You have something in the order of a 1000 trillion cells. Of these, only a small fraction, 1/10th – or about 100 trillion – are actual human cells. The other 1000 trillion are mostly various kinds of bacteria, but also some micro-scopic, primitive eukaryotic”animals” like protozoa, and fungi such as yeasts. Many of these play a critical, symbiotic role in the functioning of your body, particularly in helping you digest your food. Others may not appear directly beneficial, but still their presence helps control the growth of less benign microbes, by out-competing them for food. These microbial cells make up 1 to 3% of your mass!

At some point early on in the evolution of life, some larger, single-celled organism managed to evolve that included some smaller, archaic bacteria and ”farming” them for energy, possibly by the larger cell having “swallowed” the smaller cells. These archaic-bacteria components are called  mitochondria, and they can turn sugar into energy. They contain a number of tiny molecules , the ATP synthases, which spins around like a little motor, driven by protons, to help drive the final part of the sugar→energy conversion process!

These more complex, larger and higher-powered “eukaryote” cells, with their “farms” of symbiotic mitochondria became the basis for all animal life, from the single-celled protozoa, to moulds, to plants, and all the way to you. These mitochondria have their own DNA, and replicate themselves as and when their cells do. There are some exceptions, such as human sperm cells, which do not have any mitochondria, and so the mitochondria in your human cells generally came only from your mother, which came from her mother, etc.

You posses one of the most complex objects known on earth. The human brain. A circa 1.4 to 1.5 kg gelatinous, fatty mass of about 1.3 litres in volume. Our deceased close cousins, Homo Neanderthalensis, actually had a slightly larger brain than us, at 1.5 litres in volume. Your brain consumes a significant amount of your body’s energy, 20 to 25%, about 10 times more than the proportion of its mass to your body’s total mass. The energy your brain consumes is at least equivalent to the energy needed to power a 7 to 10W CFL or LED light bulb¹, 24×7. The brain is still a lot more efficient than any computer though, for what it does.

The human brain contains on the order of 100 billion special cells called neurons. Each of which receives inputs from other neurons through junctions called synapses on spindly arms called dendrites. Additionally a neuron can have an axon, a potentially very long nerve fibre, which can reach from the neuron to muscles, glands, or to other neurons. The longest axons in your body are in the neurons of your nervous system, running the length from the base of your spine to your toes! There are estimated to be an order of 100 trillion synapses in the human brain, for an average of thousands of connections per neuron. This would likely make the network in your brain at least an order of magnitude more complex than the entire Internet!

As if that wasn’t enough, you have a second “brain” in your abdomen, by your stomach – the enteric nervous system. It’s a lot simpler than the brain in your head, having only 100 million neurons or so, but that’s still a lot of neurons – comparable to the brains of lower mammals, at least in terms of number of neurons! The enteric nervous system has a number of functions, in particular co-ordinating the muscles of your gastric system.

So your body is this giant bag of cells, most of them not human, all of them working away and, mostly, co-operating in a huge variety of, often complex, ways. If you dig into the cells that are you, you’ll find even they contain a number of primitive cells within them. Sitting on top of this super-colony of cells is a brain, directing things at a high-level and using the equivalent of a super-internet to do so! With a 2nd mini-brain helping out lower in your body! You are a mobile mini-eco-system.

As if that wasn’t amazing enough, you are related to essentially all other life on this planet.  You are the direct descendent of some of the earliest life on this planet, if not the first. As is pretty much everything else on this planet. From the cats and dogs you might see on the street, and all other mammals, to the green plants and trees, to the black mould in your shower, or even bacterial slime you might find around a tap, you share some DNA with all of these – these are your cousins, to greater and lesser degrees. We are all bound together in the massive eco-system that is Earth. This eco-system is effectively all but closed, receiving only energy from the star it orbits – relative to which we hurtle through space at an average of  about 107000 km/h, or 30 Mm/s. Life, simple bacterial forms particularly, inhabit near every nook and cranny of it that we have managed to visit. Including places where we had perhaps expected to find none, such as in the greatest ocean depths, even deep underground.

Your continued existence depends greatly on many of these cousins of yours, both animal, plant and bacterial.

Many of the species of life on earth have quite specific needs of their local environment, and are quite sensitive to even small changes to it. However life overall on this planet has proven to be quite robust. Any individual species could easily die out, indeed in catastrophic changes many species could die out, but life tends to cling on in some form – particularly in simpler forms. Life is both precarious, from the point of view of any single species, and yet also robust overall.

Do not think your species is an exception.

When the processes that keep your body-eco-system working together stop, when your own cells cease to function as such, life will continue. Your many cousins and their descendants, maybe even some closely related or even direct descendants, will go on. Some of the bacterial cells that helped maintain you almost certainly will outlive you and perhaps even help maintain another body for a while. It is almost certain that much of the DNA you contain will continue to help build further life on earth, through these many cousins. The molecules and atoms you contain will be recycled, they will become part of the air, the sea, the earth. In time, they will be taken up by other life and become part of those plants and animals, perhaps even people. Your body-eco-system is but a small, transient, component of a much more massive eco-system that has been developing for billions of years, and may well continue to be around for billions to come.

As you wonder about the magnificence of all this, you might look up to the stars. All the atoms in your body were originally forged inside stars, other than the very lightest (hydrogen, which is very common in the universe and your body, helium, and very small proportions of lithium and beryllium). You are, literally, made of star-dust. Complex organic compounds, precursors to life, seem to occur quite naturally, and we know they’re floating around on asteroids in the Solar system, and so likely they float around a great proportion of other star systems too. There are in the order of 100 billion visible galaxies, with a galaxy typically having in the order of 100 billion stars, meaning there are in the order of 100 billion × 100 billion, or 10²² = 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars out there. Even if the chance of life arising were a tiny 1 in a billion, that’d still mean that 10¹³ = 10,000,000,000,000 of the visible star systems had life on them. It’s very likely that the Universe is full of at least simple microbial life.

Life is amazing, and it is precious.

1. Base calorific requirement of, say, 1200 kcal / day = 58W, 20% = 11W.

RBS Card Services seem to have brought in some kind of new system to verify your identity when you phone them up. They girl said it’s provided by  3rd party credit checking agencies. They ask you questions that are based on quite public information – which is daft, as RBS hold far more personal, private data on me. Worse, in my case, it seems this information is wrong. None of the questions had any answers that had anything to do with me.

So RBS apparently don’t trust the security of the personal data they hold on me, instead trust external companies to identify me using public information. That doesn’t sound like competent or acceptable security to me.

Below is my letter to them, which will be sent tomorrow hopefully.

Ref: Credit card account xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx

Dear Sir or Madam,

I’m writing to you about my recent experience with your credit card customer service telephone line and the identity verification system you have put in place – which is new to me. While the agent I spoke to was friendly and as helpful as she could be, this new system was not helpful. I have a number of concerns about it which I wish to share with you, for you to consider as you wish, as well as a request which I believe you are required by statute to respond to, under the Data Protection Act. My concerns are:

• The apparent reliance on 3^rd parties for my authentication to you, the detrimental effect this has can have on my experience as a customer of yours, and the apparent impotence RBS has when it comes to dealing with problems caused by this 3^rd party.
• The inadequacy of this 3^rd party system as a secure means of authenticating me, as it uses public data, and the ill-placed faith RBS has apparently invested in it – not a re-assuring thing to see from a party I have trusted my financial information and resources to. Particularly bizarre when RBS have much more personal, private and higher quality information on me – my credit card and banking activity!

I would be interested to hear your response to these concerns.

My Data Protection Act request is that you supply the information being used in these questions to me. If you respond that you can not comply with this request, then that raises a serious concern as to how I am supposed to fix this data so that I can do business with you. Indeed, it may then be cheaper for me to change bank than to try fix this issue. However, should you respond this way, note that I may well appeal your decision to the Information Commissioner first.

Background

On the 8^th of December, I rang the RBS Credit Card Services customer phone line in order to inform them I was about to travel. I have in the past had cards blocked when I used them abroad, and wished to avoid this happening. I typed my card details into the automated system. When the phone was answered, strangely I had to give my card details again, as well as my personal details, to the customer service representative (CSR) – the system hadn’t passed on the information I had typed in. I then explained the reason for my call to the CSR. She then told me she needed to ask me some further questions to establish my identity. After an initial foible where the system apparently had the wrong account, she proceeded to ask me questions, some of which roughly went like:

• “Which of the following Jakmas have you shared an address with?”
• “Which of the following addresses have you been associated with?”
• “Which of the following broadband or mobile operators are you with?”

In each case, several options were given as well as a “none of the above” option. In each case, I did not recognise any of the specific options and had to answer “none of the above”. Indeed, for the “Which Jakmas’” questions I told the CSR I was confident that these people didn’t even exist – my surname is relatively new and unique. For the “which addresses?” question, I was able to tell her both of the two UK addresses I have lived at in my adult life – neither of which were on her list of answers. After going through at least 5, if not more, of these questions, the CSR eventually insisted that the question on her screen had an answer other than “none of the above” and I had to supply it if she was to be able to continue with the call and help me. The question was the “Which broadband or mobile provider are you with” form. However, none of the options applied to me.

After this she insisted she couldn’t help me further, as I insisted their system was clearly misinformed. I asked that this data, which I knew to be incorrect, be provided to me under the Data Protection Act. I was informed RBS couldn’t help me with this request, as the data was provided by 3^rd parties, such as Experion, Equifax, etc – though she could not tell me specifically which 3^rd party provided the information used in this call. I was then passed to, presumably, a supervisor who was able eventually to agree to make note of my travel plans. Though, he could not reassure me this would be taken into account were my card to be subject to a block when I used it abroad, if I remember correctly.

Overall, this was an extremely unsatisfying customer experience, as I explained to the supervisor. I also made clear I did not feel the CSR or the supervisor were responsible for this shockingly poor service, but the system they were forced to apply.

Concerns

The Outsourcing of Authentication

I am concerned that RBS has apparently outsourced authentication to a 3^rd party, and in such a way that RBS apparently has no control over mistaken data held by that party, and how that affects my ability to do business with RBS. From what the CSR told me, RBS expects me to fix this problem myself, by going to the various credit checking agencies. She was not able to tell me specifically which ones, but suggests ones “like” Equifax and Experion.

These companies, it seems, charge money, often not a trivial sum (£10 to £20) in order to interact with them, review the data they hold and correct it where necessary. As I gather there are at least 4 such agencies operating in the UK, that implies I may have to spend £40 to £80 contacting these companies, in order to fix RBS’ inability to authenticate me. Further, there isn’t any guarantee this would even fix the problem, as the CSR couldn’t tell me exactly which company the data was coming from!

This is an extremely unsatisfying state of affairs. RBS Credit Card Services it seems now refuses to believe I am who I am, even though I furnished information which must be on your system, because of some arbitrary, vaguely specified 3^rd party. If you believe this is an acceptable way to interact with customers, then I wonder how many customers you will retain.

The inadequacy of public data as a means of authentication

I have major concerns about the suitability of this system as a means of authentication, regardless of who operates it.

Questions about my kinship are insecure. One of my relatives has genealogy as a hobby, and they have documented a lot of our family tree online. I’m sure I’m not the only person for whom this is the case. Indeed, as my surname is fairly new and unique, hence there are few people with this surname (they’re all no more than 4^th cousins of mine), and so this type of question is particularly insecure for my case. Further, even if this were not the case, genealogical information is a matter of public record, and easily available.

Questions about which mobile or broadband provider I am with are extremely insecure. You can determine my broadband provider by retrieving an email of mine, of which there are many archives online through public mailing lists I have used. Alternatively, someone could determine this by emailing me and getting a response from me. My mobile provider could also be determined by examining my mobile number (which has been made publically available in the past), or by using social engineering to get me to visit a web site using my mobile.

Questions about my address are also insecure. They’re a matter of public record (electoral roll, Whois data for domain name registrations) and an item of data I regularly I have to give out to people. Further, this is data RBS must have already – why use a 3^rd party to ask me my past or current address?!

I find it bizarre that RBS would outsource authentication to a 3^rd party, to a system that is based on widely available, public data, when RBS holds much more personal, better identifying data on me: my banking and credit card data! Rather than asking me for me for my address, or my broadband provider, why not ask me to confirm recent credit card or banking transactions? Or ask me how much my monthly mortgage payments to RBS are? (I realise RBS internally is quite compartmentalised, Credit Card Services, personal banking, and mortgages often seem to treat each other as completely different companies, incapable of providing joined-up banking as banks I’ve used in other countries can do – but that’s yet another problem which RBS really should fix).

That you choose to ignore this highly personal, private, secure data, and choose instead to use an outsourced, 3^rd party system which is based on quite public data to identify me makes RBS seem somewhat incompetent at security. This is not a quality I like to see in my bank.

Data Protection Act Subject Access Request

I would like you to provide all personal information relating to myself which you process (e.g. hold or have access to), and which you use to authenticate me to you. I am willing to go to a local RBS branch to review this information, for security purposes. Indeed, this would be preferable to you putting this information in the post.

I do not accept what your CSR told me: that, because RBS has contracted with a 3^rd party for the processing of some aspects of this data, that RBS has no responsibilities under the Data Protection Act to me for accessing and correcting this data. RBS has commissioned the processing of this data, and RBS staff have access to this data, thus I believe RBS is subject to the Data Protection Act. If you argue to the contrary, I am very likely to appeal this matter.

I also would like to have access to any notes made to my file with you in relation to my phone call on the 8^th of December.

I hope to receive a timely response from you in the New Year.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Jakma.

Cc: http://pjakma.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/rbs-bizarre-new-authentication-system/

First though, it’s important to note that those who want doping to be legal can go set up their own “Doped-Cycling Federation” and setup races. There’s nothing stopping them, at least in countries like the UK and USA. E.g. Lance Armstrong can still compete in bike races and tri-athlons that don’t sign up to anti-doping, and which don’t care about the USADA ban, and he has in fact done so. Arguing that doping should be legalised therefore is a redundant argument, because it is already the case, and there are competitions for people who think this way. Body-building has doping tolerant (and intolerant) factions apparently; baseball in the US seems to tolerate doping; there are cycling races without doping controls; etc. etc. Dopers are more or less perfectly free to to dope away in those competitions!

However, many other athletes would prefer not to dope. It can have serious health risks. Both high-consequence risks, such as death (blood thickening from too much EPO; bad blood transfusions; aggressive, accelerated cancers from abusing hormones such as EPO, testosterone, etc), as well as more insidious and higher-probability health problems that can arise from continuous abuse of steroids and hormones, such as calcium-depletion in bones leading to premature osteoporosis, suppressed adrenal and immune system function leading to a wide variety of possible problems (e.g. otherwise fit people being completely floored for months by normally harmless viruses that we nearly all carry without much harm; auto-immune disorders; degeneration of connective tissue; etc).

The list goes on and on, it’s literally as long as the side-effects lists in the advice sheets that come with the substances being abused.

Many people, in and around sport, feel that we shouldn’t be forcing our young sports-people into having to dope in order to pursue their dreams and make use of their talent. They feel athletes should have the option to compete clean. That means you need to provide sports with incentives and measures to discourage unhealthy, unnecessary, risky medical intervention – so that those who want to compete clean have a venue where they can have a decent chance. This is why many sports bodies, including ALL that are affiliated with the IOC (directly or indirectly), are signed up to the WADA Code.

Maybe those measures are imperfect. Maybe they need to be improved. Maybe more needs to be done (e.g. there are credible allegations that some major sports like football and tennis are ignoring their own PED doping problems). However, protecting the health of athletes is a compelling reason as to why we should try to provide doping-free sporting venues, to give them a credible way to compete without having to use risky medical procedures and products.

BBC management appear to be under the impression that Flash RTMPE secures access to the video streams. Or rather, they appear to wish to seem to believe in that impression, because I know for certain their management are aware it does not. There is, of course, simply no way that you can deliver content to a general purpose computing device AND prevent whoever controls the device from easily copying the digital content. The BBC iPlayer Flash streams are easily recorded using non-BBC approved software. Some of which perhaps exists to aid piracy, but some of which exists because the BBC decided to shut-out certain users of iPlayer (e.g. those who prefer not to run insecure, proprietary software from Adobe). If you mention such software exists on BBC forums your comment will be deleted and you will be warned that you are violating the BBC ToS. The BBC takes a firm “head in sand” approach to the futility of trying to secure stream access, at least for the present.

To my thinking, the BBCs’ current digital/ondemand strategy is anti-competitive and hence at odds with its public service remit. To the extent my previous concerns were about the use of Flash, the BBC has answered them by (it seems) moving to HTML video interfaces for 3rd party device access. However, by requiring those devices submit to BBC type approval, and enforcing this through strong cryptographic authentication, the BBC have increased my concerns about competition. The BBC is even in the position where it is a major share-holder in “YouView”, a company that makes a cross-UK-broadcaster IPTV software platform and consumer device. Dragging the BBC even further into anti-competitive and anti-public-interest commercial interests.

The BBC tries to deflect these concerns by trumpeting there are now “an astonishing 650 connected TV devices”. Those 650 devices are from just 21 vendors however, those few blessed by the BBC. One of the criteria for receiving this blessing is that you be large enough to make it worth the BBCs’ while. I know this as the BBC refused to certify my IPTV device, on the grounds the market I would serve was not significant enough (i.e. initially just my family).

Basically, if you’re a net-neutrality geek, or an open-access geek, or a competitive-markets economics geek, then know that the BBC is not the cuddly, friendly public champion you might think it is. Rather, the BBCs’ digital wing has and continues to work hard to ensure the future of IPTV, at least in the UK, is a tightly-controlled arena, controlled by the BBC and a select few large players. The BBC are working hard to ensure you lose the right to record your TV. The BBC are working very hard for a future where, if you want to watch the BBC or any TV, you must choose a locked-down device, controlled by the BBC or organisations it approves of.

If you are such a geek, know that the BBC is not your friend.

Edits: Fixed some prepositions. Removed a redundant sentence. Changed “the” in “the major shareholder” to “a”. Changed “ondemand strategy” to “digital/ondemand strategy”. Added link to the 21 vendors.

There’s more than a decades worth of allegations against Armstrong. None of these allegations had been properly investigated before by a body with sanctioning power. The governing body UCI instead had ignored, even dismissed allegations out of hand or, worst of all, attacked and even sued those making allegations, anti-doping crusading journalists and officials. It’s possible that this investigation came about only because Floyd Landis emailed USADA. The testimony about jurisdiction in the Federal lawsuit suggests that that email may have been key in ensuring that the allegations against Lance Armstrong could finally be investigated by a body with authority to sanction Armstrong but not run by officials cosy with him. USADA reportedly have further analytical results against Armstrong showing evidence of blood manipulation, from his ’08-’11 come-back years.

Regardless of the result of an investigation, it is right that allegations be properly investigated. Indeed, it is crucial for the integrity of the sport. USADA ultimately found against Lance Armstrong, but had he been innocent, it would have been just as important to investigate, so as to clear him. It is important to note that, as a result of Armstrong’s attempt to block USADA, we have the word of a Texan judge to believe USADAs’ processes are fair, and “sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process”.

Yet, according to some, the greatest injustice in all this is that USADA is taking 2 months to write up the report on this? A report on one of the longest running doping cases in sport? A case where USADA were sued by Armstrong immediately before giving a finding, then receiving nastygrammes from McQuaid effectively backing up Armstrong, in his attempts to block USADA from issuing its finding. Which likely means the report requires an extra level of legal argument added to it, and double and triple-checking, so as to ensure its reasoning is water-tight against UCIs’ jurisdiction claims. Note that should USADA deliver the report mid-October – the current ETA – then it’ll have taken just 1½ months (not quite “months”), as their finding was issued August 24^th.

It is not USADA which has delayed this investigation, or delayed the results.

It is the UCI which has delayed justice. The UCI are corrupt.

Further sources:

Cyclingnews.com partial index of Lance Armstrong doping allegation stories.

Edits: Re-arrangement of structure of text, to better flow.

Hi,

In your “About Us” you state a number of goals for your organisation, including goal 4:

“Show that cycling is a safe, effective and economical transport option that’s better for the people of Scotland, and for their environment“

Every picture on your website appears to show cyclists wearing safety equipment. The section on “bikeability” training – targeted at children – has pictures of children in hi-viz vests along with helmets. Further, though I have not yet looked at your training materials, I assume from the visual message on your website that you also strongly promote safety equipment to any potential cyclists or parents.

I am curious how you reconcile goal 4 with the message you seem to have deliberately created that cycling is so dangerous that it requires safety equipment? A message which is course not grounded in reality, as cycling is little more dangerous than other normal, daily activities such as walking beside the road.

I note that in the Netherlands, which has the best cycling safety in the western world along with the highest cycling rates, there is almost no use of safety equipment. Thus, it is an undeniable fact that helmets and hi-viz are not a pre-requisite for safe cycling. Are you perhaps working against real safe cycling by helping promulgate a false sense of cycling danger, and thus perhaps turning off more people from cycling than you encourage?

regards,

Paul Jakma

First off, I’m really sorry to hear you had such a terrible accident, and I’m very glad to hear you’ve managed to recover from it. Please don’t misunderstand me on that, in what I’m about to write.

I have to say, it sounds like you suffered quite a number of very serious and potentially life-changing, even life-threatening, injuries across your body – the spinal injury in particular. The recovery time and process for several of these injuries would have made quite an impact on your life. The important thing to note is these are injuries for which a helmet gives no protection. To think that the major lesson to take away from your accident is “wear a helmet” is, I’m sorry, dangerous. The real lesson is:

“Helmets are not magic and will not protect you from major injury, even death, generally. If you want to be safe, slow down!“

Indeed, it is actually possible that the helmet contributed to your accident and hence your injuries, by making you over-confident and taking more risks on a fast downhill descent than you might have if not wearing helmet . A well-known effect, called “risk compensation” or “risk homœostasis“.

I often don’t wear a helmet. I’ve had other cyclists comment on this, and question why I dare to take such a risk. Then I see these same cyclists fly past on downhill descents, barrelling through corners and taking far more risk than I would. They are surely far more likely to have an accident because of this, and their skin, limbs, torso, major organs and face are no more protected than mine are! Further, there is clear evidence that helmets, while helping protect the cranium (but to a lesser extent than is often thought), increase other injuries. Particularly neck and facial injuries.

So, again, I am baffled that the life lesson you drew from your accident was that helmets are uber-important. The real lesson surely should be “Slow down! Take less risk!“. In the unfortunate event of a crash, the lower the speed, the better the outcome!

Yesterday morning, at about 0910, I was cycling along Archerhill Road, in the West End of Glasgow. As I came to a constriction in the road (parked cars on my side, road works on the other side), one of your Biffa garbage disposal trucks decided to pass me. Given the constriction, they had to pass very close to me – far too close. I don’t believe there was any maliciousness on the part of the driver. I just don’t think they realised what they were doing.

I’d be very grateful if you could issue a reminder to your drivers about rule 163 of the Highway Code, and that cyclists need to be given as much clearance when passing as they are tall. This is needed in case something happens that makes them fall to their side (such as unexpected potholes, parked cars opening doors, mechanical failures, etc), to ensure they are not seriously injured by passing vehicles.

I’m sure you’re as anxious as I am that your drivers are mindful of the safety of more vulnerable road users. I look forward your reply.

Thanks,

Paul Jakma.

Dear McGill’s,

Please could you remind your drivers that a yellow light means “Stop, unless doing so would cause a collision”. It does NOT mean “Speed up and get through the lights!”.

I go through the junction at the north side of the Finnieston bridge, and I regularly see your bus drivers going through red there, because they didn’t heed yellow. On some occasions, as they turn right, they actually go through the pedestrian lights that have already gone green! There is simply no excuse for this, as they would have had a yellow for several seconds.

Please re-iterate to your drivers that yellow means “Stop, unless unsafe to do so”.

Thanks.

The cyclist

In Scotland the cyclist will often look as if they are about to take part in a very dangerous sport. Many cyclists wear helmets, and often hi-visibility clothing. It’s largely culturally accepted that cycling is an activity that requires special cyclist safety equipment, and state cycling information reinforces this. Clothing worn is often cycle-specific,  and tailored for energetic, sporty cycling. Cyclists often are male, and in their 20s to 40s.

Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, cyclists typically dress no differently from anyone else. They will be quite representative of the population as a whole in terms of age, from the young through to the old – dutch children cycle independently to school from age 8 or 9 or so (though, worryingly, this has increased from when I was young, when age 6 or 7 was common).  It’s not unusual to see parents carrying children, e.g. with seats on the rear rack, on the bar, and/or attached to the handlebar (for very young & light children), and sometimes all 3 at the same time. The “bakfiets” (barrow-bicycle) has also become popular as a flexible utility bicycle for young families.

Perhaps this is due to cycling in Scotland being undertaken often as a fitness activity, and not just as a way to get around. Perhaps the fact that Scottish cyclists tend to have to regularly practice “vehicular cycling“, and having to cycle faster to safely mix with nominally 48.3km/h (30mph) motor traffic, means they need sportier clothing. While in the Netherlands, cycling is something you do to get around – to get to school, to work, to do “boodschappen” (shopping), or nearby friends.

The sports/fitness cyclist of course also exists in the Netherlands. They are a tiny minority of the population in the Netherlands, just as in Scotland, though perhaps a little less so. However, unlike in Scotland, they are also a tiny minority of cyclists. Cycling is simply a normal part of life for most people in the Netherlands.

The bicycle

Bicycles in Scotland tend to be sports-bike derived. They’ll either be road-sports or mountain bikes, or hybrid of these mildly adapted for about-town. They’re nearly always equipped with derailleur gears, which are quite fragile and need constant maintenance. Derailleur gears means chain-guards are impractical, so oily chains are always exposed. Lights are bolt-on after-thoughts, usually battery-driven. Many bikes do not have full mud-guards, e.g. because they are sports-road bikes that have no fittings for them, or because they are mountain bikes on which they are not fashionable. Some mountain bikes may have seatpost mounted half-guards. Many bikes do not have luggage racks, but where they do, it’s usually made from a thin-gauge aluminium which can not carry more than 25kg or so. Brakes are often rim-caliper brakes – which require regular adjusting. Mountain bikes often have suspension, for downhill cycling over rough terrain, which saps pedalling energy.

Bicycles in the Netherlands are usually hub-geared, often 3-speed. This means no derailleurs, which means its more robust and needs much less maintenance, and also that the chain or belt can be fully enclosed. Brakes tend to be low-maintenance drum brakes (the rear often actuated by pedalling backwards). Lights are often dynamo-driven, and even integrated into the bike on some modern designs. Low-drag hub dynamos are common these days, supplanting the rim-driven bottle dynamos still common on older bikes. Rear racks tend to be far more sturdy, as it is common in the Netherlands to use them to give a friend a lift – particularly among teenagers & young adults. For an idea, have a look at the Batavus 2012 city bike line-up (UK site, but the models & specs differ a little, to cater for UK preferences).

The environment

The road environment in the Netherlands is nearly always built to cater as much for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and cyclists, as it is for motorists. Cycling infrastructure is integrated with road design, and has been evolved and improved over decades, with safety for all users engineered in.

Older dutch road & path design

In dense urban areas, speed limits are 30km/h (18.6mph), sometimes even less.  Where ever possible, road users are separated and each given their own, clearly delineated space. So pedestrians will have their foot-path, cyclists their cycle-path, and motorists their road. Where space is constrained, cyclists may have to use the road – in which case the speed limit will practically always be reduced to 30km/h or less. Care is taken to reduce, if not avoid, the impact of conflicts between different road users at junctions and pinch points. On streets where motor traffic may encounter cycle traffic, the junction with side streets may be given raised kerbs, with tight angles, to slow down cars coming in or out of those side-streets. Cycle paths are generally very smooth, clean and well-mantained. You can cycle on them with normal bikes, with no problem.

The Scottish sports cyclist might, however, not be entirely happy with the dutch cycling environment, as cycle-paths often are mandatory. Dutch sports road cyclists often complain about being restricted to narrower cycle-paths in places, while ordinary dutch complain about having pelotons of fast roadies flying past at speeds similar to mopeds – which were banned from many cycle-paths in the 90s for the same reason. Various groups, representing both ordinary and sports cyclists, have been campaigning to allow/force such pelotons to use the road instead.

Brand “new” segregated path in Glasgow

In Scotland, cycling infrastructure is more rare. Cycling infrastructure often seems to be designed & built separately from the general road, and does not get a lot of funding. Infrastructure is usually done extremely cheaply, e.g. by designating existing footpaths as “shared use” and putting up a few signs, or by painting an advisory lane on the road. The shared-use paths sometimes have rough surfaces, such as gravel on tow-paths or even very rough cobbles (the Clyde-side section of NCN75 in Glasgow, from Broomielaw to the SECC), making them unpleasant or even completely unsuited for use by normal town bicycles. Which may explain the popularity of very heavy, suspension mountain bikes here in Scotland. On-road cycle lanes often are very narrow and go through the highly dangerous “door zone”, where cyclists can be knocked off their bike into the path of the 48km/h (30mph) traffic.

Even when segregated paths are built, because there is so little investment, very little of it can be built, or , as in the case in the photo here, it’s simply sectioned off from an old & broken road without being properly resurfaced first. Where paths cross side-roads, or where the segregated paths run out (which is often, as so little of it can be built), very little thought is given to reducing the impact of conflicts between cyclists and motor traffic. If thought is given, it will be the cyclist who is required to give way with a “Cyclists Dismount” sign, not the other way around. The local authority may even deliberately require the cyclist to negotiate kerbs, again making life hard for anyone on a normal bicycle.

The lack of separate infrastructure means Scottish cyclists have to choose between cycling on road, amongst fast motor traffic, or often inconvenient shared-use paths where these exist and perhaps illegally cycling on pedestrian footpaths where they do not. Roads in urban areas are often designed to maximise traffic flow. Single lane streets with parking widen out to 2-lanes at junctions. Railings often are installed to segregate the fast, 48km/h traffic from pedestrians – potentially leaving on-road cyclists nowhere to go in any incident with a motor vehicle.

As cyclists are so few, and because they tend to dress distinctly, there seems to be tribalisation between motorists and cyclists. Some motorists view cyclists as obstructive “lycra louts”, getting in their way and slowing them down, even though in urban areas in Glasgow, average journey speeds are often limited to 20 to 30km/h by traffic lights – which is potentially slower than the cyclist. Congestion, caused by cars, not bicycles, can make journey average speeds much slower again. Despite, or perhaps because of, waits at traffic lights equalising average speeds for motorists and cyclists, motorists still will rush impatiently at, and not infrequently above, the 48km/h (30mph) speed limit. Some motorists can be ignorant, a rare few even aggressive. The cyclists in turn feel embattled, and often subjectively quite unsafe, due to this fast and sometimes close passing motor traffic – motor traffic they will often catch anyway at the next lights.

Weather

While the Netherlands might not get quite as much rain as Scotland, it still gets plenty of it outside the summer. That said, it doesn’t rain as often people think, and most cycle journeys in either country will be rain free. Also, the winters can be much much colder in the Netherlands. The dutch simply wear a rain jacket, carry an umbrella and put on more clothes.

Flat land

Much of the Netherlands is quite flat, Holland especially so. However, the south of the Netherlands, near the border with Belgium, can be more hilly and cycling is just as normal there, as anywhere else. The flatter parts can allow strong, continuous winds to blow across, which can be as much of a drag on cycling as any hill!

Overall

Despite the less appealing environment in Scotland, compared to what the Netherlands shows is possible at least, you can still enjoy some dutch style cycling, at least within Glasgow city. So many of the roads are wide and 2-lane, that with a little confidence to take your lane, by moving out away from the gutter and more towards the middle of it, or by riding 2-abreast if with company, you can get the motorist to, perhaps grudgingly, give you the space needed to enjoy nice, relaxed cycling in whatever clothes you’d normally walk out of the door with. Unfortunately though, I suspect many people in Scotland are put off cycling by idea they’d need to develop that kind of confidence.

Mass cycling in Scotland may first require that the roads see more equal investment for cycling. This in turn may require some leadership, and/or a significant change in economic pressures (e.g. fuel costs; public health costs of sedentary lives).

The report concerned had a number of proposals on possible improvements, and motions for action. As the EP (European Parliament) does not have the power to introduce directives, the EP can only suggest that the Commission  should propose to introduce such legislation/directives, for only the Commission (which is appointed by the member states) has such power. Which is what the motion attached to the report asked for, which was approved by the EP.

The Daily Mail article ran with the headline of “Now EU wants to set our speed limits: Brussels plan to enforce 20mph zones and replace Highway Code with European laws“, and a lead-in paragraph as follows:

European Union plans to enforce a mandatory 20mph speed limit in residential zones and replace the Highway Code with European law has sparked outrage from British politicians.

This is clearly bollocks. The EP has no such power. Even if the EP had such power, the motion approved does not call for mandatory limits but “Strongly recommends the responsible authorities to introduce“. As for replacing the highway code, this seems to be a strange perversion of the report’s call to urge EU states to further harmonise various aspects of their road traffic laws. The head-line and lead-in (which the front-page summary was similar to, as I recall) are plainly misleading, and utterly false on at least one count.

The Daily Mail, like many newspapers, is a member of the Press Complaints Commission, which self-regulates the industry. Their Code of Practice has, as its first clause:

1

Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures. ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published. In cases involving the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance. iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

So I complained to the PCC:

This article blatantly breaches the “Accuracy” requirement of
the Code of Practice, with its headline and lead-in of :

“European Union plans to enforce a mandatory 20mph speed limit in
residential zones a nd replace the Highway Code with European law has
sparked outrage from British politicians.”

As

1. The EU is not a monolithic entity, but composed of a number of different
entities which represent different interests. The article is actually about
a report from the European Parliament.

2. The claim that the EU plans to enforce limits and replace the Highway
Code is utterly inaccurate and is a misleading distortion of the facts: that
the EP has *endorsed* a report which makes *recommendations* on how
authorities around Europe could improve safety on our roads.

Relevant Clauses : The headline and lead-in breach section 1, clauses i and iii of
the code, by publishing inaccurate information, and by presenting a quite
distorted abstract of the facts to fit the Daily Mail’s anti-EU editorial
stance.

Their decision came back after about a month:

Commission’s decision in the case of

Jakma v Daily Mail

The complainant considered that the headline and opening sentence were
misleading, as the EU could not enforce speed limits or replace the
Highway Code.

The Commission made clear that it considers headlines in the context of
the article as a whole rather than as a standalone statement. This is
due to their brevity – they can represent only a limited summary of a
more complex set of circumstances. The Commission understood the
concerns raised by the complainant; however, it noted that the body of
the article made the situation clear – namely that a list of
recommendations had been made in a report to the European Parliament on
the improvement of road safety across Europe, which had been endorsed by
a number of MEPs. It made clear that this did not equate to legislation
and it was unlikely that it would do so in future. The Commission did
not consider that the headline was a significantly inaccurate summary of
the situation given that a report including recommendations on Europe
wide safety measures had been endorsed by the European Parliament, the
parliamentary institution of the European Union. Furthermore, when the
headline was read in conjunction with the body of the article, readers
would not be misled as to the situation. In the circumstances, the
Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Code.

Reference No. 114462

In short, because the Daily Mail were more honest about the facts later in the story, it doesn’t matter how much they blatantly lied in their headline and lead-in (which is all some readers will have read)!

(TabloidWatch have some other examples of shamefully inaccurate EU reporting, by The Express – no doubt their stories were also still PCC Code of Practice compliant.)

While amongst cyclists who suffer injury, helmets of themselves do reduce head injuries significantly, they also increase neck and facial injuries, so that there appears to be negligible benefit overall (Accident Analysis & Prevention: … meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy). Study of bicycle injury rates in Australia around the time of introduction of mandatory helmet laws suggests that, though there is a noticeable dip in injury rates around the introduction of the law itself (not necessarily attributable to the helmet itself in my opinion) that injury rates then started increasing again, to the point rates were nearly the same at the end of the study period as before the helmet law, and trending to surpass it! (My Blog: study-shows-australian-cyclist-helmet-law-leads-to-increasing-head-injury-rates). Helmet use also appears to induce risk-compensation behaviour in motor vehicle drivers – they make closer passes (Accident Analysis & Prevention: Drivers overtaking bicyclists…). No doubt the cyclists themselves also are subject to risk compensation. Thus, by wearing a helmet there may be an increased risk of getting into an accident.

There may be further population wide psychological effects caused by a culture of “Must be wearing a helmet to be safe!”. It is sending the message that cycling needs safety equipment, and hence must be dangerous, which surely will put off many – certainly where mandatory helmet use laws are introduced rates of cycling then significantly decrease. The reverse is of course true: the overall health benefits of cycling greatly outweigh the quite tiny risks – risks which are not greatly changed by helmet wearing, the studies appear to say. In other words, by advocating helmet use, one may be harming the rates of cycling by sending the wrong message on safety, and hence harming public health overall. Further, as cyclist safety on the roads correlates strongly with rates of cycling – more cyclists leads to more awareness & safer roads, and similarly fewer cyclists means less safe roads – this means a culture of helmet use may well lead to increased injury rates amongst cyclists (in addition to the general adverse public health effects of fewer people cycling). This would be very hard to categorically prove or disprove in causal terms, however the Australian experience certainly suggests a correlation, as I think would a comparison of the UK and Netherlands.

Finally, in the Netherlands, one of the safest places for cycling in the world, cyclists almost universally do not wear helmets, including very young cyclists. Thus, we can be quite certain that helmet usage is not a pre-requisite for safe cycling. Indeed, it is in places like the UK and USA, with some of the worst cycling safety in the developed world, where the focus on safety equipment for the cyclist seems to be greatest.

In short, the focus needs to be on those things around the cyclist (e.g. default legal liability to influence motorists’ behaviour, safer road infrastructure, etc) – not what is on cyclists. Focusing on cyclist safety equipment to me seems futile at best, and perhaps even detrimental to the cause of mass, safe cycling, if that’s a cause you believe worthwhile.

NB: Helmet use should always be a personal choice. The issue is complex, the trade-offs may differ greatly in different scenarios – helmets may be very beneficial in some settings, e.g. some kinds of racing. The choice should be your own. However, general advocacy of cycling helmets seems inappropriate and probably harmful, to me.

Here’s the bollard:

Jagged, rusty metal on bollard, at side-road access on A814

Part of the problem with it is that the row of bollards here run parallel with the A814, rather than being more square across the entrance and to the A814. This means that any cyclist who is coming down the A814 (e.g. because they don’t fancy the shared-use path that forces cyclists to slow to a crawl for deliberate obstacles, which is there because of a potentially dangerous car-park entrance), which usually has to be at speed to placate the many terribly impatient motor vehicle drivers out there, and who wishes to enter that quiet side-road has to try negotiate a very tight angle between this rusty, jagged bollard and the light post:

View of the angle between the jagged metal bollards and traffic-light-post, on approach from A814

Every time I go through there, I worry that if I brake too hard on the A814 to prepare for the turn, that the motorists behind will plough into me. Then I worry I’m going to get caught on that nasty bollard as I go through there.

So, is the council right to leave this apparently broken & disused bollard in place?

The contractor did re-surface the worst part:

Resurfaced section of new cycle-path, London Rd near Glasgow Cross

However, they did a half-arsed job:

The remainder of the new path, left with the original, old & broken surface.

Closer view of the "new" cycle-path surface.

However, regarding the Clydeport car-park entrance on the Broomielaw and how it interrupts and inconveniences the national cycle route that crosses its entrance with a dropped kerb, their response was:

At the Broomielaw, National Cycle Route 75 is located on the north side of the Casino, using a shared use pedestrian/ cycle track. Drivers exiting the Clydeport car park have poor sightlines, hence the kerbs nearest the wall on the cycle track have not been dropped, thus encouraging cyclists to stay away from this area, where they are harder to see.

Now, bear in mind this is an almost unused car-park – I’ve never seen a car going in or out there, even though I commute past there every morning and evening. The cycle-path there on the other hand is heavily used. Further, the kerb, though lower toward the outside, is still a raised kerb and an impediment to cycling! Never mind the road surface is also broken up to at least one side.

So the message is, when it comes down to the convenience of a large number of cyclists, versus that of a property holding company and its under-utilised, city centre car park for a couple of employees, well the cyclists can more or less go and get stuffed.

Update: Went past the Clydeport car-park later in the day today and it does seem full.

Entrance to the Clydeport car-park on the Broomielaw, with the National Cycle Route 75 crossing it. The cycle-path has a dropped kerb, very inconvenient for cyclists, particularly any carrying luggarge, and any on normal, non-offroad bikes. Note the cyclists having to stand up to negotiate the kerbs, even though they are out from entrance. Still looks like urban mountain-biking, sadly.

Another view of the car park entrance. Note that cars actually have plenty of visibility to this direction. It is only the wall on the other side that is impeding visibility. Note also the broken surface of the road, making the far kerb even harder to negotiate.

It is actually quite possible to engineer minor side-streets and entrances that must cross cycle-paths so that cyclists progress and safety is not  compromised. They manage it all the time in the Netherlands. The line-of-sight issue could be better resolved by modifying the wall, and/or installing a lowish, progressive projection/kerb around the entrance wall to ensure cyclists move further out (indeed, this would be a good idea either way). Further, it should be Clydeports’ responsibility to ensure that its property does not impose undue risks on the passing public. At least, I would hope there is legislation and/or by-laws in place, to that effect.

So how do the dutch do it?

Dutch cycle-lane, with a minor-side-street junction. The junction is engineered to safely allow cyclists on the busier street the right of way over the quieter joining entrances. Note the conspicuous signage to remind drivers of the cycle lane, and note the concrete segregation barriers immediately before the junction, to prevent car drivers from turning in fast and early.

Note how the road is further engineered to slow down any cars before they cross the cycle lane, and so reduce conflicts. The cycle lane is raised up slightly with a smooth gradient, while the roads have a steeper kerb to negotiate, to force them to slow down and further help make them aware of the cycle lane.

The new path starts off at Saltmarket, then joins London Rd, where it’s still under construction. It’s being built by sectioning off some of the old road surface with kerbs and concrete.

Start of new segregated cycle path at Saltmarket

New segregated path under construction, London Rd

The problem of course is that the roads in Glasgow at the moment are in a terrible state, especially on busier roads (like London Rd) and especially towards the sides of the roads, for some reason.

Cycling down this new London Rd section on a normal town bike is not comfortable. It’s even less comfortable when you’re carrying luggage, e.g. loaded panniers as many commuters do. It’d be even more uncomfortable again on a road bike with narrow tyres (I’d stick to the main road in that case). Basically, to make use of this path you need to either cycle very slowly or else you need a heavy, full-suspension mountain bike – not exactly ideal for town!

Surface of new, segragated cycle path, London Rd by Moir St

As this path is only just built, it’s possible there’s still surfacing work to be done. I can hope! However, it’s also possible that the council do not have surfacing equipment narrow enough to fit down these paths and that, once the concrete segregation barriers are down, these paths can no longer be properly resurfaced – that the council will be limited to making ad-hoc patchwork repairs with men with buckets of hot asphalt and spades.

Surface of new, segragated cycle path, London Rd, looking toward Glasgow Cross

It’s not just this path though. The existing NCR75 Clyde-side path is surfaced with brick cobbles in several sections! Beyond uncomfortable, it’s near unusable for all but mountain bikes. The section of NCR75 along the SECC is also cobbled, as well as being narrow and shared with pedestrians.

NCR75, deep gapped brick cobble where it goes under the M8. Note the cyclist using the narrow strip of smoother brick cobble to the right.

NCR75, more cobble on Lancefield Quay. Note the cyclist ahead sticking to the road.

While not wishing to seem ungrateful, what is the point of building cycling paths that are bone-rattlingly, bike-to-bits-shakingly uncomfortable to use to all but those on off-road bikes? This is unlikely to help promote cycling to anyone, but already fairly dedicated cyclists.

A quite old and obsolete, dutch cycle-path. Brick-tile surface, but still manages to be smooth and enjoyable to cycle on.

Hi,

I’m writing about your recent press release at:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/truck-insurance/accident-camera/prweb8592980.htm

In the press release you quote the truck firm, who appears to think his driver is completely innocent. This is a view which Towergate Insurance appears to endorse to some degree, as you have put the video on Youtube with the title “Death Wish Cyclist“. As a car driver and regular cyclist, I think it’s worth pointing out that the video shows the truck driver’s behaviour is far from perfect. Regardless of whatever blame may be attached to the cyclist, there are a number of problems with how the truck is being driven:

a) The Highway Code advises that cyclists should be left plenty of room when passed by motorists (rule 163 and 212). The road concerned is single-lane in each direction, and there is oncoming traffic, so the truck driver could not have changed lane. Yet they were still preparing to overtake, and even accelerated to 44mph as part of this. Had they passed the cylist, it would have been far too close and at too high a speed. The lorry driver was not intending to leave any margin of safety, needed in case the cyclist had to weave or move for some reason, e.g. from a mechanical problem or because of potholes. Motorists who close pass cyclists are driving irresponsibly, especially so when done with heavy goods vehicles which are almost to certain to kill cyclists if there is any contact.

b) The road is through Southampton Common and appears to have a 40mph speed limit. Yet the video  shows the driver reaching 44mph as they prepare to overtake. They appear to be committing a quite obvious offence with their aborted overtake, presuming the data from your system is accurate.

c) There is a side junction ahead, which presumably is easily visible given that the cyclist was manoeuvring to take it. The Highway Code rule 167 states “DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example: * approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road“. The Highway Code says this precisely because road users are likely to be manoeuvring to leave or enter the road ahead – as the cyclist is.

d) The Highway Code also states that motorists should take extra care around vulnerable road users, such as motorcyclists, cyclists. Further, though it’s impossible to be certain because the camera lens is extremely wide-angle and doesn’t show enough detail, the cyclist looks like they perhaps may be young – a teenager. The highway code specifically advises motorists to be particularly careful around young and inexperienced road users (rule 204).

Road safety requires that we not only avoid making mistakes, but also that we take care to allow for the inevitability that mistakes will sometimes be made by others. On this basis alone, the driving shown by the truck driver was less than perfect. Further, the driving shown appears to directly contravene a number of rules given in the Highway Code, with which all drivers should be familiar. Finally, contingent on the accuracy of your system, the driver may even have been speeding.

All together, it’s very hard to see how this driver is “blameless” for the narrowly averted accident shown in this incident. Without intending to absolve the cyclist in any way of blame for their part, I think it’s important that anyone watching that video should also realise that the driving shown falls far below what is expected of motorists.

We believe the long range growth and development of internetwork communication would be seriously inhibited by specifying how much larger than the minimum a packet size can be, for the following reasons.

1. If a maximum permitted packet size is specified then it becomes impossible to completely isolate the internal packet size parameters of one network from the internal packet size parameters of all other networks.
2. It would be very difficult to increase the maximum permitted packet size in response to new technology (e.g. large memory systems, higher data rate communication facilities, etc.) since this would require the agreement and then implementation by all participating networks.
3. Associative addressing and packet encryption may require the size of a particular packet to expand during transit for incorporation of new information.

Fragmentation generally is undesirable if it can be avoided, as it has a performance cost. The fragmenting router may do so on a slow-path, for example; and re-assembly at the end-host may introduce delay. As a consequence, end hosts have for a long while generally performed path-MTU-discovery (PMTUD) to discover the right overall MTU to a destination, thus allowing them to generate IP packets of just the right size (if the upper-level protocol doesn’t support some kind of segmentation, like TCP, this may still require it to generate IP fragments) and so set the “Don’t Fragment” bit on all packets and generally avoid intermediary fragmentation.  Unfortunately however PMTUD relies on ICMP messages which are sent out-of-band, and unfortunately as the internet became bigger, more and more less-than-clueful people became involved in the design and administration of the equipment needed to route IP packets. Routers started to either ignore over-size packets and (even more commonly) firewalls started to stupidly filter out nearly all ICMP – including the important “Destination Unreachable: Fragmentation Needed” ICMP message needed for PMTUD. As a consequence, end-host path-MTU discovery can be fragile. When it fails to work, the end-result is a “Path MTU blackhole”: packets get dropped for being too big at a router while the ICMP messages sent back to the host get dropped (usually elsewhere), meaning it never learns to drop its packet sizes. Where with IP fragmentation communication may be slow, but with PMTU blackholing it becomes impossible.

As a consequence of this, some upper-level applications protocols actually implement their own blackhole detection, on top of any lower-layer PMTU/segmentation support. An example being EDNS0, which specifies that EDNS0 implementations must take path-MTU into account (above the transport layer!).

So now the internet is crippled by an effective 1500 MTU. Though our equipment generally is capable of sending much larger datagrams, we have collectively failed to heed Cerf & Kahn’s wise words. The internet can not use the handy tool of encapsulation to encrypt packets, or to reroute them to mobile users. Possibly the worst aspect is that IPv6 completely removed fragmentation support. While there’s a good argument that end-end level packet resizing may be more ideal than intermediary fragmentation, as IPv6 still relies on out-of-band signalling of over-size packets, without addressing that mechanism’s fragility problem, it likely means IPv6 has cast the MTU-mess into stone for the next generation of inter-networking.

Updated: Some clarifications. Added consequence of how PMTU breaks due to ICMP filtering. Added how ULPs now have to work around these transport layer failings. Added why fragmentation was removed from IPv6, and word-smithed the conclusion a bit.