"People think it's a joke but I'm serious": Top snooker pro to swap century breaks for disc brakes, wants to compete in Ironman by 2028... and he's jetting back to Mallorca during tournaments to train on his bike + more on the live blog

Kapelmuur wrote:

 

Shot putters need a fair amount of fast twitch muscle, I remember that Arthur Rowe had a useful 100 metres time.

Capes himself was pretty good for his size: here he is running a 12.4 100m in the 1983 Superstars Past Masters when he would have been 34 or 35, apparently he could threaten 11 seconds when younger (sorry Facebook is the only place I could find it):

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=982268282449475

Best treat himself to a saddle with a cutout as well, he wouldn't want to find the balls lying in an awkward position...

Cue bad puns.

"cycling is very unhealthy for the pelvic floor and nervous system."

I notice some light balance issues sometimes, after staying for hours on the bike.

Probably related to different body dymanics required to stay up, the same phenomenon is well known after spending time on a small boat, then returning to land. In French I heard the word "landsickness". You just need some time to adapt... I have a wobble board at home and don't notice more difficulties with it after biking, so nothing serious...

Rolf Harris will be pleased your carrying on the wobble board legacy.

Cycle training wobble boards, now with incorporated power meters:

"Can you tell what
watt it is yet?"

S.E. wrote:

"cycling is very unhealthy for the pelvic floor and nervous system."

I notice some light balance issues sometimes, after staying for hours in the pub on the bike.

Yep, that's my excuse as well.

glenjamin wrote:

One of the local Shefield cycling groups I'm in has noted that at present the new West Bar dutch-style roundabout doesn't have the continuous red loop around - the red bits stop when crossing the car lanes.

It's currently unclear if this is going to be resolved before the opening, but if it's left as-is it seems like it will undermine the attempts to indicate priority.

I don't understand how we always seem to have difficulty just copying other places. It's like there's some discussion about it and then a petrol-head will raise an objection about how it's impossible to drive at 20mph or stop before a junction and then the design gets compromised.

1) People don't understand "who this is for" (as some posters here demonstrate).  People feel it's for the cyclists of today - and who are they?  There are hardly any, and why do they need anything new if they're already cycling?  (The few "I'm a cyclist myself" types tend to reinforce this - "it's for nervous / incompetent cyclists, I go fast so I'll continue to use the roads...")

2) People apply a "democracy of the status quo".  As mentioned above - there are barely any cyclists.  Why should they get more money / space / protection - what about everyone else - we drivers and pedestrians?

As for those implementing the changes - Chris Boardman touched on this in his recent talks [1] [2] (did I mention them?) - it's about:

a) The goals of the system - the questions we ask and what we measure.  Currently our "system" measures success in terms of motor traffic - and that's pretty much it.  So if the changes e.g. lead to a slight increase in measured driving times / capacity * then this is categorised as a fail!

* Initially - traffic evaporation is a thing - but it takes a little time.

b) "belief" (because the facts and stats are all there, examples exist in reality which you can easily visit).

Belief applies from bottom to top: as mentioned local people often don't trust the authorities (with reason...).  They just can't visualise the end result without that being terribly negative. They can't believe they'll be able to make those small changes and after they have that things will be better overall.  Or they are sort of in favour but just can't believe it will work here.

Councillors / politicians can't believe that people will come with them on this.  Perhaps they feel that it just won't help enough to be worth what they see as an unnecessary fight. ( Unnecessary as few are calling for this directly, no big companies are lobbying them for it...).  They either believe they'll fail so don't bother OR (in a few cases) they are overoptimistic and believe this will be easier to do than it is / will work if it's done for peanuts.

Plus all our planning / transport officers / road workers have been raised on providing for motor traffic alone.  If your organisation's culture (for generations) has been "success = making more space for motor vehicles" that is quite a change to adapt to...

There are apparently a few rules / laws which do get in the way of some kinds of infra being directly copied.  Although expert folks like the Ranty Highwayman have identified possible workarounds.  I think it's more the case that people simply don't understand some of the subtleties and just don't believe that UK cyclists, drivers and pedestrians will be able to cope.

We tend to come up with rubbish in the UK because there are additional constraints (like "do it for 1/10th of the cost!" and "you mustn't have any affect on motor traffic capacity") - plus of course people want to put their own stamp on things - to say "I came up with that!" rather than "I followed all the specifications exactly!"

So many plans for roads & upgrades I see thesedays come with this "and improvements for walking & cycling" tag, which deliver precisely the opposite.

I think there's a tiny tiny fraction of traffic designers who get cycling & walking systems, the rest are all about capacity for motor vehicles that screw the walking and cycling aspects completely.

Many might be quite surprised at the extent to which planning/transport (they're usually quite different things) officers try to achieve progressive results. The key barriers are lack of funding to achieve joined-up solutions; some old hands' entrenched views (and the nature of their ageing hands coincides with decision-making appointments); conflict with the perceived political barriers and time horizons, as schemes are passed up to committees, elected departmental representatives, and the like.

Funding often arrives with bids for schemes... have you got yours ready for the oven? Does it align neatly to the funding rules? That funding round might help one particular scheme, but that scheme depends on others to complete a network... without which it's a little bit of a road to nowhere, or a compromise to a convenient node pending some more funding at an indetererminate point in the future.

Don't fall into the trap that all sides seem to overlook, of thinking that all officers at the clowncil don't know what they're doing. Instead, try working out who those are and find the common ground to agitate for better outcomes.

It seems at Active Travel England they have spotted that actually lack of relevant knowledge / skill or even lack of sufficient officers tasked with delivering schemes is in fact a barrier.  Hence they've been focussing on capacity assessments for local authorities.  Not initially to say "you're rubbish" but "look, you've got a low score - but you've only got 2 staff on this and haven't yet delivered any big schemes.  So try doing some simple, cheap improvements first.  We'll help you and you'll get some quick wins AND that can help build up your capability".

Money is always an issue. Certainly (in ever straightened times) needs sorting at central government level so this isn't "random tombolas for pennies" with no feedback on what was actually delivered.  It does need commitment to a sensible sum (like Scotland's attempt, a significant fraction of the "road budget") and a continuous funding stream.

BUT ultimately - as Chris suggests - money is not the issue.  Where there is a real desire to get this done it can be.  Initially "good enough" active travel interventions can be done "cheap" where there's the will (essentially reducing motorised traffic and reclaiming the road space - using planters and concrete blocks etc).  And if enough authorities are saying "this needs funding - not doing this is negatively affecting lots of targets but putting this in will generate a return on the money" it can be.

Where there isn't understanding that it's in your people's interest (and in fact in your own interest), no amount of money will deliver effective improvements.

That's certainly true, but there are some big-ticket items where cycling is engineered out of the final plans. Not necessarily because the coal-face officers don't know what to do but because the budget to include cycling is squeezed &/or because a decision-maker become scared of the necessary carriageway take.

the allocation of officers to specific active travel solutions is often limited; the broader understanding of active travel is there, though; the bottleneck is often at the decision-making point, and the good intentions of officers is frequently overruled (or anticipated and self-limiting).

It has been fatiguing. The arrival of ATE and the experience gained by CB (together with expertise from the likes of Brian Deegan) at GM is a bright hope for top-down impetus and support. It provides the steer for LHAs to get things right - or at least to try for better.

FrankH wrote:

... Anyway, the vast majority of road collisions ARE accidents.

I've got a feeling we will be seeing some definition-sparring ... I do note that the (historic) safety bodies for the various areas of transport use "accident" in their names:

Marine Accident Investigation Branch, Rail Accident Investigation Branch, Air Accidents Investigation Branch

...BUT the more recent * Road Safety Investigation Branch gets a slightly different name.

TBH I think that we should just stick to calling incidents on the road "crashes" (including where it's just one vehicle).  FWIW we should look even beyond "vision zero" (more of a slogan) towards a far more radical and holistic approach to safe (and convenient) travel like the Dutch "Sustainable Safety" vision.

* So recent, that several years after being announced it doesn't exist.  Something something plan for drivers...

FrankH wrote:

Anyway, the vast majority of road collisions ARE accidents.

Predictable and entirely preventable accidents...

FrankH wrote:

Anyway, the vast majority of road collisions ARE accidents.

An accident is something that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally. People driving on the road have a set of rules and laws set out in the RTA and the Highway Code to follow. The vast majority of incidents are caused by one or both parties not following those rules and laws, in fact I don't think I've ever seen one that wasn't. In the vast majority of cases one or both parties have chosen to ignore the rules/laws, so it's not unintentional, and it may fairly be said that if people ignore said rules/laws incidents are to be expected, so it's not unexpected either. So no, the vast majority of incidents are not accidents.

And a lot of excuses used in mitigation should actually be used as proof of guilt.

There is no such thing as an "accident"; someone, somewhere is always to blame ... either by what they did - or equally as important - didn't do.

Most collisions are the result of:
- failing to look
- inappropriate use of speed
- insufficient stopping distance
- failure to obey instructions [signs, markings, etc]
- failure to concentrate on the task at hand
- failure to understand the brief
- failure to understand users needs
Etc

Don't forget:

- Poor choice of road design (making accidents more likely - here's a not uncommon example)
- Poor implementation (perhaps signs / road markings / lighting is inadequate or has deteriorated, or foliage or indeed buildings have grown up and are blocking the view).
- Rules which don't help (e.g. high speed limits on narrow, winding country roads)

And ultimately:
- Failure to recognise that humans predictably make certain kinds of mistakes or show some kinds of undesirable behaviour, and not designing around them (e.g. by separating modes of transport by speed / mass and direction, recognising humans get impatient etc.)

I certainly hope he's able to chalk up some decent results.

As long as he doesn't get big headed and go around putting too much side on.