Armistead Down And Out................

Now we have something / quite-a-lot to discuss and celebrate.
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Armistead Down And Out................

Post by Flinders »

Bonefishblues wrote:OTOH they didn't just jump out and risk avoidance is a two-way street.

Six of one etc

I don't honestly think so, at least in this particular case. As far as I remember, I think the people in the road were still creeping out sideways even as the riders were finishing, just as I've seen similar things happen in other sorts of racing- they get excited and try to see round each other - with no barriers, there's no limit to where they can end up.
The thing is, photographers with long lenses can't see sideways, they're like horses wearing blinkers. So they don't see any hazard that isn't directly in their lens, and the field of view of those long lenses is very narrow. That type of lens also affects the perception of depth and, therefore, speed. I photograph horse racing with similar kit, and in amateur racing where there are no barriers, I keep far, far further back from the racing line (never mind stand in it) and have with me a 'minder' who isn't taking photos, and who has a complete field of vision and watches for hazards for me, like loose horses careering way off the track.

That finish could easily have had even more riders across the line side by side, and no way could they have all funelled down safely to less than half that road.
We always say about riding in the gutter 'never ride close to the edge in case there is a surface problem on the road etc.'. So why on earth squeeze riders so close just after a finish, leaving them with next to nowhere to go?
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Armistead Down And Out................

Post by Bonefishblues »

Flinders wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:OTOH they didn't just jump out and risk avoidance is a two-way street.

Six of one etc

I don't honestly think so, at least in this particular case. As far as I remember, I think the people in the road were still creeping out sideways even as the riders were finishing, just as I've seen similar things happen in other sorts of racing- they get excited and try to see round each other - with no barriers, there's no limit to where they can end up.
The thing is, photographers with long lenses can't see sideways, they're like horses wearing blinkers. So they don't see any hazard that isn't directly in their lens, and the field of view of those long lenses is very narrow. That type of lens also affects the perception of depth and, therefore, speed. I photograph horse racing with similar kit, and in amateur racing where there are no barriers, I keep far, far further back from the racing line (never mind stand in it) and have with me a 'minder' who isn't taking photos, and who has a complete field of vision and watches for hazards for me, like loose horses careering way off the track.

That finish could easily have had even more riders across the line side by side, and no way could they have all funelled down safely to less than half that road.
We always say about riding in the gutter 'never ride close to the edge in case there is a surface problem on the road etc.'. So why on earth squeeze riders so close just after a finish, leaving them with next to nowhere to go?

Yes you're right in part I think, I understand the point about the photographers.

Trouble is, the person with the best view of events seemed to be unaware of the danger until the very last moment when she veered left, as seen from a head-on camera angle in other footage, sadly unable to steer or brake having had her hands aloft fist pumping for 50 metres or so.
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Armistead Down And Out................

Post by Flinders »

I think the sun may have been right in the riders' eyes. In which case, it may have been difficult to separate the photographers from people behind them who were behind the barriers.
I see no point in there being barriers if anyone is allowed the 'wrong' side of them.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Armistead Down And Out................

Post by reohn2 »

Flinders wrote:I think the sun may have been right in the riders' eyes. In which case, it may have been difficult to separate the photographers from people behind them who were behind the barriers.
I see no point in there being barriers if anyone is allowed the 'wrong' side of them.


I agree,the gaggle of photo journo's after the line always have looked like an accident waiting to happen to me.Why it's allowed to continue after this crash would be mind boggling.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Armistead Down And Out................

Post by Bonefishblues »

Flinders wrote:I think the sun may have been right in the riders' eyes. In which case, it may have been difficult to separate the photographers from people behind them who were behind the barriers.
I see no point in there being barriers if anyone is allowed the 'wrong' side of them.

Armistead is clearly pictured wearing very dark sunglasses before she loses control.
User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 13780
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Armistead Down And Out................

Post by NATURAL ANKLING »

Hi,
ANY Tinted glasses is only (Cat1 and greater) is IIRC only 50% light trasmission

Only CAT 0 is OK for driving etc. I.M.O.
Yellow can be 0 -1
http://everythingsunglasses.blogspot.co ... -what.html

"Transmission rates. An unfortunate name for this part of the unending technology you can learn about sunglasses. This one is quite simple actually. It is what it sounds like. The transmission rate (also called transmittance) is a percentage given which describes the amount (or rate) of sunlight that will go through the lenses of your sunglasses and into your eyes. Being a percentage, they run from 0% (black as night) to 100% (clear as day). All lenses fall somewhere in between there, most being closer to 0%. Each different range of transmission rates also has categories which are organized like this:


Category 0: 80 – 100%
Category 1: 46 – 79 %
Category 2: 18 – 45 %
Category 3: 8 &# 8211; 17 %
Category 4: 3 – 8 %"


http://www.vision3k.com/bloc-sunglasses ... ses-lenses
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Armistead Down And Out................

Post by Bonefishblues »

I'm a fisherman too, I get that :)

ETA
Shimano's site v-a-v their colours, transmission etc: http://www.shimano-lifestylegear.com/gl ... colors.php
Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Armistead Down And Out................

Post by Tonyf33 »

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
ANY Tinted glasses is only (Cat1 and greater) is IIRC only 50% light trasmission

Only CAT 0 is OK for driving etc. I.M.O.
Yellow can be 0 -1
http://everythingsunglasses.blogspot.co ... -what.html

"Transmission rates. An unfortunate name for this part of the unending technology you can learn about sunglasses. This one is quite simple actually. It is what it sounds like. The transmission rate (also called transmittance) is a percentage given which describes the amount (or rate) of sunlight that will go through the lenses of your sunglasses and into your eyes. Being a percentage, they run from 0% (black as night) to 100% (clear as day). All lenses fall somewhere in between there, most being closer to 0%. Each different range of transmission rates also has categories which are organized like this:


Category 0: 80 – 100%
Category 1: 46 – 79 %
Category 2: 18 – 45 %
Category 3: 8 &# 8211; 17 %
Category 4: 3 – 8 %"


http://www.vision3k.com/bloc-sunglasses ... ses-lenses

Really? You're way off base if you think sunglasses with a maximum of only 20% sunlight blockage only is acceptable for driving, in fact i'd go far as to say that at that level they are inadequate in many UK conditions!
The law of the land allows the windows of a car to block 25% permanently in all conditions never mind any sunglasses the driver may wear.
User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 13780
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Armistead Down And Out................

Post by NATURAL ANKLING »

Hi,
I said driving, I should of said riding a bike, sorry.

I don't wear sunglasses at all in the car, and when I see drivers with dark glasses on a cloudy day I cringe.
I wear Cat 0 with yellow tint on my bike and have done most of the year.

I made a mistake in not taking my clear glasses a few years ago and when it got dark I was unable to continue to wear them.

I wonder when it will be illegal to wear tinted glasses whilst driving a car.
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Armistead Down And Out................

Post by reohn2 »

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
I said driving, I should of said riding a bike, sorry.

I don't wear sunglasses at all in the car, and when I see drivers with dark glasses on a cloudy day I cringe.
I wear Cat 0 with yellow tint on my bike and have done most of the year.

I made a mistake in not taking my clear glasses a few years ago and when it got dark I was unable to continue to wear them.

I wonder when it will be illegal to wear tinted glasses whilst driving a car.


I wear two types of sunglasses lenses similar to an 81A and an 81B photo filters,I find it much easier on my eyes with the 81A lens for most riding and driving.The 81A is great when driving in the rain as it cuts glare even in cloudy conditions and gives a clearer definition.
I last had my eyes tested about five months ago and they're barely changed for the last 10 years,equal and needing only +1.5's for reading.For distance they're equal and very good.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 13780
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Armistead Down And Out................

Post by NATURAL ANKLING »

Hi,
Wear Glasses for reading and the computer and arm length work etc, eyes tested every year or so (56) from 40 on focus dropped from 4 " to now arms length now, does it slow down at pension age :)
Anyway take glasses with me on bike but only need them for repairs and mapwork
Eye tests are to spot disease and fine tuning eye to eye, have prescription lenses but most of mine are 99p jobs which work well.
Cheap glasses dot affect eyes any more than watching tv computer etc, only bring on a headache if you have the wrong pair (magnification) or none through squinting etc.
Don't need glasses to drive or ride so only wear protection glasses (sports) to keep flies etc at bay.
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
Post Reply