We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
I already did that calculation england vs holland for you road density in holland is 50% higher
No, you got your sums wrong. You were mixing up the road densities and populations of England and the UK.
The Netherlands has around twice the road density and population density of the UK. But the Netherlands has roughly the same road density and population density as England.
No, it doesn't.
Netherland has double the road density of the UK.
Netherlands has roughly the same population density but 50% more road density than England.
Isn't the Netherlands about 550/km2 vs 425/km2 in England?
With the figures given I make it that the Netherlands has a 21% higher population density and a 36% higher road density.
The discrepancy doesn't seem that large to me.
Our road capacity has been more than decimated relative to theirs, by the failure to invest in enough new roads.
15% extra seems quite significant to me.
Boost our roads by 15% and you'd free up plenty of space to reduce congestion and boost driving and cycling safely.
15% looks small compared to the 50% you were talking about earlier. It's your own fault if you've created a false anchoring of the numbers by making them up.
First song ever to debut at #1 in the US from an artist with no record label. No promotion for it at all, just word of mouth. Brilliant to see cultural moments like that.
See also the film “Sound of Freedom”, which is one of the top films of the summer in the US, made on a tiny budget.
Both are alt-right nutjob affairs.
So the far-left nutjobs have been saying.
Do you believe large numbers of children are being abducted by organised sex traffickers who control the media?
I think it unlikely, although the truth about the prevalence of child sex abuse, and the willingness of people in authority to turn a blind eye to it, is already sufficiently disturbing.
I suspect child sex abuse is much less common than it was when I was young.
There was a woodwork teacher at my old school, who had had to leave the local girls school for bringing girls back to his home and taking nude photos of them. This wasn't considered a problem at the local mixed comprehensive.
Why is it always the woodwork teachers?
I had a colleague who went to boarding school in the UK, and he told me there was one particular (non-PE) teacher that would always find an excuse to be there when they were showering.
This not to justify this behaviour. It's recognizing that there are - and have always been - a class of people (mostly men) who seek to sexually abuse children and adolescents.
This abuse tends to happen in one of two ways: either a family member / friend; or via someone in a position of authority / power.
If we were to do a British Crime Survey and ask people if they were victims of childhood (i.e. pre-18) sexual abuse, I suspect that we would find that a large number of people from every age cohort suffered. But I also suspect that it is less common for today's youth.
Firstly, schools are much more aware of the issue, and toleration of teachers' misbehaviour is much less tolerated. And secondly, in an age of smartphones, kids today are much less likely to be situations where they might be able to be abused. There are few alter boys these days.
Agree. Back in the late 60s, my state school PE teacher used to line us all up and walk down the line pulling our shorts forward at the waistband to 'check' that we weren't wearing underpants (which were not allowed under shorts, apparently). We were uncomfortable, but nobody complained.
He would not get away with that these days, and probably wouldn't even try. Things have got better.
One of my A level teachers was convicted for sexual assault, my school deputy chaplain was arrested for selling indecent videos in Germany and my prep school headmaster went to court accused of abusing boarders in dorms but was not convicted.
All par for the course in prep schools and public schools for many a few decades ago, personally nothing ever happened to me and they were all pretty good teachers. It was just accepted at the time but isn't now in schools
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
No, its not, not even close.
Which should be fairly obvious considering that England makes up most of the area of the UK, then even if every single km of road in the entire UK were located in England (with not a single road at all in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland), then we'd still be less dense than them.
But not every km of road exists in England. Not even close.
What is the road density of England?
175 km per 100km^s is uk figure cant find an england only figure, you only want to go to full uk because wales and scotland are both poorly populated as though I doubt they add much to the 175 km^2
The point is that Wales and Scotland add a lot more to the denominator of roads per square kilometer!
To take an extreme example, you'll find that Norway has a far lower road density than the UK. That's not because Norway is crap at building roads; it's because Noway has a far lower population density than the UK. Similarly, the UK has a lower road density than the Netherlands because it has a lower population density than the Netherlands, not because the UK is crap at building roads compared to the Netherlands.
Yes but they don't only add to the denominator. If they only added to the denominator and there was not a single road in the entirety of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland then our road density would be the same as the Netherlands - but that's quite obviously not the case.
A quarter of the UK's roads are in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, hence why English road density is 244. We have failed to invest in enough roads for decades - a mistake the Netherlands have not made.
The Netherlands have invested in roads and cycle paths. That works. I don't know why pro-cycling people in this country oppose copying them with that?
Is it miles/km of road per person? If so, that could be enormously misleading if one place has lots of single lane roads, and the other has massive six lane highways.
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
I already did that calculation england vs holland for you road density in holland is 50% higher
No, you got your sums wrong. You were mixing up the road densities and populations of England and the UK.
The Netherlands has around twice the road density and population density of the UK. But the Netherlands has roughly the same road density and population density as England.
No, it doesn't.
Netherland has double the road density of the UK.
Netherlands has roughly the same population density but 50% more road density than England.
Isn't the Netherlands about 550/km2 vs 425/km2 in England?
With the figures given I make it that the Netherlands has a 21% higher population density and a 36% higher road density.
The discrepancy doesn't seem that large to me.
Our road capacity has been more than decimated relative to theirs, by the failure to invest in enough new roads.
15% extra seems quite significant to me.
Boost our roads by 15% and you'd free up plenty of space to reduce congestion and boost driving and cycling safely.
15% looks small compared to the 50% you were talking about earlier. It's your own fault if you've created a false anchoring of the numbers by making them up.
It's a better option than cloning a numberplate, at least when they get around to enforcing against cloned numberplates.
There needs to be a move to stamped numberplates, otherwise the cloning problem is going to get way out of hand, with thousands of innocent people caught up. I’ve said before that everyone needs to customise in some minor way the front and rear of their car, because when the local authority has a photo of your car - with your numberplate - in court, it’s going to be for you to try and prove it’s not your car.
Personally I think we are already at the out of control stage, as for illegal motorbikes and antisocial parking to name two more. If a problem is not dealt with when unusual, it becomes a de facto option.
On cloned numberplates I have seen numbers from 10k to 50k offences committed (ie presumably detected) per annum, and up to 4 million number plates being cloned (various press articles),
I think that tightening up the supply chain for number plates is part of the answer to that, and as you saying going for some form of high security plate. That would reduce the issue to a small problem amongst the criminal set. The strategy also offers a means to apply a control to illegal motorbikes - make pre-sale registration a requirement.
As it stands to derestrict a Surron from 30mph to 50+mph, all that has to be done is cutting one sticking out loop of wire. And those two teenage lads in Ely, Cardiff killed themselves with one that had been a present from a parent.
Apparently there are over 1 million uninsured drivers too. Think that will just increase given the insurance premiums this year, which in turn increases the premiums next year.
Might have a market failure on our hands.
The police are at least still interested. Anything under 6 points these days and you really have to piss the copper off to be prosecuted.
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
I already did that calculation england vs holland for you road density in holland is 50% higher
No, you got your sums wrong. You were mixing up the road densities and populations of England and the UK.
The Netherlands has around twice the road density and population density of the UK. But the Netherlands has roughly the same road density and population density as England.
No, it doesn't.
Netherland has double the road density of the UK.
Netherlands has roughly the same population density but 50% more road density than England.
Isn't the Netherlands about 550/km2 vs 425/km2 in England?
Yes, and I'd imagine that the road densities are a similar ratio.
But they're not. As although I've given you the figures already, it also should have been obvious from the start as you'd need 0 roads in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to make the figures comparable.
244 vs 332 for roads 425 vs 550 for population
Despite economies of scale for denser populations, they have significantly more extra roads than we do.
Build more roads, with more cycling paths, that is what the Dutch have done and it works.
And don't make it so cyclists are sharing paths with pedestrians. As a pedestrian I feel more in fear of being hit by a cyclist than a car though that is anecdotal as number of times been hit by a car = 0, number of times in collision with cyclists = 2
I was nearly sent flying by a pair of cyclists on the pavement yesterday
Is it miles/km of road per person? If so, that could be enormously misleading if one place has lots of single lane roads, and the other has massive six lane highways.
kms of road per 100 km^2 edit yes it would be better to do km^2 road surface per 100km^2
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
I already did that calculation england vs holland for you road density in holland is 50% higher
No, you got your sums wrong. You were mixing up the road densities and populations of England and the UK.
The Netherlands has around twice the road density and population density of the UK. But the Netherlands has roughly the same road density and population density as England.
No, it doesn't.
Netherland has double the road density of the UK.
Netherlands has roughly the same population density but 50% more road density than England.
Isn't the Netherlands about 550/km2 vs 425/km2 in England?
With the figures given I make it that the Netherlands has a 21% higher population density and a 36% higher road density.
The discrepancy doesn't seem that large to me.
Our road capacity has been more than decimated relative to theirs, by the failure to invest in enough new roads.
15% extra seems quite significant to me.
Boost our roads by 15% and you'd free up plenty of space to reduce congestion and boost driving and cycling safely.
15% looks small compared to the 50% you were talking about earlier. It's your own fault if you've created a false anchoring of the numbers by making them up.
I said the road density was approximately 50% higher as I'd estimated it at 2xx vs 3xx
The exact number once I sourced it was 36% higher, which is less than I estimated sure.
The 15% is by deducting the population difference, though as I said there are efficiencies of scale for having more population so that's not entirely reasonable.
Either way, we're significantly short of them. We should do what they've done and invest in roads and cycling paths - both of them!
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
No, its not, not even close.
Which should be fairly obvious considering that England makes up most of the area of the UK, then even if every single km of road in the entire UK were located in England (with not a single road at all in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland), then we'd still be less dense than them.
But not every km of road exists in England. Not even close.
What is the road density of England?
175 km per 100km^s is uk figure cant find an england only figure, you only want to go to full uk because wales and scotland are both poorly populated as though I doubt they add much to the 175 km^2
The point is that Wales and Scotland add a lot more to the denominator of roads per square kilometer!
To take an extreme example, you'll find that Norway has a far lower road density than the UK. That's not because Norway is crap at building roads; it's because Noway has a far lower population density than the UK. Similarly, the UK has a lower road density than the Netherlands because it has a lower population density than the Netherlands, not because the UK is crap at building roads compared to the Netherlands.
Yes but they don't only add to the denominator. If they only added to the denominator and there was not a single road in the entirety of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland then our road density would be the same as the Netherlands - but that's quite obviously not the case.
A quarter of the UK's roads are in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, hence why English road density is 244. We have failed to invest in enough roads for decades - a mistake the Netherlands have not made.
The Netherlands have invested in roads and cycle paths. That works. I don't know why pro-cycling people in this country oppose copying them with that?
I'd be fine with copying the Netherlands, but we're a lot further behind them with cycling infrastructure than we are with road infrastructure.
@Sandpit was celebrating the success of “The Sound of Freedom”, a film starring, associated with and heavily promoted by Jim Caviezel.
Promoting the film, Caviezel repeatedly spoke about how he is worried about “the adrenochroming of children.” That’s the QAnon conspiracy that Democrat politicians and Hollywood moguls are extracting blood from children under torture and in sacrifices to make a psychoactive drug, adrenochrome. Caviezel said: “Essentially, you have adrenaline in your body and when you are scared, you produce the adrenaline. … If a child knows he’s going to die, his body will secrete this adrenaline and they have a lot of terms that they use that he takes me through but it’s the worst horror I’ve seen. It’s screaming alone. Even if I never, ever, ever saw it, it’s beyond. And these people that do it, um, there will be no mercy for them.” He’s said the issue is “greater than” the Nuremberg trials.
He's also said, “the storm is upon us”. The Storm is the moment when Donald Trump reveals that he’s been President all this time and orders mass arrests of the evil cabal of elites behind the child sex trafficking. He’s talked about "the Rothschild banks" and "a Rothschild pope" oppressing Christians. "I'm certainly not antisemitic," Caviezel told Steve Bannon in an interview. "The studios wouldn't hire me, but see they're all controlled by the central banks."
Former co-workers have described Caviezel as abusing a dog on set; not wanting to shoot a scene on a production where his character rescues a gay couple; saying interracial relationships should be banned; and saying Hitler “had the right idea” but went “too far”. Another former colleague said, “Working with Jim, is like working with a puppy… If that puppy liked Hitler”.
Err, nope. That’s far-left conspiracy theory that’s no better than far-right conspiracy theory.
No, Jim is very, very religious and politically as mad as a march hare.
For anyone who has followed his career he has been both a person of interest and he was not a number, he was a free man.
First song ever to debut at #1 in the US from an artist with no record label. No promotion for it at all, just word of mouth. Brilliant to see cultural moments like that.
See also the film “Sound of Freedom”, which is one of the top films of the summer in the US, made on a tiny budget.
Both are alt-right nutjob affairs.
So the far-left nutjobs have been saying.
Do you believe large numbers of children are being abducted by organised sex traffickers who control the media?
I think it unlikely, although the truth about the prevalence of child sex abuse, and the willingness of people in authority to turn a blind eye to it, is already sufficiently disturbing.
I suspect child sex abuse is much less common than it was when I was young.
There was a woodwork teacher at my old school, who had had to leave the local girls school for bringing girls back to his home and taking nude photos of them. This wasn't considered a problem at the local mixed comprehensive.
Why is it always the woodwork teachers?
I had a colleague who went to boarding school in the UK, and he told me there was one particular (non-PE) teacher that would always find an excuse to be there when they were showering.
This not to justify this behaviour. It's recognizing that there are - and have always been - a class of people (mostly men) who seek to sexually abuse children and adolescents.
This abuse tends to happen in one of two ways: either a family member / friend; or via someone in a position of authority / power.
If we were to do a British Crime Survey and ask people if they were victims of childhood (i.e. pre-18) sexual abuse, I suspect that we would find that a large number of people from every age cohort suffered. But I also suspect that it is less common for today's youth.
Firstly, schools are much more aware of the issue, and toleration of teachers' misbehaviour is much less tolerated. And secondly, in an age of smartphones, kids today are much less likely to be situations where they might be able to be abused. There are few alter boys these days.
Agree. Back in the late 60s, my state school PE teacher used to line us all up and walk down the line pulling our shorts forward at the waistband to 'check' that we weren't wearing underpants (which were not allowed under shorts, apparently). We were uncomfortable, but nobody complained.
He would not get away with that these days, and probably wouldn't even try. Things have got better.
One of my A level teachers was convicted for sexual assault, my school deputy chaplain was arrested for selling indecent videos in Germany and my prep school headmaster went to court accused of abusing boarders in dorms but was not convicted.
All par for the course in prep schools and public schools for many a few decades ago, personally nothing ever happened to me and they were all pretty good teachers. It was just accepted at the time but isn't now in schools
Attending a bog standard comprehensive school and being on the receiving end of the occasional punch wasn't so bad after all then.
It's a better option than cloning a numberplate, at least when they get around to enforcing against cloned numberplates.
There needs to be a move to stamped numberplates, otherwise the cloning problem is going to get way out of hand, with thousands of innocent people caught up. I’ve said before that everyone needs to customise in some minor way the front and rear of their car, because when the local authority has a photo of your car - with your numberplate - in court, it’s going to be for you to try and prove it’s not your car.
Personally I think we are already at the out of control stage, as for illegal motorbikes and antisocial parking to name two more. If a problem is not dealt with when unusual, it becomes a de facto option.
On cloned numberplates I have seen numbers from 10k to 50k offences committed (ie presumably detected) per annum, and up to 4 million number plates being cloned (various press articles),
I think that tightening up the supply chain for number plates is part of the answer to that, and as you saying going for some form of high security plate. That would reduce the issue to a small problem amongst the criminal set. The strategy also offers a means to apply a control to illegal motorbikes - make pre-sale registration a requirement.
As it stands to derestrict a Surron from 30mph to 50+mph, all that has to be done is cutting one sticking out loop of wire. And those two teenage lads in Ely, Cardiff killed themselves with one that had been a present from a parent.
Apparently there are over 1 million uninsured drivers too. Think that will just increase given the insurance premiums this year, which in turn increases the premiums next year.
Might have a market failure on our hands.
The police are at least still interested. Anything under 6 points these days and you really have to piss the copper off to be prosecuted.
You only have to watch the C5 police programs to see why people do it. The fines (usually a couple of £100) are way less than the typical cost of insurance - Eek twin A's renewal quote was £1100 up from £640..
Actually found a deal for £500 but that disappeared almost instantly (thankfully I bought it there and then).
Sky reporting private plane crash north of Moscow with Prigozhin on list of passengers
I thought he was in Africa?
He was, but seems that he is now deceased in Tver. Hard to feel much sympathy, and it just underlines that next time Putin will be disposed of before anyone makes a move.
Things are heating up, and the ZSU are indeed making progress.
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
No, its not, not even close.
Which should be fairly obvious considering that England makes up most of the area of the UK, then even if every single km of road in the entire UK were located in England (with not a single road at all in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland), then we'd still be less dense than them.
But not every km of road exists in England. Not even close.
What is the road density of England?
175 km per 100km^s is uk figure cant find an england only figure, you only want to go to full uk because wales and scotland are both poorly populated as though I doubt they add much to the 175 km^2
The point is that Wales and Scotland add a lot more to the denominator of roads per square kilometer!
To take an extreme example, you'll find that Norway has a far lower road density than the UK. That's not because Norway is crap at building roads; it's because Noway has a far lower population density than the UK. Similarly, the UK has a lower road density than the Netherlands because it has a lower population density than the Netherlands, not because the UK is crap at building roads compared to the Netherlands.
Yes but they don't only add to the denominator. If they only added to the denominator and there was not a single road in the entirety of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland then our road density would be the same as the Netherlands - but that's quite obviously not the case.
A quarter of the UK's roads are in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, hence why English road density is 244. We have failed to invest in enough roads for decades - a mistake the Netherlands have not made.
The Netherlands have invested in roads and cycle paths. That works. I don't know why pro-cycling people in this country oppose copying them with that?
I'd be fine with copying the Netherlands, but we're a lot further behind them with cycling infrastructure than we are with road infrastructure.
Well that's my proposal I've been suggesting and @Eabhal has been knocking back.
We need more roads and cycling infrastructure. The two go hand in hand, they're not enemies, the Dutch figured this out 50 years ago.
Build entirely new roads and you can build dedicated cycle infrastructure from the start to go with it.
Want to retrofit old roads? Build new roads to relieve car traffic (with cycle paths) and you can retrofit old roads to be more cycle friendly - which is two wins for cycles and 1 for cars.
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
I already did that calculation england vs holland for you road density in holland is 50% higher
No, you got your sums wrong. You were mixing up the road densities and populations of England and the UK.
The Netherlands has around twice the road density and population density of the UK. But the Netherlands has roughly the same road density and population density as England.
No, it doesn't.
Netherland has double the road density of the UK.
Netherlands has roughly the same population density but 50% more road density than England.
Isn't the Netherlands about 550/km2 vs 425/km2 in England?
Yes, and I'd imagine that the road densities are a similar ratio.
But they're not. As although I've given you the figures already, it also should have been obvious from the start as you'd need 0 roads in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to make the figures comparable.
244 vs 332 for roads 425 vs 550 for population
Despite economies of scale for denser populations, they have significantly more extra roads than we do.
Build more roads, with more cycling paths, that is what the Dutch have done and it works.
And don't make it so cyclists are sharing paths with pedestrians. As a pedestrian I feel more in fear of being hit by a cyclist than a car though that is anecdotal as number of times been hit by a car = 0, number of times in collision with cyclists = 2
I was nearly sent flying by a pair of cyclists on the pavement yesterday
You should be grateful it wasn't a driver.
Between 2005 and 2018, 542 pedestrians on pavements were killed by drivers. 6 by cyclists.
It's a better option than cloning a numberplate, at least when they get around to enforcing against cloned numberplates.
There needs to be a move to stamped numberplates, otherwise the cloning problem is going to get way out of hand, with thousands of innocent people caught up. I’ve said before that everyone needs to customise in some minor way the front and rear of their car, because when the local authority has a photo of your car - with your numberplate - in court, it’s going to be for you to try and prove it’s not your car.
Personally I think we are already at the out of control stage, as for illegal motorbikes and antisocial parking to name two more. If a problem is not dealt with when unusual, it becomes a de facto option.
On cloned numberplates I have seen numbers from 10k to 50k offences committed (ie presumably detected) per annum, and up to 4 million number plates being cloned (various press articles),
I think that tightening up the supply chain for number plates is part of the answer to that, and as you saying going for some form of high security plate. That would reduce the issue to a small problem amongst the criminal set. The strategy also offers a means to apply a control to illegal motorbikes - make pre-sale registration a requirement.
As it stands to derestrict a Surron from 30mph to 50+mph, all that has to be done is cutting one sticking out loop of wire. And those two teenage lads in Ely, Cardiff killed themselves with one that had been a present from a parent.
Apparently there are over 1 million uninsured drivers too. Think that will just increase given the insurance premiums this year, which in turn increases the premiums next year.
Might have a market failure on our hands.
The police are at least still interested. Anything under 6 points these days and you really have to piss the copper off to be prosecuted.
You only have to watch the C5 police programs to see why people do it. The fines (usually a couple of £100) are way less than the typical cost of insurance - Eek twin A's renewal quote was £1100 up from £640..
Actually found a deal for £500 but that disappeared almost instantly (thankfully I bought it there and then).
True but the premium will really rocket after a conviction like that. My JP pal told me that he added another year to the disqualification of a repeat offender today. I pointed out that he was simply creating future business for his court.
Good to see Red Raver proper largin’ it on the Costa del Hardcore. Finally someone in Westminster who can put a decent shift in. Bang on it.
A notably sympathetic article considering it's the Express. Her venom cocktail sounds awful though:
"The formidable recipe involves mixing a bottle of vodka, a bottle of Southern Comfort, ten bottles of Blue WKD and a litre of orange juice"
Yes, she sounds worryingly normal compared to the uptight Starmer and Sunak.
I actually don't have a problem with politicians not being very normal. I also want them, if possible, to be more intelligent and have more integrity than the average person, but I know I cannot have everything.
But it is nice when some at least do actually seem like regular people.
I am not sure we actually want them to be highly intelligent. I have noticed highly intelligent folk often seem a) lacking in common sense b) have an innate blind spot to the fact because they are highly intelligent and knowledgeable on some subjects it does not make them knowledgeable about all subjects
Well, judgement is more important than raw intelligence for a politician, but I do think we benefit if they have a certain level of swiftness of thought.
Millions on waiting lists for essential treatment, and health professionals are pissing about performing womb transplants.
Not sure I agree with you on that one
It is amazing that medical advances are able to do this, and may well lead to hope for some women who cannot have children at present
Should the nhs however not prioritize life saving operations? While I have sympathy for women who cant give birth they still have the option of motherhood by adoption or surrogacy....this strikes me as a want not a need
@Sandpit was celebrating the success of “The Sound of Freedom”, a film starring, associated with and heavily promoted by Jim Caviezel.
Promoting the film, Caviezel repeatedly spoke about how he is worried about “the adrenochroming of children.” That’s the QAnon conspiracy that Democrat politicians and Hollywood moguls are extracting blood from children under torture and in sacrifices to make a psychoactive drug, adrenochrome. Caviezel said: “Essentially, you have adrenaline in your body and when you are scared, you produce the adrenaline. … If a child knows he’s going to die, his body will secrete this adrenaline and they have a lot of terms that they use that he takes me through but it’s the worst horror I’ve seen. It’s screaming alone. Even if I never, ever, ever saw it, it’s beyond. And these people that do it, um, there will be no mercy for them.” He’s said the issue is “greater than” the Nuremberg trials.
He's also said, “the storm is upon us”. The Storm is the moment when Donald Trump reveals that he’s been President all this time and orders mass arrests of the evil cabal of elites behind the child sex trafficking. He’s talked about "the Rothschild banks" and "a Rothschild pope" oppressing Christians. "I'm certainly not antisemitic," Caviezel told Steve Bannon in an interview. "The studios wouldn't hire me, but see they're all controlled by the central banks."
Former co-workers have described Caviezel as abusing a dog on set; not wanting to shoot a scene on a production where his character rescues a gay couple; saying interracial relationships should be banned; and saying Hitler “had the right idea” but went “too far”. Another former colleague said, “Working with Jim, is like working with a puppy… If that puppy liked Hitler”.
Err, nope. That’s far-left conspiracy theory that’s no better than far-right conspiracy theory.
What part of the above is untrue? There is video of Caviezel saying the things in the first paragraph: https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383419877881303045 The podcast with Steve Bannon is publicly available. There are multiple reports of Caviezel's behaviour.
https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383421963104788489?s=20 That's video of Caviezel "explaining" about adrenochrome. Are you saying that video is faked? Are you saying there's no QAnon adrenochrome conspiracy nonsense and Caviezel meant something else?
He’s an actor, they’re all weirdos. The clips you show are very much out of context.
Here’s an interview with Tim Ballard, the subject of the movie, who asserts that there’s an actual problem with sex trafficing from Mexico to the US. https://youtube.com/watch?v=UK3NWozQXdY
It's a better option than cloning a numberplate, at least when they get around to enforcing against cloned numberplates.
There needs to be a move to stamped numberplates, otherwise the cloning problem is going to get way out of hand, with thousands of innocent people caught up. I’ve said before that everyone needs to customise in some minor way the front and rear of their car, because when the local authority has a photo of your car - with your numberplate - in court, it’s going to be for you to try and prove it’s not your car.
Personally I think we are already at the out of control stage, as for illegal motorbikes and antisocial parking to name two more. If a problem is not dealt with when unusual, it becomes a de facto option.
On cloned numberplates I have seen numbers from 10k to 50k offences committed (ie presumably detected) per annum, and up to 4 million number plates being cloned (various press articles),
I think that tightening up the supply chain for number plates is part of the answer to that, and as you saying going for some form of high security plate. That would reduce the issue to a small problem amongst the criminal set. The strategy also offers a means to apply a control to illegal motorbikes - make pre-sale registration a requirement.
As it stands to derestrict a Surron from 30mph to 50+mph, all that has to be done is cutting one sticking out loop of wire. And those two teenage lads in Ely, Cardiff killed themselves with one that had been a present from a parent.
Apparently there are over 1 million uninsured drivers too. Think that will just increase given the insurance premiums this year, which in turn increases the premiums next year.
Might have a market failure on our hands.
The police are at least still interested. Anything under 6 points these days and you really have to piss the copper off to be prosecuted.
You only have to watch the C5 police programs to see why people do it. The fines (usually a couple of £100) are way less than the typical cost of insurance - Eek twin A's renewal quote was £1100 up from £640..
Actually found a deal for £500 but that disappeared almost instantly (thankfully I bought it there and then).
True but the premium will really rocket after a conviction like that. My JP pal told me that he added another year to the disqualification of a repeat offender today.
Sky reporting private plane crash north of Moscow with Prigozhin on list of passengers
I thought he was in Africa?
He was, but seems that he is now deceased in Tver. Hard to feel much sympathy, and it just underlines that next time Putin will be disposed of before anyone makes a move.
Things are heating up, and the ZSU are indeed making progress.
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
No, its not, not even close.
Which should be fairly obvious considering that England makes up most of the area of the UK, then even if every single km of road in the entire UK were located in England (with not a single road at all in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland), then we'd still be less dense than them.
But not every km of road exists in England. Not even close.
What is the road density of England?
175 km per 100km^s is uk figure cant find an england only figure, you only want to go to full uk because wales and scotland are both poorly populated as though I doubt they add much to the 175 km^2
The point is that Wales and Scotland add a lot more to the denominator of roads per square kilometer!
To take an extreme example, you'll find that Norway has a far lower road density than the UK. That's not because Norway is crap at building roads; it's because Noway has a far lower population density than the UK. Similarly, the UK has a lower road density than the Netherlands because it has a lower population density than the Netherlands, not because the UK is crap at building roads compared to the Netherlands.
Yes but they don't only add to the denominator. If they only added to the denominator and there was not a single road in the entirety of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland then our road density would be the same as the Netherlands - but that's quite obviously not the case.
A quarter of the UK's roads are in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, hence why English road density is 244. We have failed to invest in enough roads for decades - a mistake the Netherlands have not made.
The Netherlands have invested in roads and cycle paths. That works. I don't know why pro-cycling people in this country oppose copying them with that?
I'd be fine with copying the Netherlands, but we're a lot further behind them with cycling infrastructure than we are with road infrastructure.
Well that's my proposal I've been suggesting and @Eabhal has been knocking back.
We need more roads and cycling infrastructure. The two go hand in hand, they're not enemies, the Dutch figured this out 50 years ago.
Build entirely new roads and you can build dedicated cycle infrastructure from the start to go with it.
Want to retrofit old roads? Build new roads to relieve car traffic (with cycle paths) and you can retrofit old roads to be more cycle friendly - which is two wins for cycles and 1 for cars.
I don't disagree in principle, it's just your solution is impossible unless you start knocking down swathes of our cities and towns (like we did in the 60s and 70s). A 1:1 ratio isn't going to work in most cases.
If an A road goes through a town centre (eg Moray, Aberdeenshire) then go for it - a bypass could open up the High Street for pedestrianisation.
Another point we disagree on is the "one more lane" philosophy, and the interaction of supply and demand.
Sandpit was celebrating the success of “The Sound of Freedom”, a film starring, associated with and heavily promoted by Jim Caviezel.
Promoting the film, Caviezel repeatedly spoke about how he is worried about “the adrenochroming of children.” That’s the QAnon conspiracy that Democrat politicians and Hollywood moguls are extracting blood from children under torture and in sacrifices to make a psychoactive drug, adrenochrome. Caviezel said: “Essentially, you have adrenaline in your body and when you are scared, you produce the adrenaline. … If a child knows he’s going to die, his body will secrete this adrenaline and they have a lot of terms that they use that he takes me through but it’s the worst horror I’ve seen. It’s screaming alone. Even if I never, ever, ever saw it, it’s beyond. And these people that do it, um, there will be no mercy for them.” He’s said the issue is “greater than” the Nuremberg trials.
He's also said, “the storm is upon us”. The Storm is the moment when Donald Trump reveals that he’s been President all this time and orders mass arrests of the evil cabal of elites behind the child sex trafficking. He’s talked about "the Rothschild banks" and "a Rothschild pope" oppressing Christians. "I'm certainly not antisemitic," Caviezel told Steve Bannon in an interview. "The studios wouldn't hire me, but see they're all controlled by the central banks."
Former co-workers have described Caviezel as abusing a dog on set; not wanting to shoot a scene on a production where his character rescues a gay couple; saying interracial relationships should be banned; and saying Hitler “had the right idea” but went “too far”. Another former colleague said, “Working with Jim, is like working with a puppy… If that puppy liked Hitler”.
He's a decent actor in the right roles, I really liked Person of Interest, but he's clearly as mad as a balloon and a nasty piece of shit on top of that.
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
I already did that calculation england vs holland for you road density in holland is 50% higher
No, you got your sums wrong. You were mixing up the road densities and populations of England and the UK.
The Netherlands has around twice the road density and population density of the UK. But the Netherlands has roughly the same road density and population density as England.
No, it doesn't.
Netherland has double the road density of the UK.
Netherlands has roughly the same population density but 50% more road density than England.
Isn't the Netherlands about 550/km2 vs 425/km2 in England?
Yes, and I'd imagine that the road densities are a similar ratio.
But they're not. As although I've given you the figures already, it also should have been obvious from the start as you'd need 0 roads in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to make the figures comparable.
244 vs 332 for roads 425 vs 550 for population
Despite economies of scale for denser populations, they have significantly more extra roads than we do.
Build more roads, with more cycling paths, that is what the Dutch have done and it works.
And don't make it so cyclists are sharing paths with pedestrians. As a pedestrian I feel more in fear of being hit by a cyclist than a car though that is anecdotal as number of times been hit by a car = 0, number of times in collision with cyclists = 2
I was nearly sent flying by a pair of cyclists on the pavement yesterday
You should be grateful it wasn't a driver.
Between 2005 and 2018, 542 pedestrians on pavements were killed by drivers. 6 by cyclists.
The road is quite separate and a distance from the pavement
There is no excuse for their thoughtless behaviour
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
I already did that calculation england vs holland for you road density in holland is 50% higher
No, you got your sums wrong. You were mixing up the road densities and populations of England and the UK.
The Netherlands has around twice the road density and population density of the UK. But the Netherlands has roughly the same road density and population density as England.
No, it doesn't.
Netherland has double the road density of the UK.
Netherlands has roughly the same population density but 50% more road density than England.
Isn't the Netherlands about 550/km2 vs 425/km2 in England?
Yes, and I'd imagine that the road densities are a similar ratio.
But they're not. As although I've given you the figures already, it also should have been obvious from the start as you'd need 0 roads in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to make the figures comparable.
244 vs 332 for roads 425 vs 550 for population
Despite economies of scale for denser populations, they have significantly more extra roads than we do.
Build more roads, with more cycling paths, that is what the Dutch have done and it works.
And don't make it so cyclists are sharing paths with pedestrians. As a pedestrian I feel more in fear of being hit by a cyclist than a car though that is anecdotal as number of times been hit by a car = 0, number of times in collision with cyclists = 2
I was nearly sent flying by a pair of cyclists on the pavement yesterday
Cyclists handing out free tickets for British Airways? Cool!
Seriously - good to hear it was just a close shave.
@Sandpit was celebrating the success of “The Sound of Freedom”, a film starring, associated with and heavily promoted by Jim Caviezel.
Promoting the film, Caviezel repeatedly spoke about how he is worried about “the adrenochroming of children.” That’s the QAnon conspiracy that Democrat politicians and Hollywood moguls are extracting blood from children under torture and in sacrifices to make a psychoactive drug, adrenochrome. Caviezel said: “Essentially, you have adrenaline in your body and when you are scared, you produce the adrenaline. … If a child knows he’s going to die, his body will secrete this adrenaline and they have a lot of terms that they use that he takes me through but it’s the worst horror I’ve seen. It’s screaming alone. Even if I never, ever, ever saw it, it’s beyond. And these people that do it, um, there will be no mercy for them.” He’s said the issue is “greater than” the Nuremberg trials.
He's also said, “the storm is upon us”. The Storm is the moment when Donald Trump reveals that he’s been President all this time and orders mass arrests of the evil cabal of elites behind the child sex trafficking. He’s talked about "the Rothschild banks" and "a Rothschild pope" oppressing Christians. "I'm certainly not antisemitic," Caviezel told Steve Bannon in an interview. "The studios wouldn't hire me, but see they're all controlled by the central banks."
Former co-workers have described Caviezel as abusing a dog on set; not wanting to shoot a scene on a production where his character rescues a gay couple; saying interracial relationships should be banned; and saying Hitler “had the right idea” but went “too far”. Another former colleague said, “Working with Jim, is like working with a puppy… If that puppy liked Hitler”.
Err, nope. That’s far-left conspiracy theory that’s no better than far-right conspiracy theory.
What part of the above is untrue? There is video of Caviezel saying the things in the first paragraph: https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383419877881303045 The podcast with Steve Bannon is publicly available. There are multiple reports of Caviezel's behaviour.
https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383421963104788489?s=20 That's video of Caviezel "explaining" about adrenochrome. Are you saying that video is faked? Are you saying there's no QAnon adrenochrome conspiracy nonsense and Caviezel meant something else?
He’s an actor, they’re all weirdos. The clips you show are very much out of context.
Here’s an interview with Tim Ballard, the subject of the movie, who asserts that there’s an actual problem with sex trafficing from Mexico to the US. https://youtube.com/watch?v=UK3NWozQXdY
The clips aren't out of context. Provide me with the context that explains why he's talking about the "adrenochroming of children", or why he's talking about "a Rothschild pope".
How does a different person talking about something else demonstrate that it's a "far-left conspiracy theory" to say that Caviezel endorses QAnon nonsense?
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
No, its not, not even close.
Which should be fairly obvious considering that England makes up most of the area of the UK, then even if every single km of road in the entire UK were located in England (with not a single road at all in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland), then we'd still be less dense than them.
But not every km of road exists in England. Not even close.
What is the road density of England?
175 km per 100km^s is uk figure cant find an england only figure, you only want to go to full uk because wales and scotland are both poorly populated as though I doubt they add much to the 175 km^2
The point is that Wales and Scotland add a lot more to the denominator of roads per square kilometer!
To take an extreme example, you'll find that Norway has a far lower road density than the UK. That's not because Norway is crap at building roads; it's because Noway has a far lower population density than the UK. Similarly, the UK has a lower road density than the Netherlands because it has a lower population density than the Netherlands, not because the UK is crap at building roads compared to the Netherlands.
Yes but they don't only add to the denominator. If they only added to the denominator and there was not a single road in the entirety of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland then our road density would be the same as the Netherlands - but that's quite obviously not the case.
A quarter of the UK's roads are in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, hence why English road density is 244. We have failed to invest in enough roads for decades - a mistake the Netherlands have not made.
The Netherlands have invested in roads and cycle paths. That works. I don't know why pro-cycling people in this country oppose copying them with that?
I'd be fine with copying the Netherlands, but we're a lot further behind them with cycling infrastructure than we are with road infrastructure.
Well that's my proposal I've been suggesting and @Eabhal has been knocking back.
We need more roads and cycling infrastructure. The two go hand in hand, they're not enemies, the Dutch figured this out 50 years ago.
Build entirely new roads and you can build dedicated cycle infrastructure from the start to go with it.
Want to retrofit old roads? Build new roads to relieve car traffic (with cycle paths) and you can retrofit old roads to be more cycle friendly - which is two wins for cycles and 1 for cars.
I don't disagree in principle, it's just your solution is impossible unless you start knocking down swathes of our cities and towns (like we did in the 60s and 70s). A 1:1 ratio isn't going to work in most cases.
If an A road goes through a town centre (eg Moray, Aberdeenshire) then go for it - a bypass could open up the High Street for pedestrianisation.
Another point we disagree on is the "one more lane" philosophy, and the interaction of supply and demand.
There's absolutely no reason to knock down swathes of towns and cities, the Dutch haven't done that.
We can build on previously undeveloped land, there's plenty of it about. You can also build roads above existing roads too - plenty of that in the Netherlands too.
That liberates traffic away from old roads and allows you to convert old land onto cycle paths - as well as allowing construction on the other side of the new roads. Which can be built in LTNs.
"One more lane" is a myth. Based on looking at Los Angeles primarily and disregarding the fact that their population went from 4 million to 13 million in the same time period as London's went from 8 million to 9 million. LA effectively added the entire of Greater London's population as population growth so of course they needed extra capacity.
It's a better option than cloning a numberplate, at least when they get around to enforcing against cloned numberplates.
There needs to be a move to stamped numberplates, otherwise the cloning problem is going to get way out of hand, with thousands of innocent people caught up. I’ve said before that everyone needs to customise in some minor way the front and rear of their car, because when the local authority has a photo of your car - with your numberplate - in court, it’s going to be for you to try and prove it’s not your car.
Personally I think we are already at the out of control stage, as for illegal motorbikes and antisocial parking to name two more. If a problem is not dealt with when unusual, it becomes a de facto option.
On cloned numberplates I have seen numbers from 10k to 50k offences committed (ie presumably detected) per annum, and up to 4 million number plates being cloned (various press articles),
I think that tightening up the supply chain for number plates is part of the answer to that, and as you saying going for some form of high security plate. That would reduce the issue to a small problem amongst the criminal set. The strategy also offers a means to apply a control to illegal motorbikes - make pre-sale registration a requirement.
As it stands to derestrict a Surron from 30mph to 50+mph, all that has to be done is cutting one sticking out loop of wire. And those two teenage lads in Ely, Cardiff killed themselves with one that had been a present from a parent.
Apparently there are over 1 million uninsured drivers too. Think that will just increase given the insurance premiums this year, which in turn increases the premiums next year.
Might have a market failure on our hands.
The police are at least still interested. Anything under 6 points these days and you really have to piss the copper off to be prosecuted.
You only have to watch the C5 police programs to see why people do it. The fines (usually a couple of £100) are way less than the typical cost of insurance - Eek twin A's renewal quote was £1100 up from £640..
Actually found a deal for £500 but that disappeared almost instantly (thankfully I bought it there and then).
True but the premium will really rocket after a conviction like that. My JP pal told me that he added another year to the disqualification of a repeat offender today. I pointed out that he was simply creating future business for his court.
The police weren't able to prosecute the driver who knocked my girlfriend off her bike, but the officer she spoke to said the punishment via the insurance premiums would be far more punitive than anything the court would hand down.
He was kinda right - the driver failed to respond to the insurer and has been added to some sort of blacklist. Girlfriend got a payout by default.
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
I already did that calculation england vs holland for you road density in holland is 50% higher
No, you got your sums wrong. You were mixing up the road densities and populations of England and the UK.
The Netherlands has around twice the road density and population density of the UK. But the Netherlands has roughly the same road density and population density as England.
No, it doesn't.
Netherland has double the road density of the UK.
Netherlands has roughly the same population density but 50% more road density than England.
Isn't the Netherlands about 550/km2 vs 425/km2 in England?
Yes, and I'd imagine that the road densities are a similar ratio.
But they're not. As although I've given you the figures already, it also should have been obvious from the start as you'd need 0 roads in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to make the figures comparable.
244 vs 332 for roads 425 vs 550 for population
Despite economies of scale for denser populations, they have significantly more extra roads than we do.
Build more roads, with more cycling paths, that is what the Dutch have done and it works.
And don't make it so cyclists are sharing paths with pedestrians. As a pedestrian I feel more in fear of being hit by a cyclist than a car though that is anecdotal as number of times been hit by a car = 0, number of times in collision with cyclists = 2
I was nearly sent flying by a pair of cyclists on the pavement yesterday
You should be grateful it wasn't a driver.
Between 2005 and 2018, 542 pedestrians on pavements were killed by drivers. 6 by cyclists.
The road is quite separate and a distance from the pavement
There is no excuse for their thoughtless behaviour
In the second incident for collisions by cyclists I had he came round a blind corner on the pavement doing about 30. Hit my sons pushchair catapaulting it onto the dual carriageway a4 that runs through slough where the speed limit is 40....luckily my 1 year old son wasn't in it as he had been being fussy so I was carrying him.....so yes I might be biassed
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
I already did that calculation england vs holland for you road density in holland is 50% higher
No, you got your sums wrong. You were mixing up the road densities and populations of England and the UK.
The Netherlands has around twice the road density and population density of the UK. But the Netherlands has roughly the same road density and population density as England.
No, it doesn't.
Netherland has double the road density of the UK.
Netherlands has roughly the same population density but 50% more road density than England.
Isn't the Netherlands about 550/km2 vs 425/km2 in England?
Yes, and I'd imagine that the road densities are a similar ratio.
But they're not. As although I've given you the figures already, it also should have been obvious from the start as you'd need 0 roads in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to make the figures comparable.
244 vs 332 for roads 425 vs 550 for population
Despite economies of scale for denser populations, they have significantly more extra roads than we do.
Build more roads, with more cycling paths, that is what the Dutch have done and it works.
And don't make it so cyclists are sharing paths with pedestrians. As a pedestrian I feel more in fear of being hit by a cyclist than a car though that is anecdotal as number of times been hit by a car = 0, number of times in collision with cyclists = 2
I was nearly sent flying by a pair of cyclists on the pavement yesterday
You should be grateful it wasn't a driver.
Between 2005 and 2018, 542 pedestrians on pavements were killed by drivers. 6 by cyclists.
The road is quite separate and a distance from the pavement
There is no excuse for their thoughtless behaviour
There isn't, of course. Nor one for the hundreds of people killed by drivers.
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
No, its not, not even close.
Which should be fairly obvious considering that England makes up most of the area of the UK, then even if every single km of road in the entire UK were located in England (with not a single road at all in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland), then we'd still be less dense than them.
But not every km of road exists in England. Not even close.
What is the road density of England?
175 km per 100km^s is uk figure cant find an england only figure, you only want to go to full uk because wales and scotland are both poorly populated as though I doubt they add much to the 175 km^2
The point is that Wales and Scotland add a lot more to the denominator of roads per square kilometer!
To take an extreme example, you'll find that Norway has a far lower road density than the UK. That's not because Norway is crap at building roads; it's because Noway has a far lower population density than the UK. Similarly, the UK has a lower road density than the Netherlands because it has a lower population density than the Netherlands, not because the UK is crap at building roads compared to the Netherlands.
Yes but they don't only add to the denominator. If they only added to the denominator and there was not a single road in the entirety of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland then our road density would be the same as the Netherlands - but that's quite obviously not the case.
A quarter of the UK's roads are in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, hence why English road density is 244. We have failed to invest in enough roads for decades - a mistake the Netherlands have not made.
The Netherlands have invested in roads and cycle paths. That works. I don't know why pro-cycling people in this country oppose copying them with that?
I'd be fine with copying the Netherlands, but we're a lot further behind them with cycling infrastructure than we are with road infrastructure.
Well that's my proposal I've been suggesting and @Eabhal has been knocking back.
We need more roads and cycling infrastructure. The two go hand in hand, they're not enemies, the Dutch figured this out 50 years ago.
Build entirely new roads and you can build dedicated cycle infrastructure from the start to go with it.
Want to retrofit old roads? Build new roads to relieve car traffic (with cycle paths) and you can retrofit old roads to be more cycle friendly - which is two wins for cycles and 1 for cars.
I don't disagree in principle, it's just your solution is impossible unless you start knocking down swathes of our cities and towns (like we did in the 60s and 70s). A 1:1 ratio isn't going to work in most cases.
If an A road goes through a town centre (eg Moray, Aberdeenshire) then go for it - a bypass could open up the High Street for pedestrianisation.
Another point we disagree on is the "one more lane" philosophy, and the interaction of supply and demand.
There's absolutely no reason to knock down swathes of towns and cities, the Dutch haven't done that.
We can build on previously undeveloped land, there's plenty of it about. You can also build roads above existing roads too - plenty of that in the Netherlands too.
That liberates traffic away from old roads and allows you to convert old land onto cycle paths - as well as allowing construction on the other side of the new roads. Which can be built in LTNs.
"One more lane" is a myth. Based on looking at Los Angeles primarily and disregarding the fact that their population went from 4 million to 13 million in the same time period as London's went from 8 million to 9 million. LA effectively added the entire of Greater London's population as population growth so of course they needed extra capacity.
I don't think using LA as an example is going to do you any favours.
First song ever to debut at #1 in the US from an artist with no record label. No promotion for it at all, just word of mouth. Brilliant to see cultural moments like that.
See also the film “Sound of Freedom”, which is one of the top films of the summer in the US, made on a tiny budget.
Both are alt-right nutjob affairs.
So the far-left nutjobs have been saying.
Do you believe large numbers of children are being abducted by organised sex traffickers who control the media?
I think it unlikely, although the truth about the prevalence of child sex abuse, and the willingness of people in authority to turn a blind eye to it, is already sufficiently disturbing.
I suspect child sex abuse is much less common than it was when I was young.
There was a woodwork teacher at my old school, who had had to leave the local girls school for bringing girls back to his home and taking nude photos of them. This wasn't considered a problem at the local mixed comprehensive.
Why is it always the woodwork teachers?
I had a colleague who went to boarding school in the UK, and he told me there was one particular (non-PE) teacher that would always find an excuse to be there when they were showering.
This not to justify this behaviour. It's recognizing that there are - and have always been - a class of people (mostly men) who seek to sexually abuse children and adolescents.
This abuse tends to happen in one of two ways: either a family member / friend; or via someone in a position of authority / power.
If we were to do a British Crime Survey and ask people if they were victims of childhood (i.e. pre-18) sexual abuse, I suspect that we would find that a large number of people from every age cohort suffered. But I also suspect that it is less common for today's youth.
Firstly, schools are much more aware of the issue, and toleration of teachers' misbehaviour is much less tolerated. And secondly, in an age of smartphones, kids today are much less likely to be situations where they might be able to be abused. There are few alter boys these days.
Agree. Back in the late 60s, my state school PE teacher used to line us all up and walk down the line pulling our shorts forward at the waistband to 'check' that we weren't wearing underpants (which were not allowed under shorts, apparently). We were uncomfortable, but nobody complained.
He would not get away with that these days, and probably wouldn't even try. Things have got better.
One of my A level teachers was convicted for sexual assault, my school deputy chaplain was arrested for selling indecent videos in Germany and my prep school headmaster went to court accused of abusing boarders in dorms but was not convicted.
All par for the course in prep schools and public schools for many a few decades ago, personally nothing ever happened to me and they were all pretty good teachers. It was just accepted at the time but isn't now in schools
Attending a bog standard comprehensive school and being on the receiving end of the occasional punch wasn't so bad after all then.
You obviously didn't get the grooming and polishing to make you posh, though.
It's a better option than cloning a numberplate, at least when they get around to enforcing against cloned numberplates.
There needs to be a move to stamped numberplates, otherwise the cloning problem is going to get way out of hand, with thousands of innocent people caught up. I’ve said before that everyone needs to customise in some minor way the front and rear of their car, because when the local authority has a photo of your car - with your numberplate - in court, it’s going to be for you to try and prove it’s not your car.
Personally I think we are already at the out of control stage, as for illegal motorbikes and antisocial parking to name two more. If a problem is not dealt with when unusual, it becomes a de facto option.
On cloned numberplates I have seen numbers from 10k to 50k offences committed (ie presumably detected) per annum, and up to 4 million number plates being cloned (various press articles),
I think that tightening up the supply chain for number plates is part of the answer to that, and as you saying going for some form of high security plate. That would reduce the issue to a small problem amongst the criminal set. The strategy also offers a means to apply a control to illegal motorbikes - make pre-sale registration a requirement.
As it stands to derestrict a Surron from 30mph to 50+mph, all that has to be done is cutting one sticking out loop of wire. And those two teenage lads in Ely, Cardiff killed themselves with one that had been a present from a parent.
Apparently there are over 1 million uninsured drivers too. Think that will just increase given the insurance premiums this year, which in turn increases the premiums next year.
Might have a market failure on our hands.
The police are at least still interested. Anything under 6 points these days and you really have to piss the copper off to be prosecuted.
You only have to watch the C5 police programs to see why people do it. The fines (usually a couple of £100) are way less than the typical cost of insurance - Eek twin A's renewal quote was £1100 up from £640..
Actually found a deal for £500 but that disappeared almost instantly (thankfully I bought it there and then).
One lad actually told the police exactly that when they nabbed him. He was making a rational choice to minimise his cost of motoring by not buying insurance for clapped out bangers and being repeatedly fined.
Millions on waiting lists for essential treatment, and health professionals are pissing about performing womb transplants.
Not sure I agree with you on that one
It is amazing that medical advances are able to do this, and may well lead to hope for some women who cannot have children at present
Should the nhs however not prioritize life saving operations? While I have sympathy for women who cant give birth they still have the option of motherhood by adoption or surrogacy....this strikes me as a want not a need
The Womb transplant wasn't paid for by the NHS.
"Both underwent counselling before surgery, and their case was reviewed and approved by the Human Tissue Authority. The NHS costs, estimated at £25,000, were paid for by the charity Womb Transplant UK. More than 30 staff involved on the day gave their time for free.
Prof Smith, who is Chairman of Womb Transplant UK, said the team had been authorised to carry out a total of 15 transplants - five with live donors and 10 with deceased, brain-dead donors - but would need another £300,000 to pay for all the procedures."
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
No, its not, not even close.
Which should be fairly obvious considering that England makes up most of the area of the UK, then even if every single km of road in the entire UK were located in England (with not a single road at all in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland), then we'd still be less dense than them.
But not every km of road exists in England. Not even close.
What is the road density of England?
175 km per 100km^s is uk figure cant find an england only figure, you only want to go to full uk because wales and scotland are both poorly populated as though I doubt they add much to the 175 km^2
The point is that Wales and Scotland add a lot more to the denominator of roads per square kilometer!
To take an extreme example, you'll find that Norway has a far lower road density than the UK. That's not because Norway is crap at building roads; it's because Noway has a far lower population density than the UK. Similarly, the UK has a lower road density than the Netherlands because it has a lower population density than the Netherlands, not because the UK is crap at building roads compared to the Netherlands.
Yes but they don't only add to the denominator. If they only added to the denominator and there was not a single road in the entirety of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland then our road density would be the same as the Netherlands - but that's quite obviously not the case.
A quarter of the UK's roads are in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, hence why English road density is 244. We have failed to invest in enough roads for decades - a mistake the Netherlands have not made.
The Netherlands have invested in roads and cycle paths. That works. I don't know why pro-cycling people in this country oppose copying them with that?
I'd be fine with copying the Netherlands, but we're a lot further behind them with cycling infrastructure than we are with road infrastructure.
Well that's my proposal I've been suggesting and @Eabhal has been knocking back.
We need more roads and cycling infrastructure. The two go hand in hand, they're not enemies, the Dutch figured this out 50 years ago.
Build entirely new roads and you can build dedicated cycle infrastructure from the start to go with it.
Want to retrofit old roads? Build new roads to relieve car traffic (with cycle paths) and you can retrofit old roads to be more cycle friendly - which is two wins for cycles and 1 for cars.
I don't disagree in principle, it's just your solution is impossible unless you start knocking down swathes of our cities and towns (like we did in the 60s and 70s). A 1:1 ratio isn't going to work in most cases.
If an A road goes through a town centre (eg Moray, Aberdeenshire) then go for it - a bypass could open up the High Street for pedestrianisation.
Another point we disagree on is the "one more lane" philosophy, and the interaction of supply and demand.
There's absolutely no reason to knock down swathes of towns and cities, the Dutch haven't done that.
We can build on previously undeveloped land, there's plenty of it about. You can also build roads above existing roads too - plenty of that in the Netherlands too.
That liberates traffic away from old roads and allows you to convert old land onto cycle paths - as well as allowing construction on the other side of the new roads. Which can be built in LTNs.
"One more lane" is a myth. Based on looking at Los Angeles primarily and disregarding the fact that their population went from 4 million to 13 million in the same time period as London's went from 8 million to 9 million. LA effectively added the entire of Greater London's population as population growth so of course they needed extra capacity.
I don't think using LA as an example is going to do you any favours.
I'm saying LA is not an example. Since nowhere in the UK has experienced population growth of 9 million people.
But its the one claimed by those who believe in the "one more lane" myth.
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
I already did that calculation england vs holland for you road density in holland is 50% higher
No, you got your sums wrong. You were mixing up the road densities and populations of England and the UK.
The Netherlands has around twice the road density and population density of the UK. But the Netherlands has roughly the same road density and population density as England.
No, it doesn't.
Netherland has double the road density of the UK.
Netherlands has roughly the same population density but 50% more road density than England.
Isn't the Netherlands about 550/km2 vs 425/km2 in England?
Yes, and I'd imagine that the road densities are a similar ratio.
But they're not. As although I've given you the figures already, it also should have been obvious from the start as you'd need 0 roads in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to make the figures comparable.
244 vs 332 for roads 425 vs 550 for population
Despite economies of scale for denser populations, they have significantly more extra roads than we do.
Build more roads, with more cycling paths, that is what the Dutch have done and it works.
And don't make it so cyclists are sharing paths with pedestrians. As a pedestrian I feel more in fear of being hit by a cyclist than a car though that is anecdotal as number of times been hit by a car = 0, number of times in collision with cyclists = 2
I was nearly sent flying by a pair of cyclists on the pavement yesterday
Cyclists handing out free tickets for British Airways? Cool!
Seriously - good to hear it was just a close shave.
With my restricted mobility it was very worrying and frankly unacceptable
Millions on waiting lists for essential treatment, and health professionals are pissing about performing womb transplants.
Not sure I agree with you on that one
It is amazing that medical advances are able to do this, and may well lead to hope for some women who cannot have children at present
Should the nhs however not prioritize life saving operations? While I have sympathy for women who cant give birth they still have the option of motherhood by adoption or surrogacy....this strikes me as a want not a need
The Womb transplant wasn't paid for by the NHS.
"Both underwent counselling before surgery, and their case was reviewed and approved by the Human Tissue Authority. The NHS costs, estimated at £25,000, were paid for by the charity Womb Transplant UK. More than 30 staff involved on the day gave their time for free.
Prof Smith, who is Chairman of Womb Transplant UK, said the team had been authorised to carry out a total of 15 transplants - five with live donors and 10 with deceased, brain-dead donors - but would need another £300,000 to pay for all the procedures."
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would
We should all be getting 1 hour of exercise a day (or at least 150 mins a week). That means that most people with a commute less than 10km (6 miles) should be cycling or walking to work.
In England and Wales, 65% of commuters are within 10km of their workplace. 43% are within 5km. Yet only 14% walk or cycle.
Whatever happened to "protect the NHS"?
It's that kind of hectoring tone, particularly when combined with a message that (1) tells people that they're not good enough - for themselves and for humanity - and (2) wants to make their life less pleasant*, that makes them want to go and order a big fat pizza just out of spite.
* There's a reason people drive or take a bus/train and it comes down to the traditional four metrics of modal choice: cost, speed, convenience and pleasantness. Granted, cost will always tend to weigh for cycling and will always do so for walking; the other three, however, usually more than offset it.
I don't blame people at all for driving everywhere given the lack of safe and pleasant walking and cycling infrastructure. I think it's a huge government failure that so many people use a car for short journeys.
It's crazy that the NHS is under such pressure but we never do anything to reduce it - the answer is always more funding, more doctors, more beds.
I'm still baffled that the government didn't use COVID lockdowns to reduce obesity and to get people exercising more, particularly given these were the known co- morbidities we could do something about.
But they did.
They made announcements on the news.
They made adverts. Though lots of people don't even see adverts anymore.
They had schools push things.
They had the NHS pushing out messages.
What more could be done that wasn't done?
We are constantly getting Change4Life materials from the kids school.
If people aren't eating healthy or exercising then that's by choice, not ignorance.
Ironically for all Eabhals wanting people out of cars I would actually do more exercise if I had one.
Having to rely on walking or public transport keeps me mostly at home and prevents me doing things I would otherwise do.
Examples I have considered doing since the move to the south west but cant because no public transport and not within a range I am willing to walk
Archery Taking Aikido back up Hiking in the local forest To name but a few and note I think the bus here is a damn sight better than the bus service in Slough
It would be great to fix that with better public transport and active travel provision.
You aren't going to fix it by public transport. Buses can't go everywhere people want to go from and to it would be an economic black hole. Nor will in my opinion most people in britain get on a bike. I am fairly typical of most people I know that way....we hated riding a bike when we were a kid and we aren't going to get on one now.
Take away peoples cars and most will end up doing what I do which is not bother going out unless I absolutely have to. All those clubs will end up shutting down due to lack of members therefore and all the country pubs and restaurants. The country will end up a bunch of virtual hermits because going anywhere you want to go if its not the town centre is just to damn hard.
About 10% of the population cycle and it has remained stationary pretty much over the last 5 years. A lot of those 6.5 million will no doubt be kids
Most people just dont want to cycle no matter how many cycle lanes you put in. We just don't bloody enjoy it
Is there a British anti-cycling gene? Or a Dutch cycling one?
Even in holland "Cycling has a modal share of 27% of all trips (urban and rural) nationwide." and "36% of Dutch people listing the bicycle as their most frequent way of getting around on a typical day". Sure make your cycle paths and maybe you might get up to that though I frankly doubt it. But lets assume you do....your active travel bugbear covers 27% of journeys only and 36% of people. For the rest, a mere two thirds of the country, once you have got your way and banned private cars will be stuck in and end up like me going out only when its within easy walking distance or I have no choice and have to deal with public transport. But I guess thats ok for the active travel zealots like you....less pedestrians in your way
Zealots here fall for a romanticised myth of what the Netherlands have done, rather than the reality.
Reality is the Netherlands have, quite rightly, invested for decades in improving roads for both cars and for cyclists. They've never stopped constructing more roads.
Build more roads, capacity improves, congestion eases, and people can take their preferred mode of transportation whether it be cycling or driving. The Dutch do both, with pleasure, because they invest in roads.
In this country people have fallen for the myth of induced demand and think that investing in critical infrastructure like roads is a problem.
The Netherlands has 332km of roads per 100km^2 The UK has 175km of roads per 100km^2
We have less than half the infrastructure they have. Then people wonder why we don't have the mobility the Dutch have?
Invest in roads and boost mobility.
You're comparing apples with oranges. The Netherlands has around twice the population density of the UK, so you'd expect it to have around twice the road density.
Not really as there's economies of scale. If I drive 20 miles through the countryside with no towns, or 20 miles past 6 towns, then either way I've done same mileage on same amount of road.
Plus English density is reasonably comparable actually.
Yes, and no doubt you'll find that the road density of England is also comparable to that of the Netherlands.
I already did that calculation england vs holland for you road density in holland is 50% higher
No, you got your sums wrong. You were mixing up the road densities and populations of England and the UK.
The Netherlands has around twice the road density and population density of the UK. But the Netherlands has roughly the same road density and population density as England.
No, it doesn't.
Netherland has double the road density of the UK.
Netherlands has roughly the same population density but 50% more road density than England.
Isn't the Netherlands about 550/km2 vs 425/km2 in England?
Yes, and I'd imagine that the road densities are a similar ratio.
But they're not. As although I've given you the figures already, it also should have been obvious from the start as you'd need 0 roads in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to make the figures comparable.
244 vs 332 for roads 425 vs 550 for population
Despite economies of scale for denser populations, they have significantly more extra roads than we do.
Build more roads, with more cycling paths, that is what the Dutch have done and it works.
And don't make it so cyclists are sharing paths with pedestrians. As a pedestrian I feel more in fear of being hit by a cyclist than a car though that is anecdotal as number of times been hit by a car = 0, number of times in collision with cyclists = 2
I was nearly sent flying by a pair of cyclists on the pavement yesterday
You should be grateful it wasn't a driver.
Between 2005 and 2018, 542 pedestrians on pavements were killed by drivers. 6 by cyclists.
The road is quite separate and a distance from the pavement
There is no excuse for their thoughtless behaviour
There isn't, of course. Nor one for the hundreds of people killed by drivers.
It's weird how it is simply accepted that pedestrians will inevitably be killed in their hundreds by drivers, but the idea that a pedestrian might be hurt by a cyclist sparks outrage.
@Sandpit was celebrating the success of “The Sound of Freedom”, a film starring, associated with and heavily promoted by Jim Caviezel.
Promoting the film, Caviezel repeatedly spoke about how he is worried about “the adrenochroming of children.” That’s the QAnon conspiracy that Democrat politicians and Hollywood moguls are extracting blood from children under torture and in sacrifices to make a psychoactive drug, adrenochrome. Caviezel said: “Essentially, you have adrenaline in your body and when you are scared, you produce the adrenaline. … If a child knows he’s going to die, his body will secrete this adrenaline and they have a lot of terms that they use that he takes me through but it’s the worst horror I’ve seen. It’s screaming alone. Even if I never, ever, ever saw it, it’s beyond. And these people that do it, um, there will be no mercy for them.” He’s said the issue is “greater than” the Nuremberg trials.
He's also said, “the storm is upon us”. The Storm is the moment when Donald Trump reveals that he’s been President all this time and orders mass arrests of the evil cabal of elites behind the child sex trafficking. He’s talked about "the Rothschild banks" and "a Rothschild pope" oppressing Christians. "I'm certainly not antisemitic," Caviezel told Steve Bannon in an interview. "The studios wouldn't hire me, but see they're all controlled by the central banks."
Former co-workers have described Caviezel as abusing a dog on set; not wanting to shoot a scene on a production where his character rescues a gay couple; saying interracial relationships should be banned; and saying Hitler “had the right idea” but went “too far”. Another former colleague said, “Working with Jim, is like working with a puppy… If that puppy liked Hitler”.
Err, nope. That’s far-left conspiracy theory that’s no better than far-right conspiracy theory.
What part of the above is untrue? There is video of Caviezel saying the things in the first paragraph: https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383419877881303045 The podcast with Steve Bannon is publicly available. There are multiple reports of Caviezel's behaviour.
https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383421963104788489?s=20 That's video of Caviezel "explaining" about adrenochrome. Are you saying that video is faked? Are you saying there's no QAnon adrenochrome conspiracy nonsense and Caviezel meant something else?
He’s an actor, they’re all weirdos. The clips you show are very much out of context.
Here’s an interview with Tim Ballard, the subject of the movie, who asserts that there’s an actual problem with sex trafficing from Mexico to the US. https://youtube.com/watch?v=UK3NWozQXdY
@Sandpit was celebrating the success of “The Sound of Freedom”, a film starring, associated with and heavily promoted by Jim Caviezel.
Promoting the film, Caviezel repeatedly spoke about how he is worried about “the adrenochroming of children.” That’s the QAnon conspiracy that Democrat politicians and Hollywood moguls are extracting blood from children under torture and in sacrifices to make a psychoactive drug, adrenochrome. Caviezel said: “Essentially, you have adrenaline in your body and when you are scared, you produce the adrenaline. … If a child knows he’s going to die, his body will secrete this adrenaline and they have a lot of terms that they use that he takes me through but it’s the worst horror I’ve seen. It’s screaming alone. Even if I never, ever, ever saw it, it’s beyond. And these people that do it, um, there will be no mercy for them.” He’s said the issue is “greater than” the Nuremberg trials.
He's also said, “the storm is upon us”. The Storm is the moment when Donald Trump reveals that he’s been President all this time and orders mass arrests of the evil cabal of elites behind the child sex trafficking. He’s talked about "the Rothschild banks" and "a Rothschild pope" oppressing Christians. "I'm certainly not antisemitic," Caviezel told Steve Bannon in an interview. "The studios wouldn't hire me, but see they're all controlled by the central banks."
Former co-workers have described Caviezel as abusing a dog on set; not wanting to shoot a scene on a production where his character rescues a gay couple; saying interracial relationships should be banned; and saying Hitler “had the right idea” but went “too far”. Another former colleague said, “Working with Jim, is like working with a puppy… If that puppy liked Hitler”.
Err, nope. That’s far-left conspiracy theory that’s no better than far-right conspiracy theory.
What part of the above is untrue? There is video of Caviezel saying the things in the first paragraph: https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383419877881303045 The podcast with Steve Bannon is publicly available. There are multiple reports of Caviezel's behaviour.
https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383421963104788489?s=20 That's video of Caviezel "explaining" about adrenochrome. Are you saying that video is faked? Are you saying there's no QAnon adrenochrome conspiracy nonsense and Caviezel meant something else?
He’s an actor, they’re all weirdos. The clips you show are very much out of context.
Here’s an interview with Tim Ballard, the subject of the movie, who asserts that there’s an actual problem with sex trafficing from Mexico to the US. https://youtube.com/watch?v=UK3NWozQXdY
The clips aren't out of context. Provide me with the context that explains why he's talking about the "adrenochroming of children", or why he's talking about "a Rothschild pope".
How does a different person talking about something else demonstrate that it's a "far-left conspiracy theory" to say that Caviezel endorses QAnon nonsense?
Stop excusing QAnon nutters.
You’re taking about an actor. Should I not see Top Gun or Mission Impossible, because Tom Cruise is also a total religious fruitcake?
Good to see Red Raver proper largin’ it on the Costa del Hardcore. Finally someone in Westminster who can put a decent shift in. Bang on it.
A notably sympathetic article considering it's the Express. Her venom cocktail sounds awful though:
"The formidable recipe involves mixing a bottle of vodka, a bottle of Southern Comfort, ten bottles of Blue WKD and a litre of orange juice"
Yes, she sounds worryingly normal compared to the uptight Starmer and Sunak.
I actually don't have a problem with politicians not being very normal. I also want them, if possible, to be more intelligent and have more integrity than the average person, but I know I cannot have everything.
But it is nice when some at least do actually seem like regular people.
I am not sure we actually want them to be highly intelligent. I have noticed highly intelligent folk often seem a) lacking in common sense b) have an innate blind spot to the fact because they are highly intelligent and knowledgeable on some subjects it does not make them knowledgeable about all subjects
And since you have noticed that, then you cannot be highly intelligent.
Conversely if you are, then you must be lacking in common sense and possessing blind spots.
@Sandpit was celebrating the success of “The Sound of Freedom”, a film starring, associated with and heavily promoted by Jim Caviezel.
Promoting the film, Caviezel repeatedly spoke about how he is worried about “the adrenochroming of children.” That’s the QAnon conspiracy that Democrat politicians and Hollywood moguls are extracting blood from children under torture and in sacrifices to make a psychoactive drug, adrenochrome. Caviezel said: “Essentially, you have adrenaline in your body and when you are scared, you produce the adrenaline. … If a child knows he’s going to die, his body will secrete this adrenaline and they have a lot of terms that they use that he takes me through but it’s the worst horror I’ve seen. It’s screaming alone. Even if I never, ever, ever saw it, it’s beyond. And these people that do it, um, there will be no mercy for them.” He’s said the issue is “greater than” the Nuremberg trials.
He's also said, “the storm is upon us”. The Storm is the moment when Donald Trump reveals that he’s been President all this time and orders mass arrests of the evil cabal of elites behind the child sex trafficking. He’s talked about "the Rothschild banks" and "a Rothschild pope" oppressing Christians. "I'm certainly not antisemitic," Caviezel told Steve Bannon in an interview. "The studios wouldn't hire me, but see they're all controlled by the central banks."
Former co-workers have described Caviezel as abusing a dog on set; not wanting to shoot a scene on a production where his character rescues a gay couple; saying interracial relationships should be banned; and saying Hitler “had the right idea” but went “too far”. Another former colleague said, “Working with Jim, is like working with a puppy… If that puppy liked Hitler”.
Err, nope. That’s far-left conspiracy theory that’s no better than far-right conspiracy theory.
What part of the above is untrue? There is video of Caviezel saying the things in the first paragraph: https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383419877881303045 The podcast with Steve Bannon is publicly available. There are multiple reports of Caviezel's behaviour.
https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383421963104788489?s=20 That's video of Caviezel "explaining" about adrenochrome. Are you saying that video is faked? Are you saying there's no QAnon adrenochrome conspiracy nonsense and Caviezel meant something else?
He’s an actor, they’re all weirdos. The clips you show are very much out of context.
Here’s an interview with Tim Ballard, the subject of the movie, who asserts that there’s an actual problem with sex trafficing from Mexico to the US. https://youtube.com/watch?v=UK3NWozQXdY
The clips aren't out of context. Provide me with the context that explains why he's talking about the "adrenochroming of children", or why he's talking about "a Rothschild pope".
How does a different person talking about something else demonstrate that it's a "far-left conspiracy theory" to say that Caviezel endorses QAnon nonsense?
Stop excusing QAnon nutters.
You’re taking about an actor. Should I not see Top Gun or Mission Impossible, because Tom Cruise is also a total religious fruitcake?
Of course you should, they're good movies, but your follow up was excusing his comments by claiming them as out of context when I cannot really see what context would help.
First song ever to debut at #1 in the US from an artist with no record label. No promotion for it at all, just word of mouth. Brilliant to see cultural moments like that.
See also the film “Sound of Freedom”, which is one of the top films of the summer in the US, made on a tiny budget.
Both are alt-right nutjob affairs.
So the far-left nutjobs have been saying.
Do you believe large numbers of children are being abducted by organised sex traffickers who control the media?
I think it unlikely, although the truth about the prevalence of child sex abuse, and the willingness of people in authority to turn a blind eye to it, is already sufficiently disturbing.
I suspect child sex abuse is much less common than it was when I was young.
There was a woodwork teacher at my old school, who had had to leave the local girls school for bringing girls back to his home and taking nude photos of them. This wasn't considered a problem at the local mixed comprehensive.
Why is it always the woodwork teachers?
I had a colleague who went to boarding school in the UK, and he told me there was one particular (non-PE) teacher that would always find an excuse to be there when they were showering.
This not to justify this behaviour. It's recognizing that there are - and have always been - a class of people (mostly men) who seek to sexually abuse children and adolescents.
This abuse tends to happen in one of two ways: either a family member / friend; or via someone in a position of authority / power.
If we were to do a British Crime Survey and ask people if they were victims of childhood (i.e. pre-18) sexual abuse, I suspect that we would find that a large number of people from every age cohort suffered. But I also suspect that it is less common for today's youth.
Firstly, schools are much more aware of the issue, and toleration of teachers' misbehaviour is much less tolerated. And secondly, in an age of smartphones, kids today are much less likely to be situations where they might be able to be abused. There are few alter boys these days.
Agree. Back in the late 60s, my state school PE teacher used to line us all up and walk down the line pulling our shorts forward at the waistband to 'check' that we weren't wearing underpants (which were not allowed under shorts, apparently). We were uncomfortable, but nobody complained.
He would not get away with that these days, and probably wouldn't even try. Things have got better.
One of my A level teachers was convicted for sexual assault, my school deputy chaplain was arrested for selling indecent videos in Germany and my prep school headmaster went to court accused of abusing boarders in dorms but was not convicted.
All par for the course in prep schools and public schools for many a few decades ago, personally nothing ever happened to me and they were all pretty good teachers. It was just accepted at the time but isn't now in schools
Attending a bog standard comprehensive school and being on the receiving end of the occasional punch wasn't so bad after all then.
You obviously didn't get the grooming and polishing to make you posh, though.
Millions on waiting lists for essential treatment, and health professionals are pissing about performing womb transplants.
I initially thought this but apparently it was funded by a charity and all staff gave their time for free on a Sunday when the operating theatre was empty.
First song ever to debut at #1 in the US from an artist with no record label. No promotion for it at all, just word of mouth. Brilliant to see cultural moments like that.
See also the film “Sound of Freedom”, which is one of the top films of the summer in the US, made on a tiny budget.
Both are alt-right nutjob affairs.
So the far-left nutjobs have been saying.
Do you believe large numbers of children are being abducted by organised sex traffickers who control the media?
Exhibit 1: Jeffery Epstein.
It was a weird conspiracy theory, until it turned out to be completely true.
It's interesting to see the right already disavow this guy online for saying that diversity is a strength in the US.
On the "organised sex traffickers who control the media" conspiracy and whether it is "completely true" - the way the right view child abuse is obviously conspiratorial. Child abuse primarily happens in the family or a familial community (many denominations of churches or boy scouts of America). The Epstein example (and the examples in the UK of high power / rich men who abuse children such as Saville or MPs) show the rarer side of child abuse that still shows the nature of abuse - typically men, typically rich or in a position of powerful and typically above scrutiny. That could describe Epstein OR your local catholic priest. In the boy scouts of America the issue was the organisation itself didn't want oversight, that much of the labour is done by volunteers and (like the church) the desire for "male role models" in a world where some men consider that "under fire" meant a desire to move people around who were credibly accused of child abuse, rather than actually dealing with the problem.
The right wing need to put more emphasis of the Epstein's of the world because much of the right depends on the importance of the family (and the patriarch specifically) as well as the importance of the church, or organisations like the boy scouts. It is also why those people point at LGBTQ+ and gender non conforming / trans people specifically as groomers despite evidence against that; because those are external threats to right wing notions of family and masculinity and the things they actually uphold as good examples of those are the more evidenced threat to children.
Just because there’s lots of stepfathers, scoutmasters, and priests, that turn out to be abusers, doesn’t also mean that there isn’t Epstein and his group of wealthly friends.
Not just stepfathers - biological fathers too.
The point is not that wealthy people are not abusers - of course they can be, and the power and wealth they have indeed typically protects them from being imprisoned for that.
It's just that the vast majority of child abuse happens within the family or the local community. Just like most sexual assault of adults is by people the victim knows rather than strangers - sexual assault and child abuse is not predominantly an issue with wealthy people (although that tends to be more organised) and is much more an issue of men with power and little oversight - which also includes a lot of fathers, priests, scoutmasters and other men in community.
What Epstein did was bad, and the structure of his organisation and links to other wealthy men shows a culture that accepts child abuse. But that structure is similar to how all abusers work - just at a different scale. They use their position of power over others to abuse them, they inculcate themselves from consequences by putting others in positions where they could be implicated or finding like minded individuals, they use their power within other structures to protect themselves and they make sure that they are indispensable to those who have the ability to provide consequences. Epstein did this via his wealth - getting in to positions where other people (whether they were involved in the abuse or not) relied on his continued freedom to benefit. His social circle, his community, involved a lot of other rich and powerful people, so implicating them protected himself.
When a father or priest is an abuser, similar tactics are used. They may be the main earner in the household, or a trusted community leader. They will obviously have opportunities to show themselves to be responsible adults and trusted and know significant personal things about others who could notice the abuse. They will have relationships with other figures of authority (their wife, the other adults in the family, other priests, other community leaders).
To focus so heavily on Epstein or Prince Andrew or even Saville is to miss the forest for the trees. They do the same things all abusers do, at a different scale because they have access to that specific social status. But they do not make up a significant number of abuse cases - because child abuse and sexual abuse are so endemic to society.
It is well noted, for example, that when Freud started his work he originally wanted to express how many patients were coming to him with examples of abuse from within the family / community but felt that he could not raise that publicly at the time because society at large would not believe it was so common, so instead he designed talking therapy to deal with the symptom (trauma in his patients) rather than deal with the cause (rampant sexual abuse predominantly by men, predominantly within the family).
Which is all completely right. My original point was rebuking the idea that wealthly and connected people being involved in sex trafficing was a “QAnon conspiracy theory”, when Gislaine Maxwell is in prison for exactly that.
But conspiracy theories are ways of explaining away intracommunity problems: ie how does the right contend with the FACT that the vast amount of child abuse comes from the institutions they hold most dear? (the family and the church). They create a complicated web of demon worshipping rich people on the left who are secretly all child abusers (oh and they commit the exact same rituals as blood libel, and the main guy we talk about is Jewish).
If you spend time looking at the rare instances of a rich Jewish guy doing this that feeds in to all the conspiracy stuff, rather than discussing the overarching patriarchal reasons for child sexual abuse and really the majority if all sexual abuse - I think it is reasonable to question why.
So to your original position of “this anti woke song and anti woke film are based, actually” begs the question: why should those things that titillate and fascinate and scratch that impulse to codify the conspiratorial myth be celebrated when they exist as a projection to ignore the real issue?
The holocaust joke level joke about Rotherham was the “this isn’t the establishment conspiracy we were looking for” stuff from certain people
@Sandpit was celebrating the success of “The Sound of Freedom”, a film starring, associated with and heavily promoted by Jim Caviezel.
Promoting the film, Caviezel repeatedly spoke about how he is worried about “the adrenochroming of children.” That’s the QAnon conspiracy that Democrat politicians and Hollywood moguls are extracting blood from children under torture and in sacrifices to make a psychoactive drug, adrenochrome. Caviezel said: “Essentially, you have adrenaline in your body and when you are scared, you produce the adrenaline. … If a child knows he’s going to die, his body will secrete this adrenaline and they have a lot of terms that they use that he takes me through but it’s the worst horror I’ve seen. It’s screaming alone. Even if I never, ever, ever saw it, it’s beyond. And these people that do it, um, there will be no mercy for them.” He’s said the issue is “greater than” the Nuremberg trials.
He's also said, “the storm is upon us”. The Storm is the moment when Donald Trump reveals that he’s been President all this time and orders mass arrests of the evil cabal of elites behind the child sex trafficking. He’s talked about "the Rothschild banks" and "a Rothschild pope" oppressing Christians. "I'm certainly not antisemitic," Caviezel told Steve Bannon in an interview. "The studios wouldn't hire me, but see they're all controlled by the central banks."
Former co-workers have described Caviezel as abusing a dog on set; not wanting to shoot a scene on a production where his character rescues a gay couple; saying interracial relationships should be banned; and saying Hitler “had the right idea” but went “too far”. Another former colleague said, “Working with Jim, is like working with a puppy… If that puppy liked Hitler”.
Err, nope. That’s far-left conspiracy theory that’s no better than far-right conspiracy theory.
What part of the above is untrue? There is video of Caviezel saying the things in the first paragraph: https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383419877881303045 The podcast with Steve Bannon is publicly available. There are multiple reports of Caviezel's behaviour.
https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383421963104788489?s=20 That's video of Caviezel "explaining" about adrenochrome. Are you saying that video is faked? Are you saying there's no QAnon adrenochrome conspiracy nonsense and Caviezel meant something else?
He’s an actor, they’re all weirdos. The clips you show are very much out of context.
Here’s an interview with Tim Ballard, the subject of the movie, who asserts that there’s an actual problem with sex trafficing from Mexico to the US. https://youtube.com/watch?v=UK3NWozQXdY
The clips aren't out of context. Provide me with the context that explains why he's talking about the "adrenochroming of children", or why he's talking about "a Rothschild pope".
How does a different person talking about something else demonstrate that it's a "far-left conspiracy theory" to say that Caviezel endorses QAnon nonsense?
Stop excusing QAnon nutters.
You’re taking about an actor. Should I not see Top Gun or Mission Impossible, because Tom Cruise is also a total religious fruitcake?
My view is that you shouldn't see Top Gun or Mission Impossible or any other film with Tom Cruise in it because he's a really annoying actor who plays exactly the same character in all his films. Actually, there's no real problem with an actor playing the same character in all his films. Arguably Michael Caine did it. But it was quite a good character. Tom Cruise's character is really annoying.
@Sandpit was celebrating the success of “The Sound of Freedom”, a film starring, associated with and heavily promoted by Jim Caviezel.
Promoting the film, Caviezel repeatedly spoke about how he is worried about “the adrenochroming of children.” That’s the QAnon conspiracy that Democrat politicians and Hollywood moguls are extracting blood from children under torture and in sacrifices to make a psychoactive drug, adrenochrome. Caviezel said: “Essentially, you have adrenaline in your body and when you are scared, you produce the adrenaline. … If a child knows he’s going to die, his body will secrete this adrenaline and they have a lot of terms that they use that he takes me through but it’s the worst horror I’ve seen. It’s screaming alone. Even if I never, ever, ever saw it, it’s beyond. And these people that do it, um, there will be no mercy for them.” He’s said the issue is “greater than” the Nuremberg trials.
He's also said, “the storm is upon us”. The Storm is the moment when Donald Trump reveals that he’s been President all this time and orders mass arrests of the evil cabal of elites behind the child sex trafficking. He’s talked about "the Rothschild banks" and "a Rothschild pope" oppressing Christians. "I'm certainly not antisemitic," Caviezel told Steve Bannon in an interview. "The studios wouldn't hire me, but see they're all controlled by the central banks."
Former co-workers have described Caviezel as abusing a dog on set; not wanting to shoot a scene on a production where his character rescues a gay couple; saying interracial relationships should be banned; and saying Hitler “had the right idea” but went “too far”. Another former colleague said, “Working with Jim, is like working with a puppy… If that puppy liked Hitler”.
Err, nope. That’s far-left conspiracy theory that’s no better than far-right conspiracy theory.
What part of the above is untrue? There is video of Caviezel saying the things in the first paragraph: https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383419877881303045 The podcast with Steve Bannon is publicly available. There are multiple reports of Caviezel's behaviour.
https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383421963104788489?s=20 That's video of Caviezel "explaining" about adrenochrome. Are you saying that video is faked? Are you saying there's no QAnon adrenochrome conspiracy nonsense and Caviezel meant something else?
He’s an actor, they’re all weirdos. The clips you show are very much out of context.
Here’s an interview with Tim Ballard, the subject of the movie, who asserts that there’s an actual problem with sex trafficing from Mexico to the US. https://youtube.com/watch?v=UK3NWozQXdY
The clips aren't out of context. Provide me with the context that explains why he's talking about the "adrenochroming of children", or why he's talking about "a Rothschild pope".
How does a different person talking about something else demonstrate that it's a "far-left conspiracy theory" to say that Caviezel endorses QAnon nonsense?
Stop excusing QAnon nutters.
You’re taking about an actor. Should I not see Top Gun or Mission Impossible, because Tom Cruise is also a total religious fruitcake?
My view is that you shouldn't see Top Gun or Mission Impossible or any other film with Tom Cruise in it because he's a really annoying actor who plays exactly the same character in all his films. Actually, there's no real problem with an actor playing the same character in all his films. Arguably Michael Caine did it. But it was quite a good character. Tom Cruise's character is really annoying.
Many historic actors played basically the same role in most of their films. Gary Oldman types with great range are actually pretty rare.
And it's not even true in Cruise's case that he cannot play different characters. His character in Edge of Tomorrow was not at all like his character in Oblivion, despite both being sci-fi action movies made close together for example. Neither was like his roles in Tropic Thunder or Collateral, to pick two of his more off type roles.
Does he excercise his range enough? Opinions will differ, an argument can be made he sticks to formula a lot of the time as that's his brand. But he definitely has range.
@Sandpit was celebrating the success of “The Sound of Freedom”, a film starring, associated with and heavily promoted by Jim Caviezel.
Promoting the film, Caviezel repeatedly spoke about how he is worried about “the adrenochroming of children.” That’s the QAnon conspiracy that Democrat politicians and Hollywood moguls are extracting blood from children under torture and in sacrifices to make a psychoactive drug, adrenochrome. Caviezel said: “Essentially, you have adrenaline in your body and when you are scared, you produce the adrenaline. … If a child knows he’s going to die, his body will secrete this adrenaline and they have a lot of terms that they use that he takes me through but it’s the worst horror I’ve seen. It’s screaming alone. Even if I never, ever, ever saw it, it’s beyond. And these people that do it, um, there will be no mercy for them.” He’s said the issue is “greater than” the Nuremberg trials.
He's also said, “the storm is upon us”. The Storm is the moment when Donald Trump reveals that he’s been President all this time and orders mass arrests of the evil cabal of elites behind the child sex trafficking. He’s talked about "the Rothschild banks" and "a Rothschild pope" oppressing Christians. "I'm certainly not antisemitic," Caviezel told Steve Bannon in an interview. "The studios wouldn't hire me, but see they're all controlled by the central banks."
Former co-workers have described Caviezel as abusing a dog on set; not wanting to shoot a scene on a production where his character rescues a gay couple; saying interracial relationships should be banned; and saying Hitler “had the right idea” but went “too far”. Another former colleague said, “Working with Jim, is like working with a puppy… If that puppy liked Hitler”.
Err, nope. That’s far-left conspiracy theory that’s no better than far-right conspiracy theory.
What part of the above is untrue? There is video of Caviezel saying the things in the first paragraph: https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383419877881303045 The podcast with Steve Bannon is publicly available. There are multiple reports of Caviezel's behaviour.
https://twitter.com/ehananoki/status/1383421963104788489?s=20 That's video of Caviezel "explaining" about adrenochrome. Are you saying that video is faked? Are you saying there's no QAnon adrenochrome conspiracy nonsense and Caviezel meant something else?
He’s an actor, they’re all weirdos. The clips you show are very much out of context.
Here’s an interview with Tim Ballard, the subject of the movie, who asserts that there’s an actual problem with sex trafficing from Mexico to the US. https://youtube.com/watch?v=UK3NWozQXdY
The clips aren't out of context. Provide me with the context that explains why he's talking about the "adrenochroming of children", or why he's talking about "a Rothschild pope".
How does a different person talking about something else demonstrate that it's a "far-left conspiracy theory" to say that Caviezel endorses QAnon nonsense?
Stop excusing QAnon nutters.
You’re taking about an actor. Should I not see Top Gun or Mission Impossible, because Tom Cruise is also a total religious fruitcake?
My view is that you shouldn't see Top Gun or Mission Impossible or any other film with Tom Cruise in it because he's a really annoying actor who plays exactly the same character in all his films. Actually, there's no real problem with an actor playing the same character in all his films. Arguably Michael Caine did it. But it was quite a good character. Tom Cruise's character is really annoying.
Many historic actors played basically the same role in most of their films. Gary Oldman types with great range are actually pretty rare.
And it's not even true in Cruise's case that he cannot play different characters. His character in Edge of Tomorrow was not at all like his character in Oblivion, despite both being sci-fi action movies made close together for example. Neither was like his roles in Tropic Thunder or Collateral, to pick two of his more off type roles.
Does he excercise his range enough? Opinions will differ, an argument can be made he sticks to formula a lot of the time as that's his brand. But he definitely has range.
Born on the Fourth of July. Minority Report. Lions for Lambs. Interview With A Vampire. War Of The Worlds. Yes, he has range.
Comments
All par for the course in prep schools and public schools for many a few decades ago, personally nothing ever happened to me and they were all pretty good teachers. It was just accepted at the time but isn't now in schools
A quarter of the UK's roads are in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, hence why English road density is 244. We have failed to invest in enough roads for decades - a mistake the Netherlands have not made.
The Netherlands have invested in roads and cycle paths. That works. I don't know why pro-cycling people in this country oppose copying them with that?
They add more details are awaited
Is it miles/km of road per person? If so, that could be enormously misleading if one place has lots of single lane roads, and the other has massive six lane highways.
The exact number once I sourced it was 36% higher, which is less than I estimated sure.
The 15% is by deducting the population difference, though as I said there are efficiencies of scale for having more population so that's not entirely reasonable.
Either way, we're significantly short of them. We should do what they've done and invest in roads and cycling paths - both of them!
For anyone who has followed his career he has been both a person of interest and he was not a number, he was a free man.
https://twitter.com/mjluxmoore/status/1694397974774779918
Actually found a deal for £500 but that disappeared almost instantly (thankfully I bought it there and then).
Things are heating up, and the ZSU are indeed making progress.
It is amazing that medical advances are able to do this, and may well lead to hope for some women who cannot have children at present
We need more roads and cycling infrastructure. The two go hand in hand, they're not enemies, the Dutch figured this out 50 years ago.
Build entirely new roads and you can build dedicated cycle infrastructure from the start to go with it.
Want to retrofit old roads? Build new roads to relieve car traffic (with cycle paths) and you can retrofit old roads to be more cycle friendly - which is two wins for cycles and 1 for cars.
Between 2005 and 2018, 542 pedestrians on pavements were killed by drivers. 6 by cyclists.
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1694391345396257198
Here’s an interview with Tim Ballard, the subject of the movie, who asserts that there’s an actual problem with sex trafficing from Mexico to the US. https://youtube.com/watch?v=UK3NWozQXdY
If an A road goes through a town centre (eg Moray, Aberdeenshire) then go for it - a bypass could open up the High Street for pedestrianisation.
Another point we disagree on is the "one more lane" philosophy, and the interaction of supply and demand.
There is no excuse for their thoughtless behaviour
Okkaaayyyy.
Well I guess the Wagner troops will all f. off back to Africa, and lead Putin to call up a few more random Russians for the meat grinder.
Seriously - good to hear it was just a close shave.
How does a different person talking about something else demonstrate that it's a "far-left conspiracy theory" to say that Caviezel endorses QAnon nonsense?
Stop excusing QAnon nutters.
We can build on previously undeveloped land, there's plenty of it about. You can also build roads above existing roads too - plenty of that in the Netherlands too.
That liberates traffic away from old roads and allows you to convert old land onto cycle paths - as well as allowing construction on the other side of the new roads. Which can be built in LTNs.
"One more lane" is a myth. Based on looking at Los Angeles primarily and disregarding the fact that their population went from 4 million to 13 million in the same time period as London's went from 8 million to 9 million. LA effectively added the entire of Greater London's population as population growth so of course they needed extra capacity.
He was kinda right - the driver failed to respond to the insurer and has been added to some sort of blacklist. Girlfriend got a payout by default.
@OzKaterji
"Both underwent counselling before surgery, and their case was reviewed and approved by the Human Tissue Authority. The NHS costs, estimated at £25,000, were paid for by the charity Womb Transplant UK. More than 30 staff involved on the day gave their time for free.
Prof Smith, who is Chairman of Womb Transplant UK, said the team had been authorised to carry out a total of 15 transplants - five with live donors and 10 with deceased, brain-dead donors - but would need another £300,000 to pay for all the procedures."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66514270
But its the one claimed by those who believe in the "one more lane" myth.
NEW THREAD
Conversely if you are, then you must be lacking in common sense and possessing blind spots.
Actually, there's no real problem with an actor playing the same character in all his films. Arguably Michael Caine did it. But it was quite a good character. Tom Cruise's character is really annoying.
And it's not even true in Cruise's case that he cannot play different characters. His character in Edge of Tomorrow was not at all like his character in Oblivion, despite both being sci-fi action movies made close together for example. Neither was like his roles in Tropic Thunder or Collateral, to pick two of his more off type roles.
Does he excercise his range enough? Opinions will differ, an argument can be made he sticks to formula a lot of the time as that's his brand. But he definitely has range.