Live blog: Footage of the final kilometre of today’s Vuelta stage (tense); Cyclist rides 30km with abandoned kitten in his jersey; Peter Sagan wheelies up vicious Vuelta climb + more

@HarrogateSpa : Exactly. Clickbait articles such as this to keep the advertisers happy.

@hawkinspeter Hmm... while there is sensible stuff in there it's even better where the design and human nature carries more of the weight than rules or guidance. Speed limits being one; if it was just on the rules that would be a lesser way of ensuring safety than the road / space design. (Of course just changing a number on a sign *does* work to some extent, presumably in part via the "anchoring" effect and "when in Rome"). I'm thinking more of what we have in eg. UK motorway-design-level thought and applying that *. One example would be the Dutch taking the observation that a certain fraction of people will make dangerous overtake no matter the rules, paint or even considerations of their own safety and a muffed overtake can have very severe consequences ... and then simply banning overtaking on some classes of roads (and even bringing in physical barriers some places). Hey presto - a whole class of problems they don't have! (It's not perfect of course, lots of legacy roads there). * Only some classes of vehicles allowed, everyone going the same direction with no crossing traffic or stopping / parking, rumble strips at edges, energy absorbing crash barriers, curved layout to stop people falling asleep...

I liked his graphs.

And yet not three weeks ago you were actively canvassing likes. Good liars need good memories, Nigel.

@chrisonabike - the Highway Code is a good example of fool-tolerant rules. The emphasis is on how to minimise causing danger to others, but also avoiding collisions even if the other road users are being arseholes (e.g. not running over cyclists even if they're blatantly cycling on the wrong side of the road)

Bless you, I didn't realise you place your self-worth on the number of likes you receive on an internet forum. I've never yearned for the approval of others, I'm just satisfied in the knowledge that I've constructed a coherent and noteworthy post. The best one I've done so far was the one I gave with your pipe, ale and suggestion to move to my leafy cul de sac. I have to admit I cheekily read it back to myself a few times and chuckled *every single time*!

Yeah, I think you're right, it did get a bit more "oh yeah? Well what about this?!" latterly. There's a lot more polarising going on. I blame myself. And the unicyclists.

"They want us all locked in our homes...!" "Not all, only some..."

@hawkinspeter fool-tolerant design? Fool-foiling designs sound better but they tend to have unfortunate side-effects - at least when combined with human nature *. "Sustainable Safety" - design expecting mistakes and some rule-breaking eg. corner-cutting - but be *forgiving*. That means while *feedback* is provided (see adverse camber, slightly uneven driving surface etc) favour "everyone gets to their destination safely" over "the rules must be respected even at risk of collateral damage!" The penalty for failure shouldn't be serious injury or death. * Few want to be thought a fool and some may prove it if they believe that assumption was made.

@mdavidford - are those the new 0-minute cities that I've heard so much about?