Live blog: Halfords launch 'first heated bar grips' on new Carrera bike; Other Peloton ad suggests spinning on Xmas morning; Helyx 'drunk bike' steers from the rear; Infamous 'Peloton Wife' ad; Labour's active travel plans 'could be funded by VED' + more

SNS1938 wrote:

" while Aussie lead-out man Archbold has also signed a two year contract."

Shane William Archbold is a New Zealand professional racing cyclist who currently rides for UCI WorldTeam Bora–Hansgrohe. He competed in the men's omnium at the 2012 Summer Olympics, and won the gold medal in the men's scratch race at the 2014 Commonwealth Games, along with bronze in the men's team pursuit. Wikipedia

 

the Australian constitution still says New Zealand is an Australian state, don’t be surprised if it confuses some people!

Philh68 wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Fuck me, what's with all these negative waves?  Someone offers us something we've all been asking for for the last twenty years and all you can do is whinge?  What's wrong with you?  Are you all DM/Torygraph/Sun readers?

Self sabotaging Britons abound. It’s not like it’s difficult, or new or unproven. The Dutch even provide instructions. Spend €135 for the CROW manual. Do what it says. How hard is that really? You can’t expect change for the better if you oppose it at every step. All progress begins with a decision. Labour made the decision, kudos to them for being decisive.

I've just worked out why some people are so upset about labour's plans and why they can't support them even when they have been demanding exactly that for the past twenty years; they're tories and can't possibly support a good idea from another party.

burtthebike wrote:

I've just worked out why some people are so upset about labour's plans and why they can't support them even when they have been demanding exactly that for the past twenty years; they're tories and can't possibly support a good idea from another party.

A rather predictable response from your good self there Burt, no one could possibly mistake your allegiances.

peted76 wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

I've just worked out why some people are so upset about labour's plans and why they can't support them even when they have been demanding exactly that for the past twenty years; they're tories and can't possibly support a good idea from another party.

A rather predictable response from your good self there Burt, no one could possibly mistake your allegiances.

Predictable?  Certainly, and I make no secret that I support democratic socialism and a better quality of life for all, not increasing the wealth of the already obscenely rich. 

It fits the facts; do you have an alternative explanation?

burtthebike wrote:

I've just worked out why some people are so upset about labour's plans and why they can't support them even when they have been demanding exactly that for the past twenty years; they're tories and can't possibly support a good idea from another party.

partisan politics does us no favours. Never has, never will. But there's more to this, we now have an unhealthy scepticism of politics combined with the relentless negativity that the Internet seems to fuel. It seems people are no longer capable of setting aside their fear of change, their scepticism of the process and their habitual complaining to ask a simple question: is it good policy or not? Because that's all it is - an idea of how to make a better society. It's not legislation, it does not need to be fleshed out in detail, not until they're in a position to deliver on it. It does need the community to respond. Too many good ideas die of apathy on our part. And if you believe it's a good idea, tell your candidates. All of them, no matter which ideology they are aligned to. You never  know, in the event of a minority government they could be the decider of it happening or not.

There is another aspect of this that isn't being understood - politicians like big announcements and big projects because it gives them something to brag about. Cycling infra is neglected because it is comparatively cheap, and because we don't think big enough. We accept the crumbs rather than demand a seat at the banquet. What Labour have done is turn that into a big scale project, for the kind of money that gets attention. Perhaps for the first time they have shown what it takes to be taken seriously. That itself is progress.

ex_terra wrote:

You have to admire Labour's chutzpah:

 

"Cycling slashes carbon emissions, tackles air pollution,"

 

that will be the very air pollution caused by Gordon Brown making a major government push to accelerate the adoption of diesel cars in order to meet carbon reduction goals. The same cars that have clogged the air we breathe with particulates.

 

It's the same with spending - they are railing against "austerity" but increased government debt by hundreds of billions even before the bank bailouts - which now costs the country around £70b a year in interest payments. Yet they want to borrow more even though we've yet to repay a single £ of what was borrowed last time round.

 

And it's the same with "privatisation" of the NHS. It's one of their biggest political campaigns despite the fact the % of NHS spend spent on private providers has changed very little in the 9 years since they left office - with most of the NHS saddled with  crippling PFI payments that were contracted whilst Labour were last in power.

Don't be pointing out facts to labour supporters, they don't like it up em!

Labour led councils have done precisely the same amount as Conservative councils with regards to increasing cycle safety, to making inroads into forcing motorists out of cars by taking away their nice flat/direct routes that they can do at speed, to forcing schools to not put discriminatory rules in the way of kids wanting to cycle, to allowing parents to park up outside schools, to providing ever more car parking and no facilities on new developments both residential, lesiure and business.

Basically the square root of F@@@ ALL!

If people think spending £7Bn on useless carp is a good thing then I would respectfully disagree, it's worse than spending nothing at all.

ex_terra wrote:

You have to admire Labour's chutzpah:

 

"Cycling slashes carbon emissions, tackles air pollution,"

 

that will be the very air pollution caused by Gordon Brown making a major government push to accelerate the adoption of diesel cars in order to meet carbon reduction goals. The same cars that have clogged the air we breathe with particulates.

 

It's the same with spending - they are railing against "austerity" but increased government debt by hundreds of billions even before the bank bailouts - which now costs the country around £70b a year in interest payments. Yet they want to borrow more even though we've yet to repay a single £ of what was borrowed last time round.

 

And it's the same with "privatisation" of the NHS. It's one of their biggest political campaigns despite the fact the % of NHS spend spent on private providers has changed very little in the 9 years since they left office - with most of the NHS saddled with  crippling PFI payments that were contracted whilst Labour were last in power.

Fuck me, what's with all these negative waves?  Someone offers us something we've all been asking for for the last twenty years and all you can do is whinge?  What's wrong with you?  Are you all DM/Torygraph/Sun readers?

Last I read 160 or so economists had looked at labour's plans and said they were credible and the amount that they are proposing to borrow would bring us up to the European average, so not exactly reckless or financially crazy.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

This time around there's very little to choose between the 2 main contenders

Did you read Laura Laker's bike blog in the Guardian? Tories to spend £1.18 per head per year on cycling, and Labour £50.

Ok, there are other issues people vote on, there may be questions about how realistic Labour's promises are, and tactical voting will play a role in many constituencies. But on the facts, I don't see how you can say there's no difference between Tory and Labour.

Also, we can pretty much guarantee that the Tories are in business to just get as much money as possible to their pals and stuff everyone else.

We don't know what Labour under Corbyn would be like - maybe less wars than under Tony Blair.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

...

Ok, there are other issues people vote on, there may be questions about how realistic Labour's promises are, and tactical voting will play a role in many constituencies. But on the facts, I don't see how you can say there's no difference between Tory and Labour.

...but the main problem is that there are very few facts.  Just because a load of politicians make a load of promises doesn't make them facts.  Take away all the unbelievable student politics stuff (fix everything by throwing a load of (someone else's) money at it) and we are not left with much from anyone, same as usual.  Whoever you vote for, the government always wins.

Bobbinogs wrote:

HarrogateSpa wrote:

...

Ok, there are other issues people vote on, there may be questions about how realistic Labour's promises are, and tactical voting will play a role in many constituencies. But on the facts, I don't see how you can say there's no difference between Tory and Labour.

...but the main problem is that there are very few facts.  Just because a load of politicians make a load of promises doesn't make them facts.  Take away all the unbelievable student politics stuff (fix everything by throwing a load of (someone else's) money at it) and we are not left with much from anyone, same as usual.  Whoever you vote for, the government always wins.

Oh there are facts, like the fact that the tories have been saying how fantastic cycling is for the past ten years and have promised time after time to fund it properly, but they haven't, they've just built more roads with the odd crumb for cycling.  Their Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy is a fraud, ably summed up by CUK as "very little strategy and even less investment."

HarrogateSpa wrote:

This time around there's very little to choose between the 2 main contenders

Did you read Laura Laker's bike blog in the Guardian? Tories to spend £1.18 per head per year on cycling, and Labour £50.

Ok, there are other issues people vote on, there may be questions about how realistic Labour's promises are, and tactical voting will play a role in many constituencies. But on the facts, I don't see how you can say there's no difference between Tory and Labour.

Although, as mentioned in the other thread on this topic, there is almost nothing in their manifesto about cycling.

burtthebike wrote:

This proposal is the biggest, best suggestion about transport since John Prescott's white paper, with massive benefits for cyclists, so I'm somewhat at a loss at the rather negative reception from some people.  Do they really not want improvements for cyclists or is there some other reason they denigrate the most progressive idea for twenty years?  I just don't understand their response.

From my perspective, if the announcement is taken at face value without context, it's fantastic! The problem is that in fact it's just as fantastical as believing Miguel Indurain won the TdF five times clean.

Zoom into the detail and it's clear there isn't any, just a promise of a wad of cash and a soundbite about 'active travel', which I take to mean that it's not a plan with substance which would actually help us change how we travel,  like someone else said, it'll probably mean lots more cyclists dismount signs and painted white lines. 

However when you zoom out at the larger raft of promises being made by that Party it's clear that it's literally ridiculous, fix the NHS, no problem here's some cash, tax the rich give to the poor, robin hood did it, re-nationalise the trains yeah why not, they ran perfectly in the 70's and unions were ace to deal with, climate change - don't worry, completed it mate and we'll reduce the average energy bill by £400 per household.. nationalise buses and give free bus travel for under 25's, re-open 3000 cancelled bus routes, railways - totally all of it in fact lets take HS2 to Scotland, public sector workers lets give em all a payrise 5% for starters for everyone, more nurses and doctors, yep we'll sort that out no problem, we'll just pay higher wages to attract the talent from overseas and start training up teenagers, social care's a problem we'll fix that by paying care workers more and means test all the old people to make sure that we're not taxing the wrong types, doesn't matter means testing costs loads, we've got an access to Scrooge McDucks vault at the moment.

I could go on.. but I think my point it there, just in case.. In the words of the great(sic) Lord Voldemort "I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry you can't dream big and I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles.."

burtthebike wrote:

This proposal is the biggest, best suggestion about transport since John Prescott's white paper, with massive benefits for cyclists, so I'm somewhat at a loss at the rather negative reception from some people.  Do they really not want improvements for cyclists or is there some other reason they denigrate the most progressive idea for twenty years?  I just don't understand their response.

Because I dont believe a guy in a red suit with a white beard really does come down my chimney at Christmas and brings me all my presents for free.

It's not a credible plan,from a bunch of politicians who arent fiscally credible and are just publishing a bunch of spending stuff hoping some of it sticks in your mind when you cast your vote.

Awavey wrote:

It's not a credible plan,from a bunch of politicians who arent fiscally credible and are just publishing a bunch of spending stuff hoping some of it sticks in your mind when you cast your vote.

You do realise independent financial experts have analysed labour proposals and say the figures stack up?  You can't constantly look back at what has happened with labour or anyone else, all you can do is look at what is currently happening.  Otherwise they are unelectable, which may well be, in which case you've got to go start your own party eh. One thing is for sure, there hasn't been a labour like current labour for a very long time. And one thing the world needs right now is current labour ideology.

visionset wrote:

You do realise independent financial experts have analysed labour proposals and say the figures stack up? 

Well, sort of.  Like most election stuff.  All budget predictions are made on a number of assumptions which generally assume current behaviour and factors are unaffected by the proposals or anything else.  Hence, someone will say "Company X declares £50k of profift so I will increase tax by 1% and get an additional 1% of that £50k".  This overlooks the fact that Company X might decide enough is enough and move its registered HO somewhere else, simply get a better tax advisor...or that general tax hikes everywhere else mean that people have less to spend on Company X so it makes less profit and pays less tax.  In the real world things are a little more complex than the average student bar and the number of uncontrollable external factors is one of the main reasons why all politicians fail to meet our expectations, unless our expectations are low enough.

visionset wrote:

​And one thing the world needs right now is current labour ideology.

Well, possibly...possibly not 

visionset wrote:

Awavey wrote:

It's not a credible plan,from a bunch of politicians who arent fiscally credible and are just publishing a bunch of spending stuff hoping some of it sticks in your mind when you cast your vote.

 

You do realise independent financial experts have analysed labour proposals and say the figures stack up?  .

Well the institute of fiscal studies labelled Labours spending plans as not credible,as they did the Tories plans as well,so I guess we can all cite independent experts thesedays.

Mungecrundle wrote:

The problem is that the money will not be entirely raised from increased VED, not unless they double it if the figures in the story are taken at face value, it will be taken from the road budget in general most of which is paid for in general taxation anyway. What this will mean in reality is that vast sums will disappear into the bottomless pit of public transport and spaffed up the wall paying for public planning consultations. At best, as far as us cyclists are concerned, we might see more of the ridiculously expensive, questionably useful cycle infrastructure designed by a committee of halfwits who so obviously don't know one end of a bicycle from a knitted bobble hat. Outside of this, road budgets will be cut resulting in worse potholes, fewer bypasses to ease local traffic, more 4x4 urban monsters bought because the roads are so crap and generally our lives will be made more miserable.

I don't quite understand your assertion that it would be a problem because some of the money isn't directly from VED.  Money for roads currently doesn't come from VED, but vast sums disappear into various bottomless pits anyway, so no change.

Neither do I agree with your assertion that it would all be wasted on bad infrastructure; there is some good stuff and there is no reason why we can't learn from Denmark and Holland, and indeed, this is exactly what labour are proposing.

Cutting the road building budget, not the maintenance budget, will be massively beneficial, as the only effect of new roads is to create more traffic.  The aim is to change the emphasis from predict and provide for motor traffic to modal change to public transport, cycling and walking, which will be massively beneficial to everyone.

Mungecrundle wrote:

The problem is that the money will not be entirely raised from increased VED, not unless they double it if the figures in the story are taken at face value, it will be taken from the road budget in general most of which is paid for in general taxation anyway. What this will mean in reality is that vast sums will disappear into the bottomless pit of public transport and spaffed up the wall paying for public planning consultations. At best, as far as us cyclists are concerned, we might see more of the ridiculously expensive, questionably useful cycle infrastructure designed by a committee of halfwits who so obviously don't know one end of a bicycle from a knitted bobble hat. Outside of this, road budgets will be cut resulting in worse potholes, fewer bypasses to ease local traffic, more 4x4 urban monsters bought because the roads are so crap and generally our lives will be made more miserable.

It seems you've given up on a better future already.

The scenario you paint is possible (and given what's happened in the past in this country, you are forgiven for thinking so), but it doesn't have to be like this.

I think the UK can achieve what other countries have managed to do, if the right decisions are made.

Mungecrundle wrote:

The problem is that the money will not be entirely raised from increased VED, not unless they double it if the figures in the story are taken at face value, it will be taken from the road budget in general most of which is paid for in general taxation anyway. What this will mean in reality is that vast sums will disappear into the bottomless pit of public transport and spaffed up the wall paying for public planning consultations. At best, as far as us cyclists are concerned, we might see more of the ridiculously expensive, questionably useful cycle infrastructure designed by a committee of halfwits who so obviously don't know one end of a bicycle from a knitted bobble hat. Outside of this, road budgets will be cut resulting in worse potholes, fewer bypasses to ease local traffic, more 4x4 urban monsters bought because the roads are so crap and generally our lives will be made more miserable.

It would appear that you are arguing that it's not worth doing a good thing because it will be done poorly. If we applied that logic then nothing good would ever be done. I do sympathise with your cynisism but the answer is to hold those who govern us to account. 

Bypasses rarely ease loca traffic - then generally increase car usage. 

iandusud wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

The problem is that the money will not be entirely raised from increased VED, not unless they double it if the figures in the story are taken at face value, it will be taken from the road budget in general most of which is paid for in general taxation anyway. What this will mean in reality is that vast sums will disappear into the bottomless pit of public transport and spaffed up the wall paying for public planning consultations. At best, as far as us cyclists are concerned, we might see more of the ridiculously expensive, questionably useful cycle infrastructure designed by a committee of halfwits who so obviously don't know one end of a bicycle from a knitted bobble hat. Outside of this, road budgets will be cut resulting in worse potholes, fewer bypasses to ease local traffic, more 4x4 urban monsters bought because the roads are so crap and generally our lives will be made more miserable.

It would appear that you are arguing that it's not worth doing a good thing because it will be done poorly. If we applied that logic then nothing good would ever be done. I do sympathise with your cynisism but the answer is to hold those who govern us to account. 

Bypasses rarely ease loca traffic - then generally increase car usage. 

I tried holding them to account but old senile people keep voting the Tories in (even despite the Tories trying to kill them off by ransacking the NHS).