Don't try this at home! Tom Pidcock shows off his mind-blowing descending skills; Video emerges of Dan Walker being hit by driver, but MailOnline claims "rear wheel caught car's front wing"; Who's the best descender in pro cycling? + more on the live blog

I like the word binacle.

Though very rarely a compass involved...

ktache wrote:

I like the word binacle.

Though very rarely a compass involved...

Isn't that a type of Pokémon?

I thought it was a metrosexual arthropod....

I believe in binnacles
Now where's it gone?
That sextant thing

panda wrote:

See you and raise you.  A car's "dashboard" is no more a piece of wood to stop the driver getting covered in "dash" (mud and gravel thrown up from the horses' hooves) 

You are confusing etymology with meaning.  The origin of the word 'dashboard' may well be as you say (and thanks for that - I had not heard it before) but the meaning now is (or rather the meanings now include) the instrument panel.

Having said that, many cameras in cars are now positioned behind the rear view mirror, so 'dashcam' is an inaccurate name in any case.  "Car camera" would seem sufficient.

I'm not confusing anything - I'm trying (badly it seems) to light-heartedly make the point that the current meaning of a word/phrase can diverge from its original meaning (which was more literal) and that in my view (others may differ) that's one of the things that makes the language beautiful and that what matters is that people can understand each other.  

It would seem natural to me, from a vantage-point perspective, that cameras are installed front and rear in cars (probably as a condition of collision insurance before too long) at the highest point inside the car looking forwards / backwards with an uninterrupted view, so yeah up near the mirror .... but it will still be totally OK to call them a dash-cam .... and "rear dashcam" makes no literal sense at all but it still a perfectly good term!

panda wrote:

I'm not confusing anything - I'm trying (badly it seems) to light-heartedly make the point that the current meaning of a word/phrase can diverge from its original meaning (which was more literal) and that in my view (others may differ) that's one of the things that makes the language beautiful and that what matters is that people can understand each other.  

Worry not, I took your post as light-hearted and intended mine (both the one you were responding to initially, and my response to you) to be the same.

I'll say it again: wing mirrors are not called wing mirrors because they attach to the wing of the vehicle; they are so called because they provide a view down the wing of the vehicle. It's common for mirrors to be named for their function, such as vanity mirror, make-up mirror, dressing mirror, etc.

Is it not because, viewed from above, they look like little wings?

I must say, I have never quite understood why the panel which is above the front wheel infront of the door is called the "wing".  I guess it makes sense if the wing is the whole side of the car which happens to have a door in it.  I do find this stuff interesting - keep them coming.

I look forward to the day when someone describes the Classified Hub system as having the front derailluer inside the freehub.  "What's it derailling?" I will cry ...

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

It's common for mirrors to be named for their function, such as vanity mirror, make-up mirror, dressing mirror, etc.

Daily Mirror.

Surely when attached to a car it is a "car-cam," or "safety-cam". When attached to a bicycle it is, of course, simply a "snitch-cam"

Mungecrundle wrote:

Surely when attached to a car it is a "car-cam," or "safety-cam". When attached to a bicycle it is, of course, simply a "snitch-cam"

No, duh, "grass-cam"

Leaving aside the headlines of the rag - at least the driver involved is now almost 100% to be found guilty of careless driving with that video.  Dont think they will get done for dangerous unfortunately.

I won't look myself at the comments in the papers - but I'm sure him wearing black/dark clothing will come up?

The Larger Cyclist wrote:

I won't look myself at the comments in the papers - but I'm sure him wearing black/dark clothing will come up?

I didn't look myself but that seems a very safe bet. Perhaps Mr Walker could point out that the car was black...

Ive mentioned but I think I got away with it

but then I also have some empathy with the view that I dont know why you would put yourself in that mix of traffic on roundabout like that if there was actually an alternative, the alternative would have to be pretty shockingly bad, to make you think the roundabout is the best route option.

Or you might think why should the largest, most direct route with the best surface only go to motorists while cyclists are shoved onto mostly badly surfaced unsafe infrastructure that always entails additional distance and elevation. And which in addition is regularly showered with glass splitters by the motorists.
Your answer is might is right, well not everybody believes so.

marmotte27 wrote:

Or you might think why should the largest, most direct route with the best surface only go to motorists while cyclists are shoved onto mostly badly surfaced unsafe infrastructure that always entails additional distance and elevation. And which in addition is regularly showered with glass splitters by the motorists. Your answer is might is right, well not everybody believes so.

And, also, that it's wrong for cyclists to ride of the pavement, but fine for them to mix with pedestrians when it suits motorists.

AidanR wrote:

I presume that Pidcock and co were riding on a closed road...?

Don't know if it was closed but you can see on the road at various points there are one way signs (and looking up Tuna Canyon it has been one way for some time due to mudslide damage narrowing the available space) so they weren't going to encounter oncoming traffic.

And presumably the car they meet at the bottom had just driven down to check it was clear and would have communicated that to them too? There appear to be a couple of minor tracks leading off to the side so it wouldn't be 100% foolproof but would further reduce the chance of any unexpected encounters. 

It might have been a more comfortable watch if I'd read these comments first. Still, that rear wheel slide at 1:13 was hairy...

At the start at 0:35 there are clear 2way signs and around there there are rear facing traffic signs. But even in one way parts in right blind turns it seems hard if not impossible to fully stop in case of an obstacle.

This is great riding, but there is a reason road cycling racing takes place in closed roads. This video is just like posting a supercar racing down an empty public mountain road to me.

Fair points but I think we can't really tell how much of a set up this was, when they get to the end they meet their car that presumably descended before them to check for obstacles and gave them an all clear, for all we know they might have had a "blocker" car behind them as well to make sure that nobody came up on them from behind, in which case they effectively had a closed road (not that anyone but a pro rally driver could have matched their pace, one imagines). Pidcock is a sensible lad, I doubt he would have been riding like that unless he had pretty good guarantees that there were no surprises coming.