“Just build bike lanes”: Autonomous gondola pods are “here to revolutionise transport” — but not everybody’s convinced; Shedgate 2: Cyclist forced to dismantle “beautiful” bike shed; Worrying drink driving figures; Ineos Hotspur? + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Shedgate 2: Cyclist forced to dismantle "beautiful" bike shed
The Salisbury Journal reports a resident has been ordered to dismantle his “beautiful bespoke wooden bike shed” following complaints from neighbours and an unsuccessful planning application.
Nick Arnold told the Journal, who have pictures of the shed in their coverage, he built the £2,000 shed “in good faith” as he had “nowhere to store our bikes” but now will be forced to “pay someone to dismantle it”.
The city council described the structure as “unsightly”, with neighbours branding it an “eyesore” and “poorly integrated with the house” during the planning application.
Built by a professional carpenter the shed was, Mr Arnold said, “sustainable and environmentally friendly but we’ve been told it’s not in keeping with the rest of the house”.
We’ve been here before…
While the latest ‘shedgate’ protagonist doesn’t intend to appeal the decision, last May we covered the story of a family from Leicester who were finally granted planning approval for their similar bike storage shed.
That decision came after the story gained widespread coverage and even the Mayor of Leicester expressed support for the family, saying the city council’s planning officers “got it wrong”.
Shortest day of the year
It’s the shortest day of the year, which is an open invitation to achieve the least possible; an invitation I have readily accepted.
— Ned Boulting (@nedboulting) December 21, 2022
On the plus side we’re on the way back to those long summer evenings… just three months of indoor training to go…
Tottenham Hotspur announce the Ineos Grenadier as Official 4x4 Vehicle Partner
So, the supposed Manchester United-supporting billionaire who was confusingly interested in buying Chelsea now pumps money into Tottenham Hotspur through a ‘4×4 Vehicle Partner’ (because every top sports team needs one of them)…
It’s almost like Sir Jim Ratcliffe ain’t a football fan and cares more about his business’ bank balance?! Surely not…
Tottenham Hotspur can today announce a multi-year deal with INEOS Grenadier as its Official 4×4 Vehicle Partner.
Welcome to the Club, @INEOSGrenadier 🤝
— Tottenham Hotspur (@SpursOfficial) December 21, 2022
I wouldn’t go asking the Ineos boys for any tips on scoring penalties, mind…
2022 Specialized Allez Sprint | Dream build staff bike
One in ten Brits admit to knowingly drink driving home from Christmas party
Research from iCompario suggests that millions of Brits have driven home drunk from their work’s Christmas party. The concerning figures come as the result of a survey involving 1,000 UK adults who drive and found that 17 per cent of men admitted to drink driving at Christmas, versus six per cent of women.
When extended to the wider population, the survey results suggest, iCompario says, that as many as 4.5 million UK drivers have broken the law by driving under the influence after a Christmas event, while up to 1.6 million (four per cent) have knowingly driven home over the limit after a Christmas party on more than one occasion.
> Drunk driver who crashed into cyclist, breaking his neck, walks free from court
The findings also highlighted that men are much more likely to drink drive at Christmas than women. Almost one in five men have done so, compared to just over one in 20 women (six per cent). One in seven (13 per cent) admitted that whilst they haven’t driven home from a festive do over the legal limit, they have got into the car with someone who was.
But what if I need to move a sofa?
But what if I need to move a sofa? https://t.co/bYxl4pOjWn pic.twitter.com/VcLKj7FSpQ
— Liveable Melbourne (@liveable_melb) December 20, 2022
Sofa-r so good…
A familiar tale...
The heart wants what it wants 😂 pic.twitter.com/KEnsgEs50R
— Cyclescheme (@cycleschemeltd) December 20, 2022
"I found the bins on the driveway more ugly and out of place than the shed"
Time for some of your comments on the day’s events, starting with Shedgate 2…
hirsute: “I found the bins on the driveway more ugly and out of place than the shed.”
EddyBerckx: “The bike shed looks great and you can guarantee that front garden looks neater than most in that road… especially if front ‘drives’ are allowed.”
Let me introduce you to the rest of the street…
HoarseMann: “In the bike shed article on the Salisbury Journal link, in the comments someone has noted that there is a planning officer at the council with the same name as one of the complainants. This complainant refers to council policy ‘CP57’ in their complaint, which seems to infer a bit of knowledge about the process.
“Then another complainant explains they wouldn’t have said anything before they were invited to comment! Does have a slight whiff of some insider knowledge of the planning process. All above board I would guess, even if that was the case.
“As someone else suggests, just plonk a battered caravan there instead.”
Literally around the corner…
brooksby: “I can’t see what’s wrong with that bike shed anyway — looks neat and tidy, and it’s way smaller than a parked car.”
Elsewhere on the live blog, Sniffer points out “I don’t think Tao or Geraint are going to be pleased” about Ineos Grenadier 4×4’s new partnership with the other north London lot…
While eburtthebike had some thoughts on the ingenious gondola…
“It may be a tribute to human ingenuity that so many otherwise intelligent people keep re-inventing the wheel with increasingly clever alternatives to the private car, but it’s also depressing that they can’t see the answer when it’s been obvious for so many years. Swyft Cities are merely the latest in a very long line of transport systems looking for a problem to solve, when the solution is right in front of their eyes.
“It’s rather like electric cars, they won’t solve any of the problems of mass car use and will create serious problems of their own, but try getting the media to mention anything else.
“Buses, trams, cycling, walking, all vastly better solutions than e-cars but are pretty much banned from the media. I listen to quite a bit of Radio 4 and yet again, e-cars featured on You and Yours, for the 3,000,001th* time; I still haven’t heard them feature bikes.
“*An exaggeration of course; I added the 1.”
Wout van Aert and new teammate Dylan van Baarle plot a big one
Check out who was checking out Roubaix today…
With none other than…
A ride name which apparently cryptically means ‘It is a thick device’ (according to Google Translate)… anyone with even the slightest modicum of Dutch-speaking abilities please get yourself in the comments ASAP…
Dutch cycle busses
What if every city had “Bike Buses” for kids going to school & daycare? What if safe, protected bike infrastructure made them easy? From Nijmegen NL, a #BikeBus developed in partnership with an after-school childcare. HT to great folks at @Cycling_Embassy pic.twitter.com/xWaFz1gQDu
— Brent Toderian (@BrentToderian) December 21, 2022
"Just build bike lanes": Autonomous gondola pods are "here to revolutionise transport" — but not everybody's convinced
First it was Elon Musk saying he’d send traffic underground, now it’s this transport tech company who reckon a network of autonomous gondola pods is the way forward… which is going down as well as you might expect…
Just build bike lanes Jesus fucking Christ https://t.co/CsypwqhShk
— Hannah 🚲😈 (@theeyecollector) December 21, 2022
Founded by former Google employees, Swyft Cities is, the company says, a way to “bring innovative mobility to public and private real estate projects”. Selling the gondola dream as modular, sustainable, low cost and efficient (like, I don’t know, a bicycle?) Swyft shows computer-generated images of what a network could look like by “freeing up land” and taking journeys to the sky.
Swyft Cities is here to revolutionize transportation and real estate! An innovative gondola system combines autonomous pods w/ lightweight, fixed cable infrastructure to move passengers efficiently w/ significantly lower cost-per-mile & less emissions than traditional options.👇 pic.twitter.com/AlZ6yucOML
— swyftcities (@swyftcities) December 20, 2022
In short, we’re seeing a snarled up road below, and pods above. So, how did the good people of cycling Twitter react to this “innovative” transport solution…
Absolutely! We’re big believers in multimodal and people having different transportation options depending on use case, distance, etc. Swyft Cities complements busses, bikes, walking & more to reduce congestion, create more livable spaces, etc.
— swyftcities (@swyftcities) December 20, 2022
We help enable denser, more walkable, bikeable, livable neighborhoods Each vehicle is completely autonomous, and takes you directly to any other destination on the system.
— swyftcities (@swyftcities) December 20, 2022
Bike lanes aren’t *innovative* enough, everyone knows that! pic.twitter.com/AuNhLRZuHU
— James Lyon (@jameslyon77) December 21, 2022
More monorail reaction... sorry I mean... *checks notes* Swyft Cities' "innovative mobility project"
Plenty of Simpsons memes going around in response to this one…
I bet you could sell these in Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook pic.twitter.com/5fQa0m0Zn5
— Ryan Burns (@ryanedwardburns) December 20, 2022
— Rendel Harris (@Rendel_Harris) December 21, 2022
If you can’t beat ’em, join them…
“Well sir, there’s nothing on earth like a genuine bona fide…” We will add Springfield to the list! (Big musical number to follow!🎼🎷🪗🥁🎸)
— swyftcities (@swyftcities) December 20, 2022
Doesn’t mean I or 90 per cent of the repliers are sold though…
We love bikes (and walking!). Multimodal! Rail for long distances, bikes/walking for short distances, better transportation options for intermediate distances.
— swyftcities (@swyftcities) December 21, 2022
Have a great evening!
The live blog will be back same time and place tomorrow, potentially with Shedgate updates, an accurate translation for Wout’s cryptic Strava caption and just about anything and everything else bike-related and worth procrastinating from work over…
See you then!
21 December 2022, 09:08
21 December 2022, 09:08
21 December 2022, 09:08
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
78 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
PS re the cyclist ringing a bell (or as a sports cyclist more likely shouting a warning), they would have no reason to: the lady wasn't "approaching the road", she had got to the island in the middle of the road and was standing still, then she stepped out. As far as I can see there was no reason to think anything but that she had seen him and was waiting for him to pass before crossing the lane.
@bensynnock We, and car drivers, must indeed exercise the utmost care for vulnerable road users, but if you take it to the logical extreme the only way you can absolutely guarantee never hitting a vulnerable road user is not to cycle or drive at all under any circumstances. As the Highway Code makes clear, "The hierarchy places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. It does not remove the need for everyone to behave responsibly." In a case like this where the pedestrian has made an absolutely suicidal move by stepping onto the roadway into the path of a fast-moving cyclist when they were two metres away you can't say that the cyclist has failed in their duty of care, the cyclist was approaching on a clear straight road in good visibility, the lady was standing still on the island then suddenly stepped out when he was so close that he had no time to make any reaction at all, let alone brake or swerve round her. She, sadly, for unknown reasons, failed in her "need to behave responsibly". Unless duty of care encompasses coming to a complete stop when one sees a pedestrian waiting to cross (when there is no marked crossing) I don't think it was breached here.
@C3a Presumably it's to do with turnover stability while moving. I saw a Tentbox today, just being driven through Garstang. I can certainly see the advantage of these boxes over tents, because I have suffered lifelong from the 'Get orf my land' brigade, and there's a much greater tolerance among them for those 'camping' in vehicles than for those much more worthy real campers in tents. Add to that the convenience of just stopping in any old free spot by the roadside, where there isn't a decent site for a tent, and you can see the attraction.
Most of the cars that I have owned have had a roof-box limit (bars, box and contents) of 70kg. How does a textbox fit with that? Is the limit only applicable when the vehicle is moving?
@Chris RideFar For starters, by being 1,5 m above the ground you are mostly protected from dew. In many countries it also protects you from frost or really low temperatures. You'd be surprised how much of a difference it actually makes. Bugs, ants, spiders etc. are another thing, as is the purely mental feeling of security by being isolated from the ground. You'd be surprised how much that means to some of us and our better halves ;-) Sleeping on the ground also means more mechanical damage to the floor from rocks, hard roots etc., which could make a big difference in some areas and on longer trips, where a ripped tent floor could really break your holiday. I'm not saying a roof tent is the answer to all one's troubles with camping. But these factors definitely to make a difference to many of us.
When was the last time you had a groundsheet with a built in mattress? The point is predictable comfort.
Is it because cars and driving are about convenience (for a price), so there is mileage in selling more (quite expensive) related things that are about convenience?
@FionaJJ that's the crux of the issue i guess. Minority causes can have this where the mainstream has the power to steamroll you (figuratively and literally). There's always "fear of angering the giant" (or alienating the decision makers / majority, where any politician has the temptation to gain attention by criticising this. And business salespeople stand to gain by selling "convenience and status" instead). But ... it's also easy to keep getting "small wins" while losing the main argument. (That would be where rules and public space remain suited to or are further modified to reinforce motor dependency and thus reduce active travel - even if perhaps it's now autonomous vehicles and "they're more efficient / much safer than human drivers").
78 thoughts on ““Just build bike lanes”: Autonomous gondola pods are “here to revolutionise transport” — but not everybody’s convinced; Shedgate 2: Cyclist forced to dismantle “beautiful” bike shed; Worrying drink driving figures; Ineos Hotspur? + more on the live blog”
I’m sure most have seen this
I’m sure most have seen this before but in case we need reminding why we are so ignored by the capitalist agenda
IanMK wrote:
There’s some broken window fallacies in there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window)
hawkinspeter wrote:
There’s some broken window fallacies in there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window)— IanMK
Is that a new way of spelling bullshit?
Sounds more like Zorg from
Sounds more like Zorg from the Fifth Element!
Isn’t it satirical? And the
Isn’t it satirical? And the point being made is that GDP is a stupid measure and govenments (and the rest of us) shouldn’t make decisions based solely on that kind of economic logic. I’ve seen similar about GDP and cars – if you make good cars, you only sell one to each driver and they don’t need mending. Better for everyone and the planet. If, on the other hand, you make rubbish cars, people have to keep buying new ones or spend a fortune on repairs. Rubbish all round – but great for GDP . . .
I just don’t understand what
I just don’t understand what’s wrong with a monorail…
essexian wrote:
It’s more a Shelbyville idea.
I see Leith Walk has made the
I see Leith Walk has made the BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-64039385
I mention it as it is a reminder of how ineffective police scotland are and because of the normalising comments of the transport convener:
“She politely put her indicator on as she waited to drive off the pavement onto the road so she knew some of her highway code.”
Sod the pedestrians on the actual pavement.
I suspect that Sat Nav may be
I suspect that Sat Nav may be, in part, to blame. They were just following instructions.
IanMK wrote:
Google Maps already knows the “correct” way around.
I think cars with built in
I think cars with built in Sat Nav tend not to get updated so probably won’t.
Although I don’t think there
Although I don’t think there’s any excuse for any of the drivers, I can see why the current approach may be confusing and frustrating. The road drivers wish to turn into is not one way – but the “correct” way to get into it is to keep straight, do a U-turn at the gyratory up ahead, and then turn right on the way back down.
If you’re not familiar with the layout I can imagine that is entirely unclear (and given the number of layout changes in recent months as tram works progress I wouldn’t be suprised if many people are unfamiliar with the current layout), and if you are familiar with the layout then you’ll know that going to the gyratory, around, and back is going to add on a chunk of time (lots of traffic and several sets of traffic lights to get through), which I can imagine is frustrating when the road you want to go down is “just there”.
It’s also the only junction I can think of where the “no left turn” exists purely as a result of light phasing for pedestrians. Most of the time a “no left turn” exists because the road on the left is one way/no entry, or because the road layout means it is dangerous to attempt to turn left (e.g. a very tight corner). Sometimes there is a “no right turn” for other reasons e.g. when the volume of oncoming traffic means attempting to turn right would lead to queues and obstruction.
My understanding is that the current light phasing exists because some computer modelling suggested this would minimise delays to all road users (including pedestrians).
My (short term) solution would be to say that if drivers can’t be trusted to obey the road signs (and evidently they can’t) then the best alternative is to scrap the “no left turn” and change the light phasing, but still prioritising pedestrians. This will mean drivers spend more time sat at red lights and longer queues for drivers, but they only have themselves to blame.
Handy to have a local view,
Handy to have a local view, although I will say there is a large no left sign where they are turning !
Yeah – there are a lot of
Yeah – there are a lot of signs so it is definitely clear that you are not allowed to turn left, and hence no excuse for doing so. It’s just far less clear what you are meant to do instead!
Agree with you here – while
Agree with you here – while it may be slightly to the betterment of pedestrians or even cyclists this sounds like a case of the planners blindly following the computer! I don’t think it’s sensible to expect “sign it better” to triumph over humans here – particularly where you always could make a left turn, the alternative route up and round will probably take them a couple of minutes AND they can see that you could go that way.
As you say no reason why they can’t just hold the cars turning left – it’s not like they’re blocking the trams and it’s two lane here so buses can get past.
I would put allow a left, but
I would put allow a left, but have the traffic lights have a stop for left and a green for straight on, with a short left turn phase after pedestrians have been halted and cleared the crossing. Then anyone turning left out of phase is a red light jumper – and of course, those waiting to turn left get those drivers going straight on in the left lane pissed off with cars not pedestrians.
You’re being a little too
You’re being a little too sympathetic imo.
AIUI the diversion is into a sort of straight then right then back loop, because as has been noted the left is too sharp and too dangerous whilst roadworks are proceeding. Really it’s a temporary kind of slalom like that they put on the Leith Walk bike obstacle course, plus a foldback.
There are bloody great huge No Left Turn signs, and people driving their cars have been hooning through pedestrians on a Pelican Crossing in the pedestrian phase.
But a lot are getting reported, including taxi-hoons to the Licensing Office.
It’s tempting to declare that Edinburghians are mostly lawless vagabonds, but I’d better not
. In 1745 the lawless vagabonds came our way in Derby, and all ran away when they faced meeting *our* lawless vagabonds.
A below sightline bell bollard on the LT corner designed to bend all the sills of all the lawbreaking cars seems a good idea.
mattw wrote:
My understanding is that the “no left turn” is intended to be permanent and not because of any ongoing roadworks but purely the result of decisions about light phasing and traffic flow.
Agree with the rest…
hirsute wrote:
The Honda driver was on the wrong side of the central island at that point – in effect, going the wrong way along a dual carriageway. So they needed to take some sort of action but it wasn’t the right one. Still, you can see why they need an off-road vehicle.
This area is a total nightmare at the moment though – it does seem to change very frequently and most of the signs are temporary. It’s not easy imho, whether driving, cycling or walking.
In the bike shed article on
In the bike shed article on the Salisbury Journal link, in the comments someone has noted that there is a planning officer at the council with the same name as one of the complainants. This complainant refers to council policy “CP57” in their complaint, which seems to infer a bit of knowledge about the process.
Then another complainant explains they wouldn’t have said anything before they were invited to comment!
Does have a slight whiff of some insider knowledge of the planning process. All above board I would guess, even if that was the case.
As someone else suggests, just plonk a battered caravan there instead.
I can’t see what’s wrong with
I can’t see what’s wrong with that bike shed anyway – looks neat and tidy, and it’s way smaller than a parked car.
brooksby wrote:
the photo above is of a bike shed in leicester, the one banned in salisbury is a bit more substantial, and constructed as a lean to against the house. Still looks better than plonking a decrepit caravan on the space and using it for bike sotrage.
I did notice the “years” was
I did notice the “years” was less then two as not on Streetview in Sept2020. Seems the complaint doesn’t just include the “bikeshed” but other work they did to fill in the garage to make it another room. But yes, in theory a “mobile” structure could be used in its place to upset the rest of the “rich” street.
actually, a caravan might be
actually, a caravan might be a bit impractical. You want something with a door on the end ideally and plenty of storage space. Maybe this could work, even got a sink and table for bike maintenance!:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/265970725609
There’s a reference in the
There’s a reference in the article to the shed’s roof. I dont think this is a planners against bike sheds problem per se.
So, ambulance strikes, eh?
So, ambulance strikes, eh? And NHS managers and ministers are recommending people avoid taking unncecessary risks (with contact sports and ice skating specifically mentioned). I seem to recall that cycling was also mentioned the other day. Did I miss a memo, but shouldn’t they also be recommending that people don’t drive anywhere too…?
Will Quince did say to avoid
Will Quince did say to avoid unnecessary car journeys. As we know, all car journeys are necessary and no bike journeys are necessary.
I don’t think the guy in the
I don’t think the guy in the Beetle that overtook me this morning got the memo. I was doing around 55mph in 60 so no doubt he had to be somewhere urgently. Having said that, 3 roundabouts later he was still only a few meters in front.
A beetle you say. Was it near
A beetle you say. Was it near bristol ?
Probably Abbey Road.
Probably Abbey Road.
hirsute wrote:
Don’t look at me
I’m taking my life in my hands (acc to Govt ministers) and riding the bike in today.
Most people die in bed, so
Most people die in bed, so going out for a bike ride seems a sensible thing to do.
Save the NHS….ride a bike (and don’t ever, ever vote Tory).
essexian wrote:
Bed helmets! If it saves one life…
I would wear one but I’m
I would wear one but I’m worried about bed helmet hair.
I was ok until 2 mins from
I was ok until 2 mins from home courtesy of white van man (and in a 30 ).
Driver didn’t get the memo
Driver didn’t get the memo about lack of ambulances so squeezes between me and the oncoming car.
hirsute wrote:
They got the memo. They will be fine, they don’t give a shit that you won’t get an ambulance.
Driver didn’t get the memo
Driver didn’t get the memo about lack of ambulances so squeezes between me and the oncoming car
You’re Essex aren’t you? Cheer me up and tell me in a couple of months that there was a proper penalty (advice letter and joke course don’t count!). This is the usual means of close-passing round here as well: foot down and if you come across oncoming vehicles just carry on
wtjs wrote:
“Established foot” (on the accellerator).
Status: Warning letter sent
Status: Warning letter sent
Utterly pathetic
Status: Warning letter sent
Status: Warning letter sent
Crikey! Offence 21st, warning letter sent 22nd. In Lancashire, even before the present policy of not responding at all, you would never find out which, from the list of options including nothing at all, pseudo-penalty was applied.
This is where they claim
This is where they claim success
Also safer roads tweets on safety
“Santa might race around delivering presents, but you don’t need to. Watch your speed, let’s keep everybody safe this Christmas.”
It’s just they don’t give a shit about cyclists.
I had similar with driver
I had similar with driver along here today. Parked cars were still there as well and an oncoming car. Driver also decided that as there was no speed signs, that meant there was no limits so the went the fastest he could do.
Apparently we shouldn’t get
Apparently we shouldn’t get so drunk that we need A&E because of the strikes. Spoilsports, that has completely ruined my afternoon’s work plans…
SimoninSpalding wrote:
How else are we supposed to celebrate Saturnalia?
Regarding Spuds Official 4×4
Regarding Spuds Official 4×4 partner. I can’t tell from the picture but does the pedestrian killing device also have Kumho tyres on being as that is the clubs official tyre partner?
I don’t think Tao or Geraint
I don’t think Tao or Geraint are going to be pleased.
Nope Bridgestones, as per the
Nope Bridgestones, as per the standard model Grenadier.
The bike shed looks great and
The bike shed looks great and you can guarantee that front garden looks neater than most in that road…especially if front ‘drives’ are allowed.
Actually from pre-shed
Actually from pre-shed Streetview, I thought the garden looked cluttered with all the brick work. Granted it is on a slope but if it looked that bad before, I don’t think the shed made much difference anyway. As someone in the comments mentioned they thought it was bin storage, I wonder if he could have gotten away with it being lower.
Thanks for that.
Thanks for that.
I did not realise he had a garage as well !
Mentioned in other post, the
Mentioned in other post, the garage was filled in at the same time he did shed as the application complaints were about that as well according to the links to those.
Looking at the satellite view
Looking at the satellite view they used to have a caravan parked there so surely the shed is better than that?
It may be a tribute to human
It may be a tribute to human ingenuity that so many otherwise intelligent people keep re-inventing the wheel with increasingly clever alternatives to the private car, but it’s also depressing that they can’t see the answer when it’s been obvious for so many years. Swyft Cities are merely the latest in a very long line of transport systems looking for a problem to solve, when the solution is right in front of their eyes.
It’s rather like electric cars, they won’t solve any of the problems of mass car use and will create serious problems of their own, but try getting the media to mention anything else. Buses, trams, cycling, walking, all vastly better solutions than ecars but are pretty much banned from the media. I listen to quite a bit of R4 and yet again, ecars featured on You and Yours, for the 3,000,001th* time; I still haven’t heard them feature bikes.
*An exaggeration of course; I added the 1.
we might have these in the
we might have these in the bike lanes with us before too long … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfaQloeSroc
Nah, walking shoes so
Nah, walking shoes so pavements. Just sounds like a kickstarter scam to me anyway. “AI” controlled? Inspired after a near death experience when walking. WTF? And the sly foot movements used for the steps shows it would be easy to turn on and off accidently when using them.
Review here: https://www
Review here: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/dec/20/what-happened-when-i-tried-moonwalkers
A bit less mad than I expected.
they might look like just
they might look like just another set of strap on electric rollerskates…?
The bit where you have approach stairs with caution and switch them off is quite concerning, but I notice they didn’t sho them going downstairs, that has a serious likelihood of going wrong in a big way.
Seagull2 wrote:
I’m sure they’ll be as popular as Segways.
But how will a bunch of
But how will a bunch of otherwise unemployed software engineers make a living from bikes? I am not sure cable crs are the answer to their desire for money either, but they are giving it a good go on their twitter feed I see.
Bunch of techies in “hmm…
Bunch of techies in “hmm… we can improve something by more complex technology” shocker.
TBH all humans dream of flying. Most lean towards magic carpets of some form – hoverboards, autonomous vehicles, planes, cars… The secret is the closest most of us will get to flying is that century-old technology, the cycle. Which just happens to be the fairest, most efficient* and least obnoxious of the lot.
* Yeah I know someone’s demonstrated it is electric unicycles at low speeds…
Use the cycle lane !
Use the cycle lane !
I’ll leave to simoninspalding to count the cars as he seems to need something to do this afternoon !
OMG – is that a cycle lane???
OMG – is that a cycle lane???
No, it’s not, obviously – it
No, it’s not, obviously – it would be pointless. Yes of course it is – what’s the problem? This is a useful cycle lane being entirely legally used for parking.
Even though it has a solid white line it’s quite possible that’s entirely legal – especially since they’ve marked a single yellow line and kerb flashes – so you have to check the signs to see. (Unless those were leftovers from before creation and they didn’t double them).
Apart from anything else it also depends when the cycle lane was created!
Plenty of parking to be seen in Edinburgh’s bus and cycle lanes. Again, often legal as far as I can see – indeed parking spots are marked in many bus lanes!
In the second of those two
In the second of those two shed photos, I count six larger items that look a good deal less attractive being stored on public property, and one nice shed on private property.
Yes, there is a problem here – but it is with the six, not with the one.
(Just FYI, the pictures on
(Just FYI, the pictures on this road.cc page are of the previously-reported-on shed in Leicester which was granted permission on appeal. The new case, in Salisbury, is pictured on the linked Salisbury Journal article).
I found the bins on the
I found the bins on the driveway more ugly and out of place than the shed.
It looks like bunk beds in
It looks like bunk beds in the one downstairs room in streetview. Large family, hence the need for multiple bins?
Still ugly ! He should build
Still ugly ! He should build a little shed to put them in.
Shedgate (Salisbury) man can
Shedgate (Salisbury) man can’t Appeal any decisions, because he withdrew his planning application before any decision was made – as far as I can see.
He needs to rebuild it in his back garden, and wheel his bike down the path.
I’d say the whole thing was a PR stunt aiming to embarrass the Council into doing what he wanted.
This is the Salisbury shed.
This is the Salisbury shed. The bloke cocked it up.
It looks fine to me but I’m
It looks fine to me – I’d say aesthetically the house is uglier – but I’m not a planning officer. If the idea was “get away with what I’m not technically allowed” he’s not exactly hidden it …
I’m with everyone else – he should have just erected something really big and ugly but legal. (For “legal” see the perils of trying to hide stuff – like this chap).
chrisonatrike wrote:
Or that bloke who built an enormous ‘man cave’ that was like 10,000 square feet, and then threw his toys out of the pram when he didn’t get retrospective planning consent.
(Can’t be bothered to google it).
I’ve said it before – I honestly cannot see what the problem is with this shed, except ‘bikes, innit’.
The problem is that it is
The problem is that it is built in front of the main elevation, which is not allowed without planning permission.
In the piece in the Salisbury paper it is put thusly:
A mistake had been made regarding the front elevation
It’s a detached property with a side passage and a back garden, where it would be more secure anyway. Chap did not do his homework and/or failed to supervise his workmen properly.
I don’t really see the point of putting up an abortion and spoiling the appearance of his own property out of spite, when all he has to do is accept his error, go legal, move it somewhere more sensible, and get on with his life enjoying his stable of bicycles. Far better than punching himself in the head for the sake of it.
There’s not really much more to be said.
Quote:
Although side pathway is up several steps, so depending on the bikes they might be hard to get up the steps / along the side of the house, especially if they have wide handlebars on.
Hmmm.
Hmmm.
I see also the 2 driveways and the 6 dustbins. 🙂
You also see a garage on the
You also see a garage on the front, but they also filled that in (badly as well according to the complainants moaning about the shed.)
I wonder if that has also been ordered to be changed.
Geez, for £2,000 Mr. Arnold
Geez, for £2,000 Mr. Arnold could have bought a clunker van, left it permanently parked in the street in front of his house, and used that as a bike shed. And he would have saved the space in his yard.