Tom Dumoulin runs super quick 32:38 10k (sorry, Adam Yates!); Moaning motorists made miserable by segregated cycle lane; 100 miles out the saddle postponed; Stolen cycling dinosaur; No beer in Belgium; Should Pog go for the Giro? + more on the live blog

Ahh! Then we'll earned R&R!!!

Steve K wrote:

If my cat brings in one of those, I'm moving house.

Your cats more likely to bring in a hippopotamouse.

I absolutely need one of these in my life. Come on genetic engineers, up your game!

Rendel Harris wrote:

I absolutely need one of these in my life. Come on genetic engineers, up your game!

Just get yourself a net on a stick, a pair of heavy duty gardening gloves and a marker pen.

peted76 wrote:

jpj84 wrote:

Why's Dumoulin got "more of a runner's build"? Genuine question - I am baffled by this comment.

He's tall and has long legs like a one humped camel. Whereas I believe those of us with builds like dachshunds are considered to be sub-optimal at running and jumping games. Although I've heard hippo's are pretty quick so this is all clearly hearsay and conjecture.

A quick look at the average height of top level distance runners would show how much of an advantage being tall is 🤔

I'm mildly aggrieved, because, as a lanky runner, I'm constantly getting told (by fellow runners!) that I'm more or less cheating, by being tall - despite all the facts blatantly exposing this myth 😟

"Why can't it be on the pavement like in other areas"

News from other areas.

'Residents complain about cyclists zooming past their front gates. Clive Nimby is quoted "They zoom past too close. I was almost knocked over stepping out of my garden as I walked to get into my car whilst on the phone to my employee. Why can't they be on the road like in other areas?" '

On first thought I actually sympathised with the residents a bit here, I mean if you're used to parking outside your house in a suburb and are being told that you can't ,that'd be a pain right, regardless of the wrongs that it might right.. But actually looking at that road on googlemaps they are being absolute numptys. That road is huge, the houses are massive and there's buckets of offstreet parking available. Bloody NIMBY's.

Yeah, but then they'd have to manoeuvre; and they might need to juggle (not literally juggle) which car is parked in first, depending on who needs to get out.

Far more convenient to just dump their cars on the public highway.

Which is what happens; why bother parking on the drive, when it's far easier to park in the road? You see this almost everywhere.

We've allowed this for far too long, that it's going to take a massive effort to change it. Again, we've come to rely on the car far too much. 

Velophaart_95 wrote:

Which is what happens; why bother parking on the drive, when it's far easier to park in the road? You see this almost everywhere.

We've allowed this for far too long, that it's going to take a massive effort to change it. Again, we've come to rely on the car far too much. 

A pet hate of mine!

My next door neighbour has one of those massive pick up truck 'company cars' and refuses to park on his own driveway becuase it messes his gravel about (I kid you not). It's worse than that because:- he parks over the give way lines on the road (we're on a service road so that's not too terrible), he then gets all humpty about anyone else parking outside his house.

Every house on the service road has their own driveways, there really is no need for anyone but visitors to park on the road, it'd make an ideal segregated bike path if it wasn't already used quite happily that way, without expence already. 

peted76 wrote:

he parks over the give way lines on the road

Report him, it's illegal.

HC Rule 243

DO NOT stop or park:
opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space

I am assuming "do not" has the same legal effect as "must not", but I'm happy to be corrected by someone who actually knows.

I don't think the 'DO NOT' does have a legal underpinning - if it did, it would typically reference the relevant legislation underneath the rule, and 243 has nothing.

eburtthebike wrote:

DO NOT stop or park:
opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space

I think that's a rule which has definitely become optional in this 'ere modern day...

peted76 wrote:

 But actually looking at that road on googlemaps they are being absolute numptys. That road is huge, the houses are massive and there's buckets of offstreet parking available. Bloody NIMBY's.

I often do the same Streetview search when these issues arise and nine times out of ten it'll be a street as you describe where every house has off-street parking. What "There's nowhere for me to park" usually means is "There's nowhere for me, my  partner and our three young adult children to park because we all have cars and the drive will only take two."

Yep - this is absolutely standard. I'd say it's probably one of the more common "issues" around road change e.g. the suburbs are everywhere. In Edinburgh, it's pretty much axiomic that no infrastructure will be considered *unless* there is already other parking available (well, except for the tram...). The council are quite used to ignoring small numbers of people saying rude things to them but they don't want people throwing things at them in the street! Lots of places here have garages (sometimes too small for modern cars though!), driveways AND on-street parking. A common arrangement is that there are "service streets" running either side of the "main road" (limited parking there) - with some grass too. Truly "the streets are not too narrow, your minds are too narrow..."

However let's try to empathise - because non-cyclists are in the majority. It's quite believable that the council didn't do much consulting. Although when you check it's also common that people can be very hard to reach... It's a change and it initially looks like a negative for them. They've got busy lives and routines which they've developed around their cars - they probably have several per household. And finally they're living on / next to what appears to be a pretty busy and unpleasant street! If only there weren't so much traffic around their schools...

chrisonatrike wrote:

It's quite believable that the council didn't do much consulting. Although when you check it's also common that people can be very hard to reach...

All too often people complain about not being consulted. They complain at consultation events that they knew nothing about the event (so how come you're here?). Have they enquired about being notified about local consultations, or checked the local authority web site for consultations? Some are 'pre-digital', but there are many who take no interest until the thing that affects them pass them by.

Some people are disadvantaged, and consultation is difficult. But many simply don't take the opportunities that are freely available to be informed. How much money should councils spend on every consulted decision before it is fair to suggest that people should make some effort to be consulted?

In this case, it looks like this is an early stage consultation. There will be further plans, public information and democratic approval before any scheme is implemented. Decisions are made by those who turn up.

This is as much for us as others:  it is about time we educated ourselves about being informed, consulted and engaged in what goes on around us. 

In their defence, the consultation notice was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."

andystow wrote:

In their defence, the consultation notice was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."

Cars:  mostly harmlessful

GMBasix wrote:

andystow wrote:

In their defence, the consultation notice was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."

Cars:  mostly harmlessful

Except for Ford Prefects.

andystow wrote:

In their defence, the consultation notice was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard-Squirrel."

hawkinspeter wrote:

andystow wrote:

In their defence, the consultation notice was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard-Squirrel."

Seriously.  Just stop!

GMBasix wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

It's quite believable that the council didn't do much consulting. Although when you check it's also common that people can be very hard to reach...

All too often people complain about not being consulted. [ ... ]

This is as much for us as others:  it is about time we educated ourselves about being informed, consulted and engaged in what goes on around us. 

Completely agree of course - and indeed when you ask why nothing continues to happen at a snail's pace the first answer is always that we have to wait for consultations (always with "stakeholders" - it must be those Transylvanian vampire hunters again...). The reality is those with something to gain / organisations with something to lose are hot on these things.  However most normal people seem to spend no time on this essentially until it hits them. I have a modicum of sympathy because council communications normally have the power of making your eyes slide off the paper / screen and your brain stop and it's sometimes necessary to read them several times.

And they say a squirrel never changes its spots!