Got a question but don’t any to create a new topic just for it, then bung it in here.
To start us off: I saw a race billed as a ‘5000m dash’, and my immediate thought was it was a track race. Turns out it isn’t, which I found slightly disappointing. I’ve come to assume that when written in full metres (e.g. 3000m, 5000m or 10,000m) it indicates a track race, whereas the abbreviated/kilometre form (e.g. 3k, 5k, 10k) would be on anything but a track.
Have I completely made up this standard convention? Or am I right? And if I am right, how strictly should it be adhered to?
I dont know of any standard but Im fully in agreement, if its given in meters then I would assume track, because its a mutliple of a track distance. If its given in km then its a road race.
At the Olympics its expressed in meters and its a teack distance. Mo Farah won gold in the 5000 and 10000 meters, not the 5 or 10k
errrm, 5000m is not a multiple of a 400m track. similarly, the 1500m which I believe was chosen as an event as it’s a close metric equivalent of the mile.
I thought I’d seen it explicitly in the IAAF regulations (they certainly use the m/km convention you’re expecting) but I can’t find it, so maybe it just a convention we think exists.
I dont know the history but I have a couple other suggestions:
- Could it be something to do with other places measuring tracks in yds?
- The popular thing is why not do 4x laps for 1600 but then is it done as half of 3,000 MD race?
Also, here comes the London Vitality 10,000 m to mess everything up from a convention point of view:
This has always puzzled me as 1600m is nearer to a mile than 1500m and 4 full laps would be so much more straightforward.
Ps. Pub trivia question about which track event is nearest to a mile, everyone says 1500m but it’s the 4x400m relay.
moving away from this issue, I had this e-mail overnight from Facebook. FWIW I have no ads running so am mystified - any ideas what FB are on about?? It then goes on to say how I can get a review of this.
After a review of your Facebook account, its access to advertising is now restricted because of inauthentic behaviour or violations of our Advertising Policies or Community Guidelines.
Any ads connected to this Facebook account that were running are now disabled.
It’s FB not having a clue what it’s doing…… not an unusual email, and can be safely ignored.
It predates track standardisation. There’s a theory that it’s about 500m track in europe, but that wouldn’t explain why the same group ran 400m (which they did)
New query: Highway code: Who has priority:
a) Driver the ‘main’ road who has to overtake a parked vehicle, so pull into the lane for oncoming traffic. That lane is current free. On the driver’s right is a side road, with a car waiting to turn left, which would put them into the oncoming lane.
b) The driver who is on the side road waiting to turn left onto the main road. When they look right and left there is no traffic in the lane they want to turn on to. But they see can parked car and a driver is approaching from the left, who could overtake the parked vehicle.
EDIT: I’m thinking it’s the driver on the main road. But it’d be a grey area, if that driver is still quite a distance from the parked car and has not yet pulled into the oncoming lane, the other car might have the time to completely pull out onto the main road, at which point the driver wanting to overtake would have to stop and give way, but potentially a bit of an emergency stop required if they had not anticipated the call pulling out and had started to commit to the overtake.
As far as the highway code is concerned, the main road has the priority. Anyone joining must exercise extra care. However, if there was a collision as you describe it would come down to road traffic law rather than the highway code. A Police investigation would determine who acted without due care and attention and that could be different each time based upon the precise circumstance.
Its clearly the cyclists fault
I agree. Generally if an accident occurs when a car is entering a main carriageway its their fault. When I was t boned at a junction the insurance guy said there is no debate its their fault, they didn exerxise enough care entering the road.
But the car on the main could be liable if they werent paying attention or didnt correctly pass the parked car. A lot would come down to timing.
When I drive I dont trust anyone else yo do the right thing so would be cautious as either car in that scenario
Is there a way to remove yourself from an email chain in Outlook?
I know there is the ignore option, but I don’t want to include that in case something does legitimately get directed to me in the future (there is a tiny 1% chance of this). At the moment there is an ongoing email discussion that I was copied in to that has nothing to do with me. If I did put the conversation on ignore if someone mentions (@) me does that override?
The only option I’m aware of would be doing a ‘Reply All’ and asking to me removed but a) that’ll just spam people even more and b) has a 95% chance of being ignored.
It almost seems like they need a ‘recall’ type function that replaces the most recent message in someone’s mailbox with one with you removed. But I don’t think this exists?
Just delete it and ignore it.
If someone wants you to do something, they’ll be in touch.
wot that @Poet bloke says.
I find it’s easier to nip those things in the bud. As soon as you realise it’s not for you, do one mail back and tell them to drop you from d/l. If it grows arms and legs, pick a word from the subject and set up a rule to junk it.
It is annoying AF though
As soon as I posted I went with the ignore option.
Part of the problem is we have outsourced a lot of our IT to an external partner. This seems to have created an environment where people love working via email (rather than speaking or messaging directly), and having absolutely everything in writing and seen by as many people as possible.
The amount of emails that are along the lines of “Hi Bob, please can you do this” that has more than 10+ people copied in on is incredible.