Viral tweet sums up bizarre anti-cycling whataboutery; More "As a cyclist..." fun; Feel good Friday; Peloton share price plummets; Bike thief sentenced; Quick-Step build Remco's Grand Tour dream team; EF partners with women's team + more on the live blog

brooksby wrote:

What is an "accredited thinking skills programme"?  Is the thought, "Don't steal bikes"?

When I were a lad the place for improving 'thinking skills' was known as 'school'. 

N+1

C'mon brooksby !

You found yeast? You were lucky. When I were in lockdown, I 'ad to mek do wi' unleavened bread.

it could be worse, some woman posted about using some body produced yeast to use in Bread last year. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

it could be worse, some woman posted about using some body produced yeast to use in Bread last year. 

That seems unnecessary when you can just harvest yeast from the air with something like a sourdough starter.

hawkinspeter wrote:

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

it could be worse, some woman posted about using some body produced yeast to use in Bread last year. 

That seems unnecessary when you can just harvest yeast from the air with something like a sourdough starter.

Pizza-pie-in-the-sky! Coming round here, proposing your spontaneous generation - we'll have none of it! You'll be plucking the solution to the fossil fuel issue out of the air next!

HarrogateSpa wrote:

You found yeast? You were lucky. When I were in lockdown, I 'ad to mek do wi' unleavened bread.

Unleavened bread? Luxury! We had cardboard!

HarrogateSpa wrote:

You found yeast? You were lucky. When I were in lockdown, I 'ad to mek do wi' unleavened bread.

I thought we were all making sourdough bread in lockdown?

Yeast wants to be free.

wycombewheeler wrote:

So he's not talking about the existing permanant cycle lanes, those are OK, only the temporary ones, which are somehow not OK, but IF they do become permanant that would be even worse.

He might as well say, "the permanant cycle lane that hels me get to the palace oif westminster is OK, but the other cycle lanes in places where I want to drive are unacceptable."

Are you saying that you believe he does cycle?

Steve K wrote:

Are you saying that you believe he does cycle?

I searched on Strava but "No athletes with name lord peter cruddas found".

Steve K wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

So he's not talking about the existing permanant cycle lanes, those are OK, only the temporary ones, which are somehow not OK, but IF they do become permanant that would be even worse.

He might as well say, "the permanant cycle lane that hels me get to the palace oif westminster is OK, but the other cycle lanes in places where I want to drive are unacceptable."

Are you saying that you believe he does cycle?

Let's just say I am entertaining the possibility. After all Westminster is on a pretty good cycle super highway, and I doubt parking is easy nearby.

To an extent, if you cut through the rhetoric & waffle, he might just have a point.

The temporary lanes were brought in well over a year ago, theyve been trialled for all that time in various traffic levels by now, so either trigger the make them permanent part, so that m'lord can contribute to the consultation or just get rid of them, what purpose is keeping them temporary serving ?

Yes the guy is raising his point because he's clearly not a fan,but its valid to say to TfL or the government stop kicking this decision down the road so you dont have to deal with it & make that decision now, so that people can be formally consulted & choose.

I dont believe it's a tenable position to maintain "temporary" infrastructure permanently in this way.

Awavey wrote:

I dont believe it's a tenable position to maintain "temporary" infrastructure permanently in this way.

Oh, I don't know; the temporary flyover in the centre of Bristol was there for something like thirty years.

eburtthebike wrote:

Oh, I don't know; the temporary flyover in the centre of Bristol was there for something like thirty years.

There's no such thing as a temporary solution

Historically "final solutions" have tended to be problematic... 

hawkinspeter wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Oh, I don't know; the temporary flyover in the centre of Bristol was there for something like thirty years.

There's no such thing as a temporary solution

I beg to differ - that absolutely applies to the approach, by many councils, to pothole repairs

https://www.seton.co.uk/instant-pothole-repair-kit.html

belugabob wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Oh, I don't know; the temporary flyover in the centre of Bristol was there for something like thirty years.

There's no such thing as a temporary solution

I beg to differ - that absolutely applies to the approach, by many councils, to pothole repairs

That's the point - a so-called temporary solution becomes the permanent solution.

belugabob wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Oh, I don't know; the temporary flyover in the centre of Bristol was there for something like thirty years.

There's no such thing as a temporary solution

I beg to differ - that absolutely applies to the approach, by many councils, to pothole repairs

I think you'll find that is an approach, but not actually a solution

hawkinspeter wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Oh, I don't know; the temporary flyover in the centre of Bristol was there for something like thirty years.

There's no such thing as a temporary solution

Sea water in a drying pan?

eburtthebike wrote:

Awavey wrote:

I dont believe it's a tenable position to maintain "temporary" infrastructure permanently in this way.

Oh, I don't know; the temporary flyover in the centre of Bristol was there for something like thirty years.

Don't forget the Millennium Dome - only intended for a short time (one night?)

To play devil's advocate, maybe we're better off with the temporary infrastructure than none at all, which would seem likely if rich, influential white men continue to push the motor agenda and the narrative that improved infrastructure is a 'nuisance'.

hawkinspeter wrote:

To play devil's advocate, maybe we're better off with the temporary infrastructure than none at all, which would seem likely if rich, influential white men continue to push the motor agenda and the narrative that improved infrastructure is a 'nuisance'.

But we keep hearing that the all powerful cycling lobby are all rich white men. Is everyone else caught in the crossfire between these two opposing groups of rich white men?

wycombewheeler wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

To play devil's advocate, maybe we're better off with the temporary infrastructure than none at all, which would seem likely if rich, influential white men continue to push the motor agenda and the narrative that improved infrastructure is a 'nuisance'.

But we keep hearing that the all powerful cycling lobby are all rich white men. Is everyone else caught in the crossfire between these two opposing groups of rich white men?

The rich white men who ride Colnagos vs. the richer white men who ride in the back of Bentleys.