TT A46 Dual Carriageway WTF?

imposter2.0

Finesilver24 wrote:

The offer's still there if you're brave enough to take it. Or you can retract your original accusation. Your call.

Sadly, the onus is not on me to reciprocate. I have called you out. You can either prove me wrong, or go quiet. If you want to prove to the internet at large that you are indeed someone with a coaching qualification, then proving it is up to you. Like I said before though, posting a pic of someone's L3 certificate is going to be very difficult to verify in any meaningful sense. But you know that. And I'm still embarrassed for you.

mamba80

Finesilver24 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Finesilver24 wrote:

Yes, because we're all drivers and we all drive below the standards expected at some point. It's human nature so a sensible organiser would seek to minimise the effect of poor drivers.

I didn't say 'more valid', I said 'a better reason' because there are safer alternative venues to host a competition than a busy DC.

what "safer venues" ? already been pointed out that traffic free alternatives dont exist.

is a twisty B road with no clear line of sight, with over taking cars on the wrong side of road and on coming traffic safer?

Perhaps what is needed is drivers to realise they have to share the road (any road) with pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders etc etc roads to be policed and to behave a little more responsibly?
the alternative is that cyclists shouldnt be on the road at all and bad driving is excusable - which tbh seems to be your pov.

Traffic-free venues DO exist, they just cost money.

Providing a choice between two unsatisfactory options is silly. Can you honestly not think of another option that isn't obviously dangerous?

Your solution appears to be to educate EVERYBODY ELSE rather than expect us to change our own actions. How do you propose this solution happens? The first rule of being an adult is to take responsibility for ones own actions and not expect everybody else to accommodate our selfishness. The first rule of safety is to remove the individual from the risk.

Well bud, if you educate car drivers you ll automatically educate cyclists too, as the vast majority drive cars too, so a win win.

start with Policing of the roads (which would catch stupid cyclists too) decent sentencing, driver awareness courses, longer term, modify the driving test, it s not beyond the wit of man, for example the Police have DD campaigns, drivers have learnt not to drive p1ssed, they can also be educated not to pass cyclists with a foot to spare and at 70mph or run them over.

TT ing is also about not wasting effort, they are not on the edge of exhaustion or ride all over the place, they d not be able to ride a 25 or 50 mile if they were but you d know that as your a regular tester yourself.

You d also know that a tight crit cct is unsuitable for TTing which leaves large air field ones and they are like hens teeth, most no longer allow cycling due to security concerns and manpower costs ie Portreath and Ilton in the s/w.

But i think you re beyond all this, you hate cyclists disturbing your car journey and despite me giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to see your pov.... your solution is to ban cyclists from the roads, you said it yourself "remove the individual from the risk" and pop them all into some handy little cct where they cant bother you.

I ll give you may be a L3, some of the coaches i ve met are also my way or the highway types

but seriously why would you want to hide that you r a L3 ? hard work and expensive to get, so have you a coaching business or coach at a Track or with a club? bit of waste if you dont.

Finesilver24

Imposter wrote:

Finesilver24 wrote:

The offer's still there if you're brave enough to take it. Or you can retract your original accusation. Your call.

Sadly, the onus is not on me to reciprocate. I have called you out. You can either prove me wrong, or go quiet. If you want to prove to the internet at large that you are indeed someone with a coaching qualification, then proving it is up to you. Like I said before though, posting a pic of someone's L3 certificate is going to be very difficult to verify in any meaningful sense. But you know that. And I'm still embarrassed for you.

He thinks he's a chicken, but he's just an Imposter. Buck buck buuuuuck.

imposter2.0

Finesilver24 wrote:

He thinks he's a chicken, but he's just an Imposter. Buck buck buuuuuck.

That's not the pic we were all hoping for, to be fair. Not surprising though. But you knew that.

Finesilver24

mamba80 wrote:

they can also be educated not to pass cyclists with a foot to spare and at 70mph or run them over.

That sounds dangerous. Proves my point.

mamba80 wrote:

TTing is also about not wasting effort, they are not on the edge of exhaustion or ride all over the place, they d not be able to ride a 25 or 50 mile if they were but you d know that as your a regular tester yourself.

And at the end of a TT or a turbo session I am always exhausted, regardless of distance. The trick is to measure ones effort to finish with 'nothing left in the tank', pacing effectively to achieve roughly the best average power output. Anybody finishing without being exhausted has wasted an opportunity of a faster time

mamba80 wrote:

But i think you re beyond all this, you hate cyclists disturbing your car journey and despite me giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to see your pov.... your solution is to ban cyclists from the roads, you said it yourself "remove the individual from the risk" and pop them all into some handy little cct where they cant bother you.

Not my point. See my response to secretsqizz

mamba80 wrote:

but seriously why would you want to hide that you r a L3 ? hard work and expensive to get, so have you a coaching business or coach at a Track or with a club? bit of waste if you dont.

I'm not trying to hide it. I claimed it. What's your point in relation to my argument? How is it relevant?

Finesilver24

Imposter wrote:

Finesilver24 wrote:

He thinks he's a chicken, but he's just an Imposter. Buck buck buuuuuck.

That's not the pic we were all hoping for, to be fair. Not surprising though. But you knew that.

If you want to put your money (ar5e) where your mouth is, the offer's still there. You called me out and aren't prepared to back it up. If I were you I'd call my bluff. Go on, call my bluff. You were a lot cockier a while ago (see what I did there?), you're just scratching around now (and again, boom!).

I wonder how many chicken puns there are.........

Finesilver24

mamba80 wrote:

.....which leaves large air field ones and they are like hens teeth, most no....

Liking your work mamba. Chickentastic!

imposter2.0

Finesilver24 wrote:

You called me out and aren't prepared to back it up.

Not sure if you get how these things work. I call you out - you demonstrate that I'm wrong. Your 'quid pro quo' is correcting me. But if you're happy to have your integrity placed in doubt and do nothing about it, then carry on posting poultry-based pics and puns.

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

Finesilver24

But where's the jeopardy? You can't just question somebody's integrity, expect them to prove you wrong and have no comeback. You called me out, I raised the stakes, you bottled it. YOU BOTTLED IT.

If you still think...

Imposter wrote:

Agreed - the guy knows nothing. L3 my ar5e.

...state it, call my bluff and make me look stupid. Like I'm making you look stupid and owning your ar5e for chickening out and backing down. If you're right, there's no risk to you. Raise the stakes if you like, go as high as you want because I'm all in to the end. Or back down and apologise.

Cluck cluck.

trivial_poursuivant

Can I as a 3rd party in all this say Finesilver24 you are full of sh it. Put up or shut up. You have no argument and have done nothing but talk utter nonsense. Prove your point or leave

maryka

DIdn't I say back on page 1 that you were on the wrong forum? All this back-and-forth posturing would fit right in on the TTF though. You'd be apoplectic after half a day on it. Careful though, as BC coaches have to adhere to a code of conduct and I'd hate for you to lose your coaching business because you starting calling people names or threatening them on an internet forum.

(I'm trying to help you, btw)

meanredspider

I've gotta say that the cool thing to have done would have be to just post a cert (maybe with that tin of custard powder thing that they do on Pistonheads to prove the originality of the image). As it is, it just looks like a name-calling exercise and pretty much run-of-the-mill for BR

Finesilver24

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Can I as a 3rd party in all this say Finesilver24 you are full of sh it. Put up or shut up. You have no argument and have done nothing but talk utter nonsense. Prove your point or leave

I don't have to justify every qualification I have just to react to random accusations. I'm happy to prove it to Imposter (and anybody else by default) if he accepts the wager. If he doesn't, he isn't confident, so I have nothing to prove. If he is confident, he'd accept the wager, or raise it further. That's how gambling works. Imposter has something to lose; he has a lot of posts and a reputation to keep. I'm not sure about you though.

Finesilver24

maryka wrote:

DIdn't I say back on page 1 that you were on the wrong forum? All this back-and-forth posturing would fit right in on the TTF though. You'd be apoplectic after half a day on it. Careful though, as BC coaches have to adhere to a code of conduct and I'd hate for you to lose your coaching business because you starting calling people names or threatening them on an internet forum.

(I'm trying to help you, btw)

I know you are, thank you.

Finesilver24

meanredspider wrote:

I've gotta say that the cool thing to have done would have be to just post a cert (maybe with that tin of custard powder thing that they do on Pistonheads to prove the originality of the image). As it is, it just looks like a name-calling exercise and pretty much run-of-the-mill for BR

Yes, but where's the jeopardy? The tick is to raise the stakes and the tension.

To be honest, I don't think that Imposter would meet his side of the bargain anyway.

meanredspider

Finesilver24 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I've gotta say that the cool thing to have done would have be to just post a cert (maybe with that tin of custard powder thing that they do on Pistonheads to prove the originality of the image). As it is, it just looks like a name-calling exercise and pretty much run-of-the-mill for BR

Yes, but where's the jeopardy?

The jeopardy is being called out and shown to be wrong. That should be enough. As it is, it just looks like you're trying to deflect...

imposter2.0

Finesilver24 wrote:

Imposter has something to lose; he has a lot of posts and a reputation to keep.

No I don't mate. This is the internet, not the court of appeal. You post the pic, I get proved wrong, by tomorrow everything will be forgotten and we will all have moved on.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking you may actually be another of matthewfalle's user accounts.

meanredspider

The most shocking part of this whole thread is discovering that Imposter's real name isn't Imposter.




I'm going to have to have that tattoo on my butt lasered....

Finesilver24

Imposter wrote:

Finesilver24 wrote:

Imposter has something to lose; he has a lot of posts and a reputation to keep.

No I don't mate. This is the internet, not the court of appeal. You post the pic, I get proved wrong, by tomorrow everything will be forgotten and we will all have moved on.

I'm thinking you may actually be another of matthewfalle's user accounts.

I prefer the 'I post a pic' then 'you post a picture of your ar5e with "sorry FS24" on it' approach. After all, by tomorrow everything will be forgotten (except the picture of your ar5e) and we will all have moved on.

imposter2.0

Nevertheless, you are the one with something to prove - not me. If you don't want to prove it, that's fine. (cluck cluck )

Finesilver24

Anyway, back to reality. My qualifications are of no relevance, unless Imposter takes the wager.....

My point is that riding at maximum effort next to cars travelling at 70+mph is dangerous, as proven by the deaths. I accept that people can make up their own minds about what they do, but that doesn't suddenly make it safe. I also, correctly, point out that there are safer alternatives. These are indisputable facts.

meanredspider

Finesilver24 wrote:

Anyway, back to reality. My qualifications are of no relevance, unless Imposter takes the wager.....

OK - there's no cert...

And Imposter is probably right on his other assertion

bobmcstuff

Imposter wrote:

Finesilver24 wrote:

If riding on the road isn't unsafe, why to organisers and coaches have to complete a risk assessment you ******* bellend.

Risk assessment does not imply that an activity is inherently risky - even children's soft-play areas have standing risk assessments. If you're a BC coach (L3 or otherwise) then I'm astonished you don't already understand this. It is simply a document to demonstrate that any likely risks have been identified, mitigated or accepted.

Exactly - you do a risk assessment because something MIGHT be dangerous not because it IS dangerous. The point of the assessment is to figure out how much risk, whether the risk is tolerable or whether risk reductions should be put in place.

I've no idea what BC risk assessments include, mind. I just make a living managing risk...

Finesilver24

bobmcstuff wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Finesilver24 wrote:

If riding on the road isn't unsafe, why to organisers and coaches have to complete a risk assessment you ******* bellend.

Risk assessment does not imply that an activity is inherently risky - even children's soft-play areas have standing risk assessments. If you're a BC coach (L3 or otherwise) then I'm astonished you don't already understand this. It is simply a document to demonstrate that any likely risks have been identified, mitigated or accepted.

Exactly - you do a risk assessment because something MIGHT be dangerous not because it IS dangerous. The point of the assessment is to figure out how much risk, whether the risk is tolerable or whether risk reductions should be put in place.

I've no idea what BC risk assessments include, mind. I just make a living managing risk...

What activity has no risk? Just curious.

imposter2.0

Finesilver24 wrote:

What activity has no risk? Just curious.

Posting pics on the internet under a fake username is pretty risk-free. But you already know that.

Anyway, nobody said that any activity was risk free so your question isn't really relevant to the point being made.

Finesilver24

Imposter wrote:

Finesilver24 wrote:

What activity has no risk? Just curious.

Posting pics on the internet under a fake username is pretty risk-free. But you already know that.

Anyway, nobody said that any activity was risk free so your question isn't really relevant to the point being made.

He specifically said that something MIGHT be dangerous, implying that some things weren't. Hence my curiosity.

I haven't posted any pics (other than you as a chicken) and almost all usernames are fake. Keep on arguing and your chicken pic will soon be forgotten.

imposter2.0

Finesilver24 wrote:

He specifically said that something MIGHT be dangerous, implying that some things weren't. Hence my curiosity.

Risk assessments are part of the level 1 and level 2 coach ed programmes, so your apparent ignorance of these issues is slightly baffling, to say the least.

If something 'might' be dangerous (ie a potential hazard in a training area or on a race route), then it gets mentioned in the RA, together with any recommended remedial or mitigating action. If it isn't, then it doesn't. This really is basic stuff.

slowbike

FS24 - level 3 coach, done road racing TTs and Crits .... thinks the most appropriate way of airing his view on a DC TT is by moaning on an internet forum rather than contacting the club and overseeing bodies involved.

Talk to the club, talk to the CTT - they're the ones that put the event on and sanctioned it - perhaps they know a bit more about it than you do - perhaps they don't ...

eitherway, ranting on an internet forum isn't getting you anywhere.

Now, grow up a bit ...

supermurph09

Finesilver24 wrote:

secretsqizz wrote:

Good advert for BC coaches
"I'm right , you are fu ckin wrong"
Keep it up Shane

Please take a breath and read the whole thread. My point is that riding at maximum effort next to cars travelling at 70+mph is dangerous, as proven by the deaths. I accept that people can make up their own minds about what they do, but that doesn't suddenly make it safe. I also, correctly, point out that there are safer alternatives. These are indisputable facts.

I do this all the time and it's not on a DC, should I stop? Do you work for Zwift?

kingstongraham

Finesilver24 wrote:

I prefer the 'I post a pic' then 'you post a picture of your ar5e with "sorry FS24" on it' approach. After all, by tomorrow everything will be forgotten (except the picture of your ar5e) and we will all have moved on.

I'm a bit lost - what do you want that pic for?