"I need to check the power to see if he's got talent": Criminal mastermind behind G's bike theft was 15; Good Samaritan driver lends cyclist spare light; Peloton got worse; Aussie cycle fines; Xan der Poel; Riding through floods + more on the live blog

thanks for reminding me of podride, i would love one of them !

ike2112 wrote:

If I was powering the vehicle by cycling but had the frame protection of a small car - I'm all for that!

If you were powering that thing by cycling, you'd be faster walking.

alexuk wrote:

Bah, its clearly just a kid having a bit of fun - probably a dare from his mates; nice one lad! no harm no foul. Lighten up you lot.

And when a wave pulls him into the water and rescue service personnel have to put their own lives in danger to save him? 

Rendel Harris wrote:

alexuk wrote:

Bah, its clearly just a kid having a bit of fun - probably a dare from his mates; nice one lad! no harm no foul. Lighten up you lot.

And when a wave pulls him into the water and rescue service personnel have to put their own lives in danger to save him? 

Never mind that - all that salt water, that's bicycle abuse.

Hahaa! so true!  his poor chain.

You can live your life in a box to stay safe if you like. Everytime you walk down the pavement, you could be risking the safety of Ambulance crews to save you if you trip over and crack your head on the floor. Don't expect others to be so afraid of life. For all we know, that kid was a sea cadet or someone that knows the local sea and conditions well. BE BRAVE Rendel 

It's not being brave to be stupid and put others at risk if they have to save you. If the police closed off that promenade they did it for a reason, to take that risk is stupid, just like skating on a lake where there are warnings that the ice is thin would be. As a former off-piste skier, rugby player and someone who loves high-speed descending (not to mention commuting in London) I'm not "afraid of life", but I don't take stupid risks against the advice of experts that could mean other people being put at risk to help me.

He got away with thus made the right decision.  A relatively low risk activity just like off piste sking, playing rugby or riding down hill quickly. 

mattsccm wrote:

He got away with thus made the right decision.  A relatively low risk activity just like off piste sking, playing rugby or riding down hill quickly. 

Skiing off piste when there are avalanche warnings out and it's banned is highly dangerous and no responsible skier does it - that's the equivalent here.

Rendel Harris wrote:

It's not being brave to be stupid and put others at risk if they have to save you. If the police closed off that promenade they did it for a reason, to take that risk is stupid, just like skating on a lake where there are warnings that the ice is thin would be. As a former off-piste skier, rugby player and someone who loves high-speed descending (not to mention commuting in London) I'm not "afraid of life", but I don't take stupid risks against the advice of experts that could mean other people being put at risk to help me.

I'm in two minds about this. Is it brave or stupid to go climbing in teh cairngorms for example. If anything goes wrong the mountain rescue team has to come and get you - sometimes their job is recovering bodies.

They are volunteers. But it is dangerous for them  (and traumatic potentially). But they do volunteer. 

I mentioned in passing a while back that I'm getting into sailing. Some of that is offshore. I'm glad that the RNLI is there. Am I being stupid and putting their lives at risk, as they might potentially need to rescue me someday? BTW if they didn't exist I'd still be sailing.

I'm not contradicting you. However the line that is drawn between legitimate [risky] activity and stupidity is highly subjective. 

Yes it is difficult to know where the line is, I agree, but when there's a clear line as here of the area being closed as dangerous, that's fairly obvious, just as I wouldn't go walking in the high peaks if mountain rescue put out a warning not to, or as I expect you wouldn't go sailing if the coastguard put out a warning that conditions weren't safe for leisure craft?

Rendel Harris wrote:

Yes it is difficult to know where the line is, I agree, but when there's a clear line as here of the area being closed as dangerous, that's fairly obvious, just as I wouldn't go walking in the high peaks if mountain rescue put out a warning not to, or as I expect you wouldn't go sailing if the coastguard put out a warning that conditions weren't safe for leisure craft?

Mountain rescue may well put out warnings in the conditions that you (if keen) really want to experience - I've been out in such conditions. 

Likewise with sailing (not me at this stage, but one of my aims is to take part in ocean racing - conditions can be and frequently are brutal, and way beyond anything the coastguard would consider safe) You may be correct re leisure craft (define leisure....), however that is more equipment rating than anything else.

In the case of the storm cyclist above it didn't appear that the authorities had closed the route. I wonder what the risk is to the individual (which is their own business natch), the risk to emergency services (which is also their and their employer's consideration) weighed against the benefit - and this may be key. Did the rider have a reasonable alternative to that course of action?

Also I'm a bit cautious about viewing risk of individual actions through the prism of morality (except where your actions directly impact others). When folk come a cropper sometimes onlookers lose their sense of empathy (as they would never be so stupid) rather than maintaining a sense of " there but for the grace of gods...."

Captain Badger wrote:

 

In the case of the storm cyclist above it didn't appear that the authorities had closed the route. 

From the story above: "This one's from Vancouver where Park Board officials announced the closure of Stanley Park and the seawall."

Rendel Harris wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

 

In the case of the storm cyclist above it didn't appear that the authorities had closed the route. 

From the story above: "This one's from Vancouver where Park Board officials announced the closure of Stanley Park and the seawall."

Missed that, thx. Did the rider know it was closed?, and was there a suitable safe alternative?

Looking at the map the path he's on is the scenic route round the coast of Stanley Park; BC 99 highway, with a fabulous-looking totally segregated cycle path on both sides, runs straight acoss the centre of the island. Even if he needed to ride through that specific area, fifty yards north is Stanley Drive, a quiet road that mirrors the exact path of the seawall. I think it's fairly clear the guy was doing it for a dare more than anything.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Looking at the map the path he's on is the scenic route round the coast of Stanley Park; BC 99 highway, with a fabulous-looking totally segregated cycle path on both sides, runs straight acoss the centre of the island. Even if he needed to ride through that specific area, fifty yards north is Stanley Drive, a quiet road that mirrors the exact path of the seawall. I think it's fairly clear the guy was doing it for a dare more than anything.

Fair enough. Well anyway, I think we can all agree that it was just as well that he was wearing a helmet. It probably saved his life.

Captain Badger wrote:

Fair enough. Well anyway, I think we can all agree that it was just as well that he was wearing a helmet. It probably saved his life.

No hi viz, though.  How are the waves supposed to see him?

Steve K wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

Fair enough. Well anyway, I think we can all agree that it was just as well that he was wearing a helmet. It probably saved his life.

No hi viz, though.  How are the waves supposed to see him?

Waves only see in monochrome, so it probably was ok

Captain Badger wrote:

Fair enough. Well anyway, I think we can all agree that it was just as well that he was wearing a helmet. It probably saved his life.

Well it might have done if he'd been washed away, polystyrene floats, doesn't it?

I have walked along that seawall on a nice summer day.  I was in Vancouver visiting friends who has moved out there from Scotland.

While I have no idea what the conditions were like when the photo was taken, I do remember my friends saying that every wee bit of rain was described as a storm by the local media and how the Pacific generally lived up to its name compared to living in Scotland.

Sniffer wrote:

I have walked along that seawall on a nice summer day.  I was in Vancouver visiting friends who has moved out there from Scotland.

While I have no idea what the conditions were like when the photo was taken, I do remember my friends saying that every wee bit of rain was described as a storm by the local media and how the Pacific generally lived up to its name compared to living in Scotland.

Ohhhh, you have a woman's storms my lord!

You call that a storm..... when I was a boy we used to.......

Rendel Harris wrote:

It's not being brave to be stupid and put others at risk if they have to save you. If the police closed off that promenade they did it for a reason, to take that risk is stupid, just like skating on a lake where there are warnings that the ice is thin would be. As a former off-piste skier, rugby player and someone who loves high-speed descending (not to mention commuting in London) I'm not "afraid of life", but I don't take stupid risks against the advice of experts that could mean other people being put at risk to help me.

Life has a 100% death rate; you can either cower in bed and die miserable and unfulfilled, or you can get out there and embrace it.

Fulfilment doesn't exist in the world; we have to create it for ourselves.

So you could cower in bed and find fulfilment in that.

eburtthebike wrote:

Life has a 100% death rate; you can either cower in bed and die miserable and unfulfilled, or you can get out there and embrace it.

I do thanks, to the extent that one can carrying 53 years and a few health issues (plus having a wife who sensibly vetoes some of my more stupid ideas), but I don't regard ignoring safety advice and putting myself in a position where others might have to take risks to pull my chestnuts out of the fire as a necessary element to do so.