On the Huntingdon Pedestrian / Cyclist manslaughter, I've been following that for a few days.
As I see it:
1 - It is Nursery Road, Huntingdon, which is a 2 lane one way part of the Huntingdon Ring Road with a long straight. I can't get speed or volume data for the traffic, but it's obviously busy. There have been 20-25 cyclist / pedestrian casualties in that section in the last 20 years.
2 - Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road, and cycling on the pavement seems common (see cyclist in the BBC vid) - the width where the incident happened is 2m. There was space for both of them. Were I on the road, I'd be on the pavement at any busy time, as the busy carriageway looks like a killer.
3 - Official NPCC Guidance (ie Chief Constables) is that 'responsible cycling on the pavement' is to be treated "with discretion" if the road is perceived as dangerous. The 77 year old cyclist was doing walking pace in the vid afaics, so I think that fits - I might go further and suggest her bike was a mobility aid.
4 - I think the manslaughter verdict is because Grey was found to have caused Ward to divert into the road - call it a 'shove', a 'shoo', or a 'pressuring arm gesture' to taste.
As to responsibility - I'm inclined mainly to blame 30-40 years of minimal investment, and Huntingdon / Cambridgeshire having a narrow not-calmed busy ring-road through a residential area which amounts to a racetrack. It's not the place for that sort of ring-road, especially with pedestrians and cyclists left exposed to the impact of dopey or reckless drivers.
It is not a failsafe environment - our towns should allow for mini-tantrums and outbursts like that without someone getting killed.
Nursery Road follows the obvious line. This is casualty data from approx. 2000.
(Snip)
"which amounts to a racetrack. "
I'm sorry, what? A racetrack?
I go around there often, and it is *not* a racetrack.
Also, look at the Streetview link I gave below. If I've got the right location (and I'm fairly sure I have), then there's no drop curb behind, and a load of street furniture in front. The width is *not* two metres.
"Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road,"
Is it? And can you point to the signs marking it as such on that stretch, on that side?
is a sign on that pavement, on that side of the road, marking it as shared-use. It's about 250m down the road, which is not that unusual as an interval for repeater signs. There is no "End of Cycle Route" or "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" sign that indicates the shared-use provision ends at any point before the collision location.
As I said, I don't think the section where the collision happened was intended to be a shared-use path, and I wouldn't take it as one. But I can see how it might be interpreted as one by people who are less nerdy about these things than me - hesitant 77-year olds, for example - and I can understand Plod's reluctance to pronounce either way.
On the Huntingdon Pedestrian / Cyclist manslaughter, I've been following that for a few days.
As I see it:
1 - It is Nursery Road, Huntingdon, which is a 2 lane one way part of the Huntingdon Ring Road with a long straight. I can't get speed or volume data for the traffic, but it's obviously busy. There have been 20-25 cyclist / pedestrian casualties in that section in the last 20 years.
2 - Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road, and cycling on the pavement seems common (see cyclist in the BBC vid) - the width where the incident happened is 2m. There was space for both of them. Were I on the road, I'd be on the pavement at any busy time, as the busy carriageway looks like a killer.
3 - Official NPCC Guidance (ie Chief Constables) is that 'responsible cycling on the pavement' is to be treated "with discretion" if the road is perceived as dangerous. The 77 year old cyclist was doing walking pace in the vid afaics, so I think that fits - I might go further and suggest her bike was a mobility aid.
4 - I think the manslaughter verdict is because Grey was found to have caused Ward to divert into the road - call it a 'shove', a 'shoo', or a 'pressuring arm gesture' to taste.
As to responsibility - I'm inclined mainly to blame 30-40 years of minimal investment, and Huntingdon / Cambridgeshire having a narrow not-calmed busy ring-road through a residential area which amounts to a racetrack. It's not the place for that sort of ring-road, especially with pedestrians and cyclists left exposed to the impact of dopey or reckless drivers.
It is not a failsafe environment - our towns should allow for mini-tantrums and outbursts like that without someone getting killed.
Nursery Road follows the obvious line. This is casualty data from approx. 2000.
(Snip)
"which amounts to a racetrack. "
I'm sorry, what? A racetrack?
I go around there often, and it is *not* a racetrack.
Also, look at the Streetview link I gave below. If I've got the right location (and I'm fairly sure I have), then there's no drop curb behind, and a load of street furniture in front. The width is *not* two metres.
"Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road,"
Is it? And can you point to the signs marking it as such on that stretch, on that side?
is a sign on that pavement, on that side of the road, marking it as shared-use. It's about 250m down the road, which is not that unusual as an interval for repeater signs. There is no "End of Cycle Route" or "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" sign.
As I said, I don't think the section where the collision happened was intended to be a shared-use path, and I wouldn't take it as one. But I can see how it might be misinterpreted as one by people who are less nerdy about these things than me - hesitant 77-year olds, for example - and I can understand Plod's reluctance to pronounce either way.
Newcastle United exposed as liars and should get kicked out of the Premier League
Premier League clubs have reacted with anger to the description in a US court document of the Newcastle chairman, Yasir al-Rumayyan, as “a sitting minister of the Saudi government”.
The development has prompted calls from Amnesty for the league to re-examine the assurances given by Newcastle’s owners that the Saudi state would not have control of the club.
The Guardian understands that the clubs dismayed by the situation are in no mood to let the matter lie. The document filed this week has raised fresh questions about the level of separation between the Saudi state and the Public Investment Fund (PIF), whose governor is Rumayyan.
A brief filed in a court case involving the PGA Tour and LIV Golf describes the PIF as “a sovereign instrumentality of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” and Rumayyan as “a sitting minister of the Saudi government”.
Twist. Or original fudge both parties (money in suitcase FA shook hands over the top of) shouldn’t have got away with now falling apart?
Might not hurt Newcastle, that’s been signed off so much FA face hurt in row back, but could hurt Manchester United more as their similar fudge has yet to be signed off so no face to lose by merely stamping a document “rejected”.
Still all ifs and buts though.
People don't take money in suitcases anymore. Except His Majesty of course.
Mine was a metaphorical suitcase of money. But maybe you are wrong.
My Dad reckons two parties meet halfway in villas with suitcases of money to buy football players.
On the Huntingdon Pedestrian / Cyclist manslaughter, I've been following that for a few days.
As I see it:
1 - It is Nursery Road, Huntingdon, which is a 2 lane one way part of the Huntingdon Ring Road with a long straight. I can't get speed or volume data for the traffic, but it's obviously busy. There have been 20-25 cyclist / pedestrian casualties in that section in the last 20 years.
2 - Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road, and cycling on the pavement seems common (see cyclist in the BBC vid) - the width where the incident happened is 2m. There was space for both of them. Were I on the road, I'd be on the pavement at any busy time, as the busy carriageway looks like a killer.
3 - Official NPCC Guidance (ie Chief Constables) is that 'responsible cycling on the pavement' is to be treated "with discretion" if the road is perceived as dangerous. The 77 year old cyclist was doing walking pace in the vid afaics, so I think that fits - I might go further and suggest her bike was a mobility aid.
4 - I think the manslaughter verdict is because Grey was found to have caused Ward to divert into the road - call it a 'shove', a 'shoo', or a 'pressuring arm gesture' to taste.
As to responsibility - I'm inclined mainly to blame 30-40 years of minimal investment, and Huntingdon / Cambridgeshire having a narrow not-calmed busy ring-road through a residential area which amounts to a racetrack. It's not the place for that sort of ring-road, especially with pedestrians and cyclists left exposed to the impact of dopey or reckless drivers.
It is not a failsafe environment - our towns should allow for mini-tantrums and outbursts like that without someone getting killed.
Nursery Road follows the obvious line. This is casualty data from approx. 2000.
(Snip)
"which amounts to a racetrack. "
I'm sorry, what? A racetrack?
I go around there often, and it is *not* a racetrack.
Also, look at the Streetview link I gave below. If I've got the right location (and I'm fairly sure I have), then there's no drop curb behind, and a load of street furniture in front. The width is *not* two metres.
"Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road,"
Is it? And can you point to the signs marking it as such on that stretch, on that side?
is a sign on that pavement, on that side of the road, marking it as shared-use. It's about 250m down the road, which is not that unusual as an interval for repeater signs. There is no "End of Cycle Route" or "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" sign.
As I said, I don't think the section where the collision happened was intended to be a shared-use path, and I wouldn't take it as one. But I can see how it might be misinterpreted as one, and I can understand Plod's reluctance to pronounce either way.
That's a fair way away, whilst the cycle path continues up Ambury Road immediately to the left (*). I'd argue it's *unreasonable* for the cyclist to have assumed the ring road pavement on that side was one, given the physical situation. And probably no way for the pedestrian to know it was one.
I'm staggered anyone might reasonably think it was, given the street furniture immediately beyond where the accident happened.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Expect pedestrians then to get a bit more aggro when cyclists invade the pedestrian pavements.
An ex-Civil Servant writes. There's some weird notions about being a Senior Civil Servant on here today. The idea that SCSs can't have strong political views is, if you think about it, ludicrous. It would exclude many of the brightest and best, who happen to have political opinions, and mean you would only appoint those without partisan views (centrists?).
The whole point of being a SCS is, of course, to exercise one's work duties in a non-partisan, impartial way, and the vast majority do this impeccably. I have strong political leanings; they never affected my work. Sometimes on here people seem to mix up the SCS with SPADs, who are of course political appointees and a completely different matter.
I note Mogg has effectively been libelling her, saying that the Partygate enquiry was clearly a "left wing stitchup".
Given the copious evidence, she could probably sue successfully if she really wanted to.
I still contend that it was more a whitewash than a stitch up - though I don't blame Sue Gray for that.
Back on topic - the fact that Johnson is so clearly out on manoeuvres now is deeply depressing, not just because he thinks his (very very relative) popularity is in itself a reason he should be being considered.
You saw in his leaving speech his utter lack of contrition and sociopathic disregard for the actual reasons he was booted out. He's not about to start understanding this now, I guess.
Before this turns into a big fight: we are seeing a huge increase in cycling across the country. This is a very good thing.
It's often very scary cycling around town. That's why so many cyclists are so aggro - all of us have either been hit or nearly hit by drivers who simply don't care about us. My girlfriend was hit from behind quite recently. Frame crushed, helmet smashed, lots of hugs off me.
So lots of people (especially kids) cycle on the pavements.
Answer is to divert funding from roads to cycling infrastructure. As we've seen from Crossrail, induced demand is real. Congestion will fall, emissions will drop, and people will lead healthier, happier lives.
Marvellous. Pedestrians such as me get the risk instead for the next wheneveritisty years.
If it's not safe on the roads - then cyclists should bloody stop cycling rather than threaten others instead.
Better yet - why not take a leaf from Minority Report and simply execute anyone who has ever turned a pedal, in advance of the atrocities they would otherwise inevitably commit?
The again, we have the clowns who think that any attempt to at stopping ebikes doing 30mph on pedestrian pathways on the Thames embankments is "blocking the future".
Apparently, doing 5mph like the other cyclists - because of the large number of people walking, children etc - is "too restricting"
If you have a vehicle with power and you want to ride at that speed there are some other "pathways" you can use. London is full of them.
I go for
- Geo locking - Spot checks. If you have a e-whatever with geolocking disabled, straight to the crusher.
Interesting points.
1 - If it does 30mph, it's a moped not an ebike (which top out assistance at 14.5mph), so is subject to all moped regulation. Speaking as a resident of Chiswick for 4 years, yes, confiscate and crush in those circs.
2 - Would you go for geo-locking and crushing to control pavement parking? It's an interesting idea, and pavement parking is a far greater disruption than anything any e-bike or moped does.
I bet you are a devotee of Jeremy Vine's twitter feed too and that Cycling Mikey clown.
I think Vine does a job of keeping some things in the public eye, which need to be there. I agree with him *some* of the time.
I find Mikey more interesting, and he does a decent job of getting dangerous drivers (which is his 'Gandalf' wrong-side-of-the-road drivers and all mobile phone using drivers) into continuing education courses, at a time when this country has *zero* routine continuing education for drivers, and an appalling road culture. It is interesting how much support he gets from senior members at places like Pistonheads and Pepipoo.
Far better if we were all updated every 10 years when we replace our photocards, but for now ROSPA, the IAM, Ashley Neal, Cycling Mikey, lots of dash cammers, and various bits and pieces are all we have.
I walk, run, cycle and drive. I have seen bad pedestrians, runners, cyclists and drivers. I have been a bad pedestrian, runner, cyclist and pedestrian at times. It's called being human, and making mistakes. Part of the battle for improvement is acknowledging that.
I have seen some *terrible* cyclists; including some speed demons whilst on a run last Sunday. Six or seven lycra-clad pepperamis were coming towards me three abreast along a single track road, and instead of going into single or double file, they just ploughed on towards me at speed, forcing me onto the verge,
Wankers.
I'd love it if Vine gave examples where *he'd* got things wrong. Perhaps he does, but they never appear in my feed. But from what I see, he comes across as a little bit of a Peter Perfect.
Apologies if its been done already but what are pb cyclists thoughts on todays manslaughter conviction and 3 year jail term for the pedestrian ruled to have caused a cyclists death?
Seems reasonable. There was plenty of space for the cyclist to pass safely, what was her problem? The cyclist was an old lady, not some lycra clad MAMIL bearing down at 20mph. This mad woman forced her into the road, causing her death, and didn't even hang around for the emergency services to arrive. I'm sure she didn't mean to kill her, but that's why it's manslaughter not murder.
Mad? Not that you mean it personally, I'm sure, but it isn't really the way to describe someone with cerebral palsy. Which is another factor to consider.
On the Huntingdon Pedestrian / Cyclist manslaughter, I've been following that for a few days.
As I see it:
1 - It is Nursery Road, Huntingdon, which is a 2 lane one way part of the Huntingdon Ring Road with a long straight. I can't get speed or volume data for the traffic, but it's obviously busy. There have been 20-25 cyclist / pedestrian casualties in that section in the last 20 years.
2 - Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road, and cycling on the pavement seems common (see cyclist in the BBC vid) - the width where the incident happened is 2m. There was space for both of them. Were I on the road, I'd be on the pavement at any busy time, as the busy carriageway looks like a killer.
3 - Official NPCC Guidance (ie Chief Constables) is that 'responsible cycling on the pavement' is to be treated "with discretion" if the road is perceived as dangerous. The 77 year old cyclist was doing walking pace in the vid afaics, so I think that fits - I might go further and suggest her bike was a mobility aid.
4 - I think the manslaughter verdict is because Grey was found to have caused Ward to divert into the road - call it a 'shove', a 'shoo', or a 'pressuring arm gesture' to taste.
As to responsibility - I'm inclined mainly to blame 30-40 years of minimal investment, and Huntingdon / Cambridgeshire having a narrow not-calmed busy ring-road through a residential area which amounts to a racetrack. It's not the place for that sort of ring-road, especially with pedestrians and cyclists left exposed to the impact of dopey or reckless drivers.
It is not a failsafe environment - our towns should allow for mini-tantrums and outbursts like that without someone getting killed.
Nursery Road follows the obvious line. This is casualty data from approx. 2000.
(Snip)
"which amounts to a racetrack. "
I'm sorry, what? A racetrack?
I go around there often, and it is *not* a racetrack.
Also, look at the Streetview link I gave below. If I've got the right location (and I'm fairly sure I have), then there's no drop curb behind, and a load of street furniture in front. The width is *not* two metres.
"Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road,"
Is it? And can you point to the signs marking it as such on that stretch, on that side?
is a sign on that pavement, on that side of the road, marking it as shared-use. It's about 250m down the road, which is not that unusual as an interval for repeater signs. There is no "End of Cycle Route" or "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" sign.
As I said, I don't think the section where the collision happened was intended to be a shared-use path, and I wouldn't take it as one. But I can see how it might be misinterpreted as one, and I can understand Plod's reluctance to pronounce either way.
That's a fair way away, whilst the cycle path continues up Ambury Road immediately to the left (*). I'd argue it's *unreasonable* for the cyclist to have assumed the ring road pavement on that side was one, given the physical situation. And probably no way for the pedestrian to know it was one.
I'm staggered anyone might reasonably think it was, given the street furniture immediately beyond where the accident happened.
I agree this is probably why that particular sign is there - in fact old StreetView imagery seems to suggest the sign was put in c. 2010 as part of the Ambury Road works. But nonetheless the signage is lacking. There is meant to be an explicit sign ("End of Cycle Route", "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway", or a simple bike-in-red-circle) to say where the shared-use provision ends.
If there's a sign on a pavement saying "shared-use cycle route", and nothing on that pavement to say "not shared-use cycle route any more", it's understandable that someone might conceivably think "this must be a shared-use cycle route". Just as if there's a 60 sign, and no 30 sign after it, you'd be justified in thinking the speed limit was still 60. There is a reason why things like TSRGD are quite so prescriptive!
Guessing wildly, but I'd say that the Ambury Road path was probably developer-funded, and the Transport Development Control function in the highway authority f—ked up. Wouldn't be the first time.
I really do not care but by any measure it is not a good look
Surely there was someone as suitable but less controversial
Not fair. The poor woman is a senior civil servant. They are apolitical.
*She was chosen by Johnson to be the investigator into Partygate*. You don't choose political types for that, unless you think they are on your side perhaps.
fair to say i have only heard good things about John Swinney the man - of course i disagree with his brand of “live in a cave to be free” existential nationalism, but i can also recognise that Scottish politics will be the poorer for his departure
Ooh, not in the HoC either, so no protection against libel suits.
This is a delicious bit of underhand strategy by Labour. Giving the Bring Back Boris nutters more ammo for their lunatic cause will just drag the Tories into further infighting and make them look still more ridiculous, divided and incompetent.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
On the Huntingdon Pedestrian / Cyclist manslaughter, I've been following that for a few days.
As I see it:
1 - It is Nursery Road, Huntingdon, which is a 2 lane one way part of the Huntingdon Ring Road with a long straight. I can't get speed or volume data for the traffic, but it's obviously busy. There have been 20-25 cyclist / pedestrian casualties in that section in the last 20 years.
2 - Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road, and cycling on the pavement seems common (see cyclist in the BBC vid) - the width where the incident happened is 2m. There was space for both of them. Were I on the road, I'd be on the pavement at any busy time, as the busy carriageway looks like a killer.
3 - Official NPCC Guidance (ie Chief Constables) is that 'responsible cycling on the pavement' is to be treated "with discretion" if the road is perceived as dangerous. The 77 year old cyclist was doing walking pace in the vid afaics, so I think that fits - I might go further and suggest her bike was a mobility aid.
4 - I think the manslaughter verdict is because Grey was found to have caused Ward to divert into the road - call it a 'shove', a 'shoo', or a 'pressuring arm gesture' to taste.
As to responsibility - I'm inclined mainly to blame 30-40 years of minimal investment, and Huntingdon / Cambridgeshire having a narrow not-calmed busy ring-road through a residential area which amounts to a racetrack. It's not the place for that sort of ring-road, especially with pedestrians and cyclists left exposed to the impact of dopey or reckless drivers.
It is not a failsafe environment - our towns should allow for mini-tantrums and outbursts like that without someone getting killed.
Nursery Road follows the obvious line. This is casualty data from approx. 2000.
(Snip)
"which amounts to a racetrack. "
I'm sorry, what? A racetrack?
I go around there often, and it is *not* a racetrack.
Also, look at the Streetview link I gave below. If I've got the right location (and I'm fairly sure I have), then there's no drop curb behind, and a load of street furniture in front. The width is *not* two metres.
"Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road,"
Is it? And can you point to the signs marking it as such on that stretch, on that side?
is a sign on that pavement, on that side of the road, marking it as shared-use. It's about 250m down the road, which is not that unusual as an interval for repeater signs. There is no "End of Cycle Route" or "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" sign.
As I said, I don't think the section where the collision happened was intended to be a shared-use path, and I wouldn't take it as one. But I can see how it might be misinterpreted as one, and I can understand Plod's reluctance to pronounce either way.
That's a fair way away, whilst the cycle path continues up Ambury Road immediately to the left (*). I'd argue it's *unreasonable* for the cyclist to have assumed the ring road pavement on that side was one, given the physical situation. And probably no way for the pedestrian to know it was one.
I'm staggered anyone might reasonably think it was, given the street furniture immediately beyond where the accident happened.
I agree this is probably why that particular sign is there - in fact old StreetView imagery seems to suggest the sign was put in c. 2010 as part of the Ambury Road works. But nonetheless the signage is lacking. There is meant to be an explicit sign ("End of Cycle Route", "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway", or a simple bike-in-red-circle) to say where the shared-use provision ends.
If there's a sign on a pavement saying "shared-use cycle route", and nothing on that pavement to say "not shared-use cycle route any more", it's understandable that someone might conceivably think "this must be a shared-use cycle route". Just as if there's a 60 sign, and no 30 sign after it, you'd be justified in thinking the speed limit was still 60. There is a reason why things like TSRGD are quite so prescriptive!
Guessing wildly, but I'd say that the Ambury Road path was probably developer-funded, and the Transport Development Control function in the highway authority f—ked up. Wouldn't be the first time.
It's only understandable that someone might conceivably think "this must be a shared-use cycle route" if they're utterly and irretrievably stupid. Look at that stretch of pavement, the lack of drop curbs, and the street furniture.
*If* by some miracle it could be seen as being dual-use, then the people who should be jailed are the council. But they aren't, because it's frankly hard to imagine how that could reasonably be seen as being dual-use.
Remember, there's a pedestrian crossing (onto the narrow pavement) just beyond where this incident happened. And a pole in the middle of the path.
Again, the pedestrian was in the wrong. But so was the cyclist, sadly for all involved.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
An ex-Civil Servant writes. There's some weird notions about being a Senior Civil Servant on here today. The idea that SCSs can't have strong political views is, if you think about it, ludicrous. It would exclude many of the brightest and best, who happen to have political opinions, and mean you would only appoint those without partisan views (centrists?).
The whole point of being a SCS is, of course, to exercise one's work duties in a non-partisan, impartial way, and the vast majority do this impeccably. I have strong political leanings; they never affected my work. Sometimes on here people seem to mix up the SCS with SPADs, who are of course political appointees and a completely different matter.
All very sensible. Professionals can take pride in not letting personal political leanings affect their work too, they will work hard to achieve things they personally do not politically support.
But we already know Rishi will be under immense pressure to save Boris should the privileges thing come back to haunt him, and that may be why he had the government foot the legal bill for Boris, and developing a conspiracy (as Mogg already has started) to muddy the waters so he can let Boris off the hook may well be part of that too. He need not indulge in it himself, but enough of his MPs can do so.
Imagine how many MPs will hit the roof if Boris is condemned by an unfair, illegal process all because of a Labour plant?
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
A lot depends on whether you are usually a pedestrian or an habitual driver. I no longer drive for the last 15 years or so and not because I don't have a licence...just dont want to. I have a lot more near accidents with cyclists since I sold my car than I do car drivers and usually when they are on pavements where they are not cyclepaths as well. One in particualar sticks in my mind on a non shared path when a cyclist came round a 90 degree corner at speed hit my sons pushchair and ripped it from my hand catapaulting it into the road....luckily my son wasn't in it at the time.
Needless to say the cyclist was full of abuse claiming it was my fault. Cyclists should either stay on the road or be on shared cyclepaths where they are marked and expected....being afraid of cars doesnt give you the right to intimidate pedestrians
When Labour appointed Shami Chakrabarti to lead the anti-Semitism inquiry, then appointed her to the House of Lords a few months later, it stunk to high heaven.
This Sue Grey situation is nowhere near so obviously dodgy as that, but might be: e.g. if she had conversations with Labour figures during the inquiry, when promises might have been made.
But it's probably fine. However, I would have avoided offering her it, or accepting it if I was her, for the reason it might look a little odd.
The "truth" or otherwise bout polls can be found in the data tables.
Back in December 2019, the Conservative majority was built on obtaining 75% of those voting to leave the EU in 2016 and 20% of those voting to stay. As the figures for Leave-Remain by late 2019 were 48% Leave and 52% Remain, we can see the Tory voting coalition was 36% Leave voters plus 9% Remain voters so roughly 45% of the total electorate.
Deltapoll hs 24% of Remain voters and 39% of Leave voters supporting the Conservatives. We can now assume the split between Remain and Leave is more like 56-44 so a quarter of the Remain voters equals 14% of the electorate and 39% of Leavers equals 17% so the Conservative vote share is 31%.
Techne says 5% of the Remain vote and 45% of the Leave vote back the Conservatives so again using 56-44 as our baseline we come out at 28% - Techne says 27% Conservative VI.
It's worth remembering by 2024, a growing number of voters won't have voted in the 2016 Referendum but the basic sums hold firm - Deltapoll has a swing of 28.5% among Leavers while Techne has a 20% swing. On the Remain side, Techne has a 10% swing to Labour - Deltapoll has a tiny swing to the Conservatives.
On the Huntingdon Pedestrian / Cyclist manslaughter, I've been following that for a few days.
As I see it:
1 - It is Nursery Road, Huntingdon, which is a 2 lane one way part of the Huntingdon Ring Road with a long straight. I can't get speed or volume data for the traffic, but it's obviously busy. There have been 20-25 cyclist / pedestrian casualties in that section in the last 20 years.
2 - Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road, and cycling on the pavement seems common (see cyclist in the BBC vid) - the width where the incident happened is 2m. There was space for both of them. Were I on the road, I'd be on the pavement at any busy time, as the busy carriageway looks like a killer.
3 - Official NPCC Guidance (ie Chief Constables) is that 'responsible cycling on the pavement' is to be treated "with discretion" if the road is perceived as dangerous. The 77 year old cyclist was doing walking pace in the vid afaics, so I think that fits - I might go further and suggest her bike was a mobility aid.
4 - I think the manslaughter verdict is because Grey was found to have caused Ward to divert into the road - call it a 'shove', a 'shoo', or a 'pressuring arm gesture' to taste.
As to responsibility - I'm inclined mainly to blame 30-40 years of minimal investment, and Huntingdon / Cambridgeshire having a narrow not-calmed busy ring-road through a residential area which amounts to a racetrack. It's not the place for that sort of ring-road, especially with pedestrians and cyclists left exposed to the impact of dopey or reckless drivers.
It is not a failsafe environment - our towns should allow for mini-tantrums and outbursts like that without someone getting killed.
Nursery Road follows the obvious line. This is casualty data from approx. 2000.
(Snip)
"which amounts to a racetrack. "
I'm sorry, what? A racetrack?
I go around there often, and it is *not* a racetrack.
Also, look at the Streetview link I gave below. If I've got the right location (and I'm fairly sure I have), then there's no drop curb behind, and a load of street furniture in front. The width is *not* two metres.
"Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road,"
Is it? And can you point to the signs marking it as such on that stretch, on that side?
is a sign on that pavement, on that side of the road, marking it as shared-use. It's about 250m down the road, which is not that unusual as an interval for repeater signs. There is no "End of Cycle Route" or "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" sign.
As I said, I don't think the section where the collision happened was intended to be a shared-use path, and I wouldn't take it as one. But I can see how it might be misinterpreted as one, and I can understand Plod's reluctance to pronounce either way.
That's a fair way away, whilst the cycle path continues up Ambury Road immediately to the left (*). I'd argue it's *unreasonable* for the cyclist to have assumed the ring road pavement on that side was one, given the physical situation. And probably no way for the pedestrian to know it was one.
I'm staggered anyone might reasonably think it was, given the street furniture immediately beyond where the accident happened.
I agree this is probably why that particular sign is there - in fact old StreetView imagery seems to suggest the sign was put in c. 2010 as part of the Ambury Road works. But nonetheless the signage is lacking. There is meant to be an explicit sign ("End of Cycle Route", "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway", or a simple bike-in-red-circle) to say where the shared-use provision ends.
If there's a sign on a pavement saying "shared-use cycle route", and nothing on that pavement to say "not shared-use cycle route any more", it's understandable that someone might conceivably think "this must be a shared-use cycle route". Just as if there's a 60 sign, and no 30 sign after it, you'd be justified in thinking the speed limit was still 60. There is a reason why things like TSRGD are quite so prescriptive!
Guessing wildly, but I'd say that the Ambury Road path was probably developer-funded, and the Transport Development Control function in the highway authority f—ked up. Wouldn't be the first time.
It's only understandable that someone might conceivably think "this must be a shared-use cycle route" if they're utterly and irretrievably stupid. Look at that stretch of pavement, the lack of drop curbs, and the street furniture.
*If* by some miracle it could be seen as being dual-use, then the people who should be jailed are the council. But they aren't, because it's frankly hard to imagine how that could reasonably be seen as being dual-use.
Remember, there's a pedestrian crossing (onto the narrow pavement) just beyond where this incident happened. And a pole in the middle of the path.
Again, the pedestrian was in the wrong. But so was the cyclist, sadly for all involved.
Unfortunately, great swathes of cycling 'infrastructure' are improbably (often self-defeatingly) terrible, poles and street furniture are the tip of the iceberg, never mind ignoring the idea that people on bikes might sometimes want to turn into side roads on the right as well as the left.
When Labour appointed Shami Chakrabarti to lead the anti-Semitism inquiry, then appointed her to the House of Lords a few months later, it stunk to high heaven.
This Sue Grey situation is nowhere near so obviously dodgy as that, but might be: e.g. if she had conversations with Labour figures during the inquiry, when promises might have been made.
But it's probably fine. However, I would have avoided offering her it, or accepting it if I was her, for the reason it might look a little odd.
Quite - it could have waited, and and as she will know the 'appearence' can be as important as the actuality,
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
On the Huntingdon Pedestrian / Cyclist manslaughter, I've been following that for a few days.
As I see it:
1 - It is Nursery Road, Huntingdon, which is a 2 lane one way part of the Huntingdon Ring Road with a long straight. I can't get speed or volume data for the traffic, but it's obviously busy. There have been 20-25 cyclist / pedestrian casualties in that section in the last 20 years.
2 - Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road, and cycling on the pavement seems common (see cyclist in the BBC vid) - the width where the incident happened is 2m. There was space for both of them. Were I on the road, I'd be on the pavement at any busy time, as the busy carriageway looks like a killer.
3 - Official NPCC Guidance (ie Chief Constables) is that 'responsible cycling on the pavement' is to be treated "with discretion" if the road is perceived as dangerous. The 77 year old cyclist was doing walking pace in the vid afaics, so I think that fits - I might go further and suggest her bike was a mobility aid.
4 - I think the manslaughter verdict is because Grey was found to have caused Ward to divert into the road - call it a 'shove', a 'shoo', or a 'pressuring arm gesture' to taste.
As to responsibility - I'm inclined mainly to blame 30-40 years of minimal investment, and Huntingdon / Cambridgeshire having a narrow not-calmed busy ring-road through a residential area which amounts to a racetrack. It's not the place for that sort of ring-road, especially with pedestrians and cyclists left exposed to the impact of dopey or reckless drivers.
It is not a failsafe environment - our towns should allow for mini-tantrums and outbursts like that without someone getting killed.
Nursery Road follows the obvious line. This is casualty data from approx. 2000.
(Snip)
"which amounts to a racetrack. "
I'm sorry, what? A racetrack?
I go around there often, and it is *not* a racetrack.
Also, look at the Streetview link I gave below. If I've got the right location (and I'm fairly sure I have), then there's no drop curb behind, and a load of street furniture in front. The width is *not* two metres.
"Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road,"
Is it? And can you point to the signs marking it as such on that stretch, on that side?
is a sign on that pavement, on that side of the road, marking it as shared-use. It's about 250m down the road, which is not that unusual as an interval for repeater signs. There is no "End of Cycle Route" or "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" sign.
As I said, I don't think the section where the collision happened was intended to be a shared-use path, and I wouldn't take it as one. But I can see how it might be misinterpreted as one, and I can understand Plod's reluctance to pronounce either way.
That's a fair way away, whilst the cycle path continues up Ambury Road immediately to the left (*). I'd argue it's *unreasonable* for the cyclist to have assumed the ring road pavement on that side was one, given the physical situation. And probably no way for the pedestrian to know it was one.
I'm staggered anyone might reasonably think it was, given the street furniture immediately beyond where the accident happened.
I agree this is probably why that particular sign is there - in fact old StreetView imagery seems to suggest the sign was put in c. 2010 as part of the Ambury Road works. But nonetheless the signage is lacking. There is meant to be an explicit sign ("End of Cycle Route", "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway", or a simple bike-in-red-circle) to say where the shared-use provision ends.
If there's a sign on a pavement saying "shared-use cycle route", and nothing on that pavement to say "not shared-use cycle route any more", it's understandable that someone might conceivably think "this must be a shared-use cycle route". Just as if there's a 60 sign, and no 30 sign after it, you'd be justified in thinking the speed limit was still 60. There is a reason why things like TSRGD are quite so prescriptive!
Guessing wildly, but I'd say that the Ambury Road path was probably developer-funded, and the Transport Development Control function in the highway authority f—ked up. Wouldn't be the first time.
It's only understandable that someone might conceivably think "this must be a shared-use cycle route" if they're utterly and irretrievably stupid. Look at that stretch of pavement, the lack of drop curbs, and the street furniture.
*If* by some miracle it could be seen as being dual-use, then the people who should be jailed are the council. But they aren't, because it's frankly hard to imagine how that could reasonably be seen as being dual-use.
Remember, there's a pedestrian crossing (onto the narrow pavement) just beyond where this incident happened. And a pole in the middle of the path.
Again, the pedestrian was in the wrong. But so was the cyclist, sadly for all involved.
Unfortunately, great swathes of cycling 'infrastructure' are improbably (often self-defeatingly) terrible, poles and street furniture are the tip of the iceberg, never mind ignoring the idea that people on bikes might sometimes want to turn into side roads on the right as well as the left.
I agree with your point that cycle paths are often very poor. Or in some cases, fine if you're pootling along at under 10MPH, but terrible if you're trying to do 20 MPH.
But are you saying a cyclist should assume that every pavement is a cycle or dual-use path, and not use their own intelligence? Because as I say above, I'm amazed anyone could reasonably think that stretch was a dual-use path.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
I don't have a bike, so that barb's going nowhere.
On the Huntingdon Pedestrian / Cyclist manslaughter, I've been following that for a few days.
As I see it:
1 - It is Nursery Road, Huntingdon, which is a 2 lane one way part of the Huntingdon Ring Road with a long straight. I can't get speed or volume data for the traffic, but it's obviously busy. There have been 20-25 cyclist / pedestrian casualties in that section in the last 20 years.
2 - Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road, and cycling on the pavement seems common (see cyclist in the BBC vid) - the width where the incident happened is 2m. There was space for both of them. Were I on the road, I'd be on the pavement at any busy time, as the busy carriageway looks like a killer.
3 - Official NPCC Guidance (ie Chief Constables) is that 'responsible cycling on the pavement' is to be treated "with discretion" if the road is perceived as dangerous. The 77 year old cyclist was doing walking pace in the vid afaics, so I think that fits - I might go further and suggest her bike was a mobility aid.
4 - I think the manslaughter verdict is because Grey was found to have caused Ward to divert into the road - call it a 'shove', a 'shoo', or a 'pressuring arm gesture' to taste.
As to responsibility - I'm inclined mainly to blame 30-40 years of minimal investment, and Huntingdon / Cambridgeshire having a narrow not-calmed busy ring-road through a residential area which amounts to a racetrack. It's not the place for that sort of ring-road, especially with pedestrians and cyclists left exposed to the impact of dopey or reckless drivers.
It is not a failsafe environment - our towns should allow for mini-tantrums and outbursts like that without someone getting killed.
Nursery Road follows the obvious line. This is casualty data from approx. 2000.
(Snip)
"which amounts to a racetrack. "
I'm sorry, what? A racetrack?
I go around there often, and it is *not* a racetrack.
Also, look at the Streetview link I gave below. If I've got the right location (and I'm fairly sure I have), then there's no drop curb behind, and a load of street furniture in front. The width is *not* two metres.
"Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road,"
Is it? And can you point to the signs marking it as such on that stretch, on that side?
is a sign on that pavement, on that side of the road, marking it as shared-use. It's about 250m down the road, which is not that unusual as an interval for repeater signs. There is no "End of Cycle Route" or "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" sign.
As I said, I don't think the section where the collision happened was intended to be a shared-use path, and I wouldn't take it as one. But I can see how it might be misinterpreted as one, and I can understand Plod's reluctance to pronounce either way.
That's a fair way away, whilst the cycle path continues up Ambury Road immediately to the left (*). I'd argue it's *unreasonable* for the cyclist to have assumed the ring road pavement on that side was one, given the physical situation. And probably no way for the pedestrian to know it was one.
I'm staggered anyone might reasonably think it was, given the street furniture immediately beyond where the accident happened.
I agree this is probably why that particular sign is there - in fact old StreetView imagery seems to suggest the sign was put in c. 2010 as part of the Ambury Road works. But nonetheless the signage is lacking. There is meant to be an explicit sign ("End of Cycle Route", "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway", or a simple bike-in-red-circle) to say where the shared-use provision ends.
If there's a sign on a pavement saying "shared-use cycle route", and nothing on that pavement to say "not shared-use cycle route any more", it's understandable that someone might conceivably think "this must be a shared-use cycle route". Just as if there's a 60 sign, and no 30 sign after it, you'd be justified in thinking the speed limit was still 60. There is a reason why things like TSRGD are quite so prescriptive!
Guessing wildly, but I'd say that the Ambury Road path was probably developer-funded, and the Transport Development Control function in the highway authority f—ked up. Wouldn't be the first time.
It's only understandable that someone might conceivably think "this must be a shared-use cycle route" if they're utterly and irretrievably stupid. Look at that stretch of pavement, the lack of drop curbs, and the street furniture.
*If* by some miracle it could be seen as being dual-use, then the people who should be jailed are the council. But they aren't, because it's frankly hard to imagine how that could reasonably be seen as being dual-use.
Remember, there's a pedestrian crossing (onto the narrow pavement) just beyond where this incident happened. And a pole in the middle of the path.
Again, the pedestrian was in the wrong. But so was the cyclist, sadly for all involved.
Unfortunately, great swathes of cycling 'infrastructure' are improbably (often self-defeatingly) terrible, poles and street furniture are the tip of the iceberg, never mind ignoring the idea that people on bikes might sometimes want to turn into side roads on the right as well as the left.
I agree with your point that cycle paths are often very poor. Or in some cases, fine if you're pootling along at under 10MPH, but terrible if you're trying to do 20 MPH.
But are you saying a cyclist should assume that every pavement is a cycle or dual-use path, and not use their own intelligence? Because as I say above, I'm amazed anyone could reasonably think that stretch was a dual-use path.
Sue Gray has been appointed SKS's chief of staff..
Rubbish appointment.
She obviously fancies the Cab Sec role next year.
Starmer is preparing for Government.
But not in an overconfident and hubristic way. It's just that things are looking awwwright.
He'd better get some talking done, seriously.
Secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 Build an NHS fit for the future Make Britain’s streets safe Breakdown the barriers to opportunity at every stage Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Which is your favourite? See if it's the same as mine.
Are those Sir Keir's big policies? That's sub-EdStone level.
The policies will be in the manifesto. We've been through this several times now.
And let's be honest the problem with the Edstone was not the content, it was the comic thick-of-it visuals and the fact some wag coined the term "Edstone". Ed standing next to a big stone with stuff engraved on it. Echoes of Spinal Tap too. If he'd published the same pledges on a one page leaflet or a pledge card nobody would have batted an eyelid.
Yep. Although Ed did get picked on. Eg there's was nothing especially wrong or funny about the bacon sandwich photo. Why was he so lampooned and derided? That's an interesting question. I sense the answer might be nothing to be proud of.
Because he was crap. And despite partisan Labour supporters' attempts to hint otherwise (which for some incomprehensible reason only started once Mr Corbyn started having his own problems), they've never managed to come up with any actual evidence for it.
'Crap' is a ludicrous (and since you mention partisan, deeply partisan) description for a serious politician of intelligence and personal integrity who (as becomes increasingly clear) had a strong analysis of what some of this country's biggest problems are (albeit not so strong on the radical policies needed to address them).
No, there was something other than that behind all the piss-taking. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Milliband was a fairly odd looking thing - not his fault obviously, and he looked especially odd trying to get his chops around that bacon sarnie.
The edstone was ridiculous in its physicality, but it was still more ridiculous when its vast, immutable, stony presence was contrasted with the nothing 'promises' that were graven upon it. How do you hold someone accountable for 'an NHS with time to care'? How stupid is it then to carve that promise in stone?
I'm not defending the Edstone specifically. I'm saying the relentless pisstake of Ed wasn't because he was 'crap'.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
I know someone who lived on this road in Northolt:
As you can see, it's a bus route, and you are liable to have your wing mirrors smashed by a bus if you don't get as tight to the curb as possible.
You'll also see that the curb is quite low and the pavement quite wide. My friend got done for having his wheel overhanging the curb.
Now, I do think some people (cough my sister cough) can be inconsiderate when they park on the pavement, but if they started nicking people for it round here (Woking), there would be trouble.
fair to say i have only heard good things about John Swinney the man - of course i disagree with his brand of “live in a cave to be free” existential nationalism, but i can also recognise that Scottish politics will be the poorer for his departure
An ex-Civil Servant writes. There's some weird notions about being a Senior Civil Servant on here today. The idea that SCSs can't have strong political views is, if you think about it, ludicrous. It would exclude many of the brightest and best, who happen to have political opinions, and mean you would only appoint those without partisan views (centrists?).
The whole point of being a SCS is, of course, to exercise one's work duties in a non-partisan, impartial way, and the vast majority do this impeccably. I have strong political leanings; they never affected my work. Sometimes on here people seem to mix up the SCS with SPADs, who are of course political appointees and a completely different matter.
Civil Servants having political convictions isn't an issue, the issue is that they all seem to have very similar ones, to the extent that holding them seems necessary to furthering a career there. Furthermore, if the lacksadaisical approach to implementing the systems necessitated by leaving the EU are anything to go by, these convictions absolutely interfere with their ability to fulfill their duties.
Sue Gray's report played a role in bringing down a landslide winning PM, and now she's off to join the opposing party when the ink on her report is barely dry. That looks bad.
fair to say i have only heard good things about John Swinney the man - of course i disagree with his brand of “live in a cave to be free” existential nationalism, but i can also recognise that Scottish politics will be the poorer for his departure
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
One wonders whether the Judge is found in lycra on his evenings and weekends off.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
One wonders whether the Judge is found in lycra on his evenings and weekends off.
I fully accept cyclists rightly dont feel safe on the road....the answer though is not to displace them onto pavements and make pedestrians feel unsafe. I fully admit being hit by a cyclist doing 20 miles an hour is less dangerous than being hit by a car at the same speed....however it can easily end with injuries.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Just listened to Johnson's statff Ed mention Sunak's deal. "I could have got the same deal - I just didn't want it'.
He only really had a few choices here, from the perspective of maximising his own profile.
It's a great deal, and all thanks to my work getting it moving and forcing the EU's hand - the take credit approach.
It's an awful deal, and nothing to do with me - the repudiation approach
It's not a great deal, and also its thanks to me it was possible at all - the confused approach.
He had the choice if thinking about the good of NI, rather than what might benefit him, of course. But I appreciate it sounds odd even to suggest such a thing.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Why - the practical problems of parking on poorly designed roads and blocking access for emergency services
The other notion raised by OGH this morning and worth further investigation is the premise most ex-Conservative voters are in the "Don't Know" column rather than Labour.
Omnisis splits the same vote 48% Conservative, 22% Labour, 13% Don't Know and 12% Reform
Then we have YouGov which is 40% Conservative, 25% Don't Know, 10% Reform and 9% Labour
One of them looks like a big outlier - I'll help you, it's YouGov. It seems foolish to build an entire argument on one outlier pollster (at least in this regard).
20% of the 2019 Conservative vote represents (in theory) 9% of the electorate which has moved from Conservative to Labour. The Labour voting coalition is now based on 90% of the 2019 Labour vote and 20% of both the Conservative and LD votes from 2019 and bits and pieces from elsewhere. If we assume a sixth of the 2019 Conservative vote is actually in the Don't Know camp that's another 7% of the electorate which has yet to choose.
That's the key element - the Conservatives need all of them - Labour would be happy with a third to a half and many of the rest staying at home - that's the route to a big landslide win at this time.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
One wonders whether the Judge is found in lycra on his evenings and weekends off.
I fully accept cyclists rightly dont feel safe on the road....the answer though is not to displace them onto pavements and make pedestrians feel unsafe. I fully admit being hit by a cyclist doing 20 miles an hour is less dangerous than being hit by a car at the same speed....however it can easily end with injuries.
Cycles need there own space not to take over ours
Apparently five pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2019:
"according to a parliamentary report published in 2020, there were only five reported pedestrian deaths involving a bicycle in 2019 as opposed to the 48 cyclists and 305 pedestrians killed by cars in the same year"
(Note: I'm unsure if the above might include a cyclist who was pushing a bike at the time, and was therefore a pedestrian. But that's relatively unusual.)
fair to say i have only heard good things about John Swinney the man - of course i disagree with his brand of “live in a cave to be free” existential nationalism, but i can also recognise that Scottish politics will be the poorer for his departure
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
One wonders whether the Judge is found in lycra on his evenings and weekends off.
I fully accept cyclists rightly dont feel safe on the road....the answer though is not to displace them onto pavements and make pedestrians feel unsafe. I fully admit being hit by a cyclist doing 20 miles an hour is less dangerous than being hit by a car at the same speed....however it can easily end with injuries.
Cycles need there own space not to take over ours
Apparently five pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2019:
"according to a parliamentary report published in 2020, there were only five reported pedestrian deaths involving a bicycle in 2019 as opposed to the 48 cyclists and 305 pedestrians killed by cars in the same year"
(Note: I'm unsure if the above might include a cyclist who was pushing a bike at the time, and was therefore a pedestrian. But that's relatively unusual.)
An ex-Civil Servant writes. There's some weird notions about being a Senior Civil Servant on here today. The idea that SCSs can't have strong political views is, if you think about it, ludicrous. It would exclude many of the brightest and best, who happen to have political opinions, and mean you would only appoint those without partisan views (centrists?).
The whole point of being a SCS is, of course, to exercise one's work duties in a non-partisan, impartial way, and the vast majority do this impeccably. I have strong political leanings; they never affected my work. Sometimes on here people seem to mix up the SCS with SPADs, who are of course political appointees and a completely different matter.
Civil Servants having political convictions isn't an issue, the issue is that they all seem to have very similar ones, to the extent that holding them seems necessary to furthering a career there. Furthermore, if the lacksadaisical approach to implementing the systems necessitated by leaving the EU are anything to go by, these convictions absolutely interfere with their ability to fulfill their duties.
Sue Gray's report played a role in bringing down a landslide winning PM, and now she's off to join the opposing party when the ink on her report is barely dry. That looks bad.
Have you worked in the CS? Where I worked, for 25 years, the diversity of political opinion was pretty similar to that in the general population. Loads of Tories, loads of Labour, one Lib Dem, etc.
Just listened to Johnson's statff Ed mention Sunak's deal. "I could have got the same deal - I just didn't want it'.
He only really had a few choices here, from the perspective of maximising his own profile.
It's a great deal, and all thanks to my work getting it moving and forcing the EU's hand - the take credit approach.
It's an awful deal, and nothing to do with me - the repudiation approach
It's not a great deal, and also its thanks to me it was possible at all - the confused approach.
He had the choice if thinking about the good of NI, rather than what might benefit him, of course. But I appreciate it sounds odd even to suggest such a thing.
I excluded the possibility from my options as too improbable to consider.
Correct Horse won’t be able to defend this when they show up.
It is defendable, sort of. General 'how dare you impugn the good name of a senior civil servant?' stuff. But what we can guarantee is that if an official had been instrumental in a damning 'beergate' result for Starmer, and had now been hired by the Tory Party, you'd hear the Labourite PB squeals from here to the Finland Station.
Nad's Tweet highlighting Gray's advisor on the report is fairly damning.
Man, Novara Media people are just talking all sorts of sense lately. Honestly, what do you think God cares more about – the condition of a book bought off Amazon, or treating vulnerable kids with kindness, empathy, and understanding? Give your head a wobble.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
I used to stand my ground to see if they walked into me. However I soon abandoned that. Bit immature.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
One wonders whether the Judge is found in lycra on his evenings and weekends off.
I fully accept cyclists rightly dont feel safe on the road....the answer though is not to displace them onto pavements and make pedestrians feel unsafe. I fully admit being hit by a cyclist doing 20 miles an hour is less dangerous than being hit by a car at the same speed....however it can easily end with injuries.
Cycles need there own space not to take over ours
Apparently five pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2019:
"according to a parliamentary report published in 2020, there were only five reported pedestrian deaths involving a bicycle in 2019 as opposed to the 48 cyclists and 305 pedestrians killed by cars in the same year"
(Note: I'm unsure if the above might include a cyclist who was pushing a bike at the time, and was therefore a pedestrian. But that's relatively unusual.)
Deaths that wouldnt have happened if cycles had their separate routes. Lets face it most pedestrians are going to be older. Maybe they don't die but a lot get injured and unlike a car you rarely get auditory warning a cyclist is coming up behind you or about to whip round the corner
An ex-Civil Servant writes. There's some weird notions about being a Senior Civil Servant on here today. The idea that SCSs can't have strong political views is, if you think about it, ludicrous. It would exclude many of the brightest and best, who happen to have political opinions, and mean you would only appoint those without partisan views (centrists?).
The whole point of being a SCS is, of course, to exercise one's work duties in a non-partisan, impartial way, and the vast majority do this impeccably. I have strong political leanings; they never affected my work. Sometimes on here people seem to mix up the SCS with SPADs, who are of course political appointees and a completely different matter.
Civil Servants having political convictions isn't an issue, the issue is that they all seem to have very similar ones, to the extent that holding them seems necessary to furthering a career there. Furthermore, if the lacksadaisical approach to implementing the systems necessitated by leaving the EU are anything to go by, these convictions absolutely interfere with their ability to fulfill their duties.
Sue Gray's report played a role in bringing down a landslide winning PM, and now she's off to join the opposing party when the ink on her report is barely dry. That looks bad.
Have you worked in the CS? Where I worked, for 25 years, the diversity of political opinion was pretty similar to that in the general population. Loads of Tories, loads of Labour, one Lib Dem, etc.
An ex-Civil Servant writes. There's some weird notions about being a Senior Civil Servant on here today. The idea that SCSs can't have strong political views is, if you think about it, ludicrous. It would exclude many of the brightest and best, who happen to have political opinions, and mean you would only appoint those without partisan views (centrists?).
The whole point of being a SCS is, of course, to exercise one's work duties in a non-partisan, impartial way, and the vast majority do this impeccably. I have strong political leanings; they never affected my work. Sometimes on here people seem to mix up the SCS with SPADs, who are of course political appointees and a completely different matter.
Civil Servants having political convictions isn't an issue, the issue is that they all seem to have very similar ones, to the extent that holding them seems necessary to furthering a career there. Furthermore, if the lacksadaisical approach to implementing the systems necessitated by leaving the EU are anything to go by, these convictions absolutely interfere with their ability to fulfill their duties.
Sue Gray's report played a role in bringing down a landslide winning PM, and now she's off to join the opposing party when the ink on her report is barely dry. That looks bad.
Have you worked in the CS? Where I worked, for 25 years, the diversity of political opinion was pretty similar to that in the general population. Loads of Tories, loads of Labour, one Lib Dem, etc.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
I know someone who lived on this road in Northolt:
As you can see, it's a bus route, and you are liable to have your wing mirrors smashed by a bus if you don't get as tight to the curb as possible.
You'll also see that the curb is quite low and the pavement quite wide. My friend got done for having his wheel overhanging the curb.
Now, I do think some people (cough my sister cough) can be inconsiderate when they park on the pavement, but if they started nicking people for it round here (Woking), there would be trouble.
I'm in a city. Lots of narrow roads and narrow pavements. Pavement parkers are just selfish bastards; they make life particularly hard for buggy pushers and those with disabilities. And they usually only park on the pavement because they can't be arsed to park somewhere legal and walk a hundred yards. And posh cars are definitely the worst offenders. Crush their cars, I say.
Correct Horse won’t be able to defend this when they show up.
It is defendable, sort of. General 'how dare you impugn the good name of a senior civil servant?' stuff. But what we can guarantee is that if an official had been instrumental in a damning 'beergate' result for Starmer, and had now been hired by the Tory Party, you'd hear the Labourite PB squeals from here to the Finland Station.
Nad's Tweet highlighting Gray's advisor on the report is fairly damning.
Which is why the appointment, at this time certainly, was an ill considered move. It does't alter any facts that may have emerged about events, nor impact analysis of the behaviours of those involved in those events, but it will be used that way.
It's genuinely a strange move from Starmer right now.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
One wonders whether the Judge is found in lycra on his evenings and weekends off.
I fully accept cyclists rightly dont feel safe on the road....the answer though is not to displace them onto pavements and make pedestrians feel unsafe. I fully admit being hit by a cyclist doing 20 miles an hour is less dangerous than being hit by a car at the same speed....however it can easily end with injuries.
Cycles need there own space not to take over ours
Apparently five pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2019:
"according to a parliamentary report published in 2020, there were only five reported pedestrian deaths involving a bicycle in 2019 as opposed to the 48 cyclists and 305 pedestrians killed by cars in the same year"
(Note: I'm unsure if the above might include a cyclist who was pushing a bike at the time, and was therefore a pedestrian. But that's relatively unusual.)
An ex-Civil Servant writes. There's some weird notions about being a Senior Civil Servant on here today. The idea that SCSs can't have strong political views is, if you think about it, ludicrous. It would exclude many of the brightest and best, who happen to have political opinions, and mean you would only appoint those without partisan views (centrists?).
The whole point of being a SCS is, of course, to exercise one's work duties in a non-partisan, impartial way, and the vast majority do this impeccably. I have strong political leanings; they never affected my work. Sometimes on here people seem to mix up the SCS with SPADs, who are of course political appointees and a completely different matter.
Civil Servants having political convictions isn't an issue, the issue is that they all seem to have very similar ones, to the extent that holding them seems necessary to furthering a career there. Furthermore, if the lacksadaisical approach to implementing the systems necessitated by leaving the EU are anything to go by, these convictions absolutely interfere with their ability to fulfill their duties.
Sue Gray's report played a role in bringing down a landslide winning PM, and now she's off to join the opposing party when the ink on her report is barely dry. That looks bad.
Have you worked in the CS? Where I worked, for 25 years, the diversity of political opinion was pretty similar to that in the general population. Loads of Tories, loads of Labour, one Lib Dem, etc.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
I save my rage for those people, staring at phones or not, who make no effort to make space when people are approaching from the opposite direction, say if they are two abreast. Just angle your body slightly even, to show some slight courtesy if space is tight. Drives me f*cking barmy.
The other notion raised by OGH this morning and worth further investigation is the premise most ex-Conservative voters are in the "Don't Know" column rather than Labour.
Omnisis splits the same vote 48% Conservative, 22% Labour, 13% Don't Know and 12% Reform
Then we have YouGov which is 40% Conservative, 25% Don't Know, 10% Reform and 9% Labour
One of them looks like a big outlier - I'll help you, it's YouGov. It seems foolish to build an entire argument on one outlier pollster (at least in this regard).
20% of the 2019 Conservative vote represents (in theory) 9% of the electorate which has moved from Conservative to Labour. The Labour voting coalition is now based on 90% of the 2019 Labour vote and 20% of both the Conservative and LD votes from 2019 and bits and pieces from elsewhere. If we assume a sixth of the 2019 Conservative vote is actually in the Don't Know camp that's another 7% of the electorate which has yet to choose.
That's the key element - the Conservatives need all of them - Labour would be happy with a third to a half and many of the rest staying at home - that's the route to a big landslide win at this time.
Voters who jump between blue and red are rare beasts. Elections are won and lost on differential turnout.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
The road is not for cars. The road is a public highway, and therefore it is a right of way for pedestrians, cyclists, horse-riders and cars.
As a matter of mutual convenience, most pedestrians, most of the time, sensibly keep to the edge of the road, where a raised pavement is often constructed to provide a degree of separation between vulnerable pedestrians and faster, heavier cars. But the legal distinction is important. Roads are for everyone (except motorways, and a limited number of fast A-roads which exclude pedestrians, cyclists and horses).
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
One wonders whether the Judge is found in lycra on his evenings and weekends off.
I fully accept cyclists rightly dont feel safe on the road....the answer though is not to displace them onto pavements and make pedestrians feel unsafe. I fully admit being hit by a cyclist doing 20 miles an hour is less dangerous than being hit by a car at the same speed....however it can easily end with injuries.
Cycles need there own space not to take over ours
Apparently five pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2019:
"according to a parliamentary report published in 2020, there were only five reported pedestrian deaths involving a bicycle in 2019 as opposed to the 48 cyclists and 305 pedestrians killed by cars in the same year"
(Note: I'm unsure if the above might include a cyclist who was pushing a bike at the time, and was therefore a pedestrian. But that's relatively unusual.)
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
One wonders whether the Judge is found in lycra on his evenings and weekends off.
I fully accept cyclists rightly dont feel safe on the road....the answer though is not to displace them onto pavements and make pedestrians feel unsafe. I fully admit being hit by a cyclist doing 20 miles an hour is less dangerous than being hit by a car at the same speed....however it can easily end with injuries.
Cycles need there own space not to take over ours
Apparently five pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2019:
"according to a parliamentary report published in 2020, there were only five reported pedestrian deaths involving a bicycle in 2019 as opposed to the 48 cyclists and 305 pedestrians killed by cars in the same year"
(Note: I'm unsure if the above might include a cyclist who was pushing a bike at the time, and was therefore a pedestrian. But that's relatively unusual.)
Sue Gray has been appointed SKS's chief of staff..
Rubbish appointment.
She obviously fancies the Cab Sec role next year.
Starmer is preparing for Government.
But not in an overconfident and hubristic way. It's just that things are looking awwwright.
He'd better get some talking done, seriously.
Secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 Build an NHS fit for the future Make Britain’s streets safe Breakdown the barriers to opportunity at every stage Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Which is your favourite? See if it's the same as mine.
Are those Sir Keir's big policies? That's sub-EdStone level.
The policies will be in the manifesto. We've been through this several times now.
And let's be honest the problem with the Edstone was not the content, it was the comic thick-of-it visuals and the fact some wag coined the term "Edstone". Ed standing next to a big stone with stuff engraved on it. Echoes of Spinal Tap too. If he'd published the same pledges on a one page leaflet or a pledge card nobody would have batted an eyelid.
Yep. Although Ed did get picked on. Eg there's was nothing especially wrong or funny about the bacon sandwich photo. Why was he so lampooned and derided? That's an interesting question. I sense the answer might be nothing to be proud of.
Because he was crap. And despite partisan Labour supporters' attempts to hint otherwise (which for some incomprehensible reason only started once Mr Corbyn started having his own problems), they've never managed to come up with any actual evidence for it.
'Crap' is a ludicrous (and since you mention partisan, deeply partisan) description for a serious politician of intelligence and personal integrity who (as becomes increasingly clear) had a strong analysis of what some of this country's biggest problems are (albeit not so strong on the radical policies needed to address them).
No, there was something other than that behind all the piss-taking. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
I know someone who lived on this road in Northolt:
As you can see, it's a bus route, and you are liable to have your wing mirrors smashed by a bus if you don't get as tight to the curb as possible.
You'll also see that the curb is quite low and the pavement quite wide. My friend got done for having his wheel overhanging the curb.
Now, I do think some people (cough my sister cough) can be inconsiderate when they park on the pavement, but if they started nicking people for it round here (Woking), there would be trouble.
I'm in a city. Lots of narrow roads and narrow pavements. Pavement parkers are just selfish bastards; they make life particularly hard for buggy pushers and those with disabilities. Crush their cars, I say.
We have neighbours that park one of their cars on the pavement, close to their overhanging leylandii, forcing everyone, children, prams, pensioners, etc, onto the road. We are 100m from the primary school. They are even more selfish than cyclists!
For crimes and court verdicts, I think there is a strange identification in juries sometimes - "I could easily have done that" (see the effort it is taking to actually get the message through that using mobile phones causes distraction, injuries and deaths), and so perhaps juries are reluctant to convict.
So police bargain down Dangerous Driving to a guilty plea to Careless Driving, and Causing Death by Dangerous Driving to Death by Careless Driving, and crims get off lightly.
There are also far too many "exceptional hardship" and "moment of madness" mitigations and defences.
This week a 22 year old driver who braked suddenly, causing a teenager to clip her wing mirror with his bike, then hunted down his uninvolved-in-the-incident friend and rammed him on his bike so hard with her car that he went flying through the air, injuring his face and eyes, was in court.
Charges were Assault Occasioning ABH and Dangerous Driving. I think they use the former as it does not require intent to be proven.
It happens every day, and is just the current culture. Crimes committed using motor vehicles are seen as less serious, when the victim of the crime is on foot or on a bike. It is changing very very slowly.
The other notion raised by OGH this morning and worth further investigation is the premise most ex-Conservative voters are in the "Don't Know" column rather than Labour.
Omnisis splits the same vote 48% Conservative, 22% Labour, 13% Don't Know and 12% Reform
Then we have YouGov which is 40% Conservative, 25% Don't Know, 10% Reform and 9% Labour
One of them looks like a big outlier - I'll help you, it's YouGov. It seems foolish to build an entire argument on one outlier pollster (at least in this regard).
20% of the 2019 Conservative vote represents (in theory) 9% of the electorate which has moved from Conservative to Labour. The Labour voting coalition is now based on 90% of the 2019 Labour vote and 20% of both the Conservative and LD votes from 2019 and bits and pieces from elsewhere. If we assume a sixth of the 2019 Conservative vote is actually in the Don't Know camp that's another 7% of the electorate which has yet to choose.
That's the key element - the Conservatives need all of them - Labour would be happy with a third to a half and many of the rest staying at home - that's the route to a big landslide win at this time.
Voters who jump between blue and red are rare beasts. Elections are won and lost on differential turnout.
The point is there's more this time than some are suggesting because, I would contend, the 2019 Conservative vote, stronger in traditional Labour areas of the North and Midlands than previously, brought in a larger number of first time ex-Labour voters. The Redfield & Wilton Red Wall polling suggests these are the voters who have gone back to Labour possibly because they voted more for Boris Johnson than for the Conservative Party.
I can't prove this - the data suggests it but no more and indeed in the Blue Wall Conservative-Labour marginals there's evidence Labour is strongly regaining support so it's not just a Red Wall phenomenon.
The other notion raised by OGH this morning and worth further investigation is the premise most ex-Conservative voters are in the "Don't Know" column rather than Labour.
Omnisis splits the same vote 48% Conservative, 22% Labour, 13% Don't Know and 12% Reform
Then we have YouGov which is 40% Conservative, 25% Don't Know, 10% Reform and 9% Labour
One of them looks like a big outlier - I'll help you, it's YouGov. It seems foolish to build an entire argument on one outlier pollster (at least in this regard).
20% of the 2019 Conservative vote represents (in theory) 9% of the electorate which has moved from Conservative to Labour. The Labour voting coalition is now based on 90% of the 2019 Labour vote and 20% of both the Conservative and LD votes from 2019 and bits and pieces from elsewhere. If we assume a sixth of the 2019 Conservative vote is actually in the Don't Know camp that's another 7% of the electorate which has yet to choose.
That's the key element - the Conservatives need all of them - Labour would be happy with a third to a half and many of the rest staying at home - that's the route to a big landslide win at this time.
Voters who jump between blue and red are rare beasts. Elections are won and lost on differential turnout.
The point is there's more this time than some are suggesting because, I would contend, the 2019 Conservative vote, stronger in traditional Labour areas of the North and Midlands than previously, brought in a larger number of first time ex-Labour voters. The Redfield & Wilton Red Wall polling suggests these are the voters who have gone back to Labour possibly because they voted more for Boris Johnson than for the Conservative Party.
I can't prove this - the data suggests it but no more and indeed in the Blue Wall Conservative-Labour marginals there's evidence Labour is strongly regaining support so it's not just a Red Wall phenomenon.
The question here is how did these first time Tories split between ex Labour and ex did not vote. I suspect that a big chunk were the latter, and they won't be visiting the polling station next year.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
I know someone who lived on this road in Northolt:
As you can see, it's a bus route, and you are liable to have your wing mirrors smashed by a bus if you don't get as tight to the curb as possible.
You'll also see that the curb is quite low and the pavement quite wide. My friend got done for having his wheel overhanging the curb.
Now, I do think some people (cough my sister cough) can be inconsiderate when they park on the pavement, but if they started nicking people for it round here (Woking), there would be trouble.
I'm in a city. Lots of narrow roads and narrow pavements. Pavement parkers are just selfish bastards; they make life particularly hard for buggy pushers and those with disabilities. Crush their cars, I say.
We have neighbours that park one of their cars on the pavement, close to their overhanging leylandii, forcing everyone, children, prams, pensioners, etc, onto the road. We are 100m from the primary school. They are even more selfish than cyclists!
I've been plugging it, but I'd encourage you to submit evidence to the current "Accessible Transport" Select Committee Inquiry.
They are missing basic things about streets and footpaths needing to be accessible.
I can't comment about the Civil Service but in local Government I would say there are a lot of Conservatives behind the scenes among senior officers including in authorities not run by the Conservatives.
The political "awareness" of senior local Government officers will vary depending on the political composition of the authority. If you are in a Council which frequently changes hands or where it's often a coalition of parties which runs the administration, it becomes vital for any senior officer to watch the political winds and maintain lines of communication with the opposition front bench.
In 2019, we saw a number of authorities move from a long period of Conservative majority control to new administrations led by LDs, residents, independents or combinations thereof. There were some senior officers who found it very difficult to serve the new administration having got perhaps a little too "comfortable" with the previous Cabinet or senior leadership. They were, shall we say, encouraged to seek new opportunities. It's true to say however most local Government officers don't get too concerned with changes in political control and carry on with the tasks at hand. Changes in policy direction tend to be rather more muted once the reality of being in power hits.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
One wonders whether the Judge is found in lycra on his evenings and weekends off.
I fully accept cyclists rightly dont feel safe on the road....the answer though is not to displace them onto pavements and make pedestrians feel unsafe. I fully admit being hit by a cyclist doing 20 miles an hour is less dangerous than being hit by a car at the same speed....however it can easily end with injuries.
Cycles need there own space not to take over ours
Apparently five pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2019:
"according to a parliamentary report published in 2020, there were only five reported pedestrian deaths involving a bicycle in 2019 as opposed to the 48 cyclists and 305 pedestrians killed by cars in the same year"
(Note: I'm unsure if the above might include a cyclist who was pushing a bike at the time, and was therefore a pedestrian. But that's relatively unusual.)
The 5 will include people hit by bicycles on the road rather than on the pavement.
I'm unsure that makes it any better.
Stepping out into the road without looking is very common.
Maybe that will stop when you can't hear the cars coming either.
Incidentally, motorists, that's why I don't ride in the gutter.
Aren't you using the same sort of excuses that drivers sometimes make when they hit cyclists: it's *their* fault, not *mine*.
Is a cyclist who cannot stop in time for a pedestrian stepping into a road, or cannot avoid them, not paying enough attention and/or going too fast? Cyclists insist (rightly) on a car's width when a car passes them. Perhaps cyclists should give a car's width to pedestrians as well.
(Hint: they don't. All too often, as happened with me during my run on Sunday, they pay all too little attention to pedestrians.)
When walking, cycling or driving, you need to be aware of the situation around you, and also be aware that someone else might do something unexpected, or stupid, or both.
An ex-Civil Servant writes. There's some weird notions about being a Senior Civil Servant on here today. The idea that SCSs can't have strong political views is, if you think about it, ludicrous. It would exclude many of the brightest and best, who happen to have political opinions, and mean you would only appoint those without partisan views (centrists?).
The whole point of being a SCS is, of course, to exercise one's work duties in a non-partisan, impartial way, and the vast majority do this impeccably. I have strong political leanings; they never affected my work. Sometimes on here people seem to mix up the SCS with SPADs, who are of course political appointees and a completely different matter.
Civil Servants having political convictions isn't an issue, the issue is that they all seem to have very similar ones, to the extent that holding them seems necessary to furthering a career there. Furthermore, if the lacksadaisical approach to implementing the systems necessitated by leaving the EU are anything to go by, these convictions absolutely interfere with their ability to fulfill their duties.
Sue Gray's report played a role in bringing down a landslide winning PM, and now she's off to join the opposing party when the ink on her report is barely dry. That looks bad.
Have you worked in the CS? Where I worked, for 25 years, the diversity of political opinion was pretty similar to that in the general population. Loads of Tories, loads of Labour, one Lib Dem, etc.
Beside the point
Why? I was responding to a post claiming that all civil servants have very similar political convictions. They don't, that's all.
The other notion raised by OGH this morning and worth further investigation is the premise most ex-Conservative voters are in the "Don't Know" column rather than Labour.
Omnisis splits the same vote 48% Conservative, 22% Labour, 13% Don't Know and 12% Reform
Then we have YouGov which is 40% Conservative, 25% Don't Know, 10% Reform and 9% Labour
One of them looks like a big outlier - I'll help you, it's YouGov. It seems foolish to build an entire argument on one outlier pollster (at least in this regard).
20% of the 2019 Conservative vote represents (in theory) 9% of the electorate which has moved from Conservative to Labour. The Labour voting coalition is now based on 90% of the 2019 Labour vote and 20% of both the Conservative and LD votes from 2019 and bits and pieces from elsewhere. If we assume a sixth of the 2019 Conservative vote is actually in the Don't Know camp that's another 7% of the electorate which has yet to choose.
That's the key element - the Conservatives need all of them - Labour would be happy with a third to a half and many of the rest staying at home - that's the route to a big landslide win at this time.
Voters who jump between blue and red are rare beasts. Elections are won and lost on differential turnout.
The point is there's more this time than some are suggesting because, I would contend, the 2019 Conservative vote, stronger in traditional Labour areas of the North and Midlands than previously, brought in a larger number of first time ex-Labour voters. The Redfield & Wilton Red Wall polling suggests these are the voters who have gone back to Labour possibly because they voted more for Boris Johnson than for the Conservative Party.
I can't prove this - the data suggests it but no more and indeed in the Blue Wall Conservative-Labour marginals there's evidence Labour is strongly regaining support so it's not just a Red Wall phenomenon.
The big swing since 2019 is amongst Leavers from Conservative to Labour, there is also a significant shift from Conservative Leavers to RefUK as well.
Amongst Remainers however there is virtually no leakage from those who stuck with the Conservatives under Boris at all, indeed Rishi has actually picked up a few of those who voted LD in 2019.
So while the redwall swing is likely to be awful for Rishi and he will also likely see a significant loss of seats amongst those Cameron won from Labour in 2010, he is likely to at least hold most of the bluewall seats at risk from the LDs under Boris
Correct Horse won’t be able to defend this when they show up.
It is defendable, sort of. General 'how dare you impugn the good name of a senior civil servant?' stuff. But what we can guarantee is that if an official had been instrumental in a damning 'beergate' result for Starmer, and had now been hired by the Tory Party, you'd hear the Labourite PB squeals from here to the Finland Station.
Nad's Tweet highlighting Gray's advisor on the report is fairly damning.
Which is why the appointment, at this time certainly, was an ill considered move. It does't alter any facts that may have emerged about events, nor impact analysis of the behaviours of those involved in those events, but it will be used that way.
It's genuinely a strange move from Starmer right now.
I don’t think so - rather it suggests the appointment might be with an eye to government. Rather than the usual game.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
One wonders whether the Judge is found in lycra on his evenings and weekends off.
I fully accept cyclists rightly dont feel safe on the road....the answer though is not to displace them onto pavements and make pedestrians feel unsafe. I fully admit being hit by a cyclist doing 20 miles an hour is less dangerous than being hit by a car at the same speed....however it can easily end with injuries.
Cycles need there own space not to take over ours
Apparently five pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2019:
"according to a parliamentary report published in 2020, there were only five reported pedestrian deaths involving a bicycle in 2019 as opposed to the 48 cyclists and 305 pedestrians killed by cars in the same year"
(Note: I'm unsure if the above might include a cyclist who was pushing a bike at the time, and was therefore a pedestrian. But that's relatively unusual.)
The 5 will include people hit by bicycles on the road rather than on the pavement.
I'm unsure that makes it any better.
Stepping out into the road without looking is very common.
Maybe that will stop when you can't hear the cars coming either.
Incidentally, motorists, that's why I don't ride in the gutter.
Aren't you using the same sort of excuses that drivers sometimes make when they hit cyclists: it's *their* fault, not *mine*.
Is a cyclist who cannot stop in time for a pedestrian stepping into a road, or cannot avoid them, not paying enough attention and/or going too fast? Cyclists insist (rightly) on a car's width when a car passes them. Perhaps cyclists should give a car's width to pedestrians as well.
(Hint: they don't. All too often, as happened with me during my run on Sunday, they pay all too little attention to pedestrians.)
When walking, cycling or driving, you need to be aware of the situation around you, and also be aware that someone else might do something unexpected, or stupid, or both.
Car drivers consider cyclists and pedestrians as second class citizens, now cyclists are moving onto pavements they think of pedestrians as second class citizens....woe betide us if we slow down there 20mph rides or we are in the way because we don't hear them coming up behind us and step in their way.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
The road is not for cars. The road is a public highway, and therefore it is a right of way for pedestrians, cyclists, horse-riders and cars.
As a matter of mutual convenience, most pedestrians, most of the time, sensibly keep to the edge of the road, where a raised pavement is often constructed to provide a degree of separation between vulnerable pedestrians and faster, heavier cars. But the legal distinction is important. Roads are for everyone (except motorways, and a limited number of fast A-roads which exclude pedestrians, cyclists and horses).
Actually, I find being a pedestrian on roads, particularly busy roads, is slightly more complex than that (or at least the way I do it...)
I always try to walk/run facing the traffic, which means you can see vehicles approaching (and they can see me). But if there is a right-hand bend that is so sharp, or has hedges/walls that prevent me from seeing what is coming (and what is coming from seeing me), then I sometimes go over to the other side of the road, to walk with the traffic around the bend. And sometimes, if that's not possible, I walk a few feet more towards the middle of the carriageway, giving more time for any oncoming traffic to see me.
It's often a difficult judgement call: is it safer to go around the bend relatively unsighted, or to cross the road twice?
In 2019, we saw a number of authorities move from a long period of Conservative majority control to new administrations led by LDs, residents, independents or combinations thereof. There were some senior officers who found it very difficult to serve the new administration having got perhaps a little too "comfortable" with the previous Cabinet or senior leadership.
This is very well observed. Particularly true of those working in planning and development control...
On the Huntingdon Pedestrian / Cyclist manslaughter, I've been following that for a few days.
As I see it:
1 - It is Nursery Road, Huntingdon, which is a 2 lane one way part of the Huntingdon Ring Road with a long straight. I can't get speed or volume data for the traffic, but it's obviously busy. There have been 20-25 cyclist / pedestrian casualties in that section in the last 20 years.
2 - Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road, and cycling on the pavement seems common (see cyclist in the BBC vid) - the width where the incident happened is 2m. There was space for both of them. Were I on the road, I'd be on the pavement at any busy time, as the busy carriageway looks like a killer.
3 - Official NPCC Guidance (ie Chief Constables) is that 'responsible cycling on the pavement' is to be treated "with discretion" if the road is perceived as dangerous. The 77 year old cyclist was doing walking pace in the vid afaics, so I think that fits - I might go further and suggest her bike was a mobility aid.
4 - I think the manslaughter verdict is because Grey was found to have caused Ward to divert into the road - call it a 'shove', a 'shoo', or a 'pressuring arm gesture' to taste.
As to responsibility - I'm inclined mainly to blame 30-40 years of minimal investment, and Huntingdon / Cambridgeshire having a narrow not-calmed busy ring-road through a residential area which amounts to a racetrack. It's not the place for that sort of ring-road, especially with pedestrians and cyclists left exposed to the impact of dopey or reckless drivers.
It is not a failsafe environment - our towns should allow for mini-tantrums and outbursts like that without someone getting killed.
Nursery Road follows the obvious line. This is casualty data from approx. 2000.
(Snip)
"which amounts to a racetrack. "
I'm sorry, what? A racetrack?
I go around there often, and it is *not* a racetrack.
Also, look at the Streetview link I gave below. If I've got the right location (and I'm fairly sure I have), then there's no drop curb behind, and a load of street furniture in front. The width is *not* two metres.
"Most of the pavement there is shared on both sides in that area of ring-road,"
Is it? And can you point to the signs marking it as such on that stretch, on that side?
is a sign on that pavement, on that side of the road, marking it as shared-use. It's about 250m down the road, which is not that unusual as an interval for repeater signs. There is no "End of Cycle Route" or "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" sign.
As I said, I don't think the section where the collision happened was intended to be a shared-use path, and I wouldn't take it as one. But I can see how it might be misinterpreted as one, and I can understand Plod's reluctance to pronounce either way.
That's a fair way away, whilst the cycle path continues up Ambury Road immediately to the left (*). I'd argue it's *unreasonable* for the cyclist to have assumed the ring road pavement on that side was one, given the physical situation. And probably no way for the pedestrian to know it was one.
I'm staggered anyone might reasonably think it was, given the street furniture immediately beyond where the accident happened.
I agree this is probably why that particular sign is there - in fact old StreetView imagery seems to suggest the sign was put in c. 2010 as part of the Ambury Road works. But nonetheless the signage is lacking. There is meant to be an explicit sign ("End of Cycle Route", "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway", or a simple bike-in-red-circle) to say where the shared-use provision ends.
If there's a sign on a pavement saying "shared-use cycle route", and nothing on that pavement to say "not shared-use cycle route any more", it's understandable that someone might conceivably think "this must be a shared-use cycle route". Just as if there's a 60 sign, and no 30 sign after it, you'd be justified in thinking the speed limit was still 60. There is a reason why things like TSRGD are quite so prescriptive!
Guessing wildly, but I'd say that the Ambury Road path was probably developer-funded, and the Transport Development Control function in the highway authority f—ked up. Wouldn't be the first time.
It's only understandable that someone might conceivably think "this must be a shared-use cycle route" if they're utterly and irretrievably stupid. Look at that stretch of pavement, the lack of drop curbs, and the street furniture.
*If* by some miracle it could be seen as being dual-use, then the people who should be jailed are the council. But they aren't, because it's frankly hard to imagine how that could reasonably be seen as being dual-use.
Remember, there's a pedestrian crossing (onto the narrow pavement) just beyond where this incident happened. And a pole in the middle of the path.
Again, the pedestrian was in the wrong. But so was the cyclist, sadly for all involved.
Unfortunately, great swathes of cycling 'infrastructure' are improbably (often self-defeatingly) terrible, poles and street furniture are the tip of the iceberg, never mind ignoring the idea that people on bikes might sometimes want to turn into side roads on the right as well as the left.
You can see the CCTV camera on the wall & the paving, the red fencing & the brown double doors opposite the camera all match.
It seems the sentence received by this woman reflects the evidence from the CCTV that she pushed or at the very least waved her arms in front of the dead woman, causing her to fall in front of a passing vehicle.
The other notion raised by OGH this morning and worth further investigation is the premise most ex-Conservative voters are in the "Don't Know" column rather than Labour.
Omnisis splits the same vote 48% Conservative, 22% Labour, 13% Don't Know and 12% Reform
Then we have YouGov which is 40% Conservative, 25% Don't Know, 10% Reform and 9% Labour
One of them looks like a big outlier - I'll help you, it's YouGov. It seems foolish to build an entire argument on one outlier pollster (at least in this regard).
20% of the 2019 Conservative vote represents (in theory) 9% of the electorate which has moved from Conservative to Labour. The Labour voting coalition is now based on 90% of the 2019 Labour vote and 20% of both the Conservative and LD votes from 2019 and bits and pieces from elsewhere. If we assume a sixth of the 2019 Conservative vote is actually in the Don't Know camp that's another 7% of the electorate which has yet to choose.
That's the key element - the Conservatives need all of them - Labour would be happy with a third to a half and many of the rest staying at home - that's the route to a big landslide win at this time.
Voters who jump between blue and red are rare beasts. Elections are won and lost on differential turnout.
The point is there's more this time than some are suggesting because, I would contend, the 2019 Conservative vote, stronger in traditional Labour areas of the North and Midlands than previously, brought in a larger number of first time ex-Labour voters. The Redfield & Wilton Red Wall polling suggests these are the voters who have gone back to Labour possibly because they voted more for Boris Johnson than for the Conservative Party.
I can't prove this - the data suggests it but no more and indeed in the Blue Wall Conservative-Labour marginals there's evidence Labour is strongly regaining support so it's not just a Red Wall phenomenon.
But also, it's a measure how many voters St Jeremy of Corbynshire actively repelled. Some will have backed Boris, but plenty will have stuck with whatever was on the telly that night. ("Inside the Supermarket" at 8 pm on BBC One. Blimey.)
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
I can't comment about the Civil Service but in local Government I would say there are a lot of Conservatives behind the scenes among senior officers including in authorities not run by the Conservatives.
The political "awareness" of senior local Government officers will vary depending on the political composition of the authority. If you are in a Council which frequently changes hands or where it's often a coalition of parties which runs the administration, it becomes vital for any senior officer to watch the political winds and maintain lines of communication with the opposition front bench.
In 2019, we saw a number of authorities move from a long period of Conservative majority control to new administrations led by LDs, residents, independents or combinations thereof. There were some senior officers who found it very difficult to serve the new administration having got perhaps a little too "comfortable" with the previous Cabinet or senior leadership. They were, shall we say, encouraged to seek new opportunities. It's true to say however most local Government officers don't get too concerned with changes in political control and carry on with the tasks at hand. Changes in policy direction tend to be rather more muted once the reality of being in power hits.
Yes, there were plenty of, in effect, NIMBY LD and Independent and Residents coalitions which took control of councils in the Home Counties and South of England in May 2019. They were much less pro developer and new housing on the whole than the Tory administrations they replaced.
Those who say the Tories haven't built enough houses should remember it isn't the Conservatives who are the real NIMBYs, it is Independents and Residents Associations, often in alliance with local Liberal Democrats and Greens. Starmer will find they try and block his plans to greatly expand new house and flat building too if he becomes PM
An ex-Civil Servant writes. There's some weird notions about being a Senior Civil Servant on here today. The idea that SCSs can't have strong political views is, if you think about it, ludicrous. It would exclude many of the brightest and best, who happen to have political opinions, and mean you would only appoint those without partisan views (centrists?).
The whole point of being a SCS is, of course, to exercise one's work duties in a non-partisan, impartial way, and the vast majority do this impeccably. I have strong political leanings; they never affected my work. Sometimes on here people seem to mix up the SCS with SPADs, who are of course political appointees and a completely different matter.
Civil Servants having political convictions isn't an issue, the issue is that they all seem to have very similar ones, to the extent that holding them seems necessary to furthering a career there. Furthermore, if the lacksadaisical approach to implementing the systems necessitated by leaving the EU are anything to go by, these convictions absolutely interfere with their ability to fulfill their duties.
Sue Gray's report played a role in bringing down a landslide winning PM, and now she's off to join the opposing party when the ink on her report is barely dry. That looks bad.
Have you worked in the CS? Where I worked, for 25 years, the diversity of political opinion was pretty similar to that in the general population. Loads of Tories, loads of Labour, one Lib Dem, etc.
Beside the point
Why? I was responding to a post claiming that all civil servants have very similar political convictions. They don't, that's all.
It looked to me like a response to Luckguy's last paragraph. But you're saying it was a response to his first paragraph. Well then fair enough, your point stands - I'm sure there's a representative range of political opinions in the CS.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
One wonders whether the Judge is found in lycra on his evenings and weekends off.
I fully accept cyclists rightly dont feel safe on the road....the answer though is not to displace them onto pavements and make pedestrians feel unsafe. I fully admit being hit by a cyclist doing 20 miles an hour is less dangerous than being hit by a car at the same speed....however it can easily end with injuries.
Cycles need there own space not to take over ours
Apparently five pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2019:
"according to a parliamentary report published in 2020, there were only five reported pedestrian deaths involving a bicycle in 2019 as opposed to the 48 cyclists and 305 pedestrians killed by cars in the same year"
(Note: I'm unsure if the above might include a cyclist who was pushing a bike at the time, and was therefore a pedestrian. But that's relatively unusual.)
The 5 will include people hit by bicycles on the road rather than on the pavement.
I'm unsure that makes it any better.
Stepping out into the road without looking is very common.
Maybe that will stop when you can't hear the cars coming either.
Incidentally, motorists, that's why I don't ride in the gutter.
Aren't you using the same sort of excuses that drivers sometimes make when they hit cyclists: it's *their* fault, not *mine*.
Is a cyclist who cannot stop in time for a pedestrian stepping into a road, or cannot avoid them, not paying enough attention and/or going too fast? Cyclists insist (rightly) on a car's width when a car passes them. Perhaps cyclists should give a car's width to pedestrians as well.
(Hint: they don't. All too often, as happened with me during my run on Sunday, they pay all too little attention to pedestrians.)
When walking, cycling or driving, you need to be aware of the situation around you, and also be aware that someone else might do something unexpected, or stupid, or both.
I agree, cyclists should keep out in the road away from the kerb, which is what I do, particularly when there are pedestrians. Unfortunately, drivers don't always appreciate it. I can understand nervous riders staying closer to the edge of the road.
But the pedestrians need to be aware too. Lots of runners I see stick earphones in and couldn't hear a train coming, never mind a cyclist (I'm not suggesting you do this).
A bit of care and courtesy all round is all that is needed, but sadly that seems to be in short supply.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
One wonders whether the Judge is found in lycra on his evenings and weekends off.
I fully accept cyclists rightly dont feel safe on the road....the answer though is not to displace them onto pavements and make pedestrians feel unsafe. I fully admit being hit by a cyclist doing 20 miles an hour is less dangerous than being hit by a car at the same speed....however it can easily end with injuries.
Cycles need there own space not to take over ours
Apparently five pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2019:
"according to a parliamentary report published in 2020, there were only five reported pedestrian deaths involving a bicycle in 2019 as opposed to the 48 cyclists and 305 pedestrians killed by cars in the same year"
(Note: I'm unsure if the above might include a cyclist who was pushing a bike at the time, and was therefore a pedestrian. But that's relatively unusual.)
The 5 will include people hit by bicycles on the road rather than on the pavement.
I'm unsure that makes it any better.
Stepping out into the road without looking is very common.
Maybe that will stop when you can't hear the cars coming either.
Incidentally, motorists, that's why I don't ride in the gutter.
Aren't you using the same sort of excuses that drivers sometimes make when they hit cyclists: it's *their* fault, not *mine*.
Is a cyclist who cannot stop in time for a pedestrian stepping into a road, or cannot avoid them, not paying enough attention and/or going too fast? Cyclists insist (rightly) on a car's width when a car passes them. Perhaps cyclists should give a car's width to pedestrians as well.
(Hint: they don't. All too often, as happened with me during my run on Sunday, they pay all too little attention to pedestrians.)
When walking, cycling or driving, you need to be aware of the situation around you, and also be aware that someone else might do something unexpected, or stupid, or both.
As a cyclist, when I'm passing a pedestrian, I really don't know what is best to do. Normally, most people walking do so in a straight line, so it's pretty easy to slow down and move over to go around them.
The advice is to use your bell to let the pedestrian know that you're coming, but my experience is that, when I use my bell, the vast majority of pedestrians panic, and treat it as a demand to move out of the way, and so they jump, unpredictably, to one side or the other. They often also react quite aggressively, being irate that I've used my bell to, as they see it, shoo them out of my way.
So often I am tempted not to use my bell, but simply to glide past the walker. But, of course, that has its own issues and its own complaints.
A lot of the time when I am cycling I feel like I can't win. It doesn't matter what I do, someone will take offence at it and curse my existence. Not that I have to worry much about the etiquette on shared use paths around here. The nearest one must be nearly a day's cycling away.
Comments
is a sign on that pavement, on that side of the road, marking it as shared-use. It's about 250m down the road, which is not that unusual as an interval for repeater signs. There is no "End of Cycle Route" or "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" sign that indicates the shared-use provision ends at any point before the collision location.
As I said, I don't think the section where the collision happened was intended to be a shared-use path, and I wouldn't take it as one. But I can see how it might be interpreted as one by people who are less nerdy about these things than me - hesitant 77-year olds, for example - and I can understand Plod's reluctance to pronounce either way.
https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1631332754485829632?s=20
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1631316105040994305?s=20
Surely there was someone as suitable but less controversial
My Dad reckons two parties meet halfway in villas with suitcases of money to buy football players.
I'm staggered anyone might reasonably think it was, given the street furniture immediately beyond where the accident happened.
(*) See here: https://goo.gl/maps/YsAwmcykL55oJPR28
*She was chosen to be the investigator into Partygate*. You don't choose political types for that, unless you think they are on your side perhaps.
You saw in his leaving speech his utter lack of contrition and sociopathic disregard for the actual reasons he was booted out. He's not about to start understanding this now, I guess.
If there's a sign on a pavement saying "shared-use cycle route", and nothing on that pavement to say "not shared-use cycle route any more", it's understandable that someone might conceivably think "this must be a shared-use cycle route". Just as if there's a 60 sign, and no 30 sign after it, you'd be justified in thinking the speed limit was still 60. There is a reason why things like TSRGD are quite so prescriptive!
Guessing wildly, but I'd say that the Ambury Road path was probably developer-funded, and the Transport Development Control function in the highway authority f—ked up. Wouldn't be the first time.
Twat.
https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/1631343154786967577?s=20
Oh, hang on.
Mogg and Dorries are bonkers.
*If* by some miracle it could be seen as being dual-use, then the people who should be jailed are the council. But they aren't, because it's frankly hard to imagine how that could reasonably be seen as being dual-use.
Remember, there's a pedestrian crossing (onto the narrow pavement) just beyond where this incident happened. And a pole in the middle of the path.
Again, the pedestrian was in the wrong. But so was the cyclist, sadly for all involved.
But we already know Rishi will be under immense pressure to save Boris should the privileges thing come back to haunt him, and that may be why he had the government foot the legal bill for Boris, and developing a conspiracy (as Mogg already has started) to muddy the waters so he can let Boris off the hook may well be part of that too. He need not indulge in it himself, but enough of his MPs can do so.
Imagine how many MPs will hit the roof if Boris is condemned by an unfair, illegal process all because of a Labour plant?
Seems as if the government is addressing the NHS strikes at last
Needless to say the cyclist was full of abuse claiming it was my fault. Cyclists should either stay on the road or be on shared cyclepaths where they are marked and expected....being afraid of cars doesnt give you the right to intimidate pedestrians
This Sue Grey situation is nowhere near so obviously dodgy as that, but might be: e.g. if she had conversations with Labour figures during the inquiry, when promises might have been made.
But it's probably fine. However, I would have avoided offering her it, or accepting it if I was her, for the reason it might look a little odd.
It's a great deal, and all thanks to my work getting it moving and forcing the EU's hand - the take credit approach.
It's an awful deal, and nothing to do with me - the repudiation approach
It's not a great deal, and also its thanks to me it was possible at all - the confused approach.
The "truth" or otherwise bout polls can be found in the data tables.
Back in December 2019, the Conservative majority was built on obtaining 75% of those voting to leave the EU in 2016 and 20% of those voting to stay. As the figures for Leave-Remain by late 2019 were 48% Leave and 52% Remain, we can see the Tory voting coalition was 36% Leave voters plus 9% Remain voters so roughly 45% of the total electorate.
Deltapoll hs 24% of Remain voters and 39% of Leave voters supporting the Conservatives. We can now assume the split between Remain and Leave is more like 56-44 so a quarter of the Remain voters equals 14% of the electorate and 39% of Leavers equals 17% so the Conservative vote share is 31%.
Techne says 5% of the Remain vote and 45% of the Leave vote back the Conservatives so again using 56-44 as our baseline we come out at 28% - Techne says 27% Conservative VI.
It's worth remembering by 2024, a growing number of voters won't have voted in the 2016 Referendum but the basic sums hold firm - Deltapoll has a swing of 28.5% among Leavers while Techne has a 20% swing. On the Remain side, Techne has a 10% swing to Labour - Deltapoll has a tiny swing to the Conservatives.
But are you saying a cyclist should assume that every pavement is a cycle or dual-use path, and not use their own intelligence? Because as I say above, I'm amazed anyone could reasonably think that stretch was a dual-use path.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
https://tinyurl.com/2ejfpjk5
As you can see, it's a bus route, and you are liable to have your wing mirrors smashed by a bus if you don't get as tight to the curb as possible.
You'll also see that the curb is quite low and the pavement quite wide. My friend got done for having his wheel overhanging the curb.
Now, I do think some people (cough my sister cough) can be inconsiderate when they park on the pavement, but if they started nicking people for it round here (Woking), there would be trouble.
Correct Horse won’t be able to defend this when they show up.
Sue Gray's report played a role in bringing down a landslide winning PM, and now she's off to join the opposing party when the ink on her report is barely dry. That looks bad.
Cycles need there own space not to take over ours
But I appreciate it sounds odd even to suggest such a thing.
Techne splits the 2019 Conservative vote - 50% Conservative, 20% Labour, 14% Don't Know, 7% Reform.
Redfield & Wilton splits the 2019 Conservative vote - 44% Conservative, 19% Labour, 18% Don't Know, 9% Reform
Omnisis splits the same vote 48% Conservative, 22% Labour, 13% Don't Know and 12% Reform
Then we have YouGov which is 40% Conservative, 25% Don't Know, 10% Reform and 9% Labour
One of them looks like a big outlier - I'll help you, it's YouGov. It seems foolish to build an entire argument on one outlier pollster (at least in this regard).
20% of the 2019 Conservative vote represents (in theory) 9% of the electorate which has moved from Conservative to Labour. The Labour voting coalition is now based on 90% of the 2019 Labour vote and 20% of both the Conservative and LD votes from 2019 and bits and pieces from elsewhere. If we assume a sixth of the 2019 Conservative vote is actually in the Don't Know camp that's another 7% of the electorate which has yet to choose.
That's the key element - the Conservatives need all of them - Labour would be happy with a third to a half and many of the rest staying at home - that's the route to a big landslide win at this time.
"according to a parliamentary report published in 2020, there were only five reported pedestrian deaths involving a bicycle in 2019 as opposed to the 48 cyclists and 305 pedestrians killed by cars in the same year"
https://www.pierrethomaslaw.com/cyclists-who-kill-pedestrians/
(Note: I'm unsure if the above might include a cyclist who was pushing a bike at the time, and was therefore a pedestrian. But that's relatively unusual.)
Edit: but this gives a sligtly lower figure:
https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/pedestrians-killed-dangerous-cyclists-road-deaths-3812845
https://twitter.com/home?lang=en-gb
Nad's Tweet highlighting Gray's advisor on the report is fairly damning.
Honestly, what do you think God cares more about – the condition of a book bought off Amazon, or treating vulnerable kids with kindness, empathy, and understanding? Give your head a wobble.
https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1630866464889511937
It's genuinely a strange move from Starmer right now.
As a matter of mutual convenience, most pedestrians, most of the time, sensibly keep to the edge of the road, where a raised pavement is often constructed to provide a degree of separation between vulnerable pedestrians and faster, heavier cars. But the legal distinction is important. Roads are for everyone (except motorways, and a limited number of fast A-roads which exclude pedestrians, cyclists and horses).
Maybe that will stop when you can't hear the cars coming either.
Incidentally, motorists, that's why I don't ride in the gutter.
So police bargain down Dangerous Driving to a guilty plea to Careless Driving, and Causing Death by Dangerous Driving to Death by Careless Driving, and crims get off lightly.
There are also far too many "exceptional hardship" and "moment of madness" mitigations and defences.
This week a 22 year old driver who braked suddenly, causing a teenager to clip her wing mirror with his bike, then hunted down his uninvolved-in-the-incident friend and rammed him on his bike so hard with her car that he went flying through the air, injuring his face and eyes, was in court.
Charges were Assault Occasioning ABH and Dangerous Driving. I think they use the former as it does not require intent to be proven.
Sentence. 12 months suspended jai; sentence and a 12 month driving ban. FFS !
Report: https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/23352282.middlesbrough-motorist-knocked-teenage-cyclist-bike/
It happens every day, and is just the current culture. Crimes committed using motor vehicles are seen as less serious, when the victim of the crime is on foot or on a bike. It is changing very very slowly.
I can't prove this - the data suggests it but no more and indeed in the Blue Wall Conservative-Labour marginals there's evidence Labour is strongly regaining support so it's not just a Red Wall phenomenon.
They are missing basic things about streets and footpaths needing to be accessible.
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/6805/accessible-transport-legal-obligations/
The political "awareness" of senior local Government officers will vary depending on the political composition of the authority. If you are in a Council which frequently changes hands or where it's often a coalition of parties which runs the administration, it becomes vital for any senior officer to watch the political winds and maintain lines of communication with the opposition front bench.
In 2019, we saw a number of authorities move from a long period of Conservative majority control to new administrations led by LDs, residents, independents or combinations thereof. There were some senior officers who found it very difficult to serve the new administration having got perhaps a little too "comfortable" with the previous Cabinet or senior leadership. They were, shall we say, encouraged to seek new opportunities. It's true to say however most local Government officers don't get too concerned with changes in political control and carry on with the tasks at hand. Changes in policy direction tend to be rather more muted once the reality of being in power hits.
Is a cyclist who cannot stop in time for a pedestrian stepping into a road, or cannot avoid them, not paying enough attention and/or going too fast? Cyclists insist (rightly) on a car's width when a car passes them. Perhaps cyclists should give a car's width to pedestrians as well.
(Hint: they don't. All too often, as happened with me during my run on Sunday, they pay all too little attention to pedestrians.)
When walking, cycling or driving, you need to be aware of the situation around you, and also be aware that someone else might do something unexpected, or stupid, or both.
Amongst Remainers however there is virtually no leakage from those who stuck with the Conservatives under Boris at all, indeed Rishi has actually picked up a few of those who voted LD in 2019.
So while the redwall swing is likely to be awful for Rishi and he will also likely see a significant loss of seats amongst those Cameron won from Labour in 2010, he is likely to at least hold most of the bluewall seats at risk from the LDs under Boris
I always try to walk/run facing the traffic, which means you can see vehicles approaching (and they can see me). But if there is a right-hand bend that is so sharp, or has hedges/walls that prevent me from seeing what is coming (and what is coming from seeing me), then I sometimes go over to the other side of the road, to walk with the traffic around the bend. And sometimes, if that's not possible, I walk a few feet more towards the middle of the carriageway, giving more time for any oncoming traffic to see me.
It's often a difficult judgement call: is it safer to go around the bend relatively unsighted, or to cross the road twice?
Blair wasn't exactly truthful.....
You can see the CCTV camera on the wall & the paving, the red fencing & the brown double doors opposite the camera all match.
It seems the sentence received by this woman reflects the evidence from the CCTV that she pushed or at the very least waved her arms in front of the dead woman, causing her to fall in front of a passing vehicle.
We all owe a duty of care to each other.
Those who say the Tories haven't built enough houses should remember it isn't the Conservatives who are the real NIMBYs, it is Independents and Residents Associations, often in alliance with local Liberal Democrats and Greens. Starmer will find they try and block his plans to greatly expand new house and flat building too if he becomes PM
But the pedestrians need to be aware too. Lots of runners I see stick earphones in and couldn't hear a train coming, never mind a cyclist (I'm not suggesting you do this).
A bit of care and courtesy all round is all that is needed, but sadly that seems to be in short supply.
The advice is to use your bell to let the pedestrian know that you're coming, but my experience is that, when I use my bell, the vast majority of pedestrians panic, and treat it as a demand to move out of the way, and so they jump, unpredictably, to one side or the other. They often also react quite aggressively, being irate that I've used my bell to, as they see it, shoo them out of my way.
So often I am tempted not to use my bell, but simply to glide past the walker. But, of course, that has its own issues and its own complaints.
A lot of the time when I am cycling I feel like I can't win. It doesn't matter what I do, someone will take offence at it and curse my existence. Not that I have to worry much about the etiquette on shared use paths around here. The nearest one must be nearly a day's cycling away.