Jan and Klodi's Party Bus - part II **off topic discussion**

CramCycle

My, my, here come the fuzz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM3sl2oaLxo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNIMuvbiZcc

Harrybelafonte

CramCycle wrote: »

Pity, I think thats nice
Bit to many shamrocks for me, it's like they are trying to steal the audax jersey and failing.

Also a pity as it looks better going around IMO

National champs kit always has shamrocks on it, whether by standard Spin11 supplies or other.

CramCycle

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

National champs kit always has shamrocks on it, whether by standard Spin11 supplies or other.

I don't mind the shamrock, I just thought the number was excessive, one on the green strip, no need for the extras below the strip. Just an opinion though. I am sure there are others who think it should be nothing but shamrocks.

Lusk_Doyle

CramCycle wrote: »

I am sure there are others who think it should be nothing but shamrocks.

A leprechaun eating a bowl of lucky charms would be nice!

CramCycle

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

A leprechaun eating a bowl of lucky charms would be nice!

Put a Toucan sitting on top of the shamrock and get Diageo to sponsor events going forward.

Thud

First glimpse of the jersey in action

http://www.gettyimages.ie/event/rd-tour-de-pologne---stage-653235877#cycling-73rd-tour-of-poland-2016-stage-1-gatis-smukulis-radzymin-de-picture-id546507512

dastardly00

https://twitter.com/nicholasroche/status/752806545361076224

Chuchote

What about a leprechaun sitting by a pot of gold while playing a harp with strings made of rainbows, with a púca peeking cutely over a wall and munching shamrock?

rollingscone

Chuchote wrote: »

What about a leprechaun sitting by a pot of gold while playing a harp with strings made of rainbows, with a púca peeking cutely over a wall and munching shamrock?

Shouldn't that Púca be glaring murderously?

Chuchote

rollingscone wrote: »

Shouldn't that Púca be glaring murderously?

Tricksters, innit?

rollingscone

Chuchote wrote: »

Tricksters, innit?

Púca-mon: Gotta lure 'em all*


















*to their deaths but...

Chuchote

The Department is trying to force cyclists back into the awful cycle lanes:

http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/12/mandatory-cycle-track-law-not-revoked-in-2012-says-department/

Minister Varadkar said: “This is an easy one. The deputy asks if there are plans to remove the mandatory use requirement for cycle lanes. The removal of the requirement to use cycle lanes where provided is one of the undertakings in the national cycle policy framework.”

The minister added: “Where a cycle lane is provided, cyclists are required to use it, even if it is damaged or in a bad condition or inappropriate to use it. The government agrees that the regulation should be changed and it will be."
(snip)
Yesterday, however, the department said that the explanatory note was “incorrect”. They did not reply to a request asking them to explain the difference between their current stance and both their 2012 statement and the ministerial and governmental intent expressed by Varadkar.

eeeee

Chuchote wrote: »

The Department is trying to force cyclists back into the awful cycle lanes:

http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/12/mandatory-cycle-track-law-not-revoked-in-2012-says-department/

Oh for fcuks sake :mad::mad::mad::mad: how did that even come up as an option?

At the end of the quote do they not backtrack on it though?

CramCycle

nee wrote: »

Oh for fcuks sake :mad::mad::mad::mad: how did that even come up as an option?

At the end of the quote do they not backtrack on it though?

My reading of the departments interpretation is that any off road cycle path is not mandatory. Which to me are generally the poorly maintained and dangerous ones. The on road ones, if found outside of them can be argued, as if driving a motor vehicle, that you were avoiding dangerous road conditions or obstructions, much like crossing the center line to avoid potholes, debris, inappropriately parked vehicles etc.

tomasrojo

I'm baffled by this return from the grave of the mandatory rule.

The bit here
http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/12/mandatory-cycle-track-law-not-revoked-in-2012-says-department/

The relevant section of the 2012 regulations is as follows:

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—
(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or
(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.”

The spokesman then said: “To set it out as clearly as possible, paragraph 4(a) should be read as ‘A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where a cycle track is provided on a road. A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where a cycle track is provided on a portion of a road. A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where a cycle track is provided on an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided’. It is not to be read as ‘A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided’.”

That's just wilful misinterpretation of what's written, even without the clarifying note that makes the intention of the then minister crystal clear: cycle tracks are only mandatory in bus contraflows and pedestrian zones.

The division of the article into (a) and (b) is clearly to delineate the two scenarios: pedestrian zone and contraflow. If the DoT's new interpretation was correct, there would be no need to have an (a) and (b). It would be (a) road, part of road, etc. (b) pedestrian zone (c) contraflow.

Chuchote

Lamas

http://www.sbnation.com/2016/7/8/12131638/tour-de-france-llamas

RobertFoster

Chuchote wrote: »

Lamas

http://www.sbnation.com/2016/7/8/12131638/tour-de-france-llamas

A potential llama drama ding dong?!

seamus

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm baffled by this return from the grave of the mandatory rule.

The bit here
http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/12/mandatory-cycle-track-law-not-revoked-in-2012-says-department/


That's just wilful misinterpretation of what's written, even without the clarifying note that makes the intention of the then minister crystal clear: cycle tracks are only mandatory in bus contraflows and pedestrian zones.

The division of the article into (a) and (b) is clearly to delineate the two scenarios: pedestrian zone and contraflow. If the DoT's new interpretation was correct, there would be no need to have an (a) and (b). It would be (a) road, part of road, etc. (b) pedestrian zone (c) contraflow.

Thankfully the department of transport doesn't get to interpret the law nor provide direction to the traffic corps, so their interpretation is irrelevant.

The law there is actually very clear. That's not a wilful misinterpretation, but an incompetent interpretation by someone with no qualification to do so.

Subclauses are interpreted as entire statements, they are not broken up and interpreted as a series of subclauses. Whoever interpreted it this way is just straight up unqualified to do so.

tomasrojo

Full thread about compulsory-use zombie:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057621464

NamelessPhil

On a lighter note. we've just got back from a family holiday in north-eastern Brittany (we didn't bring our bikes!:eek:). While we were there we went to a velo-rail in Medreac not far from Rennes. It consists of a section of disused railway with bicycles attached in pairs that can be cycled along the rails. We ended up on the shorter trip of 3km each way. Our daughter was delighted as she got to sit in the middle between the bikes while we did all the work. It was a fun way to spend a half day and there's a cafe and a small train inter-active train museum in the old station.

Velo-Rail Médréac

cdaly_

There another one of these at Commequiers in the Vendee. Good day out and nice (reasonably priced) dinner in the hotel across the road...

Wishbone Ash

tigerboon wrote: »

...I noticed this these negative effects going up Horn Head this morning after a bit of a late one last night...

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's hard enough going up there in a car! I've headed in that direction a few times on the bike but something keeps drawing me away from making that turn. Fantastic scenery on a good day all the same.

CramCycle wrote: »

Where is Horn Head?

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Up the ar$e end of Donegal.

Gave Horn Head a lash today. It was handy enough and no where near as difficult as I expected it would be. It seems much steeper when driving.

https://www.strava.com/activities/639589440

Unknown Soldier

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It seems much steeper when driving.

I keep telling people, never do a reconnaissance on a hill in your car, it's exaggerated by about 25%

Unless your car has gyroscope-type enabled seats, self-leveling etc.

I've been reading up on hypens today. I shall be using them a lot. Badly.

tomasrojo

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I've been reading up on hypens today. I shall be using them a lot. Badly.

Looks pretty good to me so far. But my software team in a job I had years ago was once described in an email as "hyphen happy", based on error messages we'd written.

The email concluded: "Us tech authors are hear to help."

Idleater

tomasrojo wrote: »

"hyphen happy""

Hyphen-happy no?

Thud

Better look at Nico's jersey:
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/first-proper-look-at-nico-roches-irish-champs-kit-in-action/

Chuchote

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I've been reading up on hypens today. I shall be using them a lot. Badly.

Gettin' phrasal, eh?

Just to start you off, whatever you may read in the papers, where they've got rid of the tradition of crusty old pedants of sub-editors and compositors making every word absolutely correct, this is correct:

He was a six-year-old boy.

This is not:

The boy was six-years-old.

The reason is that in 'six-year-old boy', the phrase 'six-year-old' is a phrasal adjective. But 'six years old' is three separate words, and there's absolutely no reason for them to be hyphenated.

tomasrojo

Idleater wrote: »

Hyphen-happy no?

In my example, the compound adjective followed the noun.

So, my team was described as "hyphen happy", but it actually was not a "hyphen-happy" team.

The long winter evenings just fly by.

Chuchote

tomasrojo wrote: »

In my example, the compound adjective followed the noun.

So, my team was described as "hyphen happy", but it actually was not a "hyphen-happy" team.

The long winter evenings just fly by.

I think I'd still hyphenate that for clarity.

We make our own entertainment in these days.

Alek

Ford2600, was that you?

https://www.facebook.com/NBCSports/videos/1031661480222537/