“What a lovely car park”: Tailbacks force cyclists onto grass at Richmond Park; Spaghetti-gate: Van der Poel offends all of Italy; Cavendish closes in on the greats – again; Politicians and pro-car messages; Giro rest day blues + more on the live blog

capedcrusader wrote:

Re: Cavendish being the first British winner of a monument, Milan-San Remo 2009.

Does Nicole Cooke winnig the Ronde van Vlaanderen in 2007 not count ???

"The Manx Missile was the first British monument winner and male road world champion since Tom Simpson" i.e. the first British person to win both a monument and the male world road title since Simpson so no, Cooke doesn't count as she won the women's world road title.

Also, did the women's RvV in 2007 count as a 'monument', being as it was only in its 4th edition? What are the 'rules'? Does any women's race created alongside a men's 'monument' automatically become a 'monument' as well? Does it need time to mature? Or should older women's races - say Amstel Gold or Fleche Wallonne - have a claim?

Surely a glance at Google Maps would show a solid red line on the routes in question? I guess people know the way, so they aren't using Google Maps to get there, and don't pause to think. Or maybe they just enjoy the experience Safari-style, looking at the wildlife from their stationary vehicle? Beggars belief.

Sriracha wrote:

Or maybe they just enjoy the experience Safari-style, looking at the wildlife from their stationary vehicle?

And taking potshots at herds of passing cyclists?

I may get flamed for this but here goes:
I rode Richmond on 3 occasions this weekend and had a look in the cars while passing them.
Most were one occupant or hubbie and wife, but there were also families with little kids and starter bikes/scooters, also some with grandparents or those with limited mobility - saw some zimmer frames for example.
So banning cars would deny some people (easy) access to the park, the pleasure of open green spaces and of course the deer. Really not fair or inclusive.

What has worked with success in some parts of France is a parking area plus a shuttle bus plus car access limited to disabled.
There are supermarkets near Richmond gate and Kingston gate that could provide parking and bus drop-off points.
And in fairness, we should also stop using the place like a race track ...
 

jaysa wrote:

[people drive to the park.  Sometimes with kids] So banning cars would deny some people (easy) access to the park, the pleasure of open green spaces and of course the deer. Really not fair or inclusive.

Not really following because you haven't shown a link between "came from very far away" / "otherwise couldn't access" and "drove".  I suspect it's the usual sliding scale of "convenience" / makes getting their 40 minutes rather than an hour and a quarter plus "have a car, so will use the car".

However let's assume this; what you're saying reduces to "plenty of people drive (because reasons) so it's not fair to stop them driving to park (because we made parking right in the park)".  But could we not just limit through traffic?  Try it the other way round: "people who don't drive to the park should stop being so entitled and make room for drivers".  See how it doesn't really work?  Don't forget that to use the park those families and their small children on scooters then have to deal with the motor traffic too...

The idea of "drive and park and park (via bus)" sounds better.  It does mean that there will be a fair bit of bus traffic though - a few heavy vehicles instead of lots of cars.  Better?

I'm ignorant as I've not been there for decades but if I remember there are a) a couple of "destinations" actually in the park - so probably they "have" to have access so everyone else will cut about the place.  b) "Royal Parks" so the idea of doing stuff that might "change the character" (ha) or "favour cyclists" probably means this idea is going nowhere.

There's a separate track for youngsters or less confident folk that goes round the edge.

They should stop through traffic and be tougher on commercial vehicles.

jaysa wrote:

What has worked with success in some parts of France is a parking area plus a shuttle bus plus car access limited to disabled.
There are supermarkets near Richmond gate and Kingston gate that could provide parking and bus drop-off points.

I've long thought this (having been riding in the park nearly forty years). I don't mind people driving to the park (if they must!) and parking in the car parks near the gates, it's the continually circling traffic that is the problem - especially on days like Sunday when people drive round and round on a carousel waiting for a space to become available (and apparently were abusing parks staff for not letting them in). What I would do is keep the Kingston Gate, Roehampton Gate, Sheen Gate and Richmond Gate carparks open, possibly expand capacity slightly if it can be done sensitively, but close the Broomfield Hill one, maybe reopen Robin Hood Gate if possible to allow people through to the Pen Ponds carpark, but close all other roads except for blue badges and access (Royal Ballet School etc). To mitigate any inconvenience a shuttle bus service could be introduced, maybe going from Richmond and Norbiton stations and circling the park (they had one for the disabled pre Covid but I don't think they've brought it back yet). I don't want to stop people from all over London enjoying the park, but how can they enjoy it when it's full of nose-to-tail traffic and fumes - or when they're stuck in a traffic jam for hours? Oh, the other thing I'd do is have counters on the carparks and the gates shut to traffic when they're full, the information to be available online so people don't set out on pointless journeys when they're never going to get in. Obviously also improve cycling infra so it's easier and safer for all cyclists to journey there.

"we've been subject to what is effectively a propaganda campaign...with all the media promoting...and rubbishing the alternatives...then there is the paid advertising...nothing mysterious about why people mow lap this up this stuff"

Sounds like the past two years worldwide. 

Just take your horse meds or drink your bleach and you will be fine. It has been guranteed by QAnon. 

Ouch, that's quality repartee there. Not a QAnon believer but your horse meds  seemed to have saved thousands of lives in India so keep drinking whatever your media Kool Aid is champ. Maybe that's why you'll never achieve  real change though being so whiny, refusal to acknowledge not everyone is a conspiracy theorist or 'pro-driving', so trying to belittle them makes your argument so much weaker.

Those Drivers using the park seem to be majority decent people coming to enjoy the park (no reports of close passes, or otherwise biligerent driving, etc.), some are families even. If they're not able to easily cycle, and there is a road open to them, what's their alternative? Just slag them off as idiots because that makes you feel superior I guess. Don't acknowledge them, or propose an alternative. Better still, claim 'their' media are trolls yet 'yours' are fine. Magic. 

Roulereo wrote:

Ouch, that's quality repartee there. Not a QAnon believer but your horse meds  seemed to have saved thousands of lives in India so keep drinking whatever your media Kool Aid is champ.

Strange you mention India as I happened across some of the excess deaths stats the other day: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/61333847

Although raw numbers aren't necessarily all that helpful. India, for example has a population nearly ten times the size of Russia's, so if it's excess deaths are only roughly five times as high it would appear, relatively, to be doing significantly better.

Having said that, there are also the 'known unknowns' - people who just haven't been counted because of gaps in record keeping, which is reckoned to be a substantial chunk in India's case.

mdavidford wrote:

Although raw numbers aren't necessarily all that helpful. India, for example has a population nearly ten times the size of Russia's, so if it's excess deaths are only roughly five times as high it would appear, relatively, to be doing significantly better.

Having said that, there are also the 'known unknowns' - people who just haven't been counted because of gaps in record keeping, which is reckoned to be a substantial chunk in India's case.

That's excess deaths rather than COVID reported deaths, so likely to be more accurate than official reported COVID deaths. It will include deaths due to lack of healthcare provision (caused by COVID) as well.

Here's the graph that is population adjusted

Yes - but it's not just about classification - there are some (likely a lot) of deaths that are just missing altogether, because there are just no records of those people's lives. And the people that are most affected by this will tend to be the poorer and more marginalised, who will also be those who tend to be hit harder by the effects of, say, a global pandemic.

mdavidford wrote:

Yes - but it's not just about classification - there are some (likely a lot) of deaths that are just missing altogether, because there are just no records of those people's lives. And the people that are most affected by this will tend to be the poorer and more marginalised, who will also be those who tend to be hit harder by the effects of, say, a global pandemic.

True, but previous years will also likely have missed some figures too (maybe a smaller percentage), so it's as accurate as we're likely to get. Certainly a better measure than COVID reported deaths which seem to be politicised.

Uttar Pradesh home medical kits, look it up. That's the state in India with 230 million people which was on the verge of collapse in early 2021 according to the MSM, who then suddenly stopped reporting when cases dropped 97% in  four weeks after the packs were distributed. Sure it was those pesky horse meds, or maybe just more media disinformation campaigns on behalf of Pfizer to discourage cheap medicines without expensive patents...Oh, and BBC lumping in 2020 deaths is pretty misleading when you consider the above. Thanks for your contribution though.

Roulereo wrote:

Uttar Pradesh home medical kits, look it up. That's the state in India with 230 million people which was on the verge of collapse in early 2021 according to the MSM, who then suddenly stopped reporting when cases dropped 97% in  four weeks after the packs were distributed. Sure it was those pesky horse meds, or maybe just more media disinformation campaigns on behalf of Pfizer to discourage cheap medicines without expensive patents...Oh, and BBC lumping in 2020 deaths is pretty misleading when you consider the above. Thanks for your contribution though.

Uttar Pradesh? You don't seem to have included any sources or references which is disingenuous when you're supposedly trying to enlighten us.

Here's some sources that I've found:

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-indian-state-of-uttar-pradesh-did-not-drop-covid-cases-to-zero-in-71-out-75-districts-in-24-hours.html

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/12/facebook-posts/no-scientific-basis-claims-ivermectins-success-utt/

Quote:

Dr. Nick Mark, who works with critical care and pulmonary patients at Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, has examined claims that ivermectin has had dramatic success in Uttar Pradesh. 

"This is not even remotely the case," he said during a lecture with other doctors on Oct. 15. While there are claims that the state began using ivermectin in May 2021, during the height of India’s COVID-19 crisis, the government actually said it began giving the drug in August 2020. 

"Not only did it not hasten the end of that alpha wave, but it didn’t prevent the delta wave," Mark said. 

Mark cited research where scientists looked at data for all deaths in India, and found that certain populous districts in Uttar Pradesh had no reported deaths at all for several months. 

"So either you have to believe that ivermectin prevents you from dying of everything — car crashes, cancer, homicide, suicide — or, that the data is just garbage and you can’t interpret it," he said.  

The New York Times documented problems with India’s COVID-19 data in September, and found that political considerations interfered with open scientific inquiry. 

The Indian Council of Medical Research, funded by India’s government, had recommended use of ivermectin for COVID-19 in May, but revised its guidance months later. Indian health authorities warned that the risk of bias is high in studies claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for COVID patients. 

A review of available research published in Cochrane Library in July found that the available reliable evidence "does not support the use of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19 outside of well‐designed randomized trials."

In May, PolitiFact checked a  similar claim, that COVID-19 cases dropped in India after the government promoted ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and ruled it Mostly False. The government did promote use of those drugs, and cases did fall, though the relationship between those events is unproven. 

Health Feedback, a member of the International Fact-checking Network at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, found that there was no evidence of a causal relationship between the use of ivermectin and declining COVID case counts in Uttar Pradesh. The site found that other factors likely helped reduce case counts, including immunity from previous infection, vaccination and lockdowns.

It'd be great if Invermectin was effective, but clinical trials haven't shown it to be of use.

Roulereo wrote:

Those Drivers using the park seem to be majority decent people coming to enjoy the park (no reports of close passes, or otherwise biligerent driving, etc.),

Apart from:

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-18-february-2021-281009

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-12-may-2021-283273

(you can Google more)

Now this is a busy place and also one where leisure / quiet routes (cycling) is in conflict with through traffic as well as access to the park so don't colour me surprised - but wait, cars have only been here for how many years and in a giant park we can't sort out alternative routes?

Roulereo wrote:

some are families even. If they're not able to easily cycle, and there is a road open to them, what's their alternative?

No idea.  There isn't an airport there, or a port ... no, I don't see how they can get there if they can't cycle or use a car.  If only there were some form of publicly-available shared transport people could use, like what you'd find more of in a big city like London.

I don't live there but having access limited to car parks around the edge with no through traffic would seem to be the way.  Exceptions for access / emergency services and that will obviously need policing in some way.  Will that make surrounding streets busier?  Possibly - although if it's nose-to-tail already then it won't.  At that point the solution is not "build more roads" or "we need somehow to let more cars through" and certainly not "damn cyclists!"

Roulereo wrote:

Better still, claim 'their' media are trolls yet 'yours' are fine. Magic.

This is that rare occasion where "you started it" is an appropriate adult reply.

If it's 1.5 miles to his work, why doesn't he just walk? Does he have health issues, or is he just lazy? Driving that short distance will cause undue wear and tear for a vehicle engine. 

OldRidgeback wrote:

If it's 1.5 miles to his work, why doesn't he just walk? Does he have health issues, or is he just lazy? Driving that short distance will cause undue wear and tear for a vehicle engine. 

I'm going to guess its sheer laziness.  They seem perfectly capable of walking the route when they don't have a car..... no doubt it will be the usual set of excuses for not doing so..... it's never quite goldilocks weather for walking/cycling.

Given the OP has also said that the neigbour in question is the kind of person who will drive 500 yards to go to the shops.... it further adds to my suspicions that it is laziness.