle lane and I always end up filtering through the queue.” Indeed, you can see he's already started filtering through before he hears the police car approaching and moves in behind the black van.

The UK car-addicted culture is perpetuated by council officers and councillors as well as the baying hoards of drivers who demand more public highway to be designed to their wants, while everyone outside the car can get stuffed. #motornormativity

Hmm; Whats the betting the cyclist could filter through the traffic regardless of the police car... (Also shows how badly traffic delays emergency services; I say having kept pace with an ambulance on a blue light run for several miles this morning before it turned off my route (cycle lane next to road it was on, then directly behind it in bus lane...) - Hell could have probably gotten past it (but didn't think racing to beat the ambulance to the bus lane (or deal with drivers doing stupid things getting out of its way) was sensible...) I'm not exactly a racing whippet (~10-12kg overweight + hauling pannier with clothes + work gear...))

Laziness/cheaping out, basically. Because USB-C is bi-directional, any device you connect could be a potential provider of power, a consumer, or neither. Consumers need a particular component to 'advertise' that they are consumers, or a charging device won't start supplying power. USB-A, on the other hand, just supplies power regardless.

Yes - that does look sneaky - feels like the article could do with an update to make that clearer.

I've used this light for 2 years and can absolutely recommend it. Sure it has some weak points, battery life could be better for example, and it's hard to understand why charging only works from a USB-A charger if the light itself uses USB-C. The important stuff they got right, it feels very solid and well designed, you can tell they iterated a lot while prototyping. The light modes are also effective and thoughtfully designed. I've used the optional saddle rail mount with no issues, very nice to have a quarter-turn quick release that just works. For me, it's an innovative and tasteful object which is rare in this category, that also proves a point and works as advertised. The only thing it lacks that I truly wish it had is a brake function.

@AidanR It's not a perfect metric for sure, just trying to find something less biased towards cars than incidents per miles travelled which is a somewhat absurd way of calculating relative dangers, in my opinion, given how much further cars travel for a given time. Using distance, if a driver averaging 60kmh and a cyclist averaging 20kmh both log 100 hours on the road and one incident in that time, cycling becomes one incident per 2000km and motoring one incident per 6000km, so motoring looks three times safer even though we have the same number of incidents in the same amount of time travelled.

@Rendel Harris "Perhaps lethality should be measured as drivers/cyclists found guilty of causing death per chosen metric, rather than simply numbers killed?" Given the filter of the court system that would a) likely only introduce another source of bias and b) mean the cycling numbers had dubious statistical meaning relative to the motoring ones since after removing e-motorbikes (unless we didn't? But even then...) that is ... one or two in the last 5+ years?

@mdavidford You've made me curious so checked: in Devon and Torbay (in common with many councils, apparently), any project under £500,000 can be internally approved by the Corporate Director for Strategy, Performance, and Sustainability, whereas any project costing in excess of £500,000 needs a full cabinet vote. So it looks suspiciously as though there's been a bit of jiggery-pokery with the numbers to avoid full cabinet scrutiny.