Single-speed bike brand says it could lose 30% of business due to post-Brexit tariffs; Susannah Constantine considers cycling six months after apologising for "joke" about killing cyclists; Sidis on the catwalk; Racing the tide + more on the live blog

I don't know if you noticed Thatcher killed off most of our industry 40 years ago. We are a nation of middle-men, buy cheap, sell high. Somehow the twats who lead us haven't quite understood that.

Legin wrote:

I don't know if you noticed Thatcher killed off most of our industry 40 years ago. We are a nation of middle-men, buy cheap, sell high. Somehow the twats who lead us haven't quite understood that.

I know many frame builders in the UK and even more who would be capable of putting a frame together. If he wanted, he could shop around a lot of places in the UK to get components made in the UK and have a full UK frame aswell, but he's after the budget end of the market, so must buy cheap instead of quality.

I must say I'm finding it hard to feel any sympathy. Looks one step removed from a gas tubing BSO. Maybe he should try adding some value?

Unions and management did far more damage to manufacturing long before Thatcher. Dock workers and car workers fucked their businesses years before Thatcher came to power.

Dingaling wrote:

Unions and management did far more damage to manufacturing long before Thatcher. Dock workers and car workers fucked their businesses years before Thatcher came to power.

Yeah, they all ruined their own industries because they knew they could just walk away and get a job in the city the next day.  As we're seeing very clearly now, the key workers aren't the share sellers or finance wizards, it's doctors, nurses, delivery staff and dock workers.

Was that before or after the owners and shareholders had failled to invest in modernising their businesses? Was that before or after the owners and shareholders had nicked all the cash? Was that before or after our basket case economy joined the EU. Unions only abused their power where there was poor management, poor management only got appointed where it suited the owners of the business to appoint them. 

If you can hit lightspeed on your bike (or your car, for that matter) then fair play to you; but I think you'll find manoeuvering around the urban environment quite difficult...

At even 90% of lightspeed the car, driver, air, and everything within a few kilometers would turn into exotic new forms of very hot matter and radiation within the first centimeter of travel. Much more expensive and inconvenient than a speeding ticket!

andystow wrote:

At even 90% of lightspeed the car, driver, air, and everything within a few kilometers would turn into exotic new forms of very hot matter and radiation within the first centimeter of travel. Much more expensive and inconvenient than a speeding ticket!

Relevant XKCD: https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/

At least if you do manage to get up to 186,000 miles per second, it won't feel like you're spending any time travelling at all due to the time dilation.

Time will pass for you still, it will just pass slower for everyone else. So if you take a 10-minute journey, your wrist watch will show 10 minutes has passed. But when you get to your destination, the receptionist's clock will show the same time that you left, because no time has passed for everyone else.

Admittedly you'd be travelling a few thousand times around the world in that time so it might be a moot point...

OnYerBike wrote:

Time will pass for you still, it will just pass slower for everyone else. So if you take a 10-minute journey, your wrist watch will show 10 minutes has passed. But when you get to your destination, the receptionist's clock will show the same time that you left, because no time has passed for everyone else.

Admittedly you'd be travelling a few thousand times around the world in that time so it might be a moot point...

I would have thought the opposite - time would pass quicker for everyone else and be effectively stopped for yourself. It's a moot point though as if you have any mass at all (being a weight weenie won't save you) then you'd have infinite energy - you'd collapse into a black hole before you'd get to the speed of light.

(I recall reading somewhere that we know that neutrinos have some mass as they can change flavour, and if they were massless, they wouldn't be able to change as they wouldn't 'experience' any movement in time)

Edit: Found a suitable link: https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-light-experience-time.html

Also saw a paradox about neutrinos - if you can move faster than a neutrino (which theoretically can move at any speed slower than light), you would change it into an antineutrino (which would make it a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion)

Titanus wrote:

I don't condone dangerous driving but speed limits are the bane of my existence. To some this may sound contradictory, but that's only because many drivers are very crap, and speed does indeed exacerbate crapness. The key to safety is appropriate use of excess speed. 

Please tell me when excess speed is appropriate....

Titanus wrote:

2 speeding offenses in one journey? This suggests too many speed limits, or at least too many limits that are overly slow.

No this suggests that she broke the law at least twice in one journey.....

Titanus wrote:

Unfortunately the law doesn't make allowances for higher speeds on empty motorways which makes it an ass in my view. Why can't Britain, like Germany have a road or two without these frustrating limits? Any why is it 70 miles per hour tops? The one and only true speed limit is more like 186,000 miles, not per hour or even per minute, but per second! Even at that speed it takes a while to get anywhere beyond our own bunch of planets. But even for moving around on our own little world, an entire hour to do just 70 miles is pathetic.

Aaaah now I  see! You're trolling us - you are Socrapicyclist AICM £5. Nice one dude, you had me going then, Chapeau!

Titanus wrote:

Many will argue against my view on speed. But many of these arguments will come either from people on Strava, or those who don't have a problem with Strava which is all about how fast one can go, albeit on a push bike but the principle is the same. Speed limits are one of many reasons I no longer ride a motorcycle anymore. Whats the point in paying through the roof to maintain and operate a vehicle on public roads only to be patronised and frustrated by pedantic beurocracy.

Ditto my previous..... nice one

I took them to mean excess speed compared with the speed limit rather than excess speed for the situation.

If every drove at the speed for the situation, we wouldn't need speed limits and I think some of the 'why isn't it 30' is down to different limits in different counties.

Where I live, there are not many 40s and I am surprised that in other places the limit can be 40 where I am used to an equivalent being a 30, hence there is a bit of arbitrariness that people use for leverage.

Titanus wrote:

I don't condone dangerous driving but speed limits are the bane of my existence.

...

The key to safety is appropriate use of excess speed.

Excess speed is, by definition, dangerous. It cannot be a key to safety.

If speed limits are the bane of your existence then perhaps ask why you're going everywhere in such a hurry that you feel you need to repeatedly break the law.

Perhaps a stint with the police or fire service might change your perspective. 70 mph is enough to do all kinds of damage - to your car, yourself, roadside buildings and so on. Just check the regularly updated Car crashes into Building thread to see how many dickheads can't even keep their cars on the road in town and city centres. Those incidents wouldn't happen if drivers respect the speed limit and drive to the conditions. Like you, each one of them thinks they are a "better than average" driver.

Meanwhile I'll happily vote for more pedantic beaurocracy if it means selfish fuckers in cars and vans have to slow down and show a little consideration for other road users (and buildings).

Simon E wrote:

Titanus wrote:

I don't condone dangerous driving but speed limits are the bane of my existence.

...

The key to safety is appropriate use of excess speed.

Excess speed is, by definition, dangerous. It cannot be a key to safety.

If speed limits are the bane of your existence then perhaps ask why you're going everywhere in such a hurry that you feel you need to repeatedly break the law.

Perhaps a stint with the police or fire service might change your perspective. 70 mph is enough to do all kinds of damage - to your car, yourself, roadside buildings and so on. Just check the regularly updated Car crashes into Building thread to see how many dickheads can't even keep their cars on the road in town and city centres. Those incidents wouldn't happen if drivers respect the speed limit and drive to the conditions. Like you, each one of them thinks they are a "better than average" driver.

Meanwhile I'll happily vote for more pedantic beaurocracy if it means selfish fuckers in cars and vans have to slow down and show a little consideration for other road users (and buildings).

I know it sounds contradictory, but what I mean is that sometimes drivin fast isn't necessarily dangerous. A bit of a blast on an empty road isn't much to be worried about. I always used to ride about 90 or so on motorways unless foul weather or too much traffic. I never died even once. Treavelling at higher speeds and whether it's appropriate comes down to common sense and good judgement.

For me, tailgating is a substaintial issue. On a motorcycle if  need to brake hard and the car behind can't stop in time, he gets a dent in his bonnet, I get a wheel chair. So it is something that gets me particularly irate. This issue isn't enforced nearly to the extent of speeding. Surely those yellow speed cams on motorways can be set up to measure distances and speeds between cars and issue fines based on the results.

Titanus wrote:

2 speeding offenses in one journey? This suggests too many speed limits

No, it suggests an irresponsible tonker incapable of controlling themselves or their vehicle within the parameters decreed by law.

Riverbib wrote:

 Bloody well hope she doesn't drink and drive.

Two hopes there. And Bob's dead...

Given that as of this time last year she had a 127 acre pad in West Sussex thats a very good question.

Though tbf (if I must) the offenses may not have occurred during lockdown.