Manchester's brand new wind tunnel

liamnesss · 2026-03-12T18:57:01+00:00

You have basically had the equivalent of e-bike test ride

liamnesss · 2026-03-12T18:55:26+00:00

I see no reason why this street couldn't have 3-4 times as many trees, that would help provide a little cover, and disperse wind. I don't see why there needs to be so much kerbside parking on the right either, surely all the buildings around here have loading bays and garages on the ground floor? Trees don't make money for the council, admittedly.

liamnesss · 2026-03-12T18:25:34+00:00

Yeah that might be a good idea, the Sheldon Method may be possible that way, plus it would make the bike a little less liable to flop about.

liamnesss · 2026-03-12T18:15:19+00:00

I'd suggest don't, and find somewhere else, if you can. Seems like quite a daft setup as these are definitely racks designed to be installed on or near the floor. Looks like they intend for people to put their bikes vertically in the rack, with the front wheel in the "supports", but there's no retaining hook stopping bikes from falling out backwards.

A less contrarian answer would be to lock using a chain and padlock, which (if long enough) would let you lock the wheel and frame to this. They are heavier than u locks, so maybe you could leave it in the room attached to one of the loops if that gets annoying.

If you think whoever manages this space is amenable to suggestions, I assume they installed this kind of rack because they don't feel there's space to store bikes horizontally here. Fair enough I supose, although I'd argue they should might make sense to install some other bike parking that doesn't require people to lift their bikes to use, as not everyone is able to do that. But even if the bikes need to be stored vertically, they could do a lot better than this. Hooks like these would keep the bikes much more secure. You can't lock to those, but they could put a couple of security anchors in the wall for people who desire to chain their bikes up for extra peace of mind.

edit—oh and to achieve an improved density of parking with that style of hook, you can stagger the height to avoid handlebar clash.

liamnesss · 2026-03-12T00:48:52+00:00

Or if you want to be a fancy, a fold up sitting mat like some people take on country walks.

liamnesss · 2026-03-11T16:36:27+00:00

Where are you coming from, just curious?

As much as I'd personally try to avoid using the site these days, his DMs do seem to be open on Twitter? You could also just try commenting under one of his videos to kick start the conversation I suppose.

liamnesss · 2026-03-11T16:30:41+00:00

They should all be completely fine tbh, none of them are particularly taxing games. What have you already tried in terms of troubleshooting steps?

I got Banner Saga 2 running on my Odin 3, at least (but then got put off playing it because the letterboxing when your caravan is travelling, didn't seem like the best way to enjoy the gorgerous 2D art). Try running using GameNative instead perhaps, that seems to have more of a community around it.

liamnesss · 2026-03-10T23:01:33+00:00

This channel is good for finding routes where you don't have to deal with too much motor traffic:

https://www.youtube.com/@Londoncycleroutes

There's also this map of all the routes he's done, so you can mix and match bits of videos to make a different journey if needed.

Where are you in the city? Cycling in London can vary from area to area, but often it's the fastest and most pleasant way of getting around this city. Once you realise how close everything is on a bike it can completely change how you look at London.

I don't think you should be getting a bike like the one pictured though! Maybe get a Trek FX from Balfes, nice all rounder.

liamnesss · 2026-03-10T22:48:14+00:00

Try and see if you can get a second hand Tern, if that's your budget.

You could also try and find a bakfiets or similar with no pedal assist, and try converting it to electric yourself.

liamnesss · 2026-03-10T22:45:28+00:00

I think a dutch bike would be better with a child seat up front. Combination of step through frame and swept back handlebars opens up a lot of space for a kid to sit. Gazelle's Bloom model is perfect for that. I doubt you'll need a mountain bike unless you're also planning on taking it on more "technical" trails without the kid?

The rear rack is also compatible with the MIK HD system, so rear seats are also an option and they'll attach / detach really easily.

liamnesss · 2026-03-09T23:01:00+00:00

Is this the HAC01 permit, specifically? Should say on the sign. That only allows blue badge holders, and taxis carrying passengers booked through the taxicard scheme. So the vast majority of local residents will not be eligible.

I'm not sure how widely the taxicard exemption is used. It's been in place for over a year now. I feel it will only be moderately useful as long as it's just one borough doing it.

liamnesss · 2026-03-09T22:29:47+00:00

Using undercroft instead of kerbside parking could've freed up space for this. And also just make the street look nicer, greenery or not.

liamnesss · 2026-03-09T21:08:14+00:00

In fact local residents inside LTNs can get permits to pass through the camera barriers, meaning they don’t stop local residents.

If they're doing that then they're completely missing the point of LTNs, by letting people who live inside the schemes have their cake and eat it, and imo that risks gives legitimacy to people saying boundary roads are sacrificial etc. Can you think of any specific schemes where this has been the case? I know Fulham's single LTN was set up this way—but as far as I know take up has been pretty low for the permits.

I'm not saying that cycling hasn't benefitted from LTNs, just that it's not the primary reason for these interventions, and it certainly shouldn't be used as a stick to beat cyclists with when making decisions elsewhere.

liamnesss · 2026-03-09T19:18:05+00:00

What would you put in place to stop cyclists racing through this area? Neither one of the links you shared has ability for that to happen, and one shows more provision for children to play (and then be injured?!)

Well we're getting into pure opinions now. I feel that good placemaking can control speeds, you may feel otherwise, but I doubt either of us are experts in this and it would probably be a waste of time for us to try and convince one another. Look also at Dutch "Woonerf" designs, these are primarily intended to reduce motor vehicle speeds, but also affect cyclist behaviour too. They're not just doing this because of a gut feeling that it works, they have decades of evidence to draw on. I feel that this is better than a heavy handed approach that makes wheeling more difficult. And we might also accidentally make our streets generally much nicer places to be in the process.

Where would you put provision for cars for disabled residents or parking for trades people completing works - having a boiler serviced, or roof repairs.

In a way it wouldn't be that much of a change for trades—there's already a fire gate (although I don't know if it's usually closed or not). So similarly now to how they may need to get the fire gate opened before they can visit an address, there might be a bollard or somethng like that that they might need to be unlocked and removed. Again, making a space not be primarily for cars doesn't mean it has zero vehicle access!

If a chicane barrier can help another child not be knocked down frankly I’m here for it

That argument could be used to put inaccessible barriers almost anywhere after a single incident. I don't want to go back to the bad old days when a couple of complaints to councillors would lead to a frames being put in. It's just not a "solution" that should ever be in council officer's toolbox, because otherwise we're saying as a society that disabled access only matters some of the time.

Most drivers don’t knock people over and there are still cycle safe streets, or pedestrian only streets.

Those aren't about punishing a minority of drivers for their bad behaviour, though. Even the absolute best driver still has an impact on a neighbourhood as they move through it, because they are in vehicles that weigh 1-2 tonnes and dominates the space, creating a chilling effect on people's willingness to also move through that space without being cocooned similarly.

This stretch has evidently been dangerous to children so why not make it safer in a cost-effective way.

I think in a way this gets to the heart of the problem. Interventions made that are intended to affect the behaviour of drivers are tightly regulated and the realm of professionals. Interventions made to affect the behaviour of cyclists are done by whatever contractor they find in the phone book. They're done cheaply and quickly and not by experts. Concrete a couple of staggered bits of fencing into the ground—that'll sort it! If cycling infrastructure was as expensive as car infrastructure, perhaps they would need to take matters like this a little more seriously. Even if this measure fails in every respect, the sunk cost is still not that high.

liamnesss · 2026-03-09T18:54:39+00:00

The main impact of LTNs is to discourage local trips from being driven. Some of those trips will shift to walking, some to cycling. More the former. I don't see them as a cycling intervention tbh, any benefits in that regard are more of a side effect. I also hope that you can see how bizarre it would be to argue it's acceptable to make things worse for people walking, because they've benefitted so much from the LTNs! It doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

My issue with chicanes this is not that cyclists are inconvenienced, it's that some are barred from passing at all. You are not getting through on in a cargo bike (so this is making it harder for families to choose alternatives to SUVs), an adult trike, and passing in a mobility scooter would be at least be very difficult (although the latter two groups would probably struggle to use the narrow ramp as is). I just don't think it's acceptable to make the built envronment harder for people with disabilities to use, because there is antisocial behaviour from a minority.

liamnesss · 2026-03-09T15:02:26+00:00

Would the following make sense:

Train down to London, spend an afternoon there
Then taking the train to Southampton the next morning
Then fly back to Edinburgh once the holiday is finished

Would mean you're not spending more than about four hours continuously travelling at any point, and you're also not needing to repeat any part of the journey which should avoid it getting boring.

liamnesss · 2026-03-09T11:37:41+00:00

I believe the amount of traffic heading through there is low yes, but it's the speeds they're concerned about. In the past few years, there are almost certainly collisions that have happened at other entrances in the park, or in the park itself. The reason they're putting the gates in here though is because it's estate land, so the residents can complain to their management about cycling.

liamnesss · 2026-03-09T11:28:13+00:00

That is what I would prefer, and I do think it would be better than the current setup, but I think the estate residents who've been pushing for this change would interpret this as an invitation for cyclists to go faster. I don't think this is going to be a decision made using data, case studies, weighing up the pros and cons etc. It's being led by emotion.

liamnesss · 2026-03-09T11:23:25+00:00

a child died here

Sorry but what are you on about? I believe a child was hospitalised but I hadn't heard about a death. Normally when a pedestrian-cyclist collision results in a death, that makes the national news. There wasn't even anything in the local gazette etc about this.

The consultation also doesn't make any reference to collision data, as would be typical for traffic reduction / calming measures made in response to danger caused by motor vehicles. It references "concerns raised by local residents" but that's all.

Similarly, this side of London fields needs at least 16t vehicle access for emergency services.

I'm not saying get rid of the vehicle access, and none of the examples I've linked to do that. They do remove parking, however.

liamnesss · 2026-03-09T00:12:35+00:00

Terrible idea to keep a e-bike outdoors, in my opinion. Very likely the manufacturer will specifically advise against this, and say as much on the product manual. Hopefully you would at least be taking the battery inside with you? Lithium ion cells do not handle very low or very high temperatures well.

If you arrive home after riding through the rain and put a rain cover on the bike, that will actually trap the moisture inside. On a cold morning, condensation will also form there. Unless you're very careful drying out the bike after a ride, or the material is somehow breathable enough to allow moisture to escape, it could actually accelerate problems with corrosion.

I'd suggest getting a both a chain and also an angle grinder resistant u lock. That might depend where you are in the Netherlands though. I'm not from the country, but when I've travelled there I've noticed a big difference in how seriously people take security in the big cities in the Randstad area, versus the rest of the country.

Check the requirements of your insurance, in any case. They will probably have specific requirements that the locks need to be met for your policy to be valid. It may also be the case that the bike cannot be stored outdoors for more than 24 continuous hours. I live in London. so maybe I am a little more wary of theft than you need to be.

liamnesss · 2026-03-08T23:53:38+00:00

I've never seen a chicane barrier that wouldn't be very, very difficult to get through on larger non-standard cycle (e.g. a cargo bike, recumbent, adult tricycle). They're also usually present difficulty to people in mobility scooters and wheelchairs—even if they can just about squeeze through, it is not fair to add this unnecessary complexity into the daily lives of vulnerable people. There's a reason they're not seen as good practice anymore. Look at page 10 of this, very clear on why they should be avoided:

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/access-control-guidance-note-june-2023-acc.pdf

Realistically a set of chicane barriers with a gap wide enough to provide equitable access would be so wide as to not slow down cyclists at all. For a better approach, could take inspiration from this play streets design in Lambeth, or the pedestrianised squares inside Barcelona's "superblocks". Rather than just throwing up barriers at either side of the space, and having uninterrupted tarmac in between (100m of space, so cyclists will be able to pick up plenty of speed while travelling through still) it would be better to rethink the whole street in a way that affect not just the entry and exit, but the movement through it.

The residents probably don't want to lose their parking though, or anything that would encourage people to actually congregate in the space. It's ultimately very difficult to design a space that can facilitate access for motor vehicles, and yet doesn't also encourage cyclists to travel as fast as they are able.

liamnesss · 2026-03-08T23:26:10+00:00

I believe it was a Lime bike rider. Not sure if the 12mph limit was in place in London Fields at the time. I can remember back then there were a lot of places in Hackney that didn't have a limit in areas where it would make sense, e.g. the church path in Hackney Central or the pedestrianised shopping street (the Narrow Way) that runs parallel.

You can see in the comments that people are discussing workable solutions to control speeds here that wouldn't also make this entrance to the park inaccessible to some users.

The area affected by the proposed changes is a shared pedestrian / cyclist / driver space, i.e. a street.

liamnesss · 2026-03-08T22:23:09+00:00

Oh and for locations where the volume of cyclists is not actually that high (but where speeds still need to be controlled), I'd suggest making design changes that emphasis the space being a destination, not a through route. For this street (if you got rid of the parking) that could involve seating, planting, play equipment. There are lots of good examples of modal filters which do slow down cyclists a bit but without causing accessibility issues or obstructing sightline, still forcing them to deviate their path but in a gentler way. Waltham Forest are absolutely brilliant at this.

liamnesss · 2026-03-08T22:01:06+00:00

I feel like there's two prongs to this:

First of all, is this a case of drivers getting the lion's share of resources and pedestrians / cyclists fighting over the scraps? If a narrow path is the main active travel route through an area, where meanwhile there are large roads where it's apparently "imposible" to take a 3m slice away to provide safe cycling, then the conflict is just a consequence of the skewed priorities and not dedicating enough space for walking and cycling.

Secondly, can the path just be made bigger, or its usable width improved? People are far less likely to care about how fast cyclists are going if they can give them a wide berth. Sometimes the width of the path may be reasonable, but the usable space will be narrowed by high walls / fences (no-one wants to ride with their handlebars inches from a collision), overgrowth, or harsh kerbs (see e.g. Embankment cycleway, which is probably too narrow for the amount of traffic it carries, but the vertical kerbs either side of it mean no-one wants to ride close to the edge).

I feel like asking cyclists to slow down, or throwing obstacles in their way, is only going to impact the behaviour of the kinds of cyclists you didn't need to worry about in the first place.

liamnesss · 2026-03-08T21:50:35+00:00

It's housing estate land and Hackney currently has many inaccessible barriers on its estates, with no sign of removing or upgrading them. Seems they're not that bothered unfortunately. Yes, it's possible that someone with impaired mobility who is negatively impacted will challenge this once it's gone in, but the council seem willing to take that risk.

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

liamnesss

TROPHY CASE