Contador wins Vuelta to seal place in history and give his team a potential problem

In his closing speech to jurors on Tuesday, Jaime Hamilton KC, defending, said: "You are likely to hold Simon Richardson in contempt. That contempt may well manifest itself in a loathing of Simon Richardson and, in fairness, you are probably right to. Because it is right that we acknowledge it was the actions of Simon Richardson that led to the death of Michael Mullins. Not only is he responsible for the death of Michael Mullins, he acted in the most selfish of ways with one thought in his mind – himself. But that does not make him guilty of the homicide offences on this indictment." (emphasis mine) what a piece of shit.

@mctrials23 yeah ... but that's when we look at places like car parks and conclude that in fact 10 or even 5mph does in fact make a lot of sense!

@Mr Blackbird where can I find photos of this study? Asking for a friend.

@Gd29 I was waiting for the classic "why don't we just ban driving completely by reducing the speed limit to 5mph or 0!" argument and here it is. The statistics are very clear on the benefits of reducing the speed limit from 30-20mph. It doesn't remove bad driving but it mitigates the damage. It also makes fuck all difference to journey times. Everything with driving is risk vs reward. Sure, dropping it to 10mph would save a lot more people but it would make travel by car ridiculous and have minimal benefit vs 20mph. The reward wouldn't be worth the cost.

@Gd29 "Speed limits are an ineffective tool when the problem is drivers not driving in an appropriate manner for the conditions and environment. Those drivers weren’t following the speed limit and/or paying sufficient attention anyway!" That is a question, not an assertion. What are the relative numbers of drivers who are eg. "don't care" criminals who may never have taken a test or are happy to take life, how many are "criminally negligent" eg. may have a licence and not intend to break the law regardless, but just aren't fussed about basic safe driving (maybe regularly drive while tired, never slow down when conditions require), how many are just normal humans (who occasionally make unfathomable mistakes)? What are the relative rates of collisions? What are the casualty outcomes? What effect does simply changing a number on a sign have? If any, why? (There's the psychological "anchoring effect", if 70% of people *are* below the limit does that slow down others, do the "don't cares" maybe just overtake dangerously (but would they anyway? ) ) etc. Reduced speed is a mitigation in that it leads to better outcomes in collisions, that's a known I believe. IIRC there's also agreement that it can mean that fewer collisions happen as there's more time to react. "If that is the problem and you don’t deal with it, but you want to keep reducing injuries/fatalities, you have to keep dropping speed limits until you prohibit road use entirely" "If" (plus as noted other safety measures are available)

@Rendel Harris - I think that driver must live near me.

@Gd29 it's good to "point out potential abuse of stats - and for "keeping it concise for the public" no doubt some measure of "lies, damn lies and statistics" applies. But unless you have your own analysis / evidence, this may sound like a "just asking questions!" rhetorical tactic.

@Gd29 exactly what variables / controlled experiments would suffice to convince you, and then how would you believe that would still hold in "real world" situations? We all know there are excellent ways to stop motoring-related KSIs - one being stop humans operating vehicles) but that isn't normally seen as realistic. Then there's another "remove the hazard" approach eg. completely isolate motorists from vulnerable road users (and "footways" alone might not be sufficient, as more people are killed there most years by drivers than eg. by cyclists in total, although that fact doesn't say much ). Though that by itself doesn't address motorists killing themselves / other motorists. Currently the UK - like many countries - is mostly doing a "remove the vulnerable road users" approach, partly by design but mostly indirectly by prioritising convenience for motoring (including journey time, which is seen to involve higher speeds).

Do you really need an AI tool to tell you that 80% of a cyclist's drag is the rider or that getting in a more streamlined position you'll reduce drag etc.? Fabulous for the professional riders who use this site but for the rest of us our money would be better spent on yoga or pilates classes to help you hold a more streamlined position in the first place.

Of course drivers need to be responsible and take care but we are in danger of getting a bit high and mighty when police raise issues like this. Since the clocks went back last weekend, I have been commuting home this week in the dark for the first time this year. I am gobsmacked by the number of cyclists I see who have no lights and no reflective gear, often with no helmets either. It's common sense to take precautions and we've got our head in the sand if we pretend all cyclists are taking appropriate steps to protect themselves and others.