he has probably been much closer to the heart of government than Rogers

Rogers was the inside man for Chancellors and PMs, wasn’t he? [/quote]

You’re right, according to wikipedia he was Blair’s PPS and was Kenneth Clarke’s Private Secretary at the Treasury. As I said I am not familiar with the civil service hierachy, but Rogers has moved around a lot, including working for Citigroup and Barclays, whereas Barrow has always been in the FO and seems to be more in the traditional mould of an establishment mandarin/insider. Regardless of background, Theresa May will want someone in that position in whom she can have complete trust.

So, the new ambassador is Sir Tim Barrow. I am not familiar with civil service hierachy, but he seems to be more senior than Sir Ivan Rogers, reflecting the greater importance now of this role.

Given his background in the FCO, including Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary, he has probably been much closer to the heart of government than Rogers, and will have routinely seen and advised the Foreign Secretary on intelligence provided by MI6 and GCHQ. GCHQ has probably been told that finding out the negotiating positions and strengths/weaknesses of the other EU nations is a top priority, and that intelligence would need to be disclosed to whomever is in the role of ambassador and their new deputy. Sir Tim Barrow fits the profile of someone who would be trusted to receive that sort of intelligence.

There is no point in the UK Government wasting a lot of time and effort deciding precisely what form of Brexit it wants, only for it to become clear later that the rest of the EU would not agree to what we want. There are a whole range of different possibilities with different levels of access to the EU single market and with different pros and cons. It will be far easier to determine what the best possible deal is of those potentially available to the UK, if the UK already knows what the other nations’ various red lines and negotiating positions are.

Go Andrea

Further confirmation we will be leaving THE single market as EU farming regulations will not apply.

The idea that a gaffe prone junior Minister like Leadsom knows what the UK negotiating position will be is laughable.

I think too much is being read into Sir Ivan Rogers’ departure.

Firstly it has been said that Cameron’s EU negotiators took criticism of the deal offered by the EU very personally, and after a lot of hard graft on their part this is understandable, but equally it’s understandable that since their deal was rejected in the referendum, it is likely to be appropriate that a different person takes on that job.

Sir Ivan is a Whitehall civil servant, not a (self serving) career EU employee as Jambalaya has said upthread, and those senior civil servants probable have little difficulty in adjusting to having to implement U turns and major policy changes as required by any new political master. Neverthless, after a couple of years of trying to negotiate a better deal for the UK, the Brexit negotiations will be vastly different in tone and approach, and it probably makes sense to have a new face in this role who does not have a lot of baggage of past EU dealings and including having needed friendly working relations with his EU opposites.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, with the vote for Brexit his role is now a lot more important and critical than when he was originally appointed, and I expect that Downing Street will appoint a more senior civil servant to replace him.

I think those Ministers and MPs who are hard quick Brexiteers, are afraid that the longer the negotiations take, the more likely it is that the national and political momentum will turn against Brexit and eventually stop it.

Theresa May strikes me as much more of a pragmatist than a conviction politician. After so many years honing her political skills and judgement in opposition and then in the invariably politically difficult role of Home Secretary, she is now probably playing a long waiting game.

She has given Johnson, Davies and Fox the key ministeries in Brexit negotiations. If they succeed in the negotiations and deliver a deal that is generally considered a good one for the UK, then she will get much of the political credit for it.

However, if the wheels start to come off the Brexit wagon over the next couple of years and there were a major shift in national sentiment against Brexit, then I expect she will have no qualms about acting decisively to change course or even cancel Article 50. She would not do this unless she were very confident of winning over the great majority of the Conservative Party MPs, and their views would be heavily influenced by their vulnerability to losing their seat in the next election and the liklihood of the Conservatives not winning a majority in Parliament.

So, for those hoping to see Brexit fail, things would probably have to get quite bad before Theresa May would or could act. If it did happen, then I expect she would be ruthless in seeking to destroy the hardcore Brexiteers in her Cabinet and party, to prevent the sort of trouble that John Major endured from his ‘b*****ds’. Ironically, it would give Boris Johnson the perfect opportunity to emulate his hero, Churchill, by switching sides again (“anyone can rat, but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat”).

This is all probably very unlikely to happen, but I note that Sterling still has not recovered, and that is going to have inevitable impacts in the next couple of years, with a General Election looming on the horizon.

In one of the many races he won, Eddy Merckx broke away with a rival from the Peugeot team. The end of the race comprised a mountain climb followed by a descent to the finish. Merckx dropped the Peugeot rider on the descent. After the race he was asked why he did attack the Peugeot rider on the climb. His response was that he did not need to. Having ridden previously for Peugeot himself, he knew that their frames handled badly on descents, and that the rival simply would not be able to keep up with him.

The Peugeot frames were so bad that in the end a team manager had to buy some italian frames and cut them up, to show the Peugeot builders where they were going wrong.

Several years ago when walking the Alpine Pass Route, I skipped a section and took the train to Grindelwald. Within five minutes of getting off the train I turned around and got back on it, such was the commercial tourist trap awfulness of the place. If your wife persists in wanting to use it as the base for your holiday, I think you would be able to get a divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour.

I would recommend ahsat’s suggestion of staying somewhere like Interlaken and getting a Swiss Travel Pass:

– Better choice of hotels and restaurants, and almost certainly better prices.
– More options, convenience and flexibility for walking. A lot of the nicest walks will entail going over a pass from one valley into the next (the Alpine Pass Route simply strings a lot of these together). If you stay in Grindelwald, you will be limited to circular walks unless you get the train out of the valley. If you stay in somewhere like Interlaken, you can catch the train in the morning up one valley, walk over into the next valley, and get the train back to Interlaken.

So, if you like a little bit of short easy scrambling, you could catch the train one day to Kandersteg, walk up past the Oeschinensee (very pretty), up to the Blumlissalphut, down the other side (10m of scrambling with a chain to hold onto) and in to Griesalp, and thence bus and train back to Interlaken (or do the same walk in reverse). Equally, if you wanted easy days or walks on the flat, it would be easy to pick a different valley and route.

– Wherever you stay, you will probably want a break from walking/the mountains on at least one day. Staying in Interlaken with a travel pass would make it easier to take a day trip to Zurich or another city.

Fresh India

Riccione Bike Hotels used to be featured a lot in Cycling Weekly:

http://www.riccionebikehotels.it/en/

I was trying to keep it not cheeky as it’s not shown on the os map as neither footpath nor bridleway.

That section of the South West Coast Path is MoD land, and so it is not a Public Right of Way (Bridleway or Footpath). On the 1:25,000 OS map it is designated a ‘Range Walk’. As I recall there is a fence and gate through which you have to pass, and various restrictions are on a sign by the gate, doubtless these will prohibit cycling.

could you tell me if the following route is rideable (i’m happy to walk a bit)

Even if it were permitted, and even if some have ridden it, I struggle to think of a worse route to cycle. Much of it is extremely steep, so not only will you probably have to push your bike up the hills, you will probably have to brake hard and continuously all the way down the other side (or even walk down). You will probably end up going no faster, and possibly even slower, than the walkers, some of whom may share with you their views on your choice of route and the legality/appropriateness of riding it, and because you will be going so slowly, you will not be able to get away from them.

I have a radical suggestion for you. Leave the bike at home and walk along the route. It is a truly stunningly beautiful bit of coast, and walking will allow you to enjoy it much more than trying to ride it.

The opening times are here (note it’s closed on the weekend of the 14th and 15th):

http://www.tynehamopc.org.uk/tyneham_opening_times.html

There is no ‘victim blaming’ on this thread, because we have not as yet been discussing anyone who has actually been a ‘victim’. Saying after an accident that an actual cyclist, who has been injured by a driver who failed to see and avoid them, should have worn different clothing, would indeed be victim blaming.

What we are discussing are the things that are within our control which may influence the liklihood of a theoretical accident occurring or its outcome (since we do not have control over drivers with whom we share the roads). In that respect, choice of clothing is simply one of a number of factors over which we do have some control, and it is not victim blaming to express concern that others may be making poor choices. If an accident occurs due to a SMIDSY, then the driver is legally and morally to blame, but we would all rather the accident did not occur in the first place. So advising others to think about what they can do to reduce the risks to them is not ‘victim blaming’, even if it does mean that we (relatively speaking slightly) modify our behaviour in ways that we do not like, whether that means not wearing your favourite black jacket or equally avoiding cycling on a very busy dangerous A road.

I think a lot of the blame for the dark clothing lies with the manufacturers: high tech softshell jackets and the like are relatively expensive products, and the manufacturers can probably be confident of much higher sales and profitability if it’s black than any other colour, e.g. Rapha’s softshell was originally only available in black. That said, most of the high end kit is now available in colours other than black, so we do have a choice.

There is a lot to be said for wearing trade team kit on the road. Because it is advertising, the kit is designed to catch the eye and make team riders stand out and easily identifiable, and the most awful looking team kits are often the most eye catching. If you come across someone wearing this sort of kit on the road, you may think they look like a fashion disaster or a pathetic poseur, but while you are mentally ridiculing them, that also means you are actively thinking about them, and consequently you are probably more likely to take account of their presence if you are driving. The cooler rider wearing the all black ensemble may be more stylish, but is much less noticiable

Another advantage of the trade team kit, is that it often gets heavily discounted. I think the purchasers of trade team kit tend to fall into two polar opposite groups: the old school tight fisted road cyclist who thinks it’s ridiculous to pay more than £10 or £20 for a road top vs. the wannabe fans who shell out full retail price on full Sky kit. The latter are the same sort who previously would have worn US Postal kit in Armstrong’s heyday.

Instant coffee good enough for me
Refuse to join this expensive coffee drinking culture trendy crap.

Are you so insecure about your own choices and preferences that you feel the need to be dismissive of other people’s?

Put it this way, would you similarly boast,

“Cheap processed ready meals are good enough for me
Refuse to join this expensive freshly prepared, free range, quality ingredients trendy cooking crap”

or

“Cheap blended whisky is good enough for me
Refuse to join this expensive single malt drinking culture trendy crap”?

I think the separation of H and S into a separate discipline is wrong.

You might think that, but you would be wrong. It’s the same simplistic thinking which leads people to say that health and safety is just common sense. Here’s why:

H and S and Environmental management are major disciplines in their own right, requiring significant knowledge of legislation and case law, management systems, and practical aspects of health and safety (everything from the various different methodologies for undertaking a risk assessment; how machinery, substances, human behaviours and working environments can harm people; the various possible control measures to protect against that harm; how to balance the benefit of particular control measures vs. the financial cost of that measure; to how to set up, maintain and enforce safety management systems),

So, for large businesses the safety management function usually needs to be undertaken by dedicated personnel, in the same way that manufacturing businesses will usually split responsibility for operations/production, maintenance, facilities etc. etc.

I would agree that someone with the relevant specialist background in the industry will often be the best person to perform the safety role in a specialist field, e.g. an engineer in an engineering business, a biologist or chemist in a lab etc. (but they will need specialist H and S training). Hence my suggestion to renton to consider whether he could build on his specialist knowledge of weapons systems etc. and get a safety management role in an associated military industry.

It may be necessary as a temporary measure until the culture has been fixed. Much better is for all disciplines to practice safe working, then safety gets built into what everybody does, not treated as a separate layer to be added on afterwards.

Whenever I hear the word ‘culture’ used in the context of risk management (whether it’s safety management or financial risk management in the City), I am suspicious of the person using the phrase and their motives. ‘Culture’ is a nebulous concept which can be difficult, if not impossible, to quantify and assess. As such, it makes it easier for senior management and directors to disassociate themselves from poor/dangerous practices by those underneath them. Put another way, senior management and directors should have a firm grasp of what happens in their organisations, and be confident that the management systems that have been put in place under their authority are doing their job. So, when the Herald of Free Enterprise sank, the directors should have been in the firing line for not knowing and acting upon the practice of sailing with the bow doors open, rather than a lowly overworked bosun’s mate taking all the blame. Similarly in financial services where it became clear that Fred Goodwin et al. did not understand the nature (and the huge risks) of some of the financial instruments their businesses dealt in.

Don’t go down the diploma route until you have some experience behind you and to see if you like it first. No one hiring you wlll be looking for a diploma anyway with no experience

Agreed.

a gen cert will see you ok for a starting role for a couple years

I would be concerned about relying on the Certificate (especially without other qualifications). I think it probably depends what field and level you are aiming for. For example, it’s probably the right level of qualification for a job in building or facilities management, but I would expect that the Diploma would be the benchmark qualification for, say, the position of EHS manager in a factory, especially for a multi-site corporate. Whilst there will be people at that level and higher with just the Certificate, they will probably have been promoted internally, e.g. from the production side, whereas if you are coming in from outside, I think it’s more likely that you will need the diploma, especially in a ‘saturated’ employment market. Ultimately it probably comes down to what your expectations and aspirations are, but I would be concerned that most employers will want someone who is already qualified and competent and can hit the ground running, and that there will be a lot less vacancies for trainee/starter type positions (which will also be worse paid).

I am looking at going the health and safety construction and fire route

Look into the Institution of Fire Engineers qualifications/courses, since they might be more appropriate depending upon what field you are interested in. However, you should be aware that this sector is probably even more heavily saturated with ex-fire fighters. As with the Diploma vs Certificate, more competition will mean employers will cherry pick those with the best qualifications/CVs (and it will also depress salaries).

I’m a weapons engineer by trade but also covered electrics etc.

I imagine that the safety aspects of those roles might translate very well into safety management in some of the high hazard industry sectors, e.g. using ‘lock out’ and isolation procedures and developing safe systems of work etc.

I don’t know what the prospects are for the construction sector in the next 5-10 years, but given the current geo-political climate, the cynic in me thinks that companies in the military sector can look forward to increasing growth and profitibility in the next decade, so given your existing skills and knowledge, you might want to see what sort of skills and qualifications the likes of BAE and Qinetic want for their EHS managers.

I was surprised at how bad the Starbucks stuff is

Starbucks has a reputation for over roasting its beans (if you look at them you will see that they are very dark with an oily surface sheen). As I understand it, it does this deliberately because the vast majority of the drinks it sells drown the espresso in milk. Over roasting will give them the consistantly strong bitter flavour which they want/need when diluting it in so much milk, whereas it will probably not taste good as a straight espresso. In short, Starbucks and the other chains probably sell >80%-90% milk drinks with a high milk to espresso ratio, and that is what their customers have become accustomed to.

It was not until I tried flat whites and straight espressos from a good quality independent coffee shop, that I realised how bad/mediocre the coffee served in Starbucks etc. was.

I think good espresso is very akin to nice dark chocolate, and I suspect if you like dark chocolate, then you will probably like good espresso.

I quite like the stuff from Costa and McD’s, but find the stuff from Starbucks a bit burnt and bitter

I think that often the best non-milk drinks from the chains are their filter coffees, because they are less likely to over roast those blends. McDonalds filter coffee is reckoned to be quite good and inexpensive.

The military got its knuckles rapped around 20 years ago for poor safety management, and as result it put a lot of personnel through the NEBOSH Certificate and Diploma and raised its game substantially. From what I have seen, a lot of those safety trained forces people have moved into EHS in industry on leaving the military, and seemed to do well and be well regarded for their skills.

Steve/renton – a few suggestions:

1. I suspect you really need the Diploma or equivalent to maximise options and earnings. It used to be that the army would fund personnel doing a post graduate safety diploma at the University of Surrey (which could be extended to an MSc), and which required eight separate weeks of attendance at the university (for which they got time off) plus essays. The advantage of that course was that the diploma was recognised/accredited by IOSH as equivalent to the NEBOSH diploma, and had no exam. Even if Surrey are no longer offering the course, there were/are other providers of similar courses, e.g. Portsmouth University. Suggest you have a look on the careers bit of the IOSH forum.

2. As I said, a lot of ex forces people have gained qualifications and skills/experience in the military and used those to get jobs in civvy street, so you should be trying to speak to some of them to get advice on what you should be doing in the next few years to make yourself highly attractive to the employers in the field(s) you are considering (use your contacts in the army and try posting on the IOSH forum).

3. Many businesses want their Health and Safety managers also to fulfil the Environmental management role (and if you find yourself in a management position where you have to write the Health and Safety policy you will find that there is a lot of overlap with writing an Environmental policy, so it often makes sense for those roles to be combined). So look into getting an Environmental management qualification, although I would suggest that should be secondary to the safety diploma.

4. Ex forces contacts who have gone into industry should be able to give you better advice, but I would expect that skills and experience are potentially as important as the qualifications in getting the employment you want. You want to be able to demonstrate to potential employers that you have acquired experience and used skills in the military that would translate well into their businesses. I am sure that in the RE there are plenty of situations and projects where there are difficult and problematic health, safety and environmental issues which need to be managed properly to achieve a successful outcome. Bear in mind that ‘managed properly’ for industry and the military will be the same thing: ‘cost effectively’ and as quickly as (safely) possible – if you can do that in the military, then civilian employers will value that. So you probably need to get yourself in a position while you are still in the forces where you are working full time on EHS.

5. The field is so wide that, even though you want to keep as many options open as possible, you should start thinking about what sectors you might want to get into, e.g. manufacturing, construction etc. etc., and what sort of work you want to do (office based, extent of travelling/remote working etc.)

I thought the video on this website on cutting and sanding carbon fibre componets was quite good. Whilst it promotes the products they sell, interestingly they show perfectly good cuts being achieved with an ordinary hacksaw blade instead of the abrasive type blade.

The coastal route via the A35 and Dorchester to Honiton is a very pleasant scenic drive in the daytime in good weather.

However, all other things being equal, I would find it a much more tiring and stressful route to drive at night than the A303, especially if the weather was not good.

Terry Parsons

However the ride is dull, the paint is seems to get chipped by the wind and the bike weighs more than Jupiter.

I will either get it re-powder coated or replaced, but if replaced what would match the good atributes of the Pomp and improve on the negatives?

Presumably the handling only feels dull, and you you only notice the heavy weight of the Pompetamine, when you are riding it unladen? From what you write, the Pompetamine sounds perfect for what you need when you are touring heavily laden. Instead it sounds like what you want is a second bike, whether a full on race bike, a more lightweight fast touring or sportive type bike, or a ‘gravel’ style bike.

I think that otherwise you are in danger of spending a lot of money trying to make a tough heavy touring bike into something it isn’t really suited to being.

Does it even make sense to get the Pompetamine resprayed? As it is now, you can probably happily accept any chips the frame gets from being handled roughly on tour, but in your shoes if I got it resprayed I would only be upset when the inevitable happened and the new paint job was scratched by baggage handlers or by hard wear and tear on tour.

andykirk, I use a “1-3 cup” size Chemex, which only makes a single cup/mug at a time (approximately 250ml), so I drink it all in one go. If you’ve ordered a much larger size with the intention of making a lot of coffee, I guess you could use a hot plate to keep it warm, either that or use an extra large insulated mug or maybe even a thermos. NB The base of the carafe has a ridge around the circumference, i.e. the majority of the base is not in direct contact with whatever surface it sits on, so I do not know how well it would work with a hot plate (the Chemex instructions only state not to place the glass directly on electric coils, and that gas and glass/ceramic top ranges are OK to keep the coffee warm in the carafe).

A few things I do, which you may want to try:

1. As per Hasbean’s brew guide I wet the filter paper in the carafe. I do this with hot water from the kettle just after it has boiled, and then pour that hot water from the carafe into my cup to warm the cup (no need to lift the filter paper out of the carafe to pour the hot water into the cup – the wet filter paper will stay in place).

2. It’s generally advised not to use boiling water to make coffee, and I find that if I wait approximately a couple of minutes after having wetted the filter paper, the rest of the water in the kettle will usually have cooled to somewhere around 90 to 95 degrees. If you are boiling much larger amounts of water, you might have to wait a bit longer.

3. After a while a thin film of brown coffee oil residue will appear inside the bottom half of the carafe. I haven’t noticed that it affects the taste and don’t usually worry about it. Chemex sell a brush to clean the inside of the carafe – I don’t know if using a brush works, but I have cleaned it out using the same cleaner sold for espresso machines, which was very easy and effective, although I don’t bother doing it very often.

Great thread for ‘coffee snob bingo – it’s all here, but bonus marks to Rogan Josh for being fantastically patronising and dictatorial. I bet you make beautiful, beautiful coffee. The best coffee. Coffee so good. We will make coffee great again.

I’m a little perturbed that no-one has mentioned the crucial importance to world peace of only using freshly roasted beans ground less than 30 seconds before you brew up until the last post. And there’s no troll telling you that good instant coffee is on a par with espresso if you know how to use it.

Which it is. Erm, bingo!

and the irony is that BadlyWiredDog is himself a bigger coffee snob than Rogan Josh; he’s simply at the other end of the spectrum with the sort of inverse snobbery these threads often attract. In both cases, the snobbery usually stems from people’s own insecurity, which manifests itself itself in a need to denigrate other people’s choices and preferences. Somehow, the idea that other people like – or dislike – instant coffee, freshly ground coffee, espresso, chain shop coffee, coffee with milk, coffee without milk, coffee with sugar or coffee without sugar, upsets them in way that other threads about beer, whisky, wine or food do not.

The only criterion that really matters is your own personal preference and taste. Equally we are all different, so other people don’t have to like what you like to somehow validate your own preferences.

tried one but the coffee always seems to be cold by the time it gets to my mouth

You should always boil more water than you need for just the coffee, and use that to warm the cup.

Insulated cafetieres are not a good idea: as a general rule of thumb cafetiere coffee should be allowed to brew for around 4 mins. If you leave coffee effectively to stew in the cafetiere, the water will ‘over-extract’ from the grounds and the resulting coffee will not be as nice. However, you could use an insulated cup.

I like a full cup of coffee, if I were to get an espresso machine is it just a case of add water/ milk?

Unless you want to drink espresso or espresso based drinks such as cappucino, getting an espresso machine in order to make long black coffee would be a waste of money and kitchen space.

I know nothing about coffee, other than that I like drinking real stuff

If possible I would suggest you try coffee made using the different brweing methods, e.g. cafetiere and one or more of the various paper filter methods (on which note, why not Aeropress, unless you have a specific aversion to the taste of coffee made using an Aeropress?)

An advantage of preferring filter style coffee over espresso, is that means you can get more bang for your money by spending it on a grinder and on better quality beans, rather than on an expensive espresso machine.

If I were in your shoes, I would buy an electric grinder rather than manual grinder and a cheap brewer (whether V60, cafetiere or Aeropress). I don’t know if this is the best price or even if it is the best ginder at your price point, but Hasbean sell the Baratza Encore for £149.

Edit – Hasbean’s brew guides will give you some idea of the various brewing methods.

I thought speed wobble was primarily determined by the bike’s geometry, the distribution of weight on the bike (rider and any luggage), and reaching the speed necessary for the oscillation to occur.

I’m surprised that wheels would cause it, unless the geometry and weight distribution were such that the bike was already more prone to speed wobble, and the difference (maybe weight?) between the old and new wheels has been the tiping point factor which has resulted in wobble now occurring.

The Lancashire Pike is a fairly close copy of the old Greenspot Nomad, which looked out of date when it was being worn by cycletourists in the 1980s and before.

If the main appeal is the Ventile fabric, why not get a more modern style interpretation which is probably a far better product in design, cut and features by Hilltrek (a company which makes clothing for outdoor activities, rather than wannabe hipsters). Review here. It is also much less expensive than the Pike..

Reports like this make me think I need to get into the habit of doing pre-ride safety checks of my bikes. I happily spend money on and use a torque wrench for initial installation, but I suspect that a pre-ride check is as important as correctly installing a steerer and stem etc., if not not more important. The guidance I’ve read suggests holding the front wheel between your knees trying to turn the handlebars to check for any movement in the steerer/stem.

I guess there will always remain the potential for sudden catastrophic failure without any advance warning of a safety critical component, which seems to have been the case here, but I think that very often there are indications that something is wrong, which a pre-ride check will hopefully identify.

Based on some of the comments on this old CTC forum thread about an aluminium steerer failing, the potential exists for all types of steerer to fail dangerously, even old fashioned threaded steel steerers.

Example builds on the Jones blog of the non-Boost Jones Plus showing Shimano and Surly double chainsets – all 2 x 10:

We’ve been busy, but we’ve built some bikes too! Here are some samples.

It is not clear whether the Shimano 10 speed chainset in one example is the standard or Boost version

Quite. Any instructor who doesn’t read this report in detail and assess his or her own practices againt it would be foolish.

I am more concerned about the accreditation/training bodies. If there is a widespread (systemic) problem, then that is likely to mean that the organisations are at fault, rather than the individual instructors they train and accredit. In that respect I have great sympathy for the instructor in this case: he was always going to be the obvious target of any legal action, but I cannot help thinking that his accreditation body should very possibly take a large percentage of the blame and moral responsibility if it is not giving its own instructors adequate training and guidance.

The MIAS technical reference material provided by the defence does not appear to be from guidance telling instructors how to instruct, and instead seems to be telling the pupil/mountain biker what they should do, which makes me suspect that MIAS may not have the sort of guidance/standards for its instructors that I would expect:

The MIAS guidance pointed out that in relation to descents,

“….Some rough terrain may actually be easier and safer to do at a higher speed, as it will provide the much-needed momentum. Whereas otherwise, at slow speed, your bike may come to an unexpected halt as it gets stuck on the terrain.”

In relation to maximum deceleration it is pointed out that the most effective measure is to apply the front brake, albeit with the arms braced. It points out that this is a skill which requires to be learnt, otherwise,

“This can cause the classic ‘over-the-bars’ crash…..”

Moreover, in relation to descents the “Technical Tips” provides,

“Get your bike into a low gear, 3rd, 4th or 5th gear depending on your speed. Ride at a very slow speed. Approach the descent in a straight line. As you go down the descent, position yourself to the rear of the cycle in order to maintain a gravity line. Keep your pedals on the horizontal. Feather your brakes to suit descent. Keep looking ahead. If the rear wheel of the cycle tries to overtake the front wheel, disengage brakes, straighten up and re-apply. A slope of no more than 30 degrees should be tackled.”

Reading the case notes and taking on board what the experienced tutors on here have said, on top of the way I and my group were instructed, I’m absolutely convinced the defendants methodology in tutoring was totally wrong.

If the tuition was indeed seriously flawed, then a much bigger/wider issue than the court’s likely award in this particular case, is the question of whether inadequate and unsafe instruction is similarly being provided by other instructors. That raises important questions about the quality of training, assessing and monitoring of instructors by their accreditation bodies, and about whether the guidance/standards published by those bodies on the content and format of a typical beginner’s/intermediate/advanced skills course is sufficiently clear and thorough.

It would be some consolation for the claimant and the instructor in this case, if it did result in the industry raising its standards, reducing the risk of a similar accident.

When I compare the instructor’s own account pasted below of the events of the day and the programme, with chiefgrooveguru’s description earlier on this thread of a skills course (C&P at the bottom), there seems to be a huge gulf in quality, standards and professionalism between the courses.

The instructor’s account describes a lot of him just telling the riders what they should do, whereas I would expect instruction to be followed by repeated drills, closely watched by the instructor. The instructor’s observation of the riders also sounds poor, e.g. “He would look back towards the group from time to time” and “The defendant said that as he was ascending Holmbury Hill he would look back at the group to observe them” (for that matter, why even mention your observation of riders going up a non-technical climb?).

The whole structure of the course sounds flawed, essentially forcing a skills training day to fit a (not apparently very suitable) 15 mile course. I imagine it would be possible with very careful selection to choose a course that would suit a progressive skills training day, but it does not sound like this was it, e.g. “he conceded that he hadn’t taught the group to perform emergency braking, as this was something which he intended to teach them at a later stage of the course.”

Exactly as chiefgrooveguru describes, I would have expected much of a skills course to be spent at least initially in a small area with lots of examples of the various terrain features with varying levels of difficulty to practice skills on, which the instructor could select from to match his/her assessment of rider performance and progression, allowing riders to practice lots of drills under close observation. Then maybe finish the day by riding a not too demanding course where it would be possible to put those new skills into use.

Some of those saying that the instructor should not have been held liable by the court, seem to be judging the instructor by the sort of advice/tuition/encouragement that might be given by a more experienced rider to another in a group of friends out for a ride. This is a very different situation: when someone takes money to provide professional tuition and advertises themself as a qualified professional instructor, they have to work to much higher standards. In a group of friends, riders will be able to make their own judgement about taking advice from another rider. With an instructor, whom you may have never previously met, you are trusting them to be competent and relying on their judgement – which should be much better than yours – of what you should attempt.

He said that at the beginning of each course, he would check the bikes which the participants had brought with them, and there is no reason to believe that he didn’t do this on the course which the claimant had attended in March 2012. Moreover, he specifically highlighted the advice contained in the written check list, that if any of the participants had any doubts about riding their bikes on the course, that they should walk. He said that before they set off, he would explain to the course participants that they were going to cover about 15 miles during the day, and that he would demonstrate the various skills which they were to learn at various points along the way. He said that the claimant’s accident occurred after the group had been riding for over an hour, and by then he had demonstrated and discussed the basic principles of gear choice, body positions for ascending and descending, keeping the pedals level, controlled braking and the need for the rider to keep his chin up in order to focus on the trail ahead of him. He denied having instructed the claimant to focus his sight about 2 metres in front of his bike, as this would be insufficiently far ahead in order to enable him to avoid obstacles along the trail. However, he conceded that he hadn’t taught the group to perform emergency braking, as this was something which he intended to teach them at a later stage of the course.

The defendant said that as he was ascending Holmbury Hill he would look back at the group to observe them, and he also instructed them how to negotiate channels crossing the track. At the top of the hill they all stopped, and he told them that they should normally be in the middle gear, and about the need to brake smoothly to avoid locking the wheels. He told them that they shouldn’t be afraid of using the front brakes, and that they should adopt a position with their weight towards the back of their bikes. He told them that this would also assist them when lifting the handle bars in order to negotiate obstacles on the tracks, which was a precursor to the “bunny hop” technique. He told them that there would be protruding tree roots on the track down from the summit of the hill, and that they should approach them with caution, positioning their feet evenly on the pedals.

The defendant stated that after a reasonably flat section, the track then starts to descend, parts of it quite steeply; although in the main, it was reasonably wide due to it being a fire road, there were parts which were single track. He said that prior to commencing on this section, he would reiterate the instruction which he had provided about body positioning, braking and the field of vision. He would look back towards the group from time to time, and at the bottom at Radnor Road, he asked them how they were coping and nobody indicated that they were having any problems.

The defendant said that after Radnor Road, they crossed over, and commenced the descent, down BKB towards the slope where the accident occurred. When they arrived at the top of the slope they dismounted, and he indicated that there were two routes down. He said that the route on the right was slightly less steep, but that he had demonstrated how to descend down the main slope, at a slow and controlled speed, using his brakes, and with his weight towards the rear of his bike. He agreed that whilst they were at the top of the slope, other mountain bike riders arrived and rode down the main slope at greater speed. His instruction to the group had been that they shouldn’t slam their brakes on and thereby risk locking the bike’s wheels.

chiefgrooveguru – Member

Jedi starts me off slow, building up on small tables before encouraging me to take on a gap. I’m a bit reluctant but he tells me I’m ready. I then proceed to smash myself to bits a I get it all wrong…

Except that isn’t what happens – I know this because the last time I saw Jedi I had the intention of getting gaps sorted as my technique was fairly decent and it was simply a question of the right mindset. He could see that I had the physical skills to ride the smaller (6′, 8′, 9′) gaps but the decision was left to me and my headspace was not in the right place, so we moved onto other skills.

I’ve only ridden Barry’s a few times some years back, when I was a relatively novice rider. I recall finding some of the steep rolls difficult and intimidating, though I’m sure I wouldn’t blink an eye at them now. I suspect this instructor was in the wrong because he was trying to teach basic techniques on a complex bit of trail.

You have to break things down to the basics – learn steeps, learn handling rough surfaces, learn handling slippery roots, etc etc separately. Once each skill is properly instilled then start putting multiple skills together. I’ve done a bit of informal coaching of beginners and they quickly become overwhelmed, panic and whatever technique they had goes out of the window. The skill as a coach is to be able to read how they are reacting to the challenges.

This is where a dedicated progressive coaching area like Jedi’s at Hertshore is invaluable – you reduce the random factor as low as possible and are able to focus on techniques individually. Natural feeling trails aren’t like that – although the main feature may be a steep roll-in, it could be preceded by a difficult entry, followed by a difficult exit or have other challenging details within it. Occasionally people get hurt at Herts but in my eyes Jedi has gone above and beyond to minimise the risks whilst coaching what many consider an extreme sport. [/quote]

The way in which the industry talks about flood risk is being debated at present and we need to find better ways of conveying the risk simply and effectively, I guess this highlights this

The majority of people are a lot more intelligent than they are given credit for, and IMO much of the problem comes from scientists and professionals using terminology which they think makes it easier for ordinary people to understand, but in fact only makes matters worse.

The Environment Agency’s previous use of the terms ‘Low’, ‘Moderate’ and ‘Significant’ risk is a good example, since Low was (and still is) actually worse than ‘normal’, and I suspect the word Significant was chosen deliberately to downplay the risk (if you tell people that they are at high risk, they will start to campaign for defences and put pressure on the EA and MPs).

The EA mapping has several forms – without defences mapping shows the ultimate risk and is used for planning purposes, there is a data set that looks at the risk with defences included and this is the key one – it is now called the Flood Risk from Rivers and the Sea map, it considers the likelihood of defences being overtopped or failing, this is probably where the 1 in 75 year assessment comes from.

It is all a question of ‘residual risk’, yes the area may be at risk of flooding but following the measures that have been built to reduce the likelihood or impact of that flooding what is the residual risk. I would suggest that the residual risk is fairly low.

I thought that the greater than 1 in 75 threshold band (=’High’ risk) is only used in the flood model which takes defences and their likely effectiveness into account, i.e. it IS the residual risk, and therefore the risk would not be ‘low’. (The planning model results are expressed using 1 in 200, 1 in 100 and 1 in 20 thresholds, no?)

The flood report shows it is at ‘high risk’ of flooding from the Tees, with a 1 in 75 year chance.

Are you sure it’s 1 in 75? The Environment Agency uses bands, and usually High means 1 in 75 or worse, so the risk may be much higher than 1 in 75. If the risk is that bad, and if you are still going to consider buying, I would want to investigate a lot further than just relying on the basic Environment Agency website result* (or on an insurance comparison website for the liklihood of cover/price of insurance).

Edit * If that is effectively what the ‘flood report’ is largely based on or consists of.

I am not sure if by downshift you mean changing down to a smaller gear, or dropping the mech down to a smaller sprocket.

If the latter, I find that if the brake levers are squeezed slightly, then the smaller shift lever can fail to engage (are you riding on the hoods and unconciously pressing the brake levers when changing?)

I think I’ve noticed a similar effect without pressing the brake levers, if I push the smaller shift lever in a slightly diagonal direction (inwards and towards me, rather than just inwards).

However, I usually realise what I have done when this has happened, and either take pressure off the brake levers or push the smaller shift lever just inwards, so it doesn’t take 3 or 4 attempts to properly engage.

America, like the rest of us, likes its cheap goods. And obviously part of that cheapness is provided by lower costs of labour, by overseas work.

If you bring that production back to the US, its going to add to the cost. Prices will rise. Can America stomach that?

….unless he plans on bringing about a massive reduction in internal US labour costs, of course.

I think that the idea that low labour costs elsewhere, especially in China, means that it’s generally simply not economically viable for US (and UK/EU) based manufacturing businesses to compete is too readily accepted, and that the costs vs benefits are a lot more finely balanced than the simple comparison of the hourly rate of a Chinese worker and his American counterpart:

– as I understand it, Chinese labour costs have been rising in the last decade
– China industrialised very rapidly and threw up a lot of factories – many with state money – in a very short period of time, because they knew that almost no matter what they might get wrong, the labour costs were so low that mistakes would not matter. I think many of those factories as a result and the skills/quality of their employees are not as good as their USA/EU equivalents (less efficient, poorer quality product etc.), and as a result they will struggle to maintain a competitive edge without an (artificially?) low currency exchange rate and state bank subsidies.
– China has a major problem with corruption, and that also damages their competiveness
– A lot of businesses have repatriated functions back from the Far East, in order to regain control of quality/product safety, simplify the supply chain, to guard intellctual property, and because it is simply cheaper to do so.

So I suspect that the main obstacles to an increase in USA manufacturing are not so much the operating costs (energy/wages etc.) and more the barriers to entry of the costs of starting up by building or de-mothballing plants, and even those now may not be as great as before. For example, my understanding is that high tech semi-conductor manufacturing facilities have a fairly short lifespan, and it’s often easier/cheaper for the manufacturers to build a new factory for the next generation of chips, rather than try to upgrade their existing factories.

The USA has a lot of advantages for starting up new manufacturing: loads of space, lots of natural resources, a flexible/mobile workforce and a labour market/laws that favour the employer, and low energy costs. If corporations also know that the government (Trump or otherwise) is actively going to support them, that could strongly encourage them to invest more inside the USA.

If they have any shortages, it might be temporary gaps in some of the workforce skills, in which case they can do what America has always done, and encourage immigration to fill the gaps (Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free your ambitious go-getting degree qualified Mexican or Chinese production engineer).

To dimiss Trump and many of those who voted for him by saying that they are unfit to hold office or stupid and that democracy has failed, is arguably flawed prejudiced reasoning.

I think supporters of the American democratic system can make a compelling argument that the Trump phenomenon is succesful democracy in action. The approach of the establishment in the Republican and Democratic parties in the last decade or two seems to have been to take their core voting groups for granted and focus on ‘triangulation’ and winning swing voters in the swing states, and saying to those swing voters whatever they thought would get their vote. Neither party had anything major to offer those Americans who have seen living standards stay static/fall, presumably because it was too difficult/impossible to develop an economic strategy that would deliver against the background of low Chinese labour costs, the financial crash, a couple of expensive wars and probably a lot of vested interests.

What destroyed that comfortable two party status quo was the US Primary system that allowed a maverick outsider, who was regarded as an enemy within by many Republicans, to win the nomination.

And for all his faults and flaws, I can’t help wondering if he might just pull it off. If he did, he would go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents. The Republicans in Congress and the Senate could doubtless prevent Trump making many reforms, but the problem for them – and the Democrats – may be that the dam has burst and the electorate will no longer vote for the same old same old, and will turn to whoever promises to make major change, and will keep voting for more radical/maverick candidates until they get what they want.

It may be that Trump will have a window of opportunity to implement economic reforms that otherwise would not happen:

– he has probably more political clout to carry momentum forward than any recent new President, and the establishment Republicans probably know that they have to work with him to succeed, otherwise they face the prospect of an even angrier electorate throwing them all out in the next elections in favour of another protest/voice of change candidate.
– economic factors may be much more in the USA’s favour than in the last decade, e.g. low energy costs thanks to fracking etc. and possibly reducing labour cost differentials compared with Mexico/China
– no expensive wars
– if his proposal goes ahead to allow/force Apple etc. to bring profits held offshore into the USA at a favorable tax rate, that could both give him a large tax windfall for infrastructure projects and also result in a lot of investment of those repatriated profits in USA based businesses
– if he’s as big a narcissist as some people say, nothing would probably motivate him more than the prospect of being lauded as a great President.

Ronald Reagan was similarly demonised by the left, especially outside the USA, but I think was widely considered by most Americans to have been a very good President (and to have been much smarter than many gave him credit for being).

That all said, whatever actually happens and whether or not it proves to be good for the USA and the rest of the world as a whole, there is clearly going to be a lot of change and uncertainty, and it’s always the weak and the poor who suffer most during major upheavals. I dread to think what it must like for those Americans who currently depend upon the Affordable Care Act to get access to decent health care and who now face losing that.

£3M for falling off a bike. Brilliant. What a joke.

Bloke sounds like a total prat to me.

That and the other similar remarks suggesting that the man should not have sued the instructor are simply stupid ignorant comments.

The fact that his claim has been successful, albeit with 20% contributory negligence, indicates that the court agreed the instructor was negligent and substantially responsible for the accident.

Some people will happily acquire their skills entirely on their own by practicing jumps etc., and accept that any accident or injury is down to themselves, but others will want to have training from a paid expert instructor because it should be a safer and quicker way to learn and improve skills.

If you take money from people to train them in a potentially dangerous sport, then you have a responsibility to provide instruction to certain minimum safety standards. That is why people pay for such training: they lack both the skills and also judgement/knowledge of what they can safely attempt to do, so they rely on the instructor’s superior knowledge.

Liability insurance is relatively cheap, and provides a valuable function to society for this sort of situation where someone suffers life changing injuries. It is also a useful driver to improve standards in workplaces (and this was a work related accident): businesses and industries that have poor safety records and rubbish claims experience, rapidly find that they have to implement systems and procedures to improve their performance, either at the specific insistance of their insurers, or because they are facing rising premiums and know they must improve their claims experience to prevent excessive insurance price rises.

Suggesting that the rider in this case should just suck it up is crass. Hopefully, this case will instead be something that helps to drive improvement in safety standards and the quality of tuition in the UK MTB skills instruction sector.

The road.cc article states that the instructor was qualified, but does not mention what qualification.

Cycling UK/the CTC appear to be one of the main (only?) bodies issuing MTB instructor qualifications, and MTB instuctors with that qualification can get liability insurance from Cycling UK.

Could be the end of mtb instruction ? If they can’t get liability insurance at a reasonable cost the sector will be die.

If the instructor in this case had cover from the Cycling UK insurance scheme, and if that scheme has most/all of the market (which is very possible with a niche type scheme like that), then this accident and court award could certainly have a major effect on the price of cover. The insurer will obviously have the reserves to pay the award, but the case would make it review the scheme carefully to consider whether it will be profitable in the future. It’s very unlikely that the insurer would stop underwriting the scheme and that Cycling UK could not find a replacement insurer to underwrite it, but the premiums paid by instructors (passed onto customers in the course costs) could rise significantly.

A few thoughts:

– is there a recognised code of practice for MTB tuition? The article indicates the instructor was negligent in properly assessing the skill level of the rider. Procedures and guidance for assessing skill levels and how to train skills are something I would expect to see in a code of practice.

– what auditing and re-testing do Cycling UK and any other providers do of instructors? It’s not enough to issue a qualification: an accrediting body needs to take active steps to monitor the performance of those who hold its qualification and use it to attract customers. According to the scanned image I’ve seen of the Certificate issued by Cycling UK/CTC to one instructor, the Certificate does not have an expiry date or indicate for how long the qualification is valid. The trend now is for any work related type skills qualification to have a limited duration, at the end of which refresher training/re-testing is required.

The things above are part of a maturing field/’industry’. Mountain biking is a relatively new sport compared with other outdoor sports like climbing and kayaking etc., so probably still has some way to go before the overall standards of training and instruction are as good/mature.

Is the CX70 designed to give better tyre clearance than a standard road front mech?

I don’t think it’s designed with the intention of giving better tyre clearance, rather to work better with smaller chainrings, like cyclocross chainsets, where the need to position the mech lower down the seat tube may result in a standard mech hitting the chainstay when changing to the small ring. I guess the design might possibly also result in better tyre clearance.

Couple of photos here of the mech (first one bottom pull version):

http://hubjub.co.uk/shimano-cx-70-front-mech-1922-p.asp

Shimano CX70 top-pull front derailleur

Assuming you are using a 46/36 chainset, and even more so if you are using smaller rings, it sounds like you should be looking at the top pull version of this:

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/shimano-ultegra-cx70-2x10sp-band-on-front-mech/rp-prod70123