- Location
- Inside my skull
Cyclist escapes prosecution after fatal collision with pensioner
- Thread starter PK99
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
I was going to reply "on what grounds?" But I've answered my own question. It's clause 1 of the Editor's Code "Accuracy"
https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/
- Location
- Inside my skull
Accuracy and intention of stirring up hatred and harassment.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
I did complain, but I could only substantiate clause 1. Clause 3, harassment didn't seem to fit, it's more about journos not pursuing and harassing people with questioning.
- Location
- Inside my skull
Alex321
Veteran
- Location
- South Wales
True, but irrelevant.
Why are people talking about speeds that hardly anybody even CAN achieve, never mind ones which occurred in this case?
I'm not sure anybody else has mentioned 40, and according to the report, the seed here as between 25 and 29.
[EDIT}
I was reading through the thread in order, and that comment was before seeing the supposed 52mph reported in the Telegraph.
A perfectly reasonable opinion, which I generally share.
Last edited:
Alex321
Veteran
- Location
- South Wales
They won't be Zwift, but they could well have been a closed road Criterium race, with a sprint there.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Read on. It's Tacx. @Dogtrousers is great.
berty bassett
Legendary Member
- Location
- I'boro
Was just commenting on an earlier post
Personally I very rarely go above 30 , I think the fastest I have been was accidentally starting to come down roseland where it was a very long very straight and very very smooth and I just thought ‘ I wonder what happens if I just freewheel - I will tell you what happens - I shet myself ! If anything had walked out in front then I think it would have been curtains for someone/thing
God knows how the professionals do it going a lot faster
In my eyes it was stupid but I was only going to hurt myself as there was a drop one side and a mountain the other and I could see a very long way in front , there was very very little chance of a dog walker , old lady or mother and pram crossing my path in a daily routine
I won’t do it again cos I basically don’t want to and I don’t break speed limits on road cos I don’t want to , it’s a speed limit to go below for safety reasons so fair enough , if I was to pass a school at 20 and another cyclist passes me at 50% more than my speed shouting ‘ this speed limit doesn’t apply to me ‘ I wouldn’t say a thing - but would think what a self centred knob
But I think I’ve said enough to give an opinion and don’t think I will say anymore on this one , it’s ran its course
I think it has divided some of us into stupid cyclist group or stupid woman group and that’s what it comes down to
- I know who I would blame if I had to judge
Time Waster
Veteran
There's a grauniad article about cycling there. A seemingly level headed vox pop article with unscientific tests reported.
Basically most cycle there before 7am due to the roads being shut to motorists between midnight and then. Most have no issues with cyclists, even liking them and saying the issue is infrastructure and other countries manage it.
Only two joggers had a bit of an issue calling cyclists self entitled. Hmm! As a pedestrian on the canal towpath where I used to live it was only joggers who were self entitled and expected everyone else to get out of their way on the narrow sections, even if they're moving with a mate side by side. In fact one tall athletic male jogger knocked my son then aged 6 over and very nearly into the canal. So I question how they were when jogging.
Anyway, another segment of the article they said most cyclists on that same section of road as the accident were doing up to 16mph only one did 25mph. However almost all cars did 30mph with one motorcyclist was clocked at 53mph and went the wrong side of the central reservation crossing point.
So this article really shows the whole situation to me. Very few cyclists were doing things what most would say is wrong, namely one speeding. Every motorist was speeding. One biker was well over double and on the wrong side of the road.
So what point is speeding offences, registration, licensing, etc when motoristsm have them and still break the law so blatantly and frequently? So match cycling laws to motoring laws then don't enforce them like with motorists. Make knee jerk reactionary types happy then carry on as normal with nothing significant changed. Keep motorists killing people and wait for the next cyclist to kill someone, maybe wait a few years for it to happen and we'll have this discussion again.
Nothing changes until we copy behaviour of the better continental types. Dutch and Belgium cycling infrastructure, French motorists attitudes of respect to cyclists, Danish cycling culture, Scandinavian state support for healthy lifestyle, etc.
Basically most cycle there before 7am due to the roads being shut to motorists between midnight and then. Most have no issues with cyclists, even liking them and saying the issue is infrastructure and other countries manage it.
Only two joggers had a bit of an issue calling cyclists self entitled. Hmm! As a pedestrian on the canal towpath where I used to live it was only joggers who were self entitled and expected everyone else to get out of their way on the narrow sections, even if they're moving with a mate side by side. In fact one tall athletic male jogger knocked my son then aged 6 over and very nearly into the canal. So I question how they were when jogging.
Anyway, another segment of the article they said most cyclists on that same section of road as the accident were doing up to 16mph only one did 25mph. However almost all cars did 30mph with one motorcyclist was clocked at 53mph and went the wrong side of the central reservation crossing point.
So this article really shows the whole situation to me. Very few cyclists were doing things what most would say is wrong, namely one speeding. Every motorist was speeding. One biker was well over double and on the wrong side of the road.
So what point is speeding offences, registration, licensing, etc when motoristsm have them and still break the law so blatantly and frequently? So match cycling laws to motoring laws then don't enforce them like with motorists. Make knee jerk reactionary types happy then carry on as normal with nothing significant changed. Keep motorists killing people and wait for the next cyclist to kill someone, maybe wait a few years for it to happen and we'll have this discussion again.
Nothing changes until we copy behaviour of the better continental types. Dutch and Belgium cycling infrastructure, French motorists attitudes of respect to cyclists, Danish cycling culture, Scandinavian state support for healthy lifestyle, etc.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
Off topic nerd alert.
I've worked out what caused these high speeds.
First of all I got on my turbo and rode the Tacx circuit myself and gave it some beans on the segment in question. I kept an eye on my simulated speed as I rode it and, while it was way quicker than I go in real life, it wasn't mad. About 40-odd km/h tops. I uploaded it to Strava. Disappointingly, my speed on that section was a realistic 40-odd km/h (20-odd mph). Also Strava immediately twigged that it was a virtual ride (It was tagged as such in the TCX file). It also wouldn't match the Tite St segment. I don't know why not.
So these riders must have done something funny when uploading, or maybe Strava has upped its virtual ride tag recognising game since they uploaded. I don't know and will never know, so I'll leave that as a mystery.
But why the high speeds? This is where it gets "interesting". Time to have a look at the raw data, so I imported the TCX into Excel.
The TCX file has a record every second, saying what my power and virtual speed was at the time. But it doesn't have sufficient location data to tell me what my virtual location was every second. It just has a series of relatively widely spaced waypoints, and I jump from waypoint to waypoint (unlike a real outdoor GPS track which would have location for all the intermediate points). These location points are just handy for plotting the route on a map. They are completely inappropriate for calculating speed. You have to use the speed that the trainer provides for that.
Soo ... I calculated the distance between the successive waypoint co-ordinates using a bit of spherical trig and divided by the time taken to get between waypoints and the resultant speed went bonkers. I clocked 65.2 km/h (40.5 mph) going down the segment in question, skittling virtual Telegraph readers as I went. It was carnage. Not quite 52mph, but not bad. I could probably have gone faster by lying to my turbo software about how much I weigh.
In summary, somehow or other (maybe by saving the data as a GPX, not TCX, file) and uploading to Strava, somehow Strava thought this was a real ride and for some reason it took a naive approach to calculating speed from the given waypoints. This was an invalid approach - hence nonsense data.
End of off topic nerdery
Edit. Done it. I saved my ride as a GPX and edited it to tell Strava it was a real ride. Strava clocked me at 70.9kmh (44mph) on the segment, and also reckons I was putting out 110W. In actual fact in the simulation my simulated speed was 40-odd km/h and power was a bit over 300W. I think that might give me the current KOM
I've kept this private on Strava as editing files to fool the algorithnm in order to get KOMs is, I believe, not cool. But I might uncloak it just to make a point. (I have now done so. I have a KOM. Go me! https://www.strava.com/activities/11469737608/segments/3228307530918861610 )
I've worked out what caused these high speeds.
First of all I got on my turbo and rode the Tacx circuit myself and gave it some beans on the segment in question. I kept an eye on my simulated speed as I rode it and, while it was way quicker than I go in real life, it wasn't mad. About 40-odd km/h tops. I uploaded it to Strava. Disappointingly, my speed on that section was a realistic 40-odd km/h (20-odd mph). Also Strava immediately twigged that it was a virtual ride (It was tagged as such in the TCX file). It also wouldn't match the Tite St segment. I don't know why not.
So these riders must have done something funny when uploading, or maybe Strava has upped its virtual ride tag recognising game since they uploaded. I don't know and will never know, so I'll leave that as a mystery.
But why the high speeds? This is where it gets "interesting". Time to have a look at the raw data, so I imported the TCX into Excel.
The TCX file has a record every second, saying what my power and virtual speed was at the time. But it doesn't have sufficient location data to tell me what my virtual location was every second. It just has a series of relatively widely spaced waypoints, and I jump from waypoint to waypoint (unlike a real outdoor GPS track which would have location for all the intermediate points). These location points are just handy for plotting the route on a map. They are completely inappropriate for calculating speed. You have to use the speed that the trainer provides for that.
Soo ... I calculated the distance between the successive waypoint co-ordinates using a bit of spherical trig and divided by the time taken to get between waypoints and the resultant speed went bonkers. I clocked 65.2 km/h (40.5 mph) going down the segment in question, skittling virtual Telegraph readers as I went. It was carnage. Not quite 52mph, but not bad. I could probably have gone faster by lying to my turbo software about how much I weigh.
In summary, somehow or other (maybe by saving the data as a GPX, not TCX, file) and uploading to Strava, somehow Strava thought this was a real ride and for some reason it took a naive approach to calculating speed from the given waypoints. This was an invalid approach - hence nonsense data.
End of off topic nerdery
Edit. Done it. I saved my ride as a GPX and edited it to tell Strava it was a real ride. Strava clocked me at 70.9kmh (44mph) on the segment, and also reckons I was putting out 110W. In actual fact in the simulation my simulated speed was 40-odd km/h and power was a bit over 300W. I think that might give me the current KOM
I've kept this private on Strava as editing files to fool the algorithnm in order to get KOMs is, I believe, not cool. But I might uncloak it just to make a point. (I have now done so. I have a KOM. Go me! https://www.strava.com/activities/11469737608/segments/3228307530918861610 )
Last edited:
- Location
- Inside my skull
Maybe it is time for 300 km/h…
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
Cyclists are turning London's streets into a hell-hole by travelling faster than the speed of light and arriving before they set off.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
Telegraph were slacking. KOM on this one is 224km/h
https://www.strava.com/segments/789971
https://www.strava.com/segments/789971
Last edited:
Jenkins
Legendary Member
- Location
- Felixstowe
Is that all - try 365mph with the top 7 all over 100mph
https://www.strava.com/segments/6985980?filter=overall
Edit - there must be something affecting GPS on that bit as an almost identical segment has a top speed of 406mph, 7 over 100mph with some different names on the leaderboard
https://www.strava.com/segments/3871767?filter=overall
Last edited:
