Councillor says they got “dog’s abuse” for telling cyclists to use £700,000 shared-use path; “Not the type of fan we want”: EF Education-EasyPost’s Jonathan Vaughters shares grim homophobic ‘fan mail’; TdF: Unchained hits Netflix + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Tour de France: Unchained hits Netflix
And it’s live…
Here’s your trailer for Tour de France: Unchained – from the producers of Drive to Survive – coming 8 June! pic.twitter.com/S7F7szGP8m
— Netflix UK & Ireland (@NetflixUK) June 2, 2023
Apparently at the end Jonas Vingegaard wins… sorry, spoilers!
Anyone got any early thoughts?
People flee by bike from flooding caused by Ukraine dam collapse
People to trying to get away from the flooding in Ukraine after the dam collapsed. On their bikes.
This is really much, much harder than it looks. Respect! pic.twitter.com/k8F8u7aJdI— Henk Swarttouw (@copenhenken) June 7, 2023
Uh oh… Wait, you still have your KOM/QOM! Strava to automatically flag suspicious activities in hopes to improve leaderboard accuracy
> Strava to automatically flag suspicious activities in hopes to improve leaderboard accuracy
Early reaction to Netflix's €8 million Tour de France documentary series
It’s been up on Netflix in the UK for four hours now so the breakaway is making its way through the episodes. Those of you sat comfortably in the peloton (at work) will have a few hours longer to wait before your turn to get stuck into the action.
We’re not particularly bothered about spoilers for this one, after all we all know what happens, right? But if you are hoping to keep things completely fresh for your viewing, maybe give this post a miss…
One thing popping up a few times is the recommendation to watch it in French with English subtitles, partly for the authenticity, partly because the voice actor dubbing is apparently somewhere between terrible and horrendous…
“The English dubbing on this Netflix Tour de France series is f****** awful. The guy sounds like some crazed carnivore hunting for his prey. Much better in French with English subtitles (if you need it like),” one particularly gifted wordsmith reviewed the series…
Anyone know when that Tour de France documentary is out on Netflix? Not read a single thing about it on this app lately
— George Poole (@GeorgePuddle) June 8, 2023
On Twitter, Tim O’Connor said: “You see the emotional side of both” Thibaut Pinot and Marc Madiot, while we’ve also seen suggestions that Tadej Pogačar’s absence is notable.
Anyone had a chance to watch an episode yet?
Is Shimano working on a hub-charged electronic shift system?
Basically
08/06/23 🔮 pic.twitter.com/apQLBT5Y5o
— Wout van Art 🥷✊ (@waltersamuel45) June 7, 2023
If you were wondering, it’s a lumpy hilly stage out in France today, a breakaway of breakaway favourites: Thomas De Gendt, Nils Politt, Edvald Boasson Hagen, Jonas Gregaard, Georg Zimmermann and Leon Heinschke. Despite the group’s escapee credentials, it doesn’t look like the peloton will let them decide the day, just over two and a half minutes advantage with 40km to go.
Over in the Netherlands, Cav has the opportunity to follow up his Rome success with another victory, on the opening roads stage of ZLM Tour after last night’s prologue. Worth noting, for the first time, he’ll have the support of the team’s lead-out (of sorts), including former DSM fast man Cees Bol.
G enjoys Tour de France: Unchained... sort of
Enjoy #TDFUnchained everyone. Cheers Sa 👍 pic.twitter.com/w7xVtbNlxn
— Geraint Thomas (@GeraintThomas86) June 8, 2023
Lidl-Trek kit clue?
a BMW from lidl 🙃 pic.twitter.com/sCJoxIjVgj
— TipsNstars (Thomas) 🔮 (@tipsnstars) June 8, 2023
Have pro cyclists 'gone soft'? We discuss the big debate from the Giro and perceptions of elite sport (and us mortals), while Simon samples Drum & Bass On The Bike on our latest podcast episode
Jonas Vingegaard lays down Tour de France marker, dominates Critérium du Dauphiné
I wonder if somewhere near Granada, at altitute, a certain Slovenian was watching this?
🏁 🇩🇰Jonas Vingegaard termine en solitaire pour remporter l’étape et endosser le @MaillotJauneLCL. 💛
⏪ Revivez le dernier kilomètre.🏁 🇩🇰Jonas Vingegaard finishes solo! He wins Stage 5 and takes the Yellow Jersey. 💛
⏪ Relive the last kilometre.#Dauphiné pic.twitter.com/KCOXoptgTM— Critérium du Dauphiné (@dauphine) June 8, 2023
Extra training motivation, I guess, seeing your big rival for the Tour de France dispatch all the other Dauphiné hopefuls with one strong attack. We’re not even in the mountains yet…
"If cyclists aren't using the infrastructure provided, then it's probably not very good"
Comments time… I’m going to selectively bypass the debate on what constitutes dog’s abuse…
OnYerBike: Preaching to the choir here, but if cyclists aren’t using the infrastructure provided, then it’s probably not very good. Cyclists just want a convenient and safe route. Rather than trying to “force” cyclists to use the infrastructure provided, maybe think about why cyclists don’t want to use it and then try to improve it.
Steve K nailed it…
“Bloody cyclists, cycling on the pavement”
(puts up shared use sign)
“Bloody cyclists, not cycling on the pavement”
hawkinspeter: “They build a shitty ‘cycle lane’, don’t maintain it, have it cede priority at every side road and then blame cyclists for not using it.”
HoldingOn: “I try and avoid shared footpaths if I can — the one section I do use it, is because the road is very narrow, full of potholes and car/lorries get so f****** close I have to change my shorts.
“Do I avoid the shared footpaths as some form of weird protest or a feeling of self-entitlement? No — as with (I would imagine) most cyclists, I avoid the shared footpaths because I am going a heck of a lot quicker than pedestrians, on a vehicle that is quieter than someone running.
“I need to slow way down when I see a pedestrian, because chances are they can’t hear me/my bell (definitely not if they are wearing headphones) and last thing I want is to crash into someone/ get a punch from someone who got a fright as I went past.”
8 June 2023, 08:07
8 June 2023, 08:07
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 £2.49. 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.
73 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@Mr Blackbird motorists who drink alcohol should be required to pass the test twice, once sober and once after three drinks in two hours. Then they can get an endorsement on their licence for driving home from the pub after a few pints.
In France, the closer the cyclist gets to the Mediterranean Sea, the weirder car drivers behave. Some of them being repeat road deliquents. Encounters with 13, 31, 34 and 84 may prove hairy. Drivers with plates showing 84 (Vaucluse) think light signalling is no longer necessary before making a turn or exiting a roundabout. Pity UAE Team came to the decision not to press charges.
@MaxiMinimalist We can fear such a ban to varying degrees. But I'd be surprised if it happens. Even if it does the police don't have the resource and time to deal with dangerous drivers. So I guess they will ignore it anway.
Sooner or later, there will be public calls for cycling ban on specific roads and / or at specific times of the day. The great divide that separates cyclists from drivers of motorized vehicles with 4-plus wheels isn't going to narrow anytime soon. In spite of the net-zero madness, there is zip political ambition to allocate massive funds to cycling, build proper infrastructure, elaborate a nationwide integrated cycling network, educate all road users. Why? Because motorists of all kinds are voters and taxpayers.
@Smoggysteve Right - as I say, though - that's a separate debate, that I'll leave to others.
AS I read this, I was wondering hao many other legal e-bikes may have been seized and crushed as a result of this bogus test? As I pointed out recently in a reply to a Facebook post that stated that e-bikes are limited to 25kph/15.5mph any bike, whether a pure pedal cycle or an e-bike, can exceed this speed if the rider can pedal hard enough, or when going downhill. The regulation just states that the motor must switch off at higher speeds. If the rider can achieve higher speeds unaided, that is legal. The test that the police used just demonstrated the maximum "speed" achieved by pedal power alone with no or little resistance can be much higher than the motor cut-off speed.
@ROOTminus1 Unfortunately, people will still do all they can to get past. the MGIFs can't help themselves and are a danger to everyone not only the cyclist.
It was going to weigh them up, but they were below the limit.
Clearly driver training and the driving test need to change to meet modern time poor driving conditions. I suggest the following need to be added to the practical test : 1) Undertaking on pavements. 2) Close passing cyclists or horses at 50mph.(It is clear from the comments on this website that cyclists do not appreciate how difficult a skill this is to master). 3) Threading between bollards to park on pavements near fast food outlets. 4) Steering with the knees while using a mobile phone and eating a burger or sushi, depending on the area. 5) Fighting with cyclists at roundabouts. For the advanced driving test the fighting will be with gangs of Hell's Angels or Mods. 6) Handbrake turns. 7) Driving at speed after all night parties. 8) Selecting the wrong gear and smashing into somebody's living room. The theory test could be shortened to make room for these practical additions. Maybe it could just be distilled down to learning crucial phrases like : "The cyclist came out of nowhere!" "I had the children in the car." "I had hunger knock and urgently needed an egg Mcmuffin." "I didn't see them." "I had been to a party and was wearing different shoes."
The headline states the article will "weigh up the pros and cons" but doesn't really provide any argument for keeping the limit. Or maybe it's to "weigh up the pros (of lowering the limit) and cons (of keeping the limit)"? Beyond having a different limit for either/or women's races/smaller riders, which I can see a strong argument for, I don't really see the point of just lowering the absolute limit. What will it achieve? We'll end up with aero bikes at the new limit but instead of costing £10-15k, it'll be £15-20k and we'll still hear more complaining about everything in the bike industry being so expensive. Sure, no one's forced to buy the TdF bike, but it does anchor the price ceiling, which will have an effect on every other model. There's a focus in the article on companies being able to make lightweight bikes again, or for pros to race on them. Well, they already exist for those that want them. And the pros? We might have a few years of bike choice, but we'll still end up with everyone using the aero bike at the new weight limit but with lots of expensive R&D and new materials that need to be paid for. Especially lightweight bikes don't have a right to exist. A 7kg bike from 20 years ago is the same weight as a 7kg bike today. I think what's more interesting is the suggestion of scaling the weight limit with rider weight. That feels fairer. But could it remove an advantage that a bigger sprinter might have over their colleagues, for example? We could end up with just the same style of rider across a whole race. It also feels like it doesnt make much sense to just map the men's limit onto the women's field. But then if it's an arbitrary limit, does that matter either?
73 thoughts on “Councillor says they got “dog’s abuse” for telling cyclists to use £700,000 shared-use path; “Not the type of fan we want”: EF Education-EasyPost’s Jonathan Vaughters shares grim homophobic ‘fan mail’; TdF: Unchained hits Netflix + more on the live blog”
The only horse shit I smell
The only horse shit I smell is that from the emailer. Well done Jonathan Vaughters for calling out such disgusting behaviour.
Clickbait upon clickbait this
Clickbait upon clickbait this, with a dash of sanctimonious virtue signalling waffle. The original comment is so pathetic, even a spotty teen would have the maturity to not bother, but sure whatever it takes for a pile on. Oh well anyway
How on earth does someone get
How on earth does someone get so triggered by a colour? That’s god-tier insecurity if their masculinity gets challenged by someone else wearing a colour.
It’s only really since WWII that pink was used for girls: https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/05/01/pink-blue/
I remember watching something
I remember watching something some years ago that pointed out that WWII planes were painted pink underneath as they found that actually camouflaged better against the sky, than blue.
Perhaps the emailer is safety conscious and is so distraught with worry, they haven’t expressed themselves very well.
nah…..typical internet response. Wouldn’t be out of place on Twitter.
Don’t know about aircraft
Don’t know about aircraft countershading, but certainly some desert spec Land Rover’s were painted pink, and affectionately called “pinkies”.
Spitfire
Spitfire
Wait until they find out that
Wait until they find out that the SAS Mobility Troop used these in the desert until the 80s. Much better camouflage in the sand at dawn & dusk apparently. Known as the “Pink Panther” Land Rover.
in more pink related news
in more pink related news ‘The sets of Greta Gerwig’s upcoming Barbie movie required such vast amounts of pink paint, they swallowed up one company’s entire global supply, according to production designer Sarah Greenwood.’
He must fucking hate the Giro
He must fucking hate the Giro.
Trump voter.
Trump voter.
Miller wrote:
There’s no guarantee that they’re old enough to vote
Is Trump rich from all the
Is Trump rich from all the money he saves living rent free in your little head?
Roulereo wrote:
I rarely think about Trump and until this reply, haven’t mentioned him. Are you sure you’re not confused by reality again?
Anyhow, for your information I had to swap a medium helmet for a large one just recently as my head is bigger than I thought. I’m not sure why you’re interested in the sizes of body parts though.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Do you have a big head though, or just small hands?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Well, I thought it was large hands and a medium head, but the helmet manufacturer disagreed
Vaughters didn’t need to
Vaughters didn’t need to publish that message, he’s an attention/publicity seeker. I’m sure every team recieves hate mail, goodness, I bet Sky recieved loads over the years and I bet it blew up when old Jimbo Ineos moved in.. haven’t ever seen a peep of this sort of PR from Brailsford or others though..
Of course we’ll never know… but in my judgy old head.. the person who wrote that ‘fan-mail’ probably owns at least one gun, has multiple stickers supporting their favourite country/god/politician, drives a pickup truck and shoots squirrels for fun.
So what if he is? Isnt that
So what if he is? Isnt that part of his job. He’s no worse than Patrick.
FWIW his response lower down the thread is class.
Re the councillor getting
Re the councillor getting “dog’s abuse” – does this mean I can give “dog’s abuse” to people who chose to drive on A and B roads, rather than the motorways provided exclusively for driverists?
the little onion wrote:
They build a shitty “cycle lane”, don’t maintain it, have it cede priority at every side road and then blame cyclists for not using it.
Didn’t see any cyclists but
Didn’t see any cyclists but reluctantly built the cheapest “facility” because complaints about “bloody pavement cyclists!” and “not safe to cycle on the road!”
Ensued it didn’t inconvenience motorists because “everyone drives” and the mere idea of “wasting money on cycle infra” leads to a raging on Twitter / opponents (of any party) sniping.
Happily prove selves right because “nobody uses it”.
Pattern has proved effective for over a quarter century now.
I have to admit that “dog’s
I have to admit that “dog’s abuse” is not an expression I’ve ever heard before. Is it a Scottish expression?
brooksby wrote:
A pretty common phrase, I thought. But on a quick google, it’s apparently of Irish-English origin.
I try and avoid shared
I try and avoid shared footpaths if I can – the one section I do use it, is because the road is very narrow, full of potholes and car/lorries get so f**king close I have to change my shorts.
Do I avoid the shared footpaths as some form of weird protest or a feeling of self-entitlement?
No – as with (I would imagine) most cyclists, I avoid the shared footpaths because I am going a heck of a lot quicker than pedestrians, on a vehicle that is quieter than someone running. I need to slow way down when I see a pedestrian, because chances are they can’t hear me/my bell (definitely not if they are wearing headphones) and last thing I want is to crash into someone/ get a punch from someone who got a fright as I went past.
I always wonder if those sort
I always wonder if those sort of emails are “real” or someone trying to parody a homophobic prick. Thats like a characature of a person you would see in a badly written TV show. The bit about a baseball cap with block letters being the correct and manly type of headwear is just a little too ridiculous for me to take it seriously.
“Bloody cyclists, cycling on
“Bloody cyclists, cycling on the pavement”
(puts up shared use sign)
“Bloody cyclists, not cycling on the pavement”
I’m not sure quite what Jean
I’m not sure quite what Jean Hall-Muir expected after her ignorant and patronising comments. A kiss on the cheek and a medal?
What is ‘Dog’s abuse’ anyway?
What is ‘Dog’s abuse’ anyway?
Told you are a “bad boy” and
Told you are a “bad boy” and beaten with a rolled up newspaper.
Just my experience anyway.
peted76 wrote:
Where your owner slathers peanut butter on their testicles and refuses to feed you until you lick it off for them?
Just my experience anyway.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Every day a school day here – and people say they feel the site provides no value!
chrisonatrike wrote:
What is ‘Dog’s abuse’ anyway?
— chrisonatrike Where your owner slathers peanut butter on their testicles and refuses to feed you until you lick it off for them? Just my experience anyway.— ShutTheFrontDawes Every day a school day here – and people say they feel the site provides no value!— peted76
What school did you go to?
One clearly inadequate in
One clearly inadequate in teaching zoophilia…
But what if it’s crunchy
But what if it’s crunchy peanut butter and the dog decides to bite?????
kinderje wrote:
Don’t threaten me with a good time 😉
Preaching to the choir here,
Preaching to the choir here, but if cyclists aren’t using the infrastructure provided, then it’s probably not very good. Cyclists just want a convenient and safe route. Rather than trying to “force” cyclists to use the infrastructure provided, maybe think about why cyclists don’t want to use it and then try to improve it.
I note that if you follow the link to the full article on the Dunfermline Press website, you have another classic of the genre: Mr MacLean claiming that the problem is people who “wouldn’t look out of place in a cycle race” and therefore everyone ought to be buying a different bike/tyres to use on this short piece of path.
It’s even more worrying that
It’s even more worrying that MacLean is Fife Council’s ‘lead consultant for sustainable traffic and travel’. Might as well just spaff the active travel budget up the wall than spend it on people with views like that.
Let me guess, he’s never
Let me guess, he’s never cycled on this path, never will, and has never commuted by bike?
Can we please have cycling
Can we please have cycling infra designed by people who actually ride bikes?
Round my way, people and dogs walk in/into cycle paths, the paths give way at every side turning and riders are constantly at risk from motorists turning into/out of driveways – not to mention cycle paths that end where pedestrians wait at signal controlled crossings. Then there’s broken glass and other junk. Not practical or safe at 20-25mph.
If this seems a bit pissy, I’m available to help design the next £10 million roundabout and I will be sure to add these wonderful features for motorists to enjoy. I’m sure it will be a grand success.
OK – my “thinking too hard
OK – my “thinking too hard about things that don’t matter” rant. Why is pink a separate colour anyway? Add white to blue, you get light blue. Add white to green, you get light green. Same with every colour except red. Pink should just be ‘light red’.
Steve K wrote:
Don’t worry about it. An often-used shade of pink doesn’t even exist.
https://medium.com/swlh/magenta-the-color-that-doesnt-exist-and-why-ec40a6348256
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
OK – my “thinking too hard about things that don’t matter” rant. Why is pink a separate colour anyway? Add white to blue, you get light blue. Add white to green, you get light green. Same with every colour except red. Pink should just be ‘light red’.
— ShutTheFrontDawes Don’t worry about it. An often-used shade of pink doesn’t even exist. https://medium.com/swlh/magenta-the-color-that-doesnt-exist-and-why-ec40a6348256— Steve K
Hold on a minute – does that mean that gays have stolen the colour “pink”? They’ve already got the whole rainbow, how many more colours do they want?
hawkinspeter wrote:
How can they steal something that doesn’t even exist? Or maybe it used to be in the rainbow but it isn’t anymore because they’ve half-inched it… I’m going for a lie down.
Perhaps that colour exists,
Perhaps that colour exists, but is only visible to certain gaze?
hawkinspeter wrote:
The internet is yours for the day!
Far from stopping me worrying
Far from stopping me worrying about it, you’re just making me worry about that, too.
Steve K wrote:
Dredging up physics lessons from 40 years ago, I can remember being told that pink is not light red, pink is in fact a combination of red and purple from different parts of the spectrum in the same way that brown is a combination of red, blue and yellow, and that gave it the “right” to have its own individual name. If this is wrong, feel free to take it up with Mr Wallace. Though thinking about it if he’s still alive he would be well into three figures so…
Does this help?
Does this help?
Sigh… at least this
Sigh… at least this rabbithole is colourful though…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color
I don’t know where to start
I don’t know where to start here.
Colour is a sensation that only exists within the brain. (Do you see colours when you dream?)
There are an infinite number of colours, but the human eye can detect about 10 million (depending on which textbook you read). The English language has eleven true colour names, pink is one of them. Other languages may have a different number.
The colour we “see” depends on three things, the fundamental colour of the object (reflectance), the ambient light (Illuminant), and the human eye/brain combination.
The diagram above is of an undefined colour space (Check out CIELab for a definitive one) Color space is three dimensional, imagine it is sherical like the Earth. In this diagram we are looking down on the North Pole, white and pastel colours near the centre and all the brightest colours around the Equator. If we took a section through the Equator we would have a neutral grey in the centre with more subdued colours surrounding it.
Sorry to be a bore, but it used to be my job
Cycloid wrote:
I’d like to be able to see more colours, please. Which textbook do I have to read to make it happen?
I would recommend the Terry
I would recommend the Terry Pratchet Discworld novels. The Newtonian Spectrum contains Seven colours. On Discworld we have an eighth color – Octarine which expands the visual spectrum.
The sooner you fuck off there the better.
Cycloid wrote:
That’s not even a textbook, it’s just a book with text in it.
Cycloid wrote:
Newton’s decision to define the spectrum as seven colours was pretty arbitary – it was actually to align it to a musical octave (which, despite the name, is seven notes).
You are 100% correct, Newton
You are 100% correct, Newton could have used any selection of colours from the spectrum. Most people don’t see indigo. the crazy thing is that we still teach Newton’s spectrum in schools 350 odd years later.
Cycloid wrote:
I thought it was because a Richard of York had recently given battle in vain.
Take a can of brilliant white
Take a can of brilliant white emulsion, put a spot of red in it, you get pink. Pink is a very light red.
Take a bright orange, put some black in it you will get brown. Brown is a dirty orange.
Generally speaking you can match any colour paint with the correct combination of yellow, red, blue pigments.
Cycloid wrote:
Also, take a load of white t-shirts and put them in a wash with one red sock…
Why didn’t I think of that?
Why didn’t I think of that?
Cycloid wrote:
But why do you see pink? Because your paint is reflecting to you the red and purple portions of the spectrum, not because it’s reflecting back a little bit of red and a lot of white light.
Rendel Harris wrote:
But why do you see “pink”? Because you have learned how to map your experiences / mental states * to some of the meanings of “pink” that are shared with others.
* This says nothing about whether those experiences – and certainly not mental states – are necessarily the same as someone else’s. FWIW I got quite adept at identifying different “colours” when playing games on my monochrome green screen monitor many moons ago, aided by the very limited palette of the system. So that snooker quote about “for those of you watching in black and white…” may not have been as silly as it sounded!
Sorry Rendel – in this case
Sorry Rendel – in this case you are wrong
Your second proposition is the correct answer.
If you need an explanation let me know.
Cycloid wrote:
OK, very briefly, the colour the eye sees is the parts of the spectrum that a substance reflects. When you see pink that is because the substance you are looking at is reflecting a mixture of the red and purple part of the spectrum. I would welcome an explanation of why that’s not so.
Cycloid wrote:
You seem to not know the difference between additive colour mixing and subtractive colour mixing and seem to be confusing the combination of multiple wavelengths if light (additive) with the mixing of paint colours (subtractive). Even Rendel should take what you say with a pinch of salt.
It is
It is
.
.
peted76 wrote:
.
Colours don’t really exist
Colours don’t really exist anyway. They are generated in our brains, which assign this representation in our minds depending on what sensors in our retina are stimulated.
Geoff Ingram wrote:
So did that dress not even have colours?
https://xkcd.com/1492/
Outside our heads, no. The
Outside our heads, no. The picture reflects some light waves, absorbs others and those that reach our eyes make us “see” colours. Since everybody’s cone cells are slightly, and sometimes very, different, as in daltonism, a range of possible colour interpretations are valid. Birds have 4 different types of photoreceptors and thus see vastly more colours. As do a very reduced number of humans.
Pretty sure I read about this
Pretty sure I read about this last Monday in the Grauniad, but I can’t find the article now. Sorry.
Geoff Ingram wrote:
Pffft! Mantis shrimps laugh at your tetrachromacy
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/mantis_shrimp
I hate it when someone
I hate it when someone reminds me about xkcd. I lose hours of time…
Anyhoo – found this one at https://xkcd.com/2766/
Someone at Dunfermline
Someone at Dunfermline Council must be getting some big brown envelopes with wads of cash in them if a shared path is costing £700,000.
While I realise that building different types of infrastructure have certain cost parameters built into them when paid for with taxpayers money, how on earth a single white line, even if it is likely to be approx 1 mile long, plus some small blue sign equates to this sum of money is mind blowing.
I think a change of career path is in the offing if that is typical of the money being thrown about for such sub-standard infrastructure.