"We are not a nation of motorists": Led By Donkeys projects moving 20mph speed limit video onto Houses of Parliament, after PM's pledge to end "war" against drivers; Hi-vis victim-blaming; When you win a race without noticing + more on the live blog

What a reinvestment in sustainable transport not!

Find out about every new transport project in your region - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

I read the document you note and am concerned by the amount of heavy lifting the word: "Could" is being put to. 

In other words...yes, the Government "could" do all of these things but you would be a total fool if you actually believed they will do so. 

Get the Tories (of all colours: Blue/Yellow or "Red") gone! 

HLaB wrote:

What a reinvestment in sustainable transport not!

Find out about every new transport project in your region - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Thanks for that.  Just sent the PM this:

"From your own office As a result of the decision to scrap the extension of HS2, every region will now receive investment in the modes of transport that matter to you most.

I live in the Forest of Dean, MP Mark Harper, Minister of Transport.  I have looked at the document Find out about every new transport project in your region and am unable to identify a single transport project in the area, let alone the ones that matter to me most: cycling and walking, or Active Travel.  I am aware, however, that a few months ago, Mark Harper cut funding for Active Travel by 2/3rds.  Given that Active Travel is far and away the best investment, with a benefit:cost ratio at least twenty times that of any other, surely some of the money saved from cutting HS2 could be re-directed to that.

I ask that the cuts made to Active Travel funding are immediately restored and then guaranteeing a minimum annual increase of 25%.  And could we have some money for Active Travel in the Forest of Dean please?"

You can do the same https://contact.no10.gov.uk/

Please note that one of the special characters you can't use in quotation marks "" but they don't tell you that.

Are you sure it's a child?  Could be a short adult who's some sort of supernatural serial killer...

If you buy a dark car, don't forget to cover it in hi-viz decals to make it easier to be seen....

But then will all those HiViz adorned vehicles become invisible due to their sheer numbers. I remembered years ago being at Disneyland when a thunderstorm broke. All of a sudden we were surrounded by thousands of yellow poncho wearing tourists. At one stage I lost the group I was with and couldn't spot them until everyone was divested of their outer garments. 

giff77 wrote:

But then will all those HiViz adorned vehicles become invisible due to their sheer numbers. I remembered years ago being at Disneyland when a thunderstorm broke. All of a sudden we were surrounded by thousands of yellow poncho wearing tourists. At one stage I lost the group I was with and couldn't spot them until everyone was divested of their outer garments. 

Please be very, very careful when divesting yourself and/or others of outer garments at Disneyland. 

Or anywhere in public.

What I found interesting was that the image provided by Olivier with the children already on the road was that the one in dark clothing was more visible. 

High Vis means nothing of people aren't looking. There I am, decked out like a dayglo Christmas tree, and still I get 'sorry mate, didn't see you'.

Fair play to Hamish - if you can run a bike bus up there...

Trevor Anderson wrote:

*** CENSORED BY GCN ***

Yesterday, I watched the latest edition of the GCN show.  Si Richardson conveyed the "good news" that cycling casualties in the UK in 2022 were the lowest on record.

I made an entry in the comments section, the essence of this being the data reported in the RRCGB is about as reliable and believable as when Lance Armstrong stated "I've never tested positive for doping!"

My comment was deleted by GCN within minutes of being posted.  Perhaps it's not the message they want to promote?

RRCGB stands for REPORTED Road Casualties for Great Britain.  The big emphasis is on REPORTED.  Cyclists are being injured in road traffic collisions which are not being REPORTED, so they do no count, they are not included in the casualty statistics.

One example can be found on Road.cc :https://road.cc/content/news/police-criticised-after-family-catapulted-c...

Quote "a spokesperson for Essex Police explained to the Daily Gazette that the incident was not attended because there were no serious injuries reported and that the road in question was clear of any obstruction."

 

Maybe because GCN is generally a positive place trying to get people into cycling and informing educated and well meaning cyclists of factual information and good news, rather than here which is a never-ending rabbit hole of frothing doom and gloom. 

And trolling.

Don't forget the trolling.

Sorry, couldn't help myself...

GCN is primarily geared up to leisure road cycling.  Articles on utility and the issues faced are few and far between. I don't think I've seen a vid of any of the presenters wearing duds while on their bikes. 

Honourable mention for a video Si did on running a cargo bike (though he does (entertainingly) give it a GCN spin by skidding it right at the start).

Wearing "rose tinted glasses" won't make road cycling safer!

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

Trevor Anderson wrote:

*** CENSORED BY GCN ***

Yesterday, I watched the latest edition of the GCN show.  Si Richardson conveyed the "good news" that cycling casualties in the UK in 2022 were the lowest on record.

I made an entry in the comments section, the essence of this being the data reported in the RRCGB is about as reliable and believable as when Lance Armstrong stated "I've never tested positive for doping!"

My comment was deleted by GCN within minutes of being posted.  Perhaps it's not the message they want to promote?

RRCGB stands for REPORTED Road Casualties for Great Britain.  The big emphasis is on REPORTED.  Cyclists are being injured in road traffic collisions which are not being REPORTED, so they do no count, they are not included in the casualty statistics.

One example can be found on Road.cc :https://road.cc/content/news/police-criticised-after-family-catapulted-c...

Quote "a spokesperson for Essex Police explained to the Daily Gazette that the incident was not attended because there were no serious injuries reported and that the road in question was clear of any obstruction."

 

Maybe because GCN is generally a positive place trying to get people into cycling and informing educated and well meaning cyclists of factual information and good news, rather than here which is a never-ending rabbit hole of frothing doom and gloom. 

More likely that GCN, a collection of infantile folk and vids structured for the infantile avid consumers of post-modernity, don't want their advertisers complaining about anything that reduces the sale of bikes and bits. After all, that's what GCN and similar mass media cycling organs are for.

DId you think they were some sort of charity for promoting safe and green cycling? They'll claim that but in fact they're advert-organs, first & last, targetting cycling fashion victims with money to spend.

Their behaviours on their bikes often makes me cringe at how unaware they seem to everyone else around them, as they gurn and chatter at the camera, adopting the, "Lookit me, I'm racing" mode rather than looking where they're going. The equivalent of the 1950s Wizard or Bunty Comic .... but for cyclist boys and girls who never grew up.

Cugel wrote:

More likely that GCN, a collection of infantile folk and vids structured for the infantile avid consumers of post-modernity, don't want their advertisers complaining about anything that reduces the sale of bikes and bits. After all, that's what GCN and similar mass media cycling organs are for.

DId you think they were some sort of charity for promoting safe and green cycling? They'll claim that but in fact they're advert-organs, first & last, targetting cycling fashion victims with money to spend.

Their behaviours on their bikes often makes me cringe at how unaware they seem to everyone else around them, as they gurn and chatter at the camera, adopting the, "Lookit me, I'm racing" mode rather than looking where they're going. The equivalent of the 1950s Wizard or Bunty Comic .... but for cyclist boys and girls who never grew up.

So just to be clear from the above, GCN are infantile (despite often referencing road.cc in their weekly GCN Show) and for infantile avid consumers, yet you clearly watch it because you cringe at their behaviour 

So you are describing yourself as an infantile avid consumer?

Road.cc is also an advert led site...and they are loosely mass media (despite any newbies being jumped on and any reading the site would be led to believe that cycling is a death wish)

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

So just to be clear from the above, GCN are infantile (despite often referencing road.cc in their weekly GCN Show) and for infantile avid consumers, yet you clearly watch it because you cringe at their behaviour 

So you are describing yourself as an infantile avid consumer?

You do paffle-wiffle on, old poffler.

So, are you a-one o' these that emits indignant criticisms of books, plays, filums and the like despite never having read or seen them, as you jump aboard some reactionary-loon bandwagon trundled out by the latest Mrs Whitehouse of even Lozza the Loon? How does one criticise summick without personally partaking of it?

I consume a GCN youboob about once a month .... but they never seem to get beyond the boy-racer ooh-aahing lookitme stuff. In fact, they seem to be gradually getting worse. All the wee screen title thingies now have one or another of 'em doing an exagerated excito-gurn with poppy eyes, open gobble and the waving of a mit clutching summick or other.

Once upon a time children eventually grew up. Not now, though. Permanent childhood goes with constant toy consumption, I suppose.

thisismyusername wrote:

So just to be clear from the above, GCN are infantile (despite often referencing road.cc in their weekly GCN Show) and for infantile avid consumers, yet you clearly watch it because you cringe at their behaviour.

So you are describing yourself as an infantile avid consumer?

Yeah, what sort of person goes to a site they continually slate as rubbish day after day, leaving countless comments there telling everyone how rubbish it is, telling all the subscribers and commenters they're shit too? What a total Loser they'd have to be. Especially if they even came back to carry on doing it under another name having been banned.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Yeah, what sort of person goes to a site they continually slate as rubbish day after day, leaving countless comments there telling everyone how rubbish it is, telling all the subscribers and commenters they're shit too? What a total Loser they'd have to be. Especially if they even came back to carry on doing it under another name having been banned.

Mind your language Rendel, we all know swearing is the sign of a weak man/boy. 

And don't make assumptions, you don't seem to like it when I suggest that you are, in fact, just a road.cc staff member profile. For what other reason would you not have been banned considering the language you use and your attitude towards others on here. 

After all, one person was even stupid enough to suggest that I should retract calling you a "nasty piece of work" which from the above comment, reinforces that view. 

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

Maybe because GCN is generally a positive place advert-led product channel trying to get people into cycling sell overpriced equipment and informing educated and well meaning cyclists of factual information promote said equipment to gullible folk and good news spin, rather than here which is a never-ending rabbit hole of frothing doom and gloom cycle of Tory MPs and councillors lying, cheating, grifting, dog-whistling, gaslighting and scamming the entire country.

The editor has had to work on that pile of tripe you posted. It's a bit more accurate now.

GCN is fine, if you see it solely as light enterainment. The 'science' is suspect, it's about as deep as a toddler's paddling pool with a hole in the bottom and about as edgy or controversial as choosing magnolia wall paint.

Feel free to spend your time on GCN instead of here.

Simon E wrote:

GCN is fine, if you see it solely as light enterainment. The 'science' is suspect, it's about as deep as a toddler's paddling pool with a hole in the bottom and about as edgy or controversial as choosing magnolia wall paint.

Feel free to spend your time on GCN instead of here.

I think they're clear that the science is not necessarily the work of a professor. 

And yes thank you, since they have updated their website to be more relevant and include news etc, it's a lot better than here. Sorry to have been quieter here than usual.

I've only just found out a bridge I regularly ride over was designed by Thomas Telford. One of his best apparently.

perce wrote:

I've only just found out a bridge I regularly ride over was designed by Thomas Telford. One of his best apparently.

Oh, you're back! I thought I'd lost you for a while

Was it one of his troll toll bridges?  There's a nice one in Dunkeld.

Yes, yes it was. I didn't know he was also responsible for the Pontcysillte aqueduct, among his other great works.