"Say goodbye to sunglasses in road races": Cycling world reacts to Alberto Bettiol's ultra-aero solo victory in TT helmet with visor; Van Aert's monstrous training ride; Does your bike have a bottom bracket garden? + more on the live blog

Maybe it's because no one in their right mind gives a fuck?

I mean... anyone who is a competitive racer gives a fuck and that's the only people who would be considering buying an aero helmet so I am not sure your point here. 

Is it just "This product doesn't interest me and I don't understand that other people are whole humans with their own lives not just NPC's in a videogame."

marmotte27 wrote:

Maybe it's because no one in their right mind gives a fuck?

Bit harsh. I'd wear that on the track

Many years ago when I  did my Cytech, one of the first things the instructor told us was to always wear gloves when working on a cycle and to wash our hands regularly. He then listed the  potential germs and contaminants on a bike. All that 'mud' on the BB - what exactly is it? 

Given that my jaunt round the FW last year logged me 180km/3580m, would WvA even consider that 'decent', training-wise? He might want something more challenging.

And the inside lane on motorways.

And railway lines.

Maybe if the councillor "passed up and down the Childers road, a couple of times a day" by bike, they'd not only be contributing towards reduction of the congestion, but also increase the amount of cyclists, thereby making it less of a waste of money.

If only we could make councillors better value for (our) money...

It is difficult to know what the councillor is complaining about. I had a look on Google maps and at different points in the road you get before and after images. Before it was a two lane road (one lane each way) with very wide lanes. Now it is a two lane road but with narrower lanes and the space saved has been used for a bidirectional cycle path. I cannot see how anything has been changed for motorists.

Slattery is living proof that re-branded dimwitted Tories propagate like invasive weeds

Those tipper trucks are the worst.

Along with bendy buses, I won't go anywhere near them. Although I did get a close pass once and it was horrible (nfa too).

It isn't just the physics/engineering/blindspots that make tipper trucks the worst. It is also the deeply cowboy nature of the industry, payments by load, freelance drivers, contractors not checking the driving history of drivers, and a lot more. They could have all the extra mirrors and padding you like, and they would still be deathtraps.

You don't need a tipper truck or a cowboy industry.

Last Friday a woman was hit by a speeding driver in a hatchback on a minor road near Oswestry while walking her dog. She had to be airlifted to Stoke with serious injuries and has apparently had to have one leg amputated.

I hesitated before 'liking' because it looks as if I'm having a good laugh over the tragedy. A disaster could be inflicted on any of us at any time when we're on or near the roads, because the 'legal system' (you know who I mean!) takes a very lenient view of drivers inflicting injuries on just about anyone (with the possible exception of child pedestrians) using a vehicle as the weapon.

It's not as simple as leniency in the legal system. It's the whole cultural symbolism of cars and driving that has been continuously promoted for many decades through advertising and motorsport. The widespread use of motorsport, including on TV, and the glamourising of speed and the desirability of having the road to oneself as we see in the adverts seem to be the primary things that drive this behaviour, not that a judge will 'let you off'.

You can fine, ban and even imprison drivers as much you want but it won't stop other drivers deliberately breaking the law, driving recklessly and putting road users at risk.

marmotte27 wrote:

The traffic system is bad, but insurers are worse yet. End capitalism now.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/lifeandstyle

I'm onboard with that, but we can also do a lot to diminish traffic danger in the meantime. Effective policing would be a start and ensuring that the worst drivers are prevented from being in control of heavy machinery. It's bizarre that we routinely have heavy trucks and cyclists sharing the same road space when the trucks are known to have blind spots and are arguably not fit for use on public roads.

What we could do with is a robust safety culture if we're going to be serious about Vision Zero

Good - but Sustainable Safety, please!  [1] [2] [3].

Differences?  The charity Brake in the UK say:

Brake wrote:

Sustainable Safety differs slightly from Sweden’s Vision Zero approach in that it does not assume that road users will obey the rules, and it considers public information and education to be a vital part of the Safe System.

The Dutch safety organisation SWOV have some fact sheets comparing the Dutch approach with others e.g.:

SVOW wrote:

Like Sustainable Safety, Vision Zero takes the 'human dimension' as the guiding principle in a safe layout of the traffic system. ... Unlike Sustainable Safety, education and information campaigns are not part of Vision Zero ... Common ground is, above all, the moral premise not to accept any casualties at all.  This does not always imply that the ‘safe system approach’ is adopted to achieve a casualty-free traffic system. In other words: Vision Zero does not automatically imply that a 'safe system' approach is chosen. However, in both the Swedish Vision Zero and in the third edition of Sustainable Safety this link is explicitly made.

* More freedom and convenience for all to travel safely, not just those in motorised transport.  Nicer public spaces ("places").

chrisonabike wrote:

Good - but Sustainable Safety, please!  [1] [2] [3].

Differences?  The charity Brake in the UK say:

Brake wrote:

Sustainable Safety differs slightly from Sweden’s Vision Zero approach in that it does not assume that road users will obey the rules, and it considers public information and education to be a vital part of the Safe System.

The Dutch safety organisation SWOV have some fact sheets comparing the Dutch approach with others e.g.:

SVOW wrote:

Like Sustainable Safety, Vision Zero takes the 'human dimension' as the guiding principle in a safe layout of the traffic system. ... Unlike Sustainable Safety, education and information campaigns are not part of Vision Zero ... Common ground is, above all, the moral premise not to accept any casualties at all.  This does not always imply that the ‘safe system approach’ is adopted to achieve a casualty-free traffic system. In other words: Vision Zero does not automatically imply that a 'safe system' approach is chosen. However, in both the Swedish Vision Zero and in the third edition of Sustainable Safety this link is explicitly made.

* More freedom and convenience for all to travel safely, not just those in motorised transport.  Nicer public spaces ("places").

To be honest, I've always thought that Vision Zero was just a target rather than a methodology

For a while I thought it was just a slogan!

I hadn't realised it originated in Sweden until I dug out that SWOV doc.

I favour the Dutch one simply because:

• I know more about that than others (which isn't much.  And I'm not an engineer...)
• The systems there have been tested for a longer time and by greater numbers than anywhere else I am aware of.  NL is similar to the UK in many respects and has every common rural / urban built environment except maybe "megalopolis" (London may count in UK?) or "mountain" (they do have hills though).
• Their focus seems to encompass "humans will be humans so a) won't bother to educate themselves about rules and b) won't always follow rules" more explicitly.