Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
WeLoveHills wrote:
John, the point is that we don’t need a tribe at all. It’s not a matter of looking down or up to anyone. Simply, I don’t feel that somehow I have to belong in the same category as someone else simply because there’s a bike involved. That kind of categorisation doesn’t help anyone, except those who screech with anti-cycling hysteria every five minutes.Part of the point of including absolutely anyone under the umbrella of “cyclists” is that we aren’t a collective and that the category shouldn’t carry any meaning apart from “someone cycling”. When idiots complain about “cyclists”, we need to remind them that we want idiots out of cars and onto bikes – they’ll cause less harm that way.
Dangerous driver crashed into garage in Teddington Close, Canterbury, while being followed by policeIt works in GTA
Comrade Stevenson obviously meant “everyone riding a cycle”Does that include the penguins?
Obviously – it’s not like they’re gonna fly instead
I think we are all happy to be described as cyclists. The issue is the othering that comes with it from people that just hate cyclists. I would like the press to use human on a bike instead of cyclist when reporting RTAs and legal stuff.I’d rather we just concentrated on a free and impartial press rather than letting Murdoch take control. If we stopped putting oil and cars at the centre of everything, then people would understand better that cycling is a solution to lots of problems.
I am perfectly happy to be included in the same category as absolutely everyone riding a bike.We’re all comrades here
Wait – I’m not?
Comrade Stevenson obviously meant “everyone riding a cycle”
I am perfectly happy to be included in the same category as absolutely everyone riding a bike. Why aren’t you? Again, which more-virtuous cycling tribe do you want to be a member of in order to differentiate yourself from the bike riders you appear to look down on?We’re all comrades here
Indeed, but Rockhoppers are very entry level, so wouldn’t assume that he has the skills round trails eitherHey, I’ve got an old Rockhopper!
**sad lack of trails skills noises**
I’ve done site-restricted Google searches for ‘triathlete’, ‘Drummond’ and ‘Dundee’ limited to the period since Jan 1 this year and found nothing.etc — replacing drummond with the other strings is left as an exercise for the reader.
This search also fails to turn it up:
https://road.cc/search-results?search_api_views_fulltext=drummond
And this is a bust too:
https://road.cc/search-results?search_api_views_fulltext=dundee
None of those tools are infallible (site-specific search is very much an insufficiently advanced technology) but I also can’t find any reference to this story except on the Courier’s website.
Okay, I’ve tracked it down to the “Car crashes into building” forum thread which is unfortunate as it’s currently over 900 comments long. It was from David9694 about a month ago – I don’t know how to share a link to a specific comment.
Anyhow, that’s not something that road.cc can be blamed for.
(I found it by using site-specific searches in DuckDuckGo which showed up as a snapshot of the recent comments, but DuckDuckGo wouldn’t show me a cached version, so I had to use BING (I think I threw up in my mouth a little) which could show me a cached version and thus identify which thread the comment was on.)
OnYerBike wrote:
I’m fairly confident I came across that story via road.cc – although it’s quite possible it was posted in the comments/forum section rather than having an actual article written about it.I’m pretty sure we didn’t cover that story, because why would we? That Drummond had been training to do a triathlon was entirely irrelevant to the incident which happened in a pub. No roads or bikes involved.
I remember seeing it here – maybe a mention on the Live Blog?
No true driver would say that.Just because you’ve commented doesn’t make you a commentator
Quote:
The sole act of driving a car does not make one a “driver”It most certainly does
Small, light and more efficient cars are just not wanted anymore, or so it seems.Because of “range anxiety” car owners seem to want 2-300 mile range, or that is what the car company seem to sell them. That means transporting huge weight of batteries meaning more weight which then needs more batteries. When most journeys are only a few miles, and even 50 miles would be a huge amount to drive on a daily basis. Perhaps removable battery packs for that very rare occasion that the really need the range would work.
I think it might be in Singapore, they did an emoped scheme that you never charged the battery, when getting flat you’d visit a hub remove the old battery and pick up a fully charged one, shove it in and away you went. Negating the problems of charging in apartment complexes.
That kind of thing works great in cities where people are doing lots of short journeys (e.g. pizza deliveries). There’s an advantage to having smaller nimble vehicles as they don’t need so much juice and thus the battery can be small enough to make it easy enough to swap out.
Just had a quick search and there’s e-scooters available with removable batteries and 150km range. Considering that they cost a lot less than a car, I can see them becoming popular (I read somewhere that they’re becoming very popular in India).
Rich_cb wrote:
Personally I think we’ll have widespread driverless taxi services within a decade so charging tax per mile will become far easier.Taxing per mile gets trickier when there’s still old cars knocking around. Maybe the easiest way is to put up ANPR cameras on most roads – it’s exactly the kind of surveillance tech that’ll be some politician’s wet dream.
Rich_cb wrote:
It was an incredibly good point, made incredibly badly. There was an opinion piece in the Telegraph (boo/hiss etc etc) recently calling for more insulation and better energy efficiency. The comments were full of those vehemently opposed to the idea ostensibly because of IB’s antics.The problem with protesting is that you’ll either get criticised for not making enough of an impact, or you’ll get criticised for making too much of an impact.
I’d suggest that if IB are winding up Telegraph (and other papers, too) commenters then they’re heading in the right direction. Whether they will be successful remains to be seen.
Historically, if we look at almost any successful protests that ended up effecting a meaningful change, there were hordes of people criticising their tactics. My favourite example is the suffragettes and their use of violence to get what they wanted (eventually).
Ultimately, if you want to change the status quo, then people (especially the older and wealthier) will get upset and angry – there’s simply no way to change things whilst keeping people happy unless you just kick the can down the road (c.f. conservative strategy). Unfortunately, the world has been kicking the can down the road for decades.
Sriracha wrote:
[quote=Sriracha]They’ve been looking at pattern recognition to disaggregate electrical device consumption for quite a while, a quick Google will throw up loads of papers, eg https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Electric-vehicle-charging-load-filtering-by-power-Shaw-Nayak/27bc0b0722b7a90766eae7f36a8dd4f7651c8401 This one is more aimed at the lay person: https://blog.sense.com/how-sense-recognizes-the-electric-vehicle-in-your-driveway/ Meanwhile, you are correct in assuming HMG wants to know everything about your EV’s electricity consumption: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/18/section/15/enacted%5B/quote%5D
It seems easy enough to defeat detection of EV charging – just put an intermediate device in between the source and the EV. Something like a bunch of capacitors or even a flywheel could be used to flatten the ‘ramping up’ of charging.