Live blog: Ultra runner to run marathon in every US state and cycle in between, Quick-Step Floors try their hand at football (with mixed results), Dani Rowe takes up running after cycling retirement (and breaks foot), Team Sky's open letter to fans

brooksby wrote:

Wtf is the photo with the beardy trucker used to illustrate this live blog?

apparently in some states in the US it's legal to wear a trucker hat even if you're not actually a trucker!

What you're looking at is a still from Spatchcock's 'Vertigo', in which a famous bearded cyclist, vertiginous from too much spinning, has entered a nightmarish trance in which he finds himself forced to run long distances in order to get away from a crowd of people trying to hand him empty Jiffy bags.

ConcordeCX wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Wtf is the photo with the beardy trucker used to illustrate this live blog?

apparently in some states in the US it's legal to wear a trucker hat even if you're not actually a trucker!

What you're looking at is a still from Spatchcock's 'Vertigo', in which a famous bearded cyclist, vertiginous from too much spinning, has entered a nightmarish trance in which he finds himself forced to run long distances in order to get away from a crowd of people trying to hand him empty Jiffy bags.

OMG! Really?  That's disgusting... 

(Also, given how unionised parts of Merica are, I'm surprised that isn't a criminal offence or something...).

MarsFlyer wrote:

From the conclusion of the red light paper:

"It should be noted, however, that, despite the fact that we observed far more than 1000 cases of red light running, we did not observe a single safety critical situation."

Personally I only go through a red light on junctions that have a safe left filter, and pedestrians always take priority.

You're right. I saw loads of cars speeding last week but didn't see a single safety critical situation. On that basis I've decided it's safe to speed in my car whenever I think it's safe to do so.

I've also seen dozens of close pass videos on this site and not a single one that I've seen has caused an injury, so I've decided that close passing is OK too - as long as I think it's safe.

I'm off to observe some more stuff so I can decide which rules it's OK for me to break as long as I decide it's OK.

A_Moses wrote:

MarsFlyer wrote:

From the conclusion of the red light paper:

"It should be noted, however, that, despite the fact that we observed far more than 1000 cases of red light running, we did not observe a single safety critical situation."

Personally I only go through a red light on junctions that have a safe left filter, and pedestrians always take priority.

You're right. I saw loads of cars speeding last week but didn't see a single safety critical situation. On that basis I've decided it's safe to speed in my car whenever I think it's safe to do so. I've also seen dozens of close pass videos on this site and not a single one that I've seen has caused an injury, so I've decided that close passing is OK too - as long as I think it's safe. I'm off to observe some more stuff so I can decide which rules it's OK for me to break as long as I decide it's OK.

As long as you bear in mind whether the "risk" would be to yourself or whether it'd be others that would be endangered.

A_Moses wrote:

MarsFlyer wrote:

From the conclusion of the red light paper:

"It should be noted, however, that, despite the fact that we observed far more than 1000 cases of red light running, we did not observe a single safety critical situation."

Personally I only go through a red light on junctions that have a safe left filter, and pedestrians always take priority.

You're right. I saw loads of cars speeding last week but didn't see a single safety critical situation. On that basis I've decided it's safe to speed in my car whenever I think it's safe to do so. I've also seen dozens of close pass videos on this site and not a single one that I've seen has caused an injury, so I've decided that close passing is OK too - as long as I think it's safe. I'm off to observe some more stuff so I can decide which rules it's OK for me to break as long as I decide it's OK.

A close pass by a motorvehicle induces fear in the mind of the recipient, that is unlawful as it is a common assault.

Maybe you need to also understand that a cyclist going through a red has vastly lesser chance of an incident that harms others, this is well known, unlike motorists speeding and going through light systems which do, and at great regularity, again hence the numbers of deaths and serious injuries caused by exactly those actions. people on bikes going at any speed or transgressing a motorvehicle 'law' rarely ever harm others.

We also know that pedestrians cause more harm to themselves than people on bikes do despite all the bullshit spouted, this is directly from the governments own review earlier this year which proved that people on foot were wholly at fault for pedestrian deaths 50% more than cyclists when they were in collision with each other. Four deaths in 7 years (incl Alliston which is a debatable cyclist at fault case IMHO) tells you all you need to know and why rules for motors are not always appropriate for people on one of the safest modes of transport, in terms of causing death of pedestrians cyclists are safer than those walking, government facts not opinion.

But you carry on failing to understand the massive difference between people operating motorvehicles and people riding cycles!

janusz0 wrote:

> A study confirms common sense about why some cyclists sometimes avoid stopping at some red lights. After all, they weren't needed until motor vehicles became common. I noticed this when I arrived in Hanoi in 1994. Looking out of my window I saw a kerb to kerb torrent of cyclists (and a fair number of cargo rickshaws). So, I unwrapped my bicycle, checked that it was undamaged, pumped up the tyres and headed out with my cycling companion to see what it was like. Well, as long as you matched speed with everyone else, it was much easier than walking in a crowded street. I was amazed at how easily one could negotiate intersections when all the traffic flowed so fluidly, adjusting speed, stopping and restarting easily. All you needed to do was ease your way to one side of the flow or stay in the middle. Nobody except the rickshaw riders needed to signal, because their intentions were clear and everyone was prepared to give way. It was like being a fish in a school in the Mighty Mekong, negotiating the 4,000 Islands of Laos. All you needed to do was concentrate on your route and let everything flow. What bliss! By the late 90s it was all breaking down as there were significant numbers of motor vehicles. I dread to think what it's like now. Our towns and cities could be like that, if we could just remove large fast vehicles from the streets . That's the problem - they're too big and powerful for our streets. In a typical street where you can get 8 or more cyclists side by side, there's only space for two cars across and the cars can't follow informal lanes. Limiting all traffic to 12 or 15 mph would help, but acceleration and braking would also need to be matched to human powered vehicles. So yes, we need to get rid of the traffic lights and the vehicles that need them. TL;DR? - I've seen the future and it works.

This is where we fail in the UK. We've all read the problems of obstinate pedestrians that block cycle/mixed use paths or other cyclists who mgif etc. We're not wired up that way.

don simon fbpe wrote:

janusz0 wrote:

> A study confirms common sense about why some cyclists sometimes avoid stopping at some red lights. After all, they weren't needed until motor vehicles became common. I noticed this when I arrived in Hanoi in 1994. Looking out of my window I saw a kerb to kerb torrent of cyclists (and a fair number of cargo rickshaws). So, I unwrapped my bicycle, checked that it was undamaged, pumped up the tyres and headed out with my cycling companion to see what it was like. Well, as long as you matched speed with everyone else, it was much easier than walking in a crowded street. I was amazed at how easily one could negotiate intersections when all the traffic flowed so fluidly, adjusting speed, stopping and restarting easily. All you needed to do was ease your way to one side of the flow or stay in the middle. Nobody except the rickshaw riders needed to signal, because their intentions were clear and everyone was prepared to give way. It was like being a fish in a school in the Mighty Mekong, negotiating the 4,000 Islands of Laos. All you needed to do was concentrate on your route and let everything flow. What bliss! By the late 90s it was all breaking down as there were significant numbers of motor vehicles. I dread to think what it's like now. Our towns and cities could be like that, if we could just remove large fast vehicles from the streets . That's the problem - they're too big and powerful for our streets. In a typical street where you can get 8 or more cyclists side by side, there's only space for two cars across and the cars can't follow informal lanes. Limiting all traffic to 12 or 15 mph would help, but acceleration and braking would also need to be matched to human powered vehicles. So yes, we need to get rid of the traffic lights and the vehicles that need them. TL;DR? - I've seen the future and it works.

This is where we fail in the UK. We've all read the problems of obstinate pedestrians that block cycle/mixed use paths or other cyclists who mgif etc. We're not wired up that way.

you highlight 'everyone was prepared to give way', then criticise 'cyclists who mgif', which is not logical. The person who should give way is the one the other cyclist is trying to pass.

MGIF is also the wrong way to characterise this. In my case it's a matter of why should my pace be dictated by the slowest person in this lane, who will not keep to the left so that I, and others, can pass safely.

Personally I don't care if I'm in front or not as long as I'm the one setting my pace, not some random stranger. There's always someone who wants to go faster, and that's their prerogative, so if you're not passing someone, keep left.

ConcordeCX wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

janusz0 wrote:

> A study confirms common sense about why some cyclists sometimes avoid stopping at some red lights. After all, they weren't needed until motor vehicles became common. I noticed this when I arrived in Hanoi in 1994. Looking out of my window I saw a kerb to kerb torrent of cyclists (and a fair number of cargo rickshaws). So, I unwrapped my bicycle, checked that it was undamaged, pumped up the tyres and headed out with my cycling companion to see what it was like. Well, as long as you matched speed with everyone else, it was much easier than walking in a crowded street. I was amazed at how easily one could negotiate intersections when all the traffic flowed so fluidly, adjusting speed, stopping and restarting easily. All you needed to do was ease your way to one side of the flow or stay in the middle. Nobody except the rickshaw riders needed to signal, because their intentions were clear and everyone was prepared to give way. It was like being a fish in a school in the Mighty Mekong, negotiating the 4,000 Islands of Laos. All you needed to do was concentrate on your route and let everything flow. What bliss! By the late 90s it was all breaking down as there were significant numbers of motor vehicles. I dread to think what it's like now. Our towns and cities could be like that, if we could just remove large fast vehicles from the streets . That's the problem - they're too big and powerful for our streets. In a typical street where you can get 8 or more cyclists side by side, there's only space for two cars across and the cars can't follow informal lanes. Limiting all traffic to 12 or 15 mph would help, but acceleration and braking would also need to be matched to human powered vehicles. So yes, we need to get rid of the traffic lights and the vehicles that need them. TL;DR? - I've seen the future and it works.

This is where we fail in the UK. We've all read the problems of obstinate pedestrians that block cycle/mixed use paths or other cyclists who mgif etc. We're not wired up that way.

you highlight 'everyone was prepared to give way', then criticise 'cyclists who mgif', which is not logical. The person who should give way is the one the other cyclist is trying to pass.

MGIF is also the wrong way to characterise this. In my case it's a matter of why should my pace be dictated by the slowest person in this lane, who will not keep to the left so that I, and others, can pass safely.

Personally I don't care if I'm in front or not as long as I'm the one setting my pace, not some random stranger. There's always someone who wants to go faster, and that's their prerogative, so if you're not passing someone, keep left.

Why have you changed what I said to fit your response? Go back to MGIF as being the correct term and rewrite the response.

janusz0 wrote:

> A study confirms common sense about why some cyclists sometimes avoid stopping at some red lights. After all, they weren't needed until motor vehicles became common. I noticed this when I arrived in Hanoi in 1994. Looking out of my window I saw a kerb to kerb torrent of cyclists (and a fair number of cargo rickshaws). So, I unwrapped my bicycle, checked that it was undamaged, pumped up the tyres and headed out with my cycling companion to see what it was like. Well, as long as you matched speed with everyone else, it was much easier than walking in a crowded street. I was amazed at how easily one could negotiate intersections when all the traffic flowed so fluidly, adjusting speed, stopping and restarting easily. All you needed to do was ease your way to one side of the flow or stay in the middle. Nobody except the rickshaw riders needed to signal, because their intentions were clear and everyone was prepared to give way. It was like being a fish in a school in the Mighty Mekong, negotiating the 4,000 Islands of Laos. All you needed to do was concentrate on your route and let everything flow. What bliss! By the late 90s it was all breaking down as there were significant numbers of motor vehicles. I dread to think what it's like now. Our towns and cities could be like that, if we could just remove large fast vehicles from the streets . That's the problem - they're too big and powerful for our streets. In a typical street where you can get 8 or more cyclists side by side, there's only space for two cars across and the cars can't follow informal lanes. Limiting all traffic to 12 or 15 mph would help, but acceleration and braking would also need to be matched to human powered vehicles. So yes, we need to get rid of the traffic lights and the vehicles that need them. TL;DR? - I've seen the future and it works.

I read it and agree, I keep saying and I will keep on saying it, segregated cycle lanes are not the absolute solution for mass cycling, it doesn't even work fully in NL - 74% of people do not transport themselves around by bike which is far worse than the UK best in the late 40s/early 50s when there was next to zero cycle lanes of any kind. Segregated has downsides that are ignored when it comes to criss crossing motorvehicle lanes (over 60 deaths a year at these specific intersections despite priority).

Remove the killing machines from the road network (as much as is possible) especially in built up areas and give back the highway to people on foot or cycle, wheelchair or even equine and force the motorists to go the long way around to get across town on narrow segregated lanes that stop start and don't actually go anywhere and are not safe at anything but crawling along speeds. This is pretty much what governments do when they build all cycle infra,even the Dutch force people who use cycles to go the long way around to get from A-B comparative to motorists.

don simon fbpe wrote:

I assume Martha is from Yorkshire.

Quite possibly. I am, and it reads aloud much better when tha talks proper and not reyt posh like ay av'ter in my professional capacity 

tigersnapper wrote:

'Breaks' foot, 'heel' bone!!!  Or did her foot stop and then cure itself?

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a quay and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
It's rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
It's letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

(Martha Snow "Spell Checquer")