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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
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.
If you are on a path that is meant for pedestrian's only try pushing your bike maybe and being a pedestrian like you are meant to be
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.
And, never ever forget, a lot of people are deaf. They don't wear big signs on their backs. Unless the cycling lobby perhaps want it next?
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
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.
And, never ever forget, a lot of people are deaf. They don't wear big signs on their backs. Unless the cycling lobby perhaps want it next?
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.
Most people on bikers, of course, do 10-13mph, not 20 mph. But never spoil a good story with facts,
It seems to me that the answer to the people cycling on pavements issue is to move on with new infrastructure where people on bikes / e-bikes and other wheels (mobility scooters, e-scooters etc) will have more convenient journeys, which will encourage them off pavements where the road is dangerous.
Then to extend the current 4mph limit for mobility scooters on pavements to e-bikes or anything else used as a mobility aid.
However, it requires a serious period of reasonably serious investment, and in this country often we do not know how to build safe, convenient, inclusive infrastructure. We cannot do things on the cheap any longer - which is why we have this plague of shared pavements everywhere, which were the cheapest option so they all put them in and called the job "done".
eg This bastard illegal thing is on the off-road walking route for hundreds of households to my local Doctors Surgery, and has been for thirty years. It is defended vociferously by Nimbies under "prevent motorbikes", for which purpose it is useless - but a policeman told a Councillor that in about 1990. People in wheelchairs, people with kids in prams, and people using mobility scooters don't - it seems - matter a damn.
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
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?
Yes, country roads are different to urban roads in certain practical respects. It depends how easy it is to step out of the carriageway into the verge, and whether you will be able to hear the car coming.
General point is that at least a large minority of car drivers (and cyclists) are shockingly bad at sharing the road with anyone else, whether that be other car drivers, tractors, cyclists, walkers, anyone, and, culturally, that impatience is accepted as natural and understandable, even when it leads to deadly consequences.
Everyone could do with calming down, slowing down, and chilling out.
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Well my experience of dual use pavements, and not just pavements but parks and the coast to coast, is not the same as yours. Some have those markings, Others don’t.
Your original snipe at me was Ill informed. I don’t cycle on pavements that are not dual use.
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.
If you are on a path that is meant for pedestrian's only try pushing your bike maybe and being a pedestrian like you are meant to be
I'm talking about shared use paths, which are the vast majority of off-road cycle paths available for cyclists in urban Britain.
I don't cycle on pavements so take your nonsense complaint away and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine and fuck 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.
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.
I do listen to stuff whilst I'm walking and running, but podcasts, not music, and on low. I *believe* I can hear what's going on around me well enough. I find there's a big difference in situation awareness between words and music, even at the same volume.
And I utterly agree: it's a case of everyone being courteous. The lycrra-clad louts on Sunday were not.
And again, I stress I'mnot perfect wrt this: I make mistakes as much as (perhaps more) than most people.
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.
Nobody who steps out into the road without looking can complain if they are hit by a vehicle of any description.
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.
And, never ever forget, a lot of people are deaf. They don't wear big signs on their backs. Unless the cycling lobby perhaps want it next?
Well, I don't tend to use my bell to ask people to get out of my way. It would normally be only as a courtesy to let them know that I am coming, but there are enough people walking around listening to music - as I have been want to do for much of the last 25 years - that there are lots of reasons why people won't hear you, so of course you shouldn't assume that they have.
As a member of the cycling lobby, who would like my safety to be a slightly higher concern then shaving ten seconds off someone's commute, and is glad that there are people lobbying on behalf of my safety, I don't recognise where your snark about the cycling lobby wanting deaf people to wear signs comes from.
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.
If you are on a path that is meant for pedestrian's only try pushing your bike maybe and being a pedestrian like you are meant to be
I'm talking about shared use paths, which are the vast majority of off-road cycle paths available for cyclists in urban Britain.
I don't cycle on pavements so take your nonsense complaint away and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine and fuck off.
You might many cyclists don't and use non shared paths because its safer for them even when it endangers others because we aren't expecting them there
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
I'd agree with some of that.
The figures on the REMAIN side are variable - Techne has a 10% swing to Labour, Deltapoll a 0.5% swing to the Conservatives. We also have the truth there are more people in the REMAIN vote as well as those who didn't vote at all in 2016 and it's the LEAVE vote which is diminishing the fastest numerically.
As to the CON-LD marginals, a lot will depend on tactical voting. Whether there are seats with enough Labour voters willingly to switch to the LDs to overcome the Conservatives I don't know - the local elections this May may prove informative. With 55% of Labour voters willingly to vote tactically, there's a considerable potential pool for the LDs to draw on.
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
Enough with the confected outrage about Sue Gray. When I was a publisher I had many dealings with her. I and everyone she has ever worked with regard her as a woman of total integrity. Exactly the sort of person who'd make a fantastic chief of staff. Starmer has made a good appt. https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/1631340189812498455
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.
Most people on bikers, of course, do 10-13mph, not 20 mph. But never spoil a good story with facts,
It seems to me that the answer to the people cycling on pavements issue is to move on with new infrastructure where people on bikes / e-bikes and other wheels (mobility scooters, e-scooters etc) will have more convenient journeys, which will encourage them off pavements where the road is dangerous.
Then to extend the current 4mph limit for mobility scooters on pavements to e-bikes or anything else used as a mobility aid.
However, it requires a serious period of reasonably serious investment, and in this country often we do not know how to build safe, convenient, inclusive infrastructure. We cannot do things on the cheap any longer - which is why we have this plague of shared pavements everywhere, which were the cheapest option so they all put them in and called the job "done".
eg This bastard illegal thing is on the off-road walking route for hundreds of households to my local Doctors Surgery, and has been for thirty years. It is defended vociferously by Nimbies under "prevent motorbikes", for which purpose it is useless - but a policeman told a Councillor that in about 1990. People in wheelchairs, people with kids in prams, and people using mobility scooters don't - it seems - matter a damn.
It's hard to retrofit once the roads and buildings are in place, but it can be done. Dutch towns do it better; the basic idea is have some roads for cars and others designated for bikes etc with cars very much as slow-moving guests.
But that takes planning, willingness to inconvenience people in the short term and money.
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
That's quite rare now I think, and largely legacy.
But they are useless for eg Guide Dogs and Blind Canes, and a better approach is a cycle track with a 60mm kerb to the footway. Councils don't do them because they prefer to do it on the cheap.
Shared use only works for low volume, when it is spacious, or out in the countryside where pedestrians are rare. Some of our local new rural (eg A617 Sherwood Way) roads now use 2.5m shared surfaces, but since they are a mile or more out of town it is not a problem. That is still substandard according to guidelines, but it is better than the death traps we had before.
If you sincerely believe a person can’t do a professional job for one organisation because they have, or in the future might, work for a different one, how do you also watch football?
Additional benefit: Tory conspiracy theory loons will make lots of noise about an obscure job appointment people don't care about, while simultaneously reminding them of partygate, which they did care about.
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.
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
It's more nuanced than that of course. You could argue the change of political control reflected the wishes of some of the local electorate who, while not against development per se, might have been opposed to the speed and density of such development.
In any case, you and I both know developers who get refused by the local planning authority can get that decision overturned on appeal by the Government - as to what a future Labour Government would do, I can't say.
To claim LDs, Residents, Greens and Independents are anti all development would be absurd - it's my experience they tend to support more mixed developments of different types of housing with retail and community places in the mix rather than just high density housing with little or no social or community infrastructure.
There's also the experience of Councils who have got involved with large scale development or regeneration projects or who have made large scale property investments and have suffered financially to the detriment of their residents and the Services they provide. I'm sure you'd agree Councils should tread very carefully in respect of these kind of large scale "town centre" projects.
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.
If you are on a path that is meant for pedestrian's only try pushing your bike maybe and being a pedestrian like you are meant to be
I'm talking about shared use paths, which are the vast majority of off-road cycle paths available for cyclists in urban Britain.
I don't cycle on pavements so take your nonsense complaint away and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine and fuck off.
You might many cyclists don't and use non shared paths because its safer for them even when it endangers others because we aren't expecting them there
You weren't talking to other cyclists, you were talking to me, when I specifically referred to shared use paths. You can't even have the decency to apologise.
You know I remember once I made a mistake (as a pedestrian) carelessly crossing a side road a van driver was turning into, because I hadn't looked properly so hadn't noticed their indicators. The driver gave me a right bollocking, but I particularly remember this incident because I disarmed their righteous anger by holding my hand up and apologising for making a mistake.
Enough with the confected outrage about Sue Gray. When I was a publisher I had many dealings with her. I and everyone she has ever worked with regard her as a woman of total integrity. Exactly the sort of person who'd make a fantastic chief of staff. Starmer has made a good appt. https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/1631340189812498455
I don’t doubt that Sue Gray has integrity. Pretty much everyone who was asked to opine on her back at the time of the infamous Report said a defining thing about her was her integrity. That appears beyond question.
I do actually think this is the first error Starmer has made for a while. It does smack a little of “give a job to someone who was quite useful in taking down a political opponent” though I suspect the reason for it was more along the lines of wanting to hire someone who was praised for their integrity and therefore demonstrating his above board, good governance and fair play credentials. But it is too open to interpretation of the former to really do him any benefit.
Doubt it will do him any significant harm though. It’s a bit of a Westminster storm that people might quibble about for a week or two but then will be overtaken by something else in the political news cycle.
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.
Most people on bikers, of course, do 10-13mph, not 20 mph. But never spoil a good story with facts,
It seems to me that the answer to the people cycling on pavements issue is to move on with new infrastructure where people on bikes / e-bikes and other wheels (mobility scooters, e-scooters etc) will have more convenient journeys, which will encourage them off pavements where the road is dangerous.
Then to extend the current 4mph limit for mobility scooters on pavements to e-bikes or anything else used as a mobility aid.
However, it requires a serious period of reasonably serious investment, and in this country often we do not know how to build safe, convenient, inclusive infrastructure. We cannot do things on the cheap any longer - which is why we have this plague of shared pavements everywhere, which were the cheapest option so they all put them in and called the job "done".
eg This bastard illegal thing is on the off-road walking route for hundreds of households to my local Doctors Surgery, and has been for thirty years. It is defended vociferously by Nimbies under "prevent motorbikes", for which purpose it is useless - but a policeman told a Councillor that in about 1990. People in wheelchairs, people with kids in prams, and people using mobility scooters don't - it seems - matter a damn.
A balaclava & a minute or two with an angle grinder will have that sorted out in no time. Although maybe a sustained campaign of mild civil disobedience & lobbying would be the sensible option...
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
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.
If you are on a path that is meant for pedestrian's only try pushing your bike maybe and being a pedestrian like you are meant to be
I'm talking about shared use paths, which are the vast majority of off-road cycle paths available for cyclists in urban Britain.
I don't cycle on pavements so take your nonsense complaint away and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine and fuck off.
You might many cyclists don't and use non shared paths because its safer for them even when it endangers others because we aren't expecting them there
You weren't talking to other cyclists, you were talking to me, when I specifically referred to shared use paths. You can't even have the decency to apologise.
You know I remember once I made a mistake (as a pedestrian) carelessly crossing a side road a van driver was turning into, because I hadn't looked properly so hadn't noticed their indicators. The driver gave me a right bollocking, but I particularly remember this incident because I disarmed their righteous anger by holding my hand up and apologising for making a mistake.
You should fucking try it sometimes.
Actually I dont need to apologise because you specifically said you don't use shared paths....shall I quote you? Why yes I will "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."
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.
Most people on bikers, of course, do 10-13mph, not 20 mph. But never spoil a good story with facts,
It seems to me that the answer to the people cycling on pavements issue is to move on with new infrastructure where people on bikes / e-bikes and other wheels (mobility scooters, e-scooters etc) will have more convenient journeys, which will encourage them off pavements where the road is dangerous.
Then to extend the current 4mph limit for mobility scooters on pavements to e-bikes or anything else used as a mobility aid.
However, it requires a serious period of reasonably serious investment, and in this country often we do not know how to build safe, convenient, inclusive infrastructure. We cannot do things on the cheap any longer - which is why we have this plague of shared pavements everywhere, which were the cheapest option so they all put them in and called the job "done".
eg This bastard illegal thing is on the off-road walking route for hundreds of households to my local Doctors Surgery, and has been for thirty years. It is defended vociferously by Nimbies under "prevent motorbikes", for which purpose it is useless - but a policeman told a Councillor that in about 1990. People in wheelchairs, people with kids in prams, and people using mobility scooters don't - it seems - matter a damn.
It's hard to retrofit once the roads and buildings are in place, but it can be done. Dutch towns do it better; the basic idea is have some roads for cars and others designated for bikes etc with cars very much as slow-moving guests.
But that takes planning, willingness to inconvenience people in the short term and money.
Much cheaper to have half-assed shared pavements.
Yes - UK does not do strategy or maintenance.
Correct - on that lovely lit, 3m wide, landscaped route there are about half a dozen of those in a mile.
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
I see the cycling thing has struck a chord! Good thing too. It's interesting, complex, and more urgent these days now that more of us are cycling. But I leave this for another day.
The subject I am surprised has not been aired on here is the Manchester Bombing verdict which slates MI5. Now if you read the book A Spy Among Friends (yes, I know it was more MI6 but it dealt with MI5 too) the criticism will come as no surprise to you. Maybe it was thought by some that the organisation had moved on from the days when it was manned by a bunch of toffs who treated it as a sort of club for 'people like us', but it seems that it is just as incompetent and self-serving as ever.
I've heard it said that if MI5 & MI6 simply did not exist the public would be none the worse for it. At times this sounds extreme, but in the light of the Manchester verdict maybe not.
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
Will we miss any of them is surely the big question.
We will when the Peter Andre performs at the coronation.
Didn't I read that Gary Glitter had been released recently? He'd be up for it, I reckon.
Yup, especially as King Charles III is a well known defender of nonces.
Prince Charles misused his influence to shield Peter Ball, a former Anglican bishop and old friend, from punishment after the cleric had admitted sexually abusing a young novice, an independent inquiry found this week.
In an unusually tough rebuke of the future king, the inquiry concluded that “the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided.”
“He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,” the headquarters of the Anglican Church, concluded the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which was led by a professor of social work, Alexis Jay.
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
I'm not sure this (or Nadine's Sue Gray endorsement) is the killer point the Tweeters think it is. These were made before Gray took a political job with the Labour Party.
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
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
I'd agree with some of that.
The figures on the REMAIN side are variable - Techne has a 10% swing to Labour, Deltapoll a 0.5% swing to the Conservatives. We also have the truth there are more people in the REMAIN vote as well as those who didn't vote at all in 2016 and it's the LEAVE vote which is diminishing the fastest numerically.
As to the CON-LD marginals, a lot will depend on tactical voting. Whether there are seats with enough Labour voters willingly to switch to the LDs to overcome the Conservatives I don't know - the local elections this May may prove informative. With 55% of Labour voters willingly to vote tactically, there's a considerable potential pool for the LDs to draw on.
Most Labour voters will already have voted tactically in LD v Tory wards in May 2019 anyway though
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
Will we miss any of them is surely the big question.
We will when the Peter Andre performs at the coronation.
Didn't I read that Gary Glitter had been released recently? He'd be up for it, I reckon.
Yup, especially as King Charles III is a well known defender of nonces.
Prince Charles misused his influence to shield Peter Ball, a former Anglican bishop and old friend, from punishment after the cleric had admitted sexually abusing a young novice, an independent inquiry found this week.
In an unusually tough rebuke of the future king, the inquiry concluded that “the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided.”
“He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,” the headquarters of the Anglican Church, concluded the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which was led by a professor of social work, Alexis Jay.
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Despite the new limits. I am not sure the law has caught up yet.but it might have by now. I seem to recall Brighton and Hove introducing such limits but having to admit they were unable to enforce it.
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
There have been roadworks going on near me for the past six months or so - and all the signage telling cars 'this lane is closed', 'no right turn' etc is all placed on the pavement. Literally no room to walk (and definitely not push a pram or wheelchair) left. So all non-car traffic has to... walk out into the road to get past the signs.
On the plus side - they've painted an almost 20ft long 'cycle path' onto the new road, so that's something I suppose. Even if it just starts in the middle of one road then... just stops. With a helpful arrow pointing into the oncoming lane. It's a marvel to behold.
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
Will we miss any of them is surely the big question.
We will when the Peter Andre performs at the coronation.
Didn't I read that Gary Glitter had been released recently? He'd be up for it, I reckon.
Yup, especially as King Charles III is a well known defender of nonces.
Prince Charles misused his influence to shield Peter Ball, a former Anglican bishop and old friend, from punishment after the cleric had admitted sexually abusing a young novice, an independent inquiry found this week.
In an unusually tough rebuke of the future king, the inquiry concluded that “the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided.”
“He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,” the headquarters of the Anglican Church, concluded the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which was led by a professor of social work, Alexis Jay.
Peter Ball was not convicted of any offence until 2015 long after the then Prince first knew him.
Generally until someone is convicted in a court of law they should be assumed innocent and nothing significantly wrong with Charles' approach to an old friend in that respect
Enough with the confected outrage about Sue Gray. When I was a publisher I had many dealings with her. I and everyone she has ever worked with regard her as a woman of total integrity. Exactly the sort of person who'd make a fantastic chief of staff. Starmer has made a good appt. https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/1631340189812498455
I don’t doubt that Sue Gray has integrity. Pretty much everyone who was asked to opine on her back at the time of the infamous Report said a defining thing about her was her integrity. That appears beyond question.
I do actually think this is the first error Starmer has made for a while. It does smack a little of “give a job to someone who was quite useful in taking down a political opponent” though I suspect the reason for it was more along the lines of wanting to hire someone who was praised for their integrity and therefore demonstrating his above board, good governance and fair play credentials. But it is too open to interpretation of the former to really do him any benefit.
Doubt it will do him any significant harm though. It’s a bit of a Westminster storm that people might quibble about for a week or two but then will be overtaken by something else in the political news cycle.
As I said earlier, I think the appointment is with a view to governing, not campaigning. I don’t see it as an error at all.
The Mogg and Dorries comments just show, as if it were needed, why no one can take a word they say seriously.
I'll just leave this here - the guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs' Council when the offence of "Cycling on the Pavement" was introduced in 1999, stating that it was not intended to be used against reasonable cycling done on the pavement out of fear of the traffic.
"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
There have been roadworks going on near me for the past six months or so - and all the signage telling cars 'this lane is closed', 'no right turn' etc is all placed on the pavement. Literally no room to walk (and definitely not push a pram or wheelchair) left. So all non-car traffic has to... walk out into the road to get past the signs.
On the plus side - they've painted an almost 20ft long 'cycle path' onto the new road, so that's something I suppose. Even if it just starts in the middle of one road then... just stops. With a helpful arrow pointing into the oncoming lane. It's a marvel to behold.
I am not at all anti cyclist to make it plain, I just don't agree pushing cyclists into pedestrian areas is always the right thing. Where there is space sure to shared paths but put in a median between the two paths that separates them. Where there is not space then don't use pedestrian space
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
I assume he may perform, though he was also a friend of Princess Diana like Sir Elton John who has also found he is washing his hair on the night of Charles and Camilla's big concert it seems
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
Will we miss any of them is surely the big question.
We will when the Peter Andre performs at the coronation.
Didn't I read that Gary Glitter had been released recently? He'd be up for it, I reckon.
Yup, especially as King Charles III is a well known defender of nonces.
Prince Charles misused his influence to shield Peter Ball, a former Anglican bishop and old friend, from punishment after the cleric had admitted sexually abusing a young novice, an independent inquiry found this week.
In an unusually tough rebuke of the future king, the inquiry concluded that “the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided.”
“He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,” the headquarters of the Anglican Church, concluded the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which was led by a professor of social work, Alexis Jay.
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
A couple of decades ago, there was a story where a cyclist was done for going above 30 MPH on Newmarket Road in Cambridge (I worked in an office by that road at the time). But AFAICR the story was because he was claiming it was invalid for some reason: perhaps, as someone mentioned above, he was claiming the limit did not apply to cyclists.
I can't recall hearing how it ended up.
But it seems commonsense for any local speed limit to apply to everyone, not just cars.
Incidentally, there are certain types of modernish speed display sign that picks me up whilst I am running, and displays '5', '6', or '7' when I pass. That always amuses me.
Two stories: A few years ago an old railroad bed near me was converted to a path for pedestrians and cyclists. It's wide enough for both, as long as everyone shows just a little courtesy and alertness.
But soon after, there was a problem with "exercise bicyclists", as I suppose you could call them, riding too fast on the trail. And so the city reacted to that by putting up warning signs -- and, for a while, radar telling us how fast we were doing. As far as I can tell, that did calm things down a bit.
Second, on the other side of the continent, at about the same time, Washington DC started having problems with thieves on mountain bicycles, For example, they would snatch a woman's purse, and then ride away across a park, too fast for anyone on foot to catch them, and out of the reach of police officers driving ordinary cars.
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
Will we miss any of them is surely the big question.
We will when the Peter Andre performs at the coronation.
Didn't I read that Gary Glitter had been released recently? He'd be up for it, I reckon.
Yup, especially as King Charles III is a well known defender of nonces.
Prince Charles misused his influence to shield Peter Ball, a former Anglican bishop and old friend, from punishment after the cleric had admitted sexually abusing a young novice, an independent inquiry found this week.
In an unusually tough rebuke of the future king, the inquiry concluded that “the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided.”
“He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,” the headquarters of the Anglican Church, concluded the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which was led by a professor of social work, Alexis Jay.
Two stories: A few years ago an old railroad bed near me was converted to a path for pedestrians and cyclists. It's wide enough for both, as long as everyone shows just a little courtesy and alertness.
But soon after, there was a problem with "exercise bicyclists", as I suppose you could call them, riding too fast on the trail. And so the city reacted to that by putting up warning signs -- and, for a while, radar telling us how fast we were doing. As far as I can tell, that did calm things down a bit.
Second, on the other side of the continent, at about the same time, Washington DC started having problems with thieves on mountain bicycles, For example, they would snatch a woman's purse, and then ride away across a park, too fast for anyone on foot to catch them, and out of the reach of police officers driving ordinary cars.
I have driven cars and motorcycles for 25 years, frankly I have had more near accidents being a pedestrian with cyclists than ever I did as a motorist. Never had a car or bike accident
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
There have been roadworks going on near me for the past six months or so - and all the signage telling cars 'this lane is closed', 'no right turn' etc is all placed on the pavement. Literally no room to walk (and definitely not push a pram or wheelchair) left. So all non-car traffic has to... walk out into the road to get past the signs.
On the plus side - they've painted an almost 20ft long 'cycle path' onto the new road, so that's something I suppose. Even if it just starts in the middle of one road then... just stops. With a helpful arrow pointing into the oncoming lane. It's a marvel to behold.
I am not at all anti cyclist to make it plain, I just don't agree pushing cyclists into pedestrian areas is always the right thing. Where there is space sure to shared paths but put in a median between the two paths that separates them. Where there is not space then don't use pedestrian space
These are big old Victorian roads with four lanes given over to cars. It's really almost impressive how they've managed to make it even worse for everyone. It's also at the end of one of the new 'cycle highways' (ie, vague concessions given over to bikes - maybe even a lowered kerb here and there) routes from the city centre.
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
There have been roadworks going on near me for the past six months or so - and all the signage telling cars 'this lane is closed', 'no right turn' etc is all placed on the pavement. Literally no room to walk (and definitely not push a pram or wheelchair) left. So all non-car traffic has to... walk out into the road to get past the signs.
On the plus side - they've painted an almost 20ft long 'cycle path' onto the new road, so that's something I suppose. Even if it just starts in the middle of one road then... just stops. With a helpful arrow pointing into the oncoming lane. It's a marvel to behold.
I am not at all anti cyclist to make it plain, I just don't agree pushing cyclists into pedestrian areas is always the right thing. Where there is space sure to shared paths but put in a median between the two paths that separates them. Where there is not space then don't use pedestrian space
These are big old Victorian roads with four lanes given over to cars. It's really almost impressive how they've managed to make it even worse for everyone. It's also at the end of one of the new 'cycle highways' (ie, vague concessions given over to bikes - maybe even a lowered kerb here and there) routes from the city centre.
That is a problem with how cycle routes are laid out and I agree its a problem, I still say the solution however is not to push cycles onto pavements usually. I would also say its not most cyclists that are an issue...I find the lycra clad to be the main culprits, over and above their fashion crimes
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
In 1934 I doubt many cyclists could get near a speed limit, these days with the advanced materials technologies where bikes aren't built out of cast iron and have gears......not so much justification
Enough with the confected outrage about Sue Gray. When I was a publisher I had many dealings with her. I and everyone she has ever worked with regard her as a woman of total integrity. Exactly the sort of person who'd make a fantastic chief of staff. Starmer has made a good appt. https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/1631340189812498455
I don’t doubt that Sue Gray has integrity. Pretty much everyone who was asked to opine on her back at the time of the infamous Report said a defining thing about her was her integrity. That appears beyond question.
I do actually think this is the first error Starmer has made for a while. It does smack a little of “give a job to someone who was quite useful in taking down a political opponent” though I suspect the reason for it was more along the lines of wanting to hire someone who was praised for their integrity and therefore demonstrating his above board, good governance and fair play credentials. But it is too open to interpretation of the former to really do him any benefit.
Doubt it will do him any significant harm though. It’s a bit of a Westminster storm that people might quibble about for a week or two but then will be overtaken by something else in the political news cycle.
As I said earlier, I think the appointment is with a view to governing, not campaigning. I don’t see it as an error at all.
The Mogg and Dorries comments just show, as if it were needed, why no one can take a word they say seriously.
They’re just struggling to come to terms with the political tide now fast going out for the Tories, for a decade or so.
Worse are these Deliveroo (or similar) twats on the semi-motorised "bikes" with the massive tyres that basically fire through city centres at high speed in all directions ignoring every and all laws, rules and social conventions. Fucking menaces.
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
In 1934 I doubt many cyclists could get near a speed limit, these days with the advanced materials technologies where bikes aren't built out of cast iron and have gears......not so much justification
On 1934 the speed limit was increased from 20mph to 30mph because people driving motor cars in towns were routinely breaking the law. .
It's really just another of these "But cyclists" red herrings, whilst the stats are very clear that people riding bikes are a very minor risk.
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
In 1934 I doubt many cyclists could get near a speed limit, these days with the advanced materials technologies where bikes aren't built out of cast iron and have gears......not so much justification
On 1934 the speed limit was increased from 20mph to 30mph because people driving motor cars in towns were routinely breaking the law. .
It's really just another of these "But cyclists" red herrings, whilst the stats are very clear that people riding bikes are a very minor risk.
If you are 70 where a broken hip or other bone is a major risk a bike hitting you at 20 miles an hour is not a minor risk
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
I assume he may perform, though he was also a friend of Princess Diana like Sir Elton John who has also found he is washing his hair on the night of Charles and Camilla's big concert it seems
Well that should leave him plenty of time to perform at the concert then.
In 1934 I doubt many cyclists could get near a speed limit, these days with the advanced materials technologies where bikes aren't built out of cast iron and have gears......not so much justification
The justification is the usual one why new laws aren't worthwhile -- the benefit is tiny and the overhead of the new law overly burdensome. If you want to apply speed limits to bikes, then bikes need speedometers, which is a lot of extra expense whuch reduces the number of cyclists (both a health and a traffic negative). And very few cyclists will get over the limit anyway, most of those who do won't do so by much or dangerously, and the tiny fraction who do do so dangerously can be tackled via an existing law. It would be a law of the "make a law to get newspaper headlines" variety, and those are almost always awful.
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
Good. Protect our green spaces. Protect wildlife habitat.
The budget is where the real fight is brewing. If it's not a 'growth budget' there will be trouble. I am not sure what the parliamentary process is, but might there even be a popular amendment put down to the budget if it's a Hunt economy destroyer special? Pretty sure if it's bad, an 'alternative budget' will be set out before the public by various Tories. And Hunt/Sunak will be on the wrong side of the public on that one.
In 1934 I doubt many cyclists could get near a speed limit, these days with the advanced materials technologies where bikes aren't built out of cast iron and have gears......not so much justification
The justification is the usual one why new laws aren't worthwhile -- the benefit is tiny and the overhead of the new law overly burdensome. If you want to apply speed limits to bikes, then bikes need speedometers, which is a lot of extra expense whuch reduces the number of cyclists (both a health and a traffic negative). And very few cyclists will get over the limit anyway, most of those who do won't do so by much or dangerously, and the tiny fraction who do do so dangerously can be tackled via an existing law. It would be a law of the "make a law to get newspaper headlines" variety, and those are almost always awful.
How fast do bikes have to be before we have to bring them into speed limits. Given records are exceptional I suspect if you half the records a fair few can achieve them
current records are Flat surface, unassisted – Male record for regular cycling without pace car is held by Sebastiaan Bowier with the speed of 133.75 km/h in 2013. Female record is held by Barbara Buatois with 121.81 km/h in 2010
So if a lot of people could achieve 60kmh....is that a reason to think about bikes being subject to speed limits?
Enough with the confected outrage about Sue Gray. When I was a publisher I had many dealings with her. I and everyone she has ever worked with regard her as a woman of total integrity. Exactly the sort of person who'd make a fantastic chief of staff. Starmer has made a good appt. https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/1631340189812498455
I don’t doubt that Sue Gray has integrity. Pretty much everyone who was asked to opine on her back at the time of the infamous Report said a defining thing about her was her integrity. That appears beyond question.
I do actually think this is the first error Starmer has made for a while. It does smack a little of “give a job to someone who was quite useful in taking down a political opponent” though I suspect the reason for it was more along the lines of wanting to hire someone who was praised for their integrity and therefore demonstrating his above board, good governance and fair play credentials. But it is too open to interpretation of the former to really do him any benefit.
Doubt it will do him any significant harm though. It’s a bit of a Westminster storm that people might quibble about for a week or two but then will be overtaken by something else in the political news cycle.
As I said earlier, I think the appointment is with a view to governing, not campaigning. I don’t see it as an error at all.
The Mogg and Dorries comments just show, as if it were needed, why no one can take a word they say seriously.
I think that the appointment may just be on merit and with an eye on managing internal labour party issues. Sue Grey is clearly exceptionally good at managing disputes in complex, rule based organisations - of which the labour party is an example. She has the advantage of being an outsider and neutral, so not associated with any particular faction.
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It can be deemed a breach of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.
Isabel Oakeshott is Melisandre from Game of Thrones.
You are wrong, one is a temptress attached to a man who wanted power and sacrificed an innocent naive victim who didn’t have the intellectual capacity to see what was coming and the other is Melisandre.
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
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.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It can be deemed a breach of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.
Comments
It seems to me that the answer to the people cycling on pavements issue is to move on with new infrastructure where people on bikes / e-bikes and other wheels (mobility scooters, e-scooters etc) will have more convenient journeys, which will encourage them off pavements where the road is dangerous.
Then to extend the current 4mph limit for mobility scooters on pavements to e-bikes or anything else used as a mobility aid.
However, it requires a serious period of reasonably serious investment, and in this country often we do not know how to build safe, convenient, inclusive infrastructure. We cannot do things on the cheap any longer - which is why we have this plague of shared pavements everywhere, which were the cheapest option so they all put them in and called the job "done".
eg This bastard illegal thing is on the off-road walking route for hundreds of households to my local Doctors Surgery, and has been for thirty years. It is defended vociferously by Nimbies under "prevent motorbikes", for which purpose it is useless - but a policeman told a Councillor that in about 1990. People in wheelchairs, people with kids in prams, and people using mobility scooters don't - it seems - matter a damn.
'I don't like little pip-squeaks like Matt Hancock telling me how I should live my life.'
@Nigel_Farage
reacts to an article claiming that Matt Hancock wanted to take action against him for breaking lockdown rules.
General point is that at least a large minority of car drivers (and cyclists) are shockingly bad at sharing the road with anyone else, whether that be other car drivers, tractors, cyclists, walkers, anyone, and, culturally, that impatience is accepted as natural and understandable, even when it leads to deadly consequences.
Everyone could do with calming down, slowing down, and chilling out.
Your original snipe at me was Ill informed. I don’t cycle on pavements that are not dual use.
I don't cycle on pavements so take your nonsense complaint away and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine and fuck off.
And I utterly agree: it's a case of everyone being courteous. The lycrra-clad louts on Sunday were not.
And again, I stress I'mnot perfect wrt this: I make mistakes as much as (perhaps more) than most people.
As a member of the cycling lobby, who would like my safety to be a slightly higher concern then shaving ten seconds off someone's commute, and is glad that there are people lobbying on behalf of my safety, I don't recognise where your snark about the cycling lobby wanting deaf people to wear signs comes from.
The figures on the REMAIN side are variable - Techne has a 10% swing to Labour, Deltapoll a 0.5% swing to the Conservatives. We also have the truth there are more people in the REMAIN vote as well as those who didn't vote at all in 2016 and it's the LEAVE vote which is diminishing the fastest numerically.
As to the CON-LD marginals, a lot will depend on tactical voting. Whether there are seats with enough Labour voters willingly to switch to the LDs to overcome the Conservatives I don't know - the local elections this May may prove informative. With 55% of Labour voters willingly to vote tactically, there's a considerable potential pool for the LDs to draw on.
And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this:
Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/1631340189812498455
But that takes planning, willingness to inconvenience people in the short term and money.
Much cheaper to have half-assed shared pavements.
But they are useless for eg Guide Dogs and Blind Canes, and a better approach is a cycle track with a 60mm kerb to the footway. Councils don't do them because they prefer to do it on the cheap.
Shared use only works for low volume, when it is spacious, or out in the countryside where pedestrians are rare. Some of our local new rural (eg A617 Sherwood Way) roads now use 2.5m shared surfaces, but since they are a mile or more out of town it is not a problem. That is still substandard according to guidelines, but it is better than the death traps we had before.
If you sincerely believe a person can’t do a professional job for one organisation because they have, or in the future might, work for a different one, how do you also watch football?
Additional benefit: Tory conspiracy theory loons will make lots of noise about an obscure job appointment people don't care about, while simultaneously reminding them of partygate, which they did care about.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1631340854563545103
In any case, you and I both know developers who get refused by the local planning authority can get that decision overturned on appeal by the Government - as to what a future Labour Government would do, I can't say.
To claim LDs, Residents, Greens and Independents are anti all development would be absurd - it's my experience they tend to support more mixed developments of different types of housing with retail and community places in the mix rather than just high density housing with little or no social or community infrastructure.
There's also the experience of Councils who have got involved with large scale development or regeneration projects or who have made large scale property investments and have suffered financially to the detriment of their residents and the Services they provide. I'm sure you'd agree Councils should tread very carefully in respect of these kind of large scale "town centre" projects.
You know I remember once I made a mistake (as a pedestrian) carelessly crossing a side road a van driver was turning into, because I hadn't looked properly so hadn't noticed their indicators. The driver gave me a right bollocking, but I particularly remember this incident because I disarmed their righteous anger by holding my hand up and apologising for making a mistake.
You should fucking try it sometimes.
I do actually think this is the first error Starmer has made for a while. It does smack a little of “give a job to someone who was quite useful in taking down a political opponent” though I suspect the reason for it was more along the lines of wanting to hire someone who was praised for their integrity and therefore demonstrating his above board, good governance and fair play credentials. But it is too open to interpretation of the former to really do him any benefit.
Doubt it will do him any significant harm though. It’s a bit of a Westminster storm that people might quibble about for a week or two but then will be overtaken by something else in the political news cycle.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/king-charles-coronation-big-stars-not-performing-adele-harry-styles-1234688981/
You all need one of those.
Don't ask for an apology when its not deserved
Correct - on that lovely lit, 3m wide, landscaped route there are about half a dozen of those in a mile.
But there is a decent legal process to get them removed - it needs rights of pedestrians who are wheelers or disabled cyclists to be enforced under EA 2010. Here's an example:
https://yorkcyclecampaign.bike/2021/03/20/taking-legal-action-on-barriers/
It takes years to change the culture:
https://yorkcyclecampaign.bike/2023/02/10/york-access-control-barrier-review/
The subject I am surprised has not been aired on here is the Manchester Bombing verdict which slates MI5. Now if you read the book A Spy Among Friends (yes, I know it was more MI6 but it dealt with MI5 too) the criticism will come as no surprise to you. Maybe it was thought by some that the organisation had moved on from the days when it was manned by a bunch of toffs who treated it as a sort of club for 'people like us', but it seems that it is just as incompetent and self-serving as ever.
I've heard it said that if MI5 & MI6 simply did not exist the public would be none the worse for it. At times this sounds extreme, but in the light of the Manchester verdict maybe not.
Here is old footage of moron Mogg, saying Gray is of the highest integrity and reputation.
https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1631339618015617036
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bOj3VFP2kY
He'd be up for it, I reckon.
Prince Charles misused his influence to shield Peter Ball, a former Anglican bishop and old friend, from punishment after the cleric had admitted sexually abusing a young novice, an independent inquiry found this week.
In an unusually tough rebuke of the future king, the inquiry concluded that “the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided.”
“He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,” the headquarters of the Anglican Church, concluded the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which was led by a professor of social work, Alexis Jay.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/world/europe/prince-charles-peter-ball.html
Those performing will be at the more populist Sunday post Coronation concert and Olly Murs, Lionel Richie and Take That are confirmed to sing
https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/mar/01/the-coronation-concert-elton-adele-and-harry-styles-have-said-no-so-can-olly-murs-save-the-day
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1631379082234437650
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
On the plus side - they've painted an almost 20ft long 'cycle path' onto the new road, so that's something I suppose. Even if it just starts in the middle of one road then... just stops. With a helpful arrow pointing into the oncoming lane. It's a marvel to behold.
Generally until someone is convicted in a court of law they should be assumed innocent and nothing significantly wrong with Charles' approach to an old friend in that respect
The Mogg and Dorries comments just show, as if it were needed, why no one can take a word they say seriously.
I'll just leave this here - the guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs' Council when the offence of "Cycling on the Pavement" was introduced in 1999, stating that it was not intended to be used against reasonable cycling done on the pavement out of fear of the traffic.
"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.
Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."
https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/support-for-police-discretion-when-responding-to-people-cycling-on-the-pavement
It earwormed me and it has led to Apple Music regularly playing Gary Glitter on my devices.
I can't recall hearing how it ended up.
But it seems commonsense for any local speed limit to apply to everyone, not just cars.
Incidentally, there are certain types of modernish speed display sign that picks me up whilst I am running, and displays '5', '6', or '7' when I pass. That always amuses me.
But soon after, there was a problem with "exercise bicyclists", as I suppose you could call them, riding too fast on the trail. And so the city reacted to that by putting up warning signs -- and, for a while, radar telling us how fast we were doing. As far as I can tell, that did calm things down a bit.
Second, on the other side of the continent, at about the same time, Washington DC started having problems with thieves on mountain bicycles, For example, they would snatch a woman's purse, and then ride away across a park, too fast for anyone on foot to catch them, and out of the reach of police officers driving ordinary cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szGxq3pvJPQ
eg the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 specifically says "Motor Vehicles". As did the previous act in 1903, and then in 1934.
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/newsroom/can-cyclists-break-the-speed-limit/
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It's really just another of these "But cyclists" red herrings, whilst the stats are very clear that people riding bikes are a very minor risk.
force impact is 80/2 * 6.7^2 = 1795.6 that is quite an impact when concentrated on a small impact area which a bike supplies
He also comes out in opposition to British Museum Chairman George Osborne's plans to return the Elgin Marbles to Greece
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/02/boris-johnson-calls-corporation-tax-cut-irish-levels-fresh-challenge/
…
We should be rewilding, not destroying.
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
Given records are exceptional I suspect if you half the records a fair few can achieve them
current records are
Flat surface, unassisted – Male record for regular cycling without pace car is held by Sebastiaan Bowier with the speed of 133.75 km/h in 2013. Female record is held by Barbara Buatois with 121.81 km/h in 2010
So if a lot of people could achieve 60kmh....is that a reason to think about bikes being subject to speed limits?
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.