Bloody Olympics

[BigShot]

That postcode puts me pretty much in the geographic centre of nowhere.
Unless you mean the pavement along the north side of the road (shared use with pedestrians - where pedestrians have right of way no matter which part they are on - isn't segregated), I'm not sure where the cycle facilities you mentioned are.

 

[Jacob]

... maniacs in cars, busses and vans (typically not lorries in my experience) ....

Lorry drivers tend to be careful but they are still the biggest cyclist killers - usually at junctions where they don't always see cyclists.
Cyclists no doubt part to blame sometimes, but traffic engineers more so.

 

[Digit]

pedestrians have right of way no matter which part they are on - isn't segregated)

We don't have pedestrians! At our local Tesco store the disabled parking is next to the cash machines, park in one and you are likely to find a vehical parked across the rear of two in the disabled slots whilst the driver staggers 20 ft to the cash machine.
The paths are signed as cycle ways, and the middle of nowhere is us!
In typical 'elf and safety style, where the cycle path meets a side road there is a notice stating, 'CYCLISTS DISMOUNT'
If someone walks through the village we normally ask them if they have had a breakdown!

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

That postcode puts me pretty much in the geographic centre of nowhere.
Unless you mean the pavement along the north side of the road (shared use with pedestrians - where pedestrians have right of way no matter which part they are on - isn't segregated), I'm not sure where the cycle facilities you mentioned are.

Looks nice and flat to me! Mind you there are some hills in Wales. We did Llangollen to Bala via Vyrnwy all over the tops and then Devils Bridge to Rhayader all on back roads etc . Not hilly like France, we did Mont Ventoux about 5 years ago and the Pyrenees another by Port Larau.. etc ...burble.... old touring cyclist drivels on.... the hills, the hills! etc
Couldn't do Porlock earlier this year though. Could barely cycle down it.

 

[BigShot]

Digit - that sounds like a sketch, not real life!
Is the population around there really part of an experiment to test the theory that we're going to evolve to a stage of having no legs and very dexterous fingers with even more dexterous thumbs?
Re: Cyclists dismount...
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/w ... er2007.htm
A long-time favourite.

... maniacs in cars, busses and vans (typically not lorries in my experience) ....

Lorry drivers tend to be careful but they are still the biggest cyclist killers - usually at junctions where they don't always see cyclists.
Cyclists no doubt part to blame sometimes, but traffic engineers more so.

Agreed.
Not sure they are the biggest killer of cyclists - I'm inclined to suspect that'd be cars (sheer volume I think) - but the reason is often cyclists at fault.

As I understand it, about half of cyclist deaths in London involve HGVs, but congestion charging is partly to blame for that (since congestion charging came into force, the type of traffic on London's roads has changed. Fewer cars had meant Royal Mail abandoning their dedicated underground line in favour of HGVs, HGVs coming into the centre rather than stopping on the outskirts and goods being carried by LGV and smaller... and so on).
I'm not sure I think HGVs should be allowed in town centres though. I'd much sooner see them stop on the outskirts and decant into vans. FAR safer on congested roads.

No question about it though, town planners and traffic engineers hold a huge portion of the responsibility for the death rate among cyclists, both for providing such atrocious facilities, enclosing roads with barriers and for producing a situation which has lowered cyclist numbers to the point of virtual invisibility.

All that said, far, FAR too many cyclists will pootle up the inside of an HGV (the driver of which can't actually see them once they reach the point of the fifth wheel coupling) and are then pinned between truck and roadside barrier with nowhere to go. Crushing between trailer and barrier or below the rear wheels of the trailer are the likely results. Truly horrible way to go.

 

[Digit]

Jacob, that is because the image that comes up is at the bottom of the valley!

BS, certainly to having no legs. Before I moved here I worked with a Welsh chap and he had 'reserved' the parking slot outside the factory nearest the entrance.
He said he had bought a car and had no intentions of ever walking again.
The Welsh are supposedly the most obese in the UK
On many Google street maps you will see pedestrians, try moving along the road on that image for my post code, if you see a pedestrian I'll eat my hat!
To actually enter the village rotate the image CW so that the laybye is on your left and move forward, but don't blink!

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

Jacob, that is because the image that comes up is at the bottom of the valley!....

So that airfield is on a slope? Unusual. Seem to be several sloping ponds in the area too. Hmm.
Actually we've cycled down that way a lot so we do know about all those little nasty hills down to all those little harbours etc. Can't remember Mynydd Tremain though. :lol:

 

[Digit]

So that airfield is on a slope?

You do love sticking your neck out don't you! Actually the answer is yes, look up the pilot notes.
You would certainly remember the valley, 40 mph down the hills is easy.
Also I'm not sure where you are as we have no ponds locally. The nearest one is over two miles away, beyond Pen Parc.

Roy.

 

[Sawyer]

Oh dear, we seem to have kicked off about cyclists again.

Sorry chaps :lol:

 

[Digit]

The only problem I see is that Jacob has yet to understand that cameras do lie, even Porlock doesn't seem as steep on Google as I remember it to be. Blowing Stone Hill looks easy a well, which it ain't!
I use to enjoy cycling, but it's bloody hard graft round here.

Roy.

 

[doorframe]

, even Porlock doesn't seem as steep on Google as I remember it to be.

Ahhh..Porlock! Remember it well. As a teenager I ignored all the warning signs...ie.. LOWEST GEAR NOW!!... and melted my brakes by the time I was halfway down. Rolled into the village with smoke pouring from the wheels. Went into a little local pub while the brakes cooled down.... felt like we'd walked into The Slaughtered Lamb...

They're an odd bunch in Porlock!

Beware the MOON!!

Ro

 

[Jacob]

The only problem I see is that Jacob has yet to understand that cameras do lie, even Porlock doesn't seem as steep on Google as I remember it to be. Blowing Stone Hill looks easy a well, which it ain't!
I use to enjoy cycling, but it's bloody hard graft round here.

Roy.

It's OK Roy was only pulling your leg I'm sure it's as hilly as you say it is!

 

[Sawyer]

whether the bidding process was fair and square doesn't come into the fact that a PRIVATE company has been given enough TAXPAYER money to buy TWO new machines AND produce the pieces they were contracted to. Unless they now only the only examples of those machines, the torches could have been bought for less than it is costing when you include TWO new machines... and the point about taxpayer money giving a private company a competitive advantage still applies.

The contract amount is the contract amount. How the company chooses to spend the money is up to them, so long as they deliver the product on time and to an acceptable standard.
.

How much are these torches costing, by the way?
Unless the last set wore out in 2008, why not use them again? Back to my earlier point about profligate expenditure, it seems a bit like my buying a full set of Lie Nielson chisels, when I've already got a couple of dozen perfectly good ones.

 

[Peter T]

whether the bidding process was fair and square doesn't come into the fact that a PRIVATE company has been given enough TAXPAYER money to buy TWO new machines AND produce the pieces they were contracted to. Unless they now only the only examples of those machines, the torches could have been bought for less than it is costing when you include TWO new machines... and the point about taxpayer money giving a private company a competitive advantage still applies.

The contract amount is the contract amount. How the company chooses to spend the money is up to them, so long as they deliver the product on time and to an acceptable standard.
.

How much are these torches costing, by the way?
Unless the last set wore out in 2008, why not use them again? Back to my earlier point about profligate expenditure, it seems a bit like my buying a full set of Lie Nielson chisels, when I've already got a couple of dozen perfectly good ones.

I THINK they're about £500 each. The thing is that every person who carries one on the grand tour of the UK will get one to keep, so the order is for something like 8000 of them!

 

[Max Power]

:shock: Four Million Quid :shock:
Why couldnt they have passed the same one on , like in a relay race and saved the country Three Million Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand and Fifty Pounds :roll: or would that be too sensible :?

 

[Peter T]

:shock: Four Million Quid :shock:
Why couldnt they have passed the same one on , like in a relay race and saved the country Three Million Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand and Fifty Pounds :roll: or would that be too sensible :?

Far too sensible.

Better still, hold the games in a different country and save ourselves billions!!

Or even better still, forget the whole damn thing until such time as we're not bankrupt!!!

 

[Jonzjob]

This load of old pony was exposed today, it don't arf look like the rings I had? But note todaze date 20.12??

http://www.london2012.com/news/2011/12/ ... trance.php

 

[Jake]

Jake - as I understood it the FA paid up about £150 million of the nearly £800 million price tag. The rest being paid for by Sport England, the Lottery, London Development Agency and the Department for Culture Media and Sport. Generally private sector is pretty quick and efficient (the need for profit encourages such) but when companies win big, government contracts there's less incentive for that.

No, the public sector bit was about £160m. Most of the cost was borne by the FA (to be defrayed, obviously, by private sector sponsorship, hospitality agreements etc) and largely financed through an enormous commercial loan to the FA from some German bank, which is why the FA is so keen to sweat the asset so much (semi-finals, pop concerts, etc). But, nearly all the overrun on the stadium build was swallowed by by Multiplex ( the private sector contractor) because they had entered into a fixed price contract with the FA (or WNSL to be more accurate), and failed completely to deliver on time or to budget. Multiplex tried to blame the FA and get hundreds of millions of extra pounds from them, but failed and settled for (in context) a very small amount of extra money (£35m or so, minus costs which ate most of that). That left them with a £300m odd loss on the fixed price contract which they signed (which, to reverse things up a few years, would seem to be plenty of incentive for anyone in any sector to meet the budget). Multiplex then tried to sue the engineers and other professionals. Several sub-contractors went into liquidation during the contract amid litigation with Multiplex, and there were many other disputes, few of which Multiplex did well out of.

Eventually, effectively, Multiplex admitted defeat and swallowed the loss (in the meantime they had been taken over by private equity deal and after a while re-named themselves,it might be speculated in order to avoid the stigma). That is because they had tried everything they could within the legal process to blame everyone else in the process, private or public sector, and had failed except for peripheral bits and pieces. They (obviously private sector) were, after all that exhaustive legal process found to be the party responsible for their own losses.

Hey ho. There's nothing like a simplistic black and white view of life is there?

 

[Jake]

Just to follow up on that thought, take the AT&T deal that just collapsed. $4 billion of costs written off for a deal that failed, when it was obviously an over-concentration the competition authorities were never and should never wear. In the public sector, that would cause an immense furore (quite rightly). In the private sector, AT&T's share price rises and there is no sign of any price being paid in the boardroom.

 

[BigShot]

No need for sniping, Jake.
You may not be able to see the shades of grey that I see in my "simplistic, black and white view of life"... but while they are somewhat more black and white than held by many, they are certainly *not* black and white.

It's not easy to find the price breakdown online... and in fact I can't even find the initial source I found that had it backwards. After much searching I've found the following in an official Wembley Stadium document:

The total cost of the project is £757 million, with the funding sources as follows:
Bank loans £433 million
The FA contribution £148 million
Pre-closure profits from the old stadium £15 million
Sport England contribution £120 million
LDA contribution £21 million
DCMS contribution £20 million

So not quite how either of us had put it. In short, the FA paid less than the public sector (£148 million versus £161 million). £15 million was already in Wembley's kitty and the loans will be repaid during operation so will be paid for by tickets, hire and corporate functions - not the FA.
So while I was mistaken in saying "most of the rest" was picked up by the taxpayer... you were also mistaken in saying the FA paid up "most" of it, which is just as wrong as mine... considering the taxpayer paid more into it than the FA... and from what I've seen so far, it's not entirely clear whether that public funding is an investment or a cost.
It's also like to point out that I was almost spot on with my "£150 million" paid by the FA - in fact I was out by just over 1%.
Not bad, considering.

It's not like this argument is something I really care about, but I thought I'd point that out anyway.

As for Multiplex taking shots at all around them, it's to be expected. They are a private concern which in a situation like this has to try and lose as little money as possible. Hauling this all back to the public sector thing, when a private company loses money or folds, the only people who lose are those voluntarily contracted to it. When a public sector body or project loses money or folds, everyone loses. A bit of a difference.


As for AT&T, there shouldn't be a public outcry about the deal collapsing or about the $4billion cost associated with it. It's simply none of the public's business. They got something wrong, they picked up the tab, investors think that's a good thing and their shareholders are happy with the result as evidenced by the share price change over the course of the day.