(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
Isn't the limit 15mph for a powered bike? So that would be illegal anyway.
Yes and it is simply powered assist. The power won’t work unless you pedal
However these bikes do get modified. I saw a Police report on Twitter, or whatever it is called these days, where they had stopped a group with these bikes modified to exceed 20MPH without pedalling.
So they need tax, insurance etc etc.
Quite a few are conversions of regular bikes with kits bought on the internet.
Yes, good point. I often see ads for Swytch come up on Twitter.
Although these conversions don’t have a great reputation for reliability.
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
It’s not a crime or offence to park in a cycle Lane. I just go round the cars. I wouldn’t consider criminal damage as a solution.
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
It’s not a crime or offence to park in a cycle Lane. I just go round the cars. I wouldn’t consider criminal damage as a solution.
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
For really putting the motorists on their guard
Put it in a sidecar, and link it up to a heart rate monitor. If you go, they go.
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
For really putting the motorists on their guard
Put it in a sidecar, and link it up to a heart rate monitor. If you go, they go.
Just realised I searched up all those explosives on my work laptop. Fml.
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
It’s not a crime or offence to park in a cycle Lane. I just go round the cars. I wouldn’t consider criminal damage as a solution.
Certainly against the Highway Code.
No its not, unless its in the signposted hours of operation.
Speeding offences - Because bikes aren’t fitted with speedometers, cyclists can’t be charged with speeding offences. HOWEVER, if they are considered to be going too fast for the conditions, they could be charges with ‘wanton or furious cycling’ which is a criminal offence under section 35 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 s1(2))
There's another interesting (to me, at least...) point here. All the cyclists screeching: "The speed limits don't apply to cycles!" are ignoring the morality of it. It may be *legal* to ride your bike at 40MP in a 30MPH zone; but is it the *right* thing to do?
I'd strongly argue no. It's very antisocial.
I would say it's moderately antisocial (so I wouldn't do it, not that I can get anywhere near 40mph except on a very long clear downhill, at which point I'm usually braking for my own safety and peace of mind), but it is much less antisocial than a car doing 40 there. We set speed limits for a combination of safety and noise reasons and we set the specific numbers with motor vehicles in mind. A 40mph car makes a lot more noise and has a lot more momentum than a 40mph bicycle.
In an alternate world without motor vehicles, would we have ever imposed speed limits (rather than using some other behaviour-based definitions for laws against dangerous road use)? My guess is not, because very few cyclists are even capable of exceeding most limits.
Speeding offences - Because bikes aren’t fitted with speedometers, cyclists can’t be charged with speeding offences. HOWEVER, if they are considered to be going too fast for the conditions, they could be charges with ‘wanton or furious cycling’ which is a criminal offence under section 35 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 s1(2))
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
It’s not a crime or offence to park in a cycle Lane. I just go round the cars. I wouldn’t consider criminal damage as a solution.
Certainly against the Highway Code.
No its not, unless its in the signposted hours of operation.
Rule 243. That's what I carve onto the bonnet at least.
There's another interesting (to me, at least...) point here. All the cyclists screeching: "The speed limits don't apply to cycles!" are ignoring the morality of it. It may be *legal* to ride your bike at 40MP in a 30MPH zone; but is it the *right* thing to do?
I'd strongly argue no. It's very antisocial.
I would say it's moderately antisocial (so I wouldn't do it, not that I can get anywhere near 40mph except on a very long clear downhill, at which point I'm usually braking for my own safety and peace of mind), but it is much less antisocial than a car doing 40 there. We set speed limits for a combination of safety and noise reasons and we set the specific numbers with motor vehicles in mind. A 40mph car makes a lot more noise and has a lot more momentum than a 40mph bicycle.
In an alternate world without motor vehicles, would we have ever imposed speed limits (rather than using some other behaviour-based definitions for laws against dangerous road use)? My guess is not, because very few cyclists are even capable of exceeding most limits.
Any physicists here? I wonder how fast a cyclist would have to go before they carry as much energy as a car at 30mph. Presume it's not just E=1/2mv^2
EDIT: Given the enthusiasm for 20mph limits, cyclists (especially assisted cycle) speed are going to be a thing.
We should deal with those by better enforcement of the limits on assisted bicycles. Otherwise you end up with effectively allowing unlicensed uninsured electric mopeds.
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
It’s not a crime or offence to park in a cycle Lane. I just go round the cars. I wouldn’t consider criminal damage as a solution.
Certainly against the Highway Code.
No its not, unless its in the signposted hours of operation.
Rule 243. That's what I carve onto the bonnet at least.
Not a law, that's advisory.
The law is Rule 140, where the word Must is used.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Cycle lanes are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation.
The sign says the hours of operation. If its 24/7 you can never park there, if its Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm (eg a cycle lane near me) its perfectly legal to park there at weekends.
Of course if we followed my policy of building new roads, with physically segregated cycling paths, it'd be impossible to park in them anyway.
There's another interesting (to me, at least...) point here. All the cyclists screeching: "The speed limits don't apply to cycles!" are ignoring the morality of it. It may be *legal* to ride your bike at 40MP in a 30MPH zone; but is it the *right* thing to do?
I'd strongly argue no. It's very antisocial.
I would say it's moderately antisocial (so I wouldn't do it, not that I can get anywhere near 40mph except on a very long clear downhill, at which point I'm usually braking for my own safety and peace of mind), but it is much less antisocial than a car doing 40 there. We set speed limits for a combination of safety and noise reasons and we set the specific numbers with motor vehicles in mind. A 40mph car makes a lot more noise and has a lot more momentum than a 40mph bicycle.
In an alternate world without motor vehicles, would we have ever imposed speed limits (rather than using some other behaviour-based definitions for laws against dangerous road use)? My guess is not, because very few cyclists are even capable of exceeding most limits.
Any physicists here? I wonder how fast a cyclist would have to go before they carry as much energy as a car.
Re economic growth as we have now discovered the economy was 1.8% larger after covid than previously thought I wonder how that might have affected the Truss/Kwarzi show.
Would they have pressed every button they could think of if they didn't think there was a 'need' to do so ?
Or would the opportunity of being able to apply their version of 'Britannia unchained' have been unmissable ?
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
It’s not a crime or offence to park in a cycle Lane. I just go round the cars. I wouldn’t consider criminal damage as a solution.
Certainly against the Highway Code.
No its not, unless its in the signposted hours of operation.
Rule 243. That's what I carve onto the bonnet at least.
Not a law, that's advisory.
The law is Rule 140, where the word Must is used.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Cycle lanes are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation.
The sign says the hours of operation. If its 24/7 you can never park there, if its Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm (eg a cycle lane near me) its perfectly legal to park there at weekends.
Of course if we followed my policy of building new roads, with physically segregated cycling paths, it'd be impossible to park in them anyway.
Still against the Highway Code, which is what I said.
There's another interesting (to me, at least...) point here. All the cyclists screeching: "The speed limits don't apply to cycles!" are ignoring the morality of it. It may be *legal* to ride your bike at 40MP in a 30MPH zone; but is it the *right* thing to do?
I'd strongly argue no. It's very antisocial.
I would say it's moderately antisocial (so I wouldn't do it, not that I can get anywhere near 40mph except on a very long clear downhill, at which point I'm usually braking for my own safety and peace of mind), but it is much less antisocial than a car doing 40 there. We set speed limits for a combination of safety and noise reasons and we set the specific numbers with motor vehicles in mind. A 40mph car makes a lot more noise and has a lot more momentum than a 40mph bicycle.
In an alternate world without motor vehicles, would we have ever imposed speed limits (rather than using some other behaviour-based definitions for laws against dangerous road use)? My guess is not, because very few cyclists are even capable of exceeding most limits.
Any physicists here? I wonder how fast a cyclist would have to go before they carry as much energy as a car at 30mph. Presume it's not just E=1/2mv^2
217km/h, (c.135mph) assuming 1,500kg for the car and 80kg for the cyclist.
Speeding offences - Because bikes aren’t fitted with speedometers, cyclists can’t be charged with speeding offences. HOWEVER, if they are considered to be going too fast for the conditions, they could be charges with ‘wanton or furious cycling’ which is a criminal offence under section 35 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 s1(2))
EDIT: Given the enthusiasm for 20mph limits, cyclists (especially assisted cycle) speed are going to be a thing.
I cycle all over London and there are not many cyclists capable of exceeding 20mph on flat ground. I'm definitely mostly overtaking other cyclists and 20-22mph is sprint speed for me. It's really a very niche issue, particularly in comparison to the 85%+ of drivers with far less situational awareness in far larger vehicles breaking the speed limit in 20mph zones. https://www.driving.org/nearly-90-of-drivers-break-speed-limit-in-20mph-residential-areas/
As for assisted bikes, if they're assisted past 15mph then they're illegal (and 99% of people are not going to be strong enough to get a heavy e-bike past 20mph without assistance). If they assistance isn't limited to 15mph then they're, legally speaking motorbikes.
There's another interesting (to me, at least...) point here. All the cyclists screeching: "The speed limits don't apply to cycles!" are ignoring the morality of it. It may be *legal* to ride your bike at 40MP in a 30MPH zone; but is it the *right* thing to do?
I'd strongly argue no. It's very antisocial.
I would say it's moderately antisocial (so I wouldn't do it, not that I can get anywhere near 40mph except on a very long clear downhill, at which point I'm usually braking for my own safety and peace of mind), but it is much less antisocial than a car doing 40 there. We set speed limits for a combination of safety and noise reasons and we set the specific numbers with motor vehicles in mind. A 40mph car makes a lot more noise and has a lot more momentum than a 40mph bicycle.
In an alternate world without motor vehicles, would we have ever imposed speed limits (rather than using some other behaviour-based definitions for laws against dangerous road use)? My guess is not, because very few cyclists are even capable of exceeding most limits.
Any physicists here? I wonder how fast a cyclist would have to go before they carry as much energy as a car.
1/2 mv2
so at 20 mph...
velocity is 8.9408 meters / second
say the car is 1 ton
0.5 * 1000 * 8.9408 * 8.9408 = 39968.95
for the cyclist - say 100Kg of bike and person
0.5 * 100 * v2 = 39968.95
v2 = 39968.95/50
v2 = 799.379
v = 28.27
which is 62.6mph for equal kinetic energy.
Someone tell me where the mistake is.
I got 130mph using 1500kg for a car at 30mph and 80kg for cyclist and bike. But I'm not sure that is the right calculation for a collision?
(Fwiw, the energy is my bike crash was converted into a neat front flip into a hedge)
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
It’s not a crime or offence to park in a cycle Lane. I just go round the cars. I wouldn’t consider criminal damage as a solution.
Certainly against the Highway Code.
No its not, unless its in the signposted hours of operation.
Rule 243. That's what I carve onto the bonnet at least.
Not a law, that's advisory.
The law is Rule 140, where the word Must is used.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Cycle lanes are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation.
The sign says the hours of operation. If its 24/7 you can never park there, if its Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm (eg a cycle lane near me) its perfectly legal to park there at weekends.
Of course if we followed my policy of building new roads, with physically segregated cycling paths, it'd be impossible to park in them anyway.
Still against the Highway Code, which is what I said.
Circular logic fail as the Highway Code says in its introduction that you are only obliged to follow the Must Not though. Any Should Not or Do Not are advisory and situationally dependent.
Rule 140 is the law, and if you're engaging in vandalism over something not illegal then you're the only one breaking the law.
Its like Covid again. The advice was to only go for one walk a day, the law was to not throw parties in Downing Street. Or something like that.
Ex DfE perm sec Slater sticking the knife into Rishi this morning.
DfE knew 300-400 schools needed RAAC work, treasury only agreed to fund 100 but then-chancellor Sunak revised down to 50.
Something of the last 13 years in microcosm in this RAAC palaver.
This is all hugely dangerous for the Conservatives. It tends to crystalise the long-held sense that things are falling apart at the seams in a tangible way that feels like it is going on in your community (even if, in fact, your local school isn't affected). It could be a really emblematic issue in the run up to the General Election.
There's an element of bad luck in it because the issues with RAAC moved very quickly from some time being available to no time being available. But there's no real fig leaf here - the Conservatives cannot reasonably say they have a good record on capital investment in schools, and now Sunak's fingerprints are personally on the failures.
Not sure it will shift large numbers of votes but, in line with OGH's article, it will harden the anti-Tory vote making it ever harder to get it back into competitive territory.
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
It’s not a crime or offence to park in a cycle Lane. I just go round the cars. I wouldn’t consider criminal damage as a solution.
Certainly against the Highway Code.
No its not, unless its in the signposted hours of operation.
Rule 243. That's what I carve onto the bonnet at least.
Not a law, that's advisory.
The law is Rule 140, where the word Must is used.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Cycle lanes are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation.
The sign says the hours of operation. If its 24/7 you can never park there, if its Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm (eg a cycle lane near me) its perfectly legal to park there at weekends.
Of course if we followed my policy of building new roads, with physically segregated cycling paths, it'd be impossible to park in them anyway.
Still against the Highway Code, which is what I said.
Circular logic fail as the Highway Code says in its introduction that you are only obliged to follow the Must Not though. Any Should Not or Do Not are advisory and situationally dependent.
Rule 140 is the law, and if you're engaging in vandalism over something not illegal then you're the only one breaking the law.
Its like Covid again. The advice was to only go for one walk a day, the law was to not throw parties in Downing Street. Or something like that.
You get loads of arsehole points though. Especially blocking dropped kerbs etc
Polls aren't moving because the parties aren't doing anything to change the priors. Tories are not suddenly becoming more competent in government / enacting good policy, and Labour are not proposing anything anyone who might support them anything they like nor are they proposing anything that might turn anyone back to the Tories. It's the inertia of everyone being shit, but Tories being shit and in the driving seat and therefore getting the blame. There is a part of me that hopes things change a bit during a GE campaign - I hate the idea of SKS's Labour with this kind of majority, but I doubt the LDs or Greens will get much chance to make a dent in their numbers. Most people want the Tories out and see Labour as the only viable alternative. So this is where we are...
Ex DfE perm sec Slater sticking the knife into Rishi this morning.
DfE knew 300-400 schools needed RAAC work, treasury only agreed to fund 100 but then-chancellor Sunak revised down to 50.
Something of the last 13 years in microcosm in this RAAC palaver.
This is all hugely dangerous for the Conservatives. It tends to crystalise the long-held sense that things are falling apart at the seams in a tangible way that feels like it is going on in your community (even if, in fact, your local school isn't affected). It could be a really emblematic issue in the run up to the General Election.
There's an element of bad luck in it because the issues with RAAC moved very quickly from some time being available to no time being available. But there's no real fig leaf here - the Conservatives cannot reasonably say they have a good record on capital investment in schools, and now Sunak's fingerprints are personally on the failures.
Not sure it will shift large numbers of votes but, in line with OGH's article, it will harden the anti-Tory vote making it ever harder to get it back into competitive territory.
That's perhaps the key bit.
If you're Rishi's spin doctor, how do you even begin to talk about that?
The main shift if any seems to be Labour to LD and Green since January, the Conservatives unchanged. Though undecideds still to squeeze.
Otherwise Sunak and Hunt are getting on with the job, inflation is falling and hopefully that will start to be reflected in voteshares. Otherwise no other Tory leader would likely poll any better than Sunak apart from Mordaunt who is too woke for party members and many Conservative MPs.
Indeed there is little appetite for any challenge from the ERG either, for them they may as well let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for general election defeat and then the right will try and take over the party in opposition
I take it your sticking with another 13 years of inch- perfect Conservative Governments then.
This is the absurdity of the Tory position. They have broken the economy and public services - and everyone can see and feel it. Worse is that Tories deny this is the case and therefore have no plan to do anything different. And yet the comeback is always "what will Starmer do about it - he has no plan"
Speeding offences - Because bikes aren’t fitted with speedometers, cyclists can’t be charged with speeding offences. HOWEVER, if they are considered to be going too fast for the conditions, they could be charges with ‘wanton or furious cycling’ which is a criminal offence under section 35 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 s1(2))
EDIT: Given the enthusiasm for 20mph limits, cyclists (especially assisted cycle) speed are going to be a thing.
I cycle all over London and there are not many cyclists capable of exceeding 20mph on flat ground. I'm definitely mostly overtaking other cyclists and 20-22mph is sprint speed for me. It's really a very niche issue, particularly in comparison to the 85%+ of drivers with far less situational awareness in far larger vehicles breaking the speed limit in 20mph zones. https://www.driving.org/nearly-90-of-drivers-break-speed-limit-in-20mph-residential-areas/
As for assisted bikes, if they're assisted past 15mph then they're illegal (and 99% of people are not going to be strong enough to get a heavy e-bike past 20mph without assistance). If they assistance isn't limited to 15mph then they're, legally speaking motorbikes.
There are a large number of such illegal ebikes - the Deliveroo* guys are passing 20mph traffic. On one road which has the sign that shows your speed on a sign, they a regularly clocking 25+.
Speeding offences - Because bikes aren’t fitted with speedometers, cyclists can’t be charged with speeding offences. HOWEVER, if they are considered to be going too fast for the conditions, they could be charges with ‘wanton or furious cycling’ which is a criminal offence under section 35 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 s1(2))
Ex DfE perm sec Slater sticking the knife into Rishi this morning.
DfE knew 300-400 schools needed RAAC work, treasury only agreed to fund 100 but then-chancellor Sunak revised down to 50.
Something of the last 13 years in microcosm in this RAAC palaver.
This is all hugely dangerous for the Conservatives. It tends to crystalise the long-held sense that things are falling apart at the seams in a tangible way that feels like it is going on in your community (even if, in fact, your local school isn't affected). It could be a really emblematic issue in the run up to the General Election.
There's an element of bad luck in it because the issues with RAAC moved very quickly from some time being available to no time being available. But there's no real fig leaf here - the Conservatives cannot reasonably say they have a good record on capital investment in schools, and now Sunak's fingerprints are personally on the failures.
Not sure it will shift large numbers of votes but, in line with OGH's article, it will harden the anti-Tory vote making it ever harder to get it back into competitive territory.
That's perhaps the key bit.
If you're Rishi's spin doctor, how do you even begin to talk about that?
Blame Starmer. These schools were built by socialist councils and governments and not replaced by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Will Starmer personally write to Tony Blair and ask him to explain himself for this terrible Labour failure?
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
It’s not a crime or offence to park in a cycle Lane. I just go round the cars. I wouldn’t consider criminal damage as a solution.
Certainly against the Highway Code.
No its not, unless its in the signposted hours of operation.
Rule 243. That's what I carve onto the bonnet at least.
Not a law, that's advisory.
The law is Rule 140, where the word Must is used.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Cycle lanes are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation.
The sign says the hours of operation. If its 24/7 you can never park there, if its Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm (eg a cycle lane near me) its perfectly legal to park there at weekends.
Of course if we followed my policy of building new roads, with physically segregated cycling paths, it'd be impossible to park in them anyway.
Still against the Highway Code, which is what I said.
Circular logic fail as the Highway Code says in its introduction that you are only obliged to follow the Must Not though. Any Should Not or Do Not are advisory and situationally dependent.
Rule 140 is the law, and if you're engaging in vandalism over something not illegal then you're the only one breaking the law.
Its like Covid again. The advice was to only go for one walk a day, the law was to not throw parties in Downing Street. Or something like that.
You get loads of arsehole points though. Especially blocking dropped kerbs etc
Yeah, just like circling back to how the conversation started arsehole cyclists who are speeding, even if its not technically illegal.
Don't be an arsehole is good advice.
Incidentally physically segregated cycle tracks (as opposed to painted cycle paths) which I advocate building along with new roads it is illegal to ever block them by parking, Rule 240 is must not, but for only cycle tracks, Rule 140 again defines cycle tracks.
Ex DfE perm sec Slater sticking the knife into Rishi this morning.
DfE knew 300-400 schools needed RAAC work, treasury only agreed to fund 100 but then-chancellor Sunak revised down to 50.
Something of the last 13 years in microcosm in this RAAC palaver.
This is all hugely dangerous for the Conservatives. It tends to crystalise the long-held sense that things are falling apart at the seams in a tangible way that feels like it is going on in your community (even if, in fact, your local school isn't affected). It could be a really emblematic issue in the run up to the General Election.
There's an element of bad luck in it because the issues with RAAC moved very quickly from some time being available to no time being available. But there's no real fig leaf here - the Conservatives cannot reasonably say they have a good record on capital investment in schools, and now Sunak's fingerprints are personally on the failures.
Not sure it will shift large numbers of votes but, in line with OGH's article, it will harden the anti-Tory vote making it ever harder to get it back into competitive territory.
Not their kids. In the Tory mindset state schools are a cost imposed on wealth creators who take responsibility for their own children's education, not an investment in our collective future. Costs have to be minimised. A bit of concrete dropping on kids' heads is a risk worth taking when it's not your kids.
Ex DfE perm sec Slater sticking the knife into Rishi this morning.
DfE knew 300-400 schools needed RAAC work, treasury only agreed to fund 100 but then-chancellor Sunak revised down to 50.
Something of the last 13 years in microcosm in this RAAC palaver.
This is all hugely dangerous for the Conservatives. It tends to crystalise the long-held sense that things are falling apart at the seams in a tangible way that feels like it is going on in your community (even if, in fact, your local school isn't affected). It could be a really emblematic issue in the run up to the General Election.
There's an element of bad luck in it because the issues with RAAC moved very quickly from some time being available to no time being available. But there's no real fig leaf here - the Conservatives cannot reasonably say they have a good record on capital investment in schools, and now Sunak's fingerprints are personally on the failures.
Not sure it will shift large numbers of votes but, in line with OGH's article, it will harden the anti-Tory vote making it ever harder to get it back into competitive territory.
Not their kids. In the Tory mindset state schools are a cost imposed on wealth creators who take responsibility for their own children's education, not an investment in our collective future. Costs have to be minimised. A bit of concrete dropping on kids' heads is a risk worth taking when it's not your kids.
Except that's horse manure - private schools are 5.9% of school places in the UK.
I see that “as the father of two daughters”, Rishi Sunak halved the schools repairs budget having been presented with the evidence of the dangers of doing so. Luckily, his girls attend an elite private school so aren’t affected. Phew!
Ex DfE perm sec Slater sticking the knife into Rishi this morning.
DfE knew 300-400 schools needed RAAC work, treasury only agreed to fund 100 but then-chancellor Sunak revised down to 50.
Something of the last 13 years in microcosm in this RAAC palaver.
This is all hugely dangerous for the Conservatives. It tends to crystalise the long-held sense that things are falling apart at the seams in a tangible way that feels like it is going on in your community (even if, in fact, your local school isn't affected). It could be a really emblematic issue in the run up to the General Election.
There's an element of bad luck in it because the issues with RAAC moved very quickly from some time being available to no time being available. But there's no real fig leaf here - the Conservatives cannot reasonably say they have a good record on capital investment in schools, and now Sunak's fingerprints are personally on the failures.
Not sure it will shift large numbers of votes but, in line with OGH's article, it will harden the anti-Tory vote making it ever harder to get it back into competitive territory.
That's perhaps the key bit.
If you're Rishi's spin doctor, how do you even begin to talk about that?
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
For really putting the motorists on their guard
Put it in a sidecar, and link it up to a heart rate monitor. If you go, they go.
Just realised I searched up all those explosives on my work laptop. Fml.
Ka-boom!
Edit: Say you were searching for a good analogy for a presentation.
Ex DfE perm sec Slater sticking the knife into Rishi this morning.
DfE knew 300-400 schools needed RAAC work, treasury only agreed to fund 100 but then-chancellor Sunak revised down to 50.
Something of the last 13 years in microcosm in this RAAC palaver.
This is all hugely dangerous for the Conservatives. It tends to crystalise the long-held sense that things are falling apart at the seams in a tangible way that feels like it is going on in your community (even if, in fact, your local school isn't affected). It could be a really emblematic issue in the run up to the General Election.
There's an element of bad luck in it because the issues with RAAC moved very quickly from some time being available to no time being available. But there's no real fig leaf here - the Conservatives cannot reasonably say they have a good record on capital investment in schools, and now Sunak's fingerprints are personally on the failures.
Not sure it will shift large numbers of votes but, in line with OGH's article, it will harden the anti-Tory vote making it ever harder to get it back into competitive territory.
Not their kids. In the Tory mindset state schools are a cost imposed on wealth creators who take responsibility for their own children's education, not an investment in our collective future. Costs have to be minimised. A bit of concrete dropping on kids' heads is a risk worth taking when it's not your kids.
Except that's horse manure - private schools are 5.9% of school places in the UK.
Probably not 5.9% of children of Tory cabinet ministers though. Your boy Sunak was told that there was a critical risk to children's lives, and he chose to cut spending by almost half when he was Chancellor. It's unforgivable, and I absolutely believe that if we lived in a country where those at the top didn't segregate their children then the whole picture on education would be different. This particular scandal is just a particularly damning example.
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
It’s not a crime or offence to park in a cycle Lane. I just go round the cars. I wouldn’t consider criminal damage as a solution.
Certainly against the Highway Code.
No its not, unless its in the signposted hours of operation.
I think it's "advertised" hours of operation rather than "signposted". These are different things - for quite a few traffic management things, the formal requirement is just to advertise by publication of an official notice on the website and/or local paper, and signage is simply to increase compliance rather than a requirement.
A lot of mandatory cycle lanes won't signpost prescribed hours, but they'll still exist in the underlying, published traffic management order, and it's not an excuse to say there was no signpost (and indeed the prescribed hours are often but not always "at any time").
In general, unless you happen to know that a mandatory cycle lane (with a solid white line) has limited hours of operation, and what they are, it's not worth risking.
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
I bet many of the morons doing that aren't even bothering to wear a helmet either. The law should treat bike helmets the same as car seat belts.
Motorists who speed, who drive through red lights, who are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a seat belt are dangerous.
Cyclists who speed, drive through red lights, are on their phone while driving and don't bother with a helmet are the same.
The issue isn't car v cycle, it's responsible v irresponsible.
And proportionality.
Agreed.
Proportionally cyclists are at higher risk of death of injury than drivers but for some ridiculous reason unlike Australia where I grew up too many cyclists here don't bother to wear a helmet. Whereas almost all lower risk drivers wear their seat belts.
You are more likely to be close passed if you have helmet on. That's why I have a gas canister strapped to my pannier rack.
Surely a jug of nitroglycerin is the way to go? or a box of silver azide?
This is where PB becomes so useful. Thanks.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
It’s not a crime or offence to park in a cycle Lane. I just go round the cars. I wouldn’t consider criminal damage as a solution.
Certainly against the Highway Code.
No its not, unless its in the signposted hours of operation.
Rule 243. That's what I carve onto the bonnet at least.
Not a law, that's advisory.
The law is Rule 140, where the word Must is used.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Cycle lanes are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation.
The sign says the hours of operation. If its 24/7 you can never park there, if its Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm (eg a cycle lane near me) its perfectly legal to park there at weekends.
Of course if we followed my policy of building new roads, with physically segregated cycling paths, it'd be impossible to park in them anyway.
Still against the Highway Code, which is what I said.
Circular logic fail as the Highway Code says in its introduction that you are only obliged to follow the Must Not though. Any Should Not or Do Not are advisory and situationally dependent.
Rule 140 is the law, and if you're engaging in vandalism over something not illegal then you're the only one breaking the law.
Its like Covid again. The advice was to only go for one walk a day, the law was to not throw parties in Downing Street. Or something like that.
You get loads of arsehole points though. Especially blocking dropped kerbs etc
Yeah, just like circling back to how the conversation started arsehole cyclists who are speeding, even if its not technically illegal.
Don't be an arsehole is good advice.
Incidentally physically segregated cycle tracks (as opposed to painted cycle paths) which I advocate building along with new roads it is illegal to ever block them by parking, Rule 240 is must not, but for only cycle tracks, Rule 140 again defines cycle tracks.
Locally, the segregated cycle lanes are crossed by black and white marked paths to the island bus stops. They are painted like zebra crossings, but without the lights. What is the status of them? No one seems to know.
I take it your sticking with another 13 years of inch- perfect Conservative Governments then.
No, this government is exhausted and so incompetent it doesn't even realise what many of its successes are.
But Starmer is going to face the impossibility of meeting a myriad of spending demands through 'economic growth'.
Incidentally economic growth includes the public sector increasing output faster than increasing workforce or pay.
A good thing if it happens but I suspect its the opposite of what the public sector unions want from a Labour government.
The UK Government spends more on welfare than it does on the entire public sector combined.
The Tories have sadly replaced Labour as the party of the welfare state. The Tories are spending a higher proportion of state expenditure on welfare today than Labour did in 2010.
Public sector employee output is higher than welfare recipient output is, so a rebalancing certainly could boost productivity.
Ex DfE perm sec Slater sticking the knife into Rishi this morning.
DfE knew 300-400 schools needed RAAC work, treasury only agreed to fund 100 but then-chancellor Sunak revised down to 50.
Something of the last 13 years in microcosm in this RAAC palaver.
This is all hugely dangerous for the Conservatives. It tends to crystalise the long-held sense that things are falling apart at the seams in a tangible way that feels like it is going on in your community (even if, in fact, your local school isn't affected). It could be a really emblematic issue in the run up to the General Election.
There's an element of bad luck in it because the issues with RAAC moved very quickly from some time being available to no time being available. But there's no real fig leaf here - the Conservatives cannot reasonably say they have a good record on capital investment in schools, and now Sunak's fingerprints are personally on the failures.
Not sure it will shift large numbers of votes but, in line with OGH's article, it will harden the anti-Tory vote making it ever harder to get it back into competitive territory.
Not their kids. In the Tory mindset state schools are a cost imposed on wealth creators who take responsibility for their own children's education, not an investment in our collective future. Costs have to be minimised. A bit of concrete dropping on kids' heads is a risk worth taking when it's not your kids.
Except that's horse manure - private schools are 5.9% of school places in the UK.
Indeed even most current Tory voters' children and grandchildren attend state schools. Albeit more Tory and LD voters tend to send their children to private schools than Labour voters do
BBC News Press Team @BBCNewsPR Except she doesn’t, because that number doesn’t count people watching on phones, tablets, catch-up on iPlayer… which they do, in 2023!
I see that “as the father of two daughters”, Rishi Sunak halved the schools repairs budget having been presented with the evidence of the dangers of doing so. Luckily, his girls attend an elite private school so aren’t affected. Phew!
And remember this was in 2021 when the issues with Aerated concrete was a known issue albeit not as obvious as it became when the beam collapsed with no prior defects raised.
Ex DfE perm sec Slater sticking the knife into Rishi this morning.
DfE knew 300-400 schools needed RAAC work, treasury only agreed to fund 100 but then-chancellor Sunak revised down to 50.
Something of the last 13 years in microcosm in this RAAC palaver.
This is all hugely dangerous for the Conservatives. It tends to crystalise the long-held sense that things are falling apart at the seams in a tangible way that feels like it is going on in your community (even if, in fact, your local school isn't affected). It could be a really emblematic issue in the run up to the General Election.
There's an element of bad luck in it because the issues with RAAC moved very quickly from some time being available to no time being available. But there's no real fig leaf here - the Conservatives cannot reasonably say they have a good record on capital investment in schools, and now Sunak's fingerprints are personally on the failures.
Not sure it will shift large numbers of votes but, in line with OGH's article, it will harden the anti-Tory vote making it ever harder to get it back into competitive territory.
Not their kids. In the Tory mindset state schools are a cost imposed on wealth creators who take responsibility for their own children's education, not an investment in our collective future. Costs have to be minimised. A bit of concrete dropping on kids' heads is a risk worth taking when it's not your kids.
Except that's horse manure - private schools are 5.9% of school places in the UK.
Probably not 5.9% of children of Tory cabinet ministers though. Your boy Sunak was told that there was a critical risk to children's lives, and he chose to cut spending by almost half when he was Chancellor. It's unforgivable, and I absolutely believe that if we lived in a country where those at the top didn't segregate their children then the whole picture on education would be different. This particular scandal is just a particularly damning example.
When Sunak was Chancellor the demands were that funding should be concentrated on health and on paying people to stay at home.
That money had to come from somewhere.
There's likely numerous cutbacks in other places.
Many regrettable I'm sure but probably inevitable.
And how would the picture on education be different without private schools ?
If its more money you're suggesting - they would need 6% more just to deal with the extra pupils - then where is that coming from ?
I think this schools thing is really bad - and could be the end of Sunak before the next election. He's in big trouble here. He doesn't look a vote winner at all.
Incidentally, at 40mph, our cyclists has 16020.5/39968.95 = 40% of the energy of our 1 ton car at 20mph.
Though that's assuming an accident happens at those speeds.
What's the stopping of a car at 20mph versus a bike that's "speeding"?
Way longer stopping distance on the bike - if not double, not far off.
Due to... much smaller contact patch, no ABS and more pronounced rotational braking couple in the pitch axis caused by a relatively higher CofG.
I presume bikes with ABS and an IMU for anti-stoppie control are 5-10 years away.
E2A. I have been right through the back window of a VW Passat estate when doing suicidally quick descending in the Vosges. So can confirm that a car will outbrake a bike.
Incidentally, at 40mph, our cyclists has 16020.5/39968.95 = 40% of the energy of our 1 ton car at 20mph.
Maybe speed limits should be based on energy imparted in a collision? Get all the SUVs crawling around at 10mph.
I think it's a valid point that the risk posed by a bicycle at 30mph is much less than a car at 30mph due to respective weight.
However, it's also worth pointing out that another factor in relation to speed is the time it gives to take evasive action both by the vehicle and pedestrian. So a cyclist at 40mph on an urban street is just more likely to hit you than a car going at 20mph even if the energy imparted by the latter is greater.
I have to say that, with a very few exceptions of very aggressive cyclists on steep hills, it's really rare to see a bicycle going at 40mph in an urban environment, whereas it's pretty common for cars in my experience. That's not to excuse it, but I think some people have an odd perspective on the scale of different risks.
I take it your sticking with another 13 years of inch- perfect Conservative Governments then.
This is the absurdity of the Tory position. They have broken the economy and public services - and everyone can see and feel it. Worse is that Tories deny this is the case and therefore have no plan to do anything different. And yet the comeback is always "what will Starmer do about it - he has no plan"
I've said this before and it's taken as a partisan comment but it isn't:
If the country were to reelect the Tories again, in these circumstances, after the utter farce of recent years, it would indicate something amiss with our politics. Can't beat them from the left. Can't beat them from the centre. They govern regardless of how they do or what they do. This is unhealthy.
The good news? The public (to some extent subliminally) grasp this point and will act accordingly to prevent it happening. They have decided it's time for the change and are just waiting for the day. Not long now.
Ex DfE perm sec Slater sticking the knife into Rishi this morning.
DfE knew 300-400 schools needed RAAC work, treasury only agreed to fund 100 but then-chancellor Sunak revised down to 50.
Something of the last 13 years in microcosm in this RAAC palaver.
This is all hugely dangerous for the Conservatives. It tends to crystalise the long-held sense that things are falling apart at the seams in a tangible way that feels like it is going on in your community (even if, in fact, your local school isn't affected). It could be a really emblematic issue in the run up to the General Election.
There's an element of bad luck in it because the issues with RAAC moved very quickly from some time being available to no time being available. But there's no real fig leaf here - the Conservatives cannot reasonably say they have a good record on capital investment in schools, and now Sunak's fingerprints are personally on the failures.
Not sure it will shift large numbers of votes but, in line with OGH's article, it will harden the anti-Tory vote making it ever harder to get it back into competitive territory.
Not their kids. In the Tory mindset state schools are a cost imposed on wealth creators who take responsibility for their own children's education, not an investment in our collective future. Costs have to be minimised. A bit of concrete dropping on kids' heads is a risk worth taking when it's not your kids.
Except that's horse manure - private schools are 5.9% of school places in the UK.
Probably not 5.9% of children of Tory cabinet ministers though. Your boy Sunak was told that there was a critical risk to children's lives, and he chose to cut spending by almost half when he was Chancellor. It's unforgivable, and I absolutely believe that if we lived in a country where those at the top didn't segregate their children then the whole picture on education would be different. This particular scandal is just a particularly damning example.
When Sunak was Chancellor the demands were that funding should be concentrated on health and on paying people to stay at home.
That money had to come from somewhere.
There's likely numerous cutbacks in other places.
Many regrettable I'm sure but probably inevitable.
And how would the picture on education be different without private schools ?
If its more money you're suggesting - they would need 6% more just to deal with the extra pupils - then where is that coming from ?
Higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere.
Higher taxes obviously. This country has lived on borrowed money and borrowed time for too long.
Time for those of us with above average incomes and wealth to pay.
I take it your sticking with another 13 years of inch- perfect Conservative Governments then.
No, this government is exhausted and so incompetent it doesn't even realise what many of its successes are.
But Starmer is going to face the impossibility of meeting a myriad of spending demands through 'economic growth'.
Incidentally economic growth includes the public sector increasing output faster than increasing workforce or pay.
A good thing if it happens but I suspect its the opposite of what the public sector unions want from a Labour government.
The UK Government spends more on welfare than it does on the entire public sector combined.
The Tories have sadly replaced Labour as the party of the welfare state. The Tories are spending a higher proportion of state expenditure on welfare today than Labour did in 2010.
Public sector employee output is higher than welfare recipient output is, so a rebalancing certainly could boost productivity.
And we have this welfare spending at a time of full employment.
Too many people are getting too many handouts.
And the danger is that a critical mass of welfare recipients has been achieved which makes it impossible to reform this.
Ex DfE perm sec Slater sticking the knife into Rishi this morning.
DfE knew 300-400 schools needed RAAC work, treasury only agreed to fund 100 but then-chancellor Sunak revised down to 50.
Something of the last 13 years in microcosm in this RAAC palaver.
This is all hugely dangerous for the Conservatives. It tends to crystalise the long-held sense that things are falling apart at the seams in a tangible way that feels like it is going on in your community (even if, in fact, your local school isn't affected). It could be a really emblematic issue in the run up to the General Election.
There's an element of bad luck in it because the issues with RAAC moved very quickly from some time being available to no time being available. But there's no real fig leaf here - the Conservatives cannot reasonably say they have a good record on capital investment in schools, and now Sunak's fingerprints are personally on the failures.
Not sure it will shift large numbers of votes but, in line with OGH's article, it will harden the anti-Tory vote making it ever harder to get it back into competitive territory.
Not their kids. In the Tory mindset state schools are a cost imposed on wealth creators who take responsibility for their own children's education, not an investment in our collective future. Costs have to be minimised. A bit of concrete dropping on kids' heads is a risk worth taking when it's not your kids.
Except that's horse manure - private schools are 5.9% of school places in the UK.
Indeed even most current Tory voters' children and grandchildren attend state schools. Albeit more Tory and LD voters tend to send their children to private schools than Labour voters do
I agree, the Tories can ill-afford to ignore parents of state school children. Unfortunately for them they seemed to have done so.
Incidentally, at 40mph, our cyclists has 16020.5/39968.95 = 40% of the energy of our 1 ton car at 20mph.
Though that's assuming an accident happens at those speeds.
What's the stopping of a car at 20mph versus a bike that's "speeding"?
Bikes have terrible braking thanks to their geometry. Roughly equivalent stopping distances to a laden 40ton truck IIRC.
Most of the time it’s fine, because you aren’t going fast enough for it to matter & at slow speeds braking distance is dominated by reaction times anyway. If you’re going 40mph though, beware!
Due to the way conservation of momentum works, the majority of the energy transfer in an impact with a vehicle is from vehicle -> cyclist. Pedestrians will be about equal as they’re roughly the same mass.
This logic is presumably what drove the legal limit for e-bike assist to be 15mph. Unfortunately there are people out there on unrestricted e-bikes that are effectively small motorbikes.
Incidentally, at 40mph, our cyclists has 16020.5/39968.95 = 40% of the energy of our 1 ton car at 20mph.
Maybe speed limits should be based on energy imparted in a collision? Get all the SUVs crawling around at 10mph.
I think it's a valid point that the risk posed by a bicycle at 30mph is much less than a car at 30mph due to respective weight.
However, it's also worth pointing out that another factor in relation to speed is the time it gives to take evasive action both by the vehicle and pedestrian. So a cyclist at 40mph on an urban street is just more likely to hit you than a car going at 20mph even if the energy imparted by the latter is greater.
I have to say that, with a very few exceptions of very aggressive cyclists on steep hills, it's really rare to see a bicycle going at 40mph in an urban environment, whereas it's pretty common for cars in my experience. That's not to excuse it, but I think some people have an odd perspective on the scale of different risks.
Yes - the problem is the "assisted bikes", a non trivial number of which are unregistered motor scooters.
I take it your sticking with another 13 years of inch- perfect Conservative Governments then.
No, this government is exhausted and so incompetent it doesn't even realise what many of its successes are.
But Starmer is going to face the impossibility of meeting a myriad of spending demands through 'economic growth'.
Incidentally economic growth includes the public sector increasing output faster than increasing workforce or pay.
A good thing if it happens but I suspect its the opposite of what the public sector unions want from a Labour government.
The UK Government spends more on welfare than it does on the entire public sector combined.
The Tories have sadly replaced Labour as the party of the welfare state. The Tories are spending a higher proportion of state expenditure on welfare today than Labour did in 2010.
Public sector employee output is higher than welfare recipient output is, so a rebalancing certainly could boost productivity.
And we have this welfare spending at a time of full employment.
Too many people are getting too many handouts.
And the danger is that a critical mass of welfare recipients has been achieved which makes it impossible to reform this.
Indeed. Though Labour might be better stewards of our taxes as they'll have other priorities for spending, such as public sector wages rather than appealing solely to that critical mass.
It's rather insane that the Tories today spend more on welfare than Labour did. It seems completely counterintuitive.
Incidentally, at 40mph, our cyclists has 16020.5/39968.95 = 40% of the energy of our 1 ton car at 20mph.
Maybe speed limits should be based on energy imparted in a collision? Get all the SUVs crawling around at 10mph.
I think it's a valid point that the risk posed by a bicycle at 30mph is much less than a car at 30mph due to respective weight.
However, it's also worth pointing out that another factor in relation to speed is the time it gives to take evasive action both by the vehicle and pedestrian. So a cyclist at 40mph on an urban street is just more likely to hit you than a car going at 20mph even if the energy imparted by the latter is greater.
I have to say that, with a very few exceptions of very aggressive cyclists on steep hills, it's really rare to see a bicycle going at 40mph in an urban environment, whereas it's pretty common for cars in my experience. That's not to excuse it, but I think some people have an odd perspective on the scale of different risks.
A nostaglic reminder that some debates in politics are much older and more consistent than one might imagine today.....
Ex DfE perm sec Slater sticking the knife into Rishi this morning.
DfE knew 300-400 schools needed RAAC work, treasury only agreed to fund 100 but then-chancellor Sunak revised down to 50.
Something of the last 13 years in microcosm in this RAAC palaver.
This is all hugely dangerous for the Conservatives. It tends to crystalise the long-held sense that things are falling apart at the seams in a tangible way that feels like it is going on in your community (even if, in fact, your local school isn't affected). It could be a really emblematic issue in the run up to the General Election.
There's an element of bad luck in it because the issues with RAAC moved very quickly from some time being available to no time being available. But there's no real fig leaf here - the Conservatives cannot reasonably say they have a good record on capital investment in schools, and now Sunak's fingerprints are personally on the failures.
Not sure it will shift large numbers of votes but, in line with OGH's article, it will harden the anti-Tory vote making it ever harder to get it back into competitive territory.
Not their kids. In the Tory mindset state schools are a cost imposed on wealth creators who take responsibility for their own children's education, not an investment in our collective future. Costs have to be minimised. A bit of concrete dropping on kids' heads is a risk worth taking when it's not your kids.
Except that's horse manure - private schools are 5.9% of school places in the UK.
Probably not 5.9% of children of Tory cabinet ministers though. Your boy Sunak was told that there was a critical risk to children's lives, and he chose to cut spending by almost half when he was Chancellor. It's unforgivable, and I absolutely believe that if we lived in a country where those at the top didn't segregate their children then the whole picture on education would be different. This particular scandal is just a particularly damning example.
When Sunak was Chancellor the demands were that funding should be concentrated on health and on paying people to stay at home.
That money had to come from somewhere.
There's likely numerous cutbacks in other places.
Many regrettable I'm sure but probably inevitable.
And how would the picture on education be different without private schools ?
If its more money you're suggesting - they would need 6% more just to deal with the extra pupils - then where is that coming from ?
Higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere.
You lot keep posting this guff.
There is no zero spend option. You cannot choose not to repair or replace these buildings. It is not a frippery, some civil servant pet project to waste taxpayer money.
The choice is to replace the schools in an orderly manner. Or pay to repair them, pay for emergency measures such as moving the kids into hired facilities, and then pay to replace the schools.
Spend some. Or spend some more. There is no option not to spend.
The problem is that Sunak has no political skill or ability whatsoever. This was blindingly obvious back in 2020 but people still insisted he would be a good PM.
I take it your sticking with another 13 years of inch- perfect Conservative Governments then.
This is the absurdity of the Tory position. They have broken the economy and public services - and everyone can see and feel it. Worse is that Tories deny this is the case and therefore have no plan to do anything different. And yet the comeback is always "what will Starmer do about it - he has no plan"
I would just comment that as we enter the final year of this Parliament with everyone and their dogs expecting Starmer to enter no 10 next Autumn, it is entirely reasonable to examine Starmer's responses and actions he may take in respect of a wide range of important issues, not just the NHS but now the crisis in our Schools which by the way seems to prevail in Scotland and Wales which is devolved to them
It does seem surprising that only yesterday Starmer emphasised he will not increase any taxes and he has already ruled out wealth taxes. The question follows then how will he change anything on taking office, as improving GDP can only be a long term aspiration
I mentioned Lord Ashcroft's poll published today about 'the state of the nation' and frankly none of our politicians are touching the surface on the extensive changes need to our society, not least the end to the triple lock
Some on here (@BartholomewRoberts) have quite radical views on equalising tax and NI rates and applying them across all income, earned and unearned, but when have we ever heard a mainstem politician raise it
Yes, the conservatives are tired and out of ideas, and the opportunity now afforded to Starmer to be brave and take the real opportunity to change things seems to be overruled by his inability to say or do anything that may be unpopular or scare the horses
There is a real danger the opportunity is going to be missed
I take it your sticking with another 13 years of inch- perfect Conservative Governments then.
No, this government is exhausted and so incompetent it doesn't even realise what many of its successes are.
But Starmer is going to face the impossibility of meeting a myriad of spending demands through 'economic growth'.
Incidentally economic growth includes the public sector increasing output faster than increasing workforce or pay.
A good thing if it happens but I suspect its the opposite of what the public sector unions want from a Labour government.
The UK Government spends more on welfare than it does on the entire public sector combined.
The Tories have sadly replaced Labour as the party of the welfare state. The Tories are spending a higher proportion of state expenditure on welfare today than Labour did in 2010.
Public sector employee output is higher than welfare recipient output is, so a rebalancing certainly could boost productivity.
And we have this welfare spending at a time of full employment.
Too many people are getting too many handouts.
And the danger is that a critical mass of welfare recipients has been achieved which makes it impossible to reform this.
"in order to boost the economy we are going to have to cut social security spending. We know that practically every penny in "benefits" is rapidly spent in the local economy, so these cuts will inevitably lead to more shops closing and more people losing their jobs which in turn slows the economy. But tax cuts for the rich pensioners and hedge fund bosses who own us don't come cheap, so..."
Incidentally, at 40mph, our cyclists has 16020.5/39968.95 = 40% of the energy of our 1 ton car at 20mph.
Though that's assuming an accident happens at those speeds.
What's the stopping of a car at 20mph versus a bike that's "speeding"?
Bikes have terrible braking thanks to their geometry. Roughly equivalent stopping distances to a laden 40ton truck IIRC.
Most of the time it’s fine, because you aren’t going fast enough for it to matter & at slow speeds braking distance is dominated by reaction times anyway. If you’re going 40mph though, beware!
Due to the way conservation of momentum works, the majority of the energy transfer in an impact with a vehicle is from vehicle -> cyclist. Pedestrians will be about equal as they’re roughly the same mass.
This logic is presumably what drove the legal limit for e-bike assist to be 15mph. Unfortunately there are people out there on unrestricted e-bikes that are effectively small motorbikes.
It's a lot easier for bikes and pedestrians to take evasive action to avoid a head on collision though. Rather harder with an SUV. A pedestrian (headphones on, didn't look) once stepped into the cycle land about half a meter in front of me when I was cycling at probably 15mph, and somehow we didn't collide although I'm still not sure how!
I take it your sticking with another 13 years of inch- perfect Conservative Governments then.
No, this government is exhausted and so incompetent it doesn't even realise what many of its successes are.
But Starmer is going to face the impossibility of meeting a myriad of spending demands through 'economic growth'.
Incidentally economic growth includes the public sector increasing output faster than increasing workforce or pay.
A good thing if it happens but I suspect its the opposite of what the public sector unions want from a Labour government.
The UK Government spends more on welfare than it does on the entire public sector combined.
The Tories have sadly replaced Labour as the party of the welfare state. The Tories are spending a higher proportion of state expenditure on welfare today than Labour did in 2010.
Public sector employee output is higher than welfare recipient output is, so a rebalancing certainly could boost productivity.
And we have this welfare spending at a time of full employment.
Too many people are getting too many handouts.
And the danger is that a critical mass of welfare recipients has been achieved which makes it impossible to reform this.
The biggest chunk of welfare spending by far is pensions. The next biggest chunk is supporting low paid workers.
Then you have the disabled and long-term sick. Then far too much subsiding high-rent landlords. Very little spent on people who can work but aren't.
(fx: looks at PB. Sees it is relatively calm. Gets hand grenade, pulls out pin, and throws it into PB).
"Cyclists, please be mindful of your speeds and just how this will effect you in the event of a collision. This group today on Dartmoor observed travelling at near 40mph on a 30mph restricted road. All stopped and offered appropriate words of advice"
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists. Nor, in practice, do red traffic lights or pedestrians crossing, but the speed limits thing is your actual law.
You can't be done for speeding on a bike so they should have told the cop to fuck off. Or not stopped at all as there is nothing the cops can do about that.
Furious cycling isn’t a thing any more?
Round my way, we are regularly seeing electric assisted bikes doing more than 20mph in the new segregated bike lanes. The road is a 20.
There have already been some nasty accidents. The assisted bikes are often delivery bikes with a big box on the back. They seem to be quite good at hitting regular cyclists.
Isn't the limit 15mph for a powered bike? So that would be illegal anyway.
Yes and it is simply powered assist. The power won’t work unless you pedal
However these bikes do get modified. I saw a Police report on Twitter, or whatever it is called these days, where they had stopped a group with these bikes modified to exceed 20MPH without pedalling.
So they need tax, insurance etc etc.
Quite a few are conversions of regular bikes with kits bought on the internet.
Yes, good point. I often see ads for Swytch come up on Twitter.
Although these conversions don’t have a great reputation for reliability.
I knew some hobbyists in the very early days of home brewing such conversions - apparently the bike frame is utterly wrong for the loading paths, unless you have a very chunky mountain bike to convert.
They would experiment with converting a conventional frame and rapidly move to welding strengthening on, then get into custom frame making.
Speeding offences - Because bikes aren’t fitted with speedometers, cyclists can’t be charged with speeding offences. HOWEVER, if they are considered to be going too fast for the conditions, they could be charges with ‘wanton or furious cycling’ which is a criminal offence under section 35 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 s1(2))
EDIT: Given the enthusiasm for 20mph limits, cyclists (especially assisted cycle) speed are going to be a thing.
I cycle all over London and there are not many cyclists capable of exceeding 20mph on flat ground. I'm definitely mostly overtaking other cyclists and 20-22mph is sprint speed for me. It's really a very niche issue, particularly in comparison to the 85%+ of drivers with far less situational awareness in far larger vehicles breaking the speed limit in 20mph zones. https://www.driving.org/nearly-90-of-drivers-break-speed-limit-in-20mph-residential-areas/
As for assisted bikes, if they're assisted past 15mph then they're illegal (and 99% of people are not going to be strong enough to get a heavy e-bike past 20mph without assistance). If they assistance isn't limited to 15mph then they're, legally speaking motorbikes.
I reckon I could make a very handsome living doing nothing but derestricting e-bikes. I did one for one of my students (Bosch System2) and since been asked by about six of his mates to repeat the wizardry.
There's also a place in Poland (where else?) where you can send the guts of the system to be reprogrammed with a 1 week turnaround but Brexit makes that an unpredictable pain in the dick when it comes to getting your bits back.
I take it your sticking with another 13 years of inch- perfect Conservative Governments then.
No, this government is exhausted and so incompetent it doesn't even realise what many of its successes are.
But Starmer is going to face the impossibility of meeting a myriad of spending demands through 'economic growth'.
Incidentally economic growth includes the public sector increasing output faster than increasing workforce or pay.
A good thing if it happens but I suspect its the opposite of what the public sector unions want from a Labour government.
The UK Government spends more on welfare than it does on the entire public sector combined.
The Tories have sadly replaced Labour as the party of the welfare state. The Tories are spending a higher proportion of state expenditure on welfare today than Labour did in 2010.
Public sector employee output is higher than welfare recipient output is, so a rebalancing certainly could boost productivity.
And we have this welfare spending at a time of full employment.
Too many people are getting too many handouts.
And the danger is that a critical mass of welfare recipients has been achieved which makes it impossible to reform this.
As I have said many times Universal Credit is very generous.
I take it your sticking with another 13 years of inch- perfect Conservative Governments then.
No, this government is exhausted and so incompetent it doesn't even realise what many of its successes are.
But Starmer is going to face the impossibility of meeting a myriad of spending demands through 'economic growth'.
Incidentally economic growth includes the public sector increasing output faster than increasing workforce or pay.
A good thing if it happens but I suspect its the opposite of what the public sector unions want from a Labour government.
The UK Government spends more on welfare than it does on the entire public sector combined.
The Tories have sadly replaced Labour as the party of the welfare state. The Tories are spending a higher proportion of state expenditure on welfare today than Labour did in 2010.
Public sector employee output is higher than welfare recipient output is, so a rebalancing certainly could boost productivity.
And we have this welfare spending at a time of full employment.
Too many people are getting too many handouts.
And the danger is that a critical mass of welfare recipients has been achieved which makes it impossible to reform this.
"in order to boost the economy we are going to have to cut social security spending. We know that practically every penny in "benefits" is rapidly spent in the local economy, so these cuts will inevitably lead to more shops closing and more people losing their jobs which in turn slows the economy. But tax cuts for the rich pensioners and hedge fund bosses who own us don't come cheap, so..."
The Tories spend more on welfare than Labour did, not less.
Asking where is all that money going is a better criticism than claiming they're not spending it.
I think this schools thing is really bad - and could be the end of Sunak before the next election. He's in big trouble here. He doesn't look a vote winner at all.
I’m a parent with school-aged kids, a politics nerd and have a particular interest in education, so I’m not a great judge of the extent to which this is cutting through.
My guess is that it’ll blow over as yet another story of this crapola government failing. But it cements (no pun intended) intent and views.
Ex DfE perm sec Slater sticking the knife into Rishi this morning.
DfE knew 300-400 schools needed RAAC work, treasury only agreed to fund 100 but then-chancellor Sunak revised down to 50.
Something of the last 13 years in microcosm in this RAAC palaver.
This is all hugely dangerous for the Conservatives. It tends to crystalise the long-held sense that things are falling apart at the seams in a tangible way that feels like it is going on in your community (even if, in fact, your local school isn't affected). It could be a really emblematic issue in the run up to the General Election.
There's an element of bad luck in it because the issues with RAAC moved very quickly from some time being available to no time being available. But there's no real fig leaf here - the Conservatives cannot reasonably say they have a good record on capital investment in schools, and now Sunak's fingerprints are personally on the failures.
Not sure it will shift large numbers of votes but, in line with OGH's article, it will harden the anti-Tory vote making it ever harder to get it back into competitive territory.
There’s the old adage about fixing the roof while the sun is shining, to which the Conservatives might reasonably reply that the sun wasn’t shining. The problem for them is that once you have holes in your roof you have to get it fixed no matter what, because otherwise your entire house will start to rot. Failing to do so displays a total lack of sense.
& the problem for this government is precisely that they seem to be incapable of anything remotely resembling good governance & the voters have had enough: This episode just underlines that choice for those who have already made it.
I take it your sticking with another 13 years of inch- perfect Conservative Governments then.
No, this government is exhausted and so incompetent it doesn't even realise what many of its successes are.
But Starmer is going to face the impossibility of meeting a myriad of spending demands through 'economic growth'.
Incidentally economic growth includes the public sector increasing output faster than increasing workforce or pay.
A good thing if it happens but I suspect its the opposite of what the public sector unions want from a Labour government.
The UK Government spends more on welfare than it does on the entire public sector combined.
The Tories have sadly replaced Labour as the party of the welfare state. The Tories are spending a higher proportion of state expenditure on welfare today than Labour did in 2010.
Public sector employee output is higher than welfare recipient output is, so a rebalancing certainly could boost productivity.
And we have this welfare spending at a time of full employment.
Too many people are getting too many handouts.
And the danger is that a critical mass of welfare recipients has been achieved which makes it impossible to reform this.
As I have said many times Universal Credit is very generous.
No, it's really not. That's not where the money is going either.
Someone on UC faces a real Income Tax rate of 69.4% ... 78.4% if they are repaying student loans too. That's not generous. And that's excluding Employers NICs.
Legal pedal assistant bikes are not a problem and should be encouraged and subsidised as they are a great way of getting people into cycling. Electric bikes that don't need pedalling need to be banned, as do those fucking scooters that zip around town centres. Any adult caught riding one should be arrested, fined a grand and the bike crushed in front of them. The police should be free to knock people off them, then reverse over them just to be sure and the bodies left on the road as a warning. Kids riding them should be taken into care. Harsh, but it's the only way.
Incidentally, at 40mph, our cyclists has 16020.5/39968.95 = 40% of the energy of our 1 ton car at 20mph.
Though that's assuming an accident happens at those speeds.
What's the stopping of a car at 20mph versus a bike that's "speeding"?
Bikes have terrible braking thanks to their geometry. Roughly equivalent stopping distances to a laden 40ton truck IIRC.
Most of the time it’s fine, because you aren’t going fast enough for it to matter & at slow speeds braking distance is dominated by reaction times anyway. If you’re going 40mph though, beware!
Due to the way conservation of momentum works, the majority of the energy transfer in an impact with a vehicle is from vehicle -> cyclist. Pedestrians will be about equal as they’re roughly the same mass.
This logic is presumably what drove the legal limit for e-bike assist to be 15mph. Unfortunately there are people out there on unrestricted e-bikes that are effectively small motorbikes.
It's a lot easier for bikes and pedestrians to take evasive action to avoid a head on collision though. Rather harder with an SUV. A pedestrian (headphones on, didn't look) once stepped into the cycle land about half a meter in front of me when I was cycling at probably 15mph, and somehow we didn't collide although I'm still not sure how!
I very narrowly evaded a deer bolting across the path from behind a wall the other day. Which was bloody lucky as I suspect her imparted energy would've been a hell of a lot greater than that of me and my bicycle.
Legal pedal assistant bikes are not a problem and should be encouraged and subsidised as they are a great way of getting people into cycling. Electric bikes that don't need pedalling need to be banned, as do those fucking scooters that zip around town centres. Any adult caught riding one should be arrested, fined a grand and the bike crushed in front of them. The police should be free to knock people off them, then reverse over them just to be sure and the bodies left on the road as a warning. Kids riding them should be taken into care. Harsh, but it's the only way.
I take it your sticking with another 13 years of inch- perfect Conservative Governments then.
No, this government is exhausted and so incompetent it doesn't even realise what many of its successes are.
But Starmer is going to face the impossibility of meeting a myriad of spending demands through 'economic growth'.
Incidentally economic growth includes the public sector increasing output faster than increasing workforce or pay.
A good thing if it happens but I suspect its the opposite of what the public sector unions want from a Labour government.
The UK Government spends more on welfare than it does on the entire public sector combined.
The Tories have sadly replaced Labour as the party of the welfare state. The Tories are spending a higher proportion of state expenditure on welfare today than Labour did in 2010.
Public sector employee output is higher than welfare recipient output is, so a rebalancing certainly could boost productivity.
And we have this welfare spending at a time of full employment.
Too many people are getting too many handouts.
And the danger is that a critical mass of welfare recipients has been achieved which makes it impossible to reform this.
"in order to boost the economy we are going to have to cut social security spending. We know that practically every penny in "benefits" is rapidly spent in the local economy, so these cuts will inevitably lead to more shops closing and more people losing their jobs which in turn slows the economy. But tax cuts for the rich pensioners and hedge fund bosses who own us don't come cheap, so..."
The Tories spend more on welfare than Labour did, not less.
Asking where is all that money going is a better criticism than claiming they're not spending it.
This is why SKS can't say that he is going to increase spending like Blair did, as the reality is that public spending is now at record levels. And those that say taxes should rise should remember that the tax burden in the UK is already at a post WWII high.
I think this schools thing is really bad - and could be the end of Sunak before the next election. He's in big trouble here. He doesn't look a vote winner at all.
I’m a parent with school-aged kids, a politics nerd and have a particular interest in education, so I’m not a great judge of the extent to which this is cutting through.
My guess is that it’ll blow over as yet another story of this crapola government failing. But it cements (no pun intended) intent and views.
You might be right. I don't have school-aged kids... I do think the drip drip of the ongoing saga of which schools are affected or not keeps this in the news.
Also frankly, I would want some assurances from my school that it's safe before I sent children back.
The problem is that Sunak has no political skill or ability whatsoever. This was blindingly obvious back in 2020 but people still insisted he would be a good PM.
To be fair the Tory membership clocked that he was a dud, even if they did choose someone even worse.
I take it your sticking with another 13 years of inch- perfect Conservative Governments then.
No, this government is exhausted and so incompetent it doesn't even realise what many of its successes are.
But Starmer is going to face the impossibility of meeting a myriad of spending demands through 'economic growth'.
Incidentally economic growth includes the public sector increasing output faster than increasing workforce or pay.
A good thing if it happens but I suspect its the opposite of what the public sector unions want from a Labour government.
The UK Government spends more on welfare than it does on the entire public sector combined.
The Tories have sadly replaced Labour as the party of the welfare state. The Tories are spending a higher proportion of state expenditure on welfare today than Labour did in 2010.
Public sector employee output is higher than welfare recipient output is, so a rebalancing certainly could boost productivity.
And we have this welfare spending at a time of full employment.
Too many people are getting too many handouts.
And the danger is that a critical mass of welfare recipients has been achieved which makes it impossible to reform this.
Indeed. Though Labour might be better stewards of our taxes as they'll have other priorities for spending, such as public sector wages rather than appealing solely to that critical mass.
It's rather insane that the Tories today spend more on welfare than Labour did. It seems completely counterintuitive.
The biggest chunk of welfare spending is a bung to their core vote, so kind of understandable from that pov.
The BBC news site leads with "Sunak halved schools repairs budget in 2021". Might that push Sunak down to Truss levels of unpopularity? It's the perfect exemplar of what's wrong with the Conservative Party's ideology.
Comments
Although these conversions don’t have a great reputation for reliability.
I also have an engraving pen attached to my handlebars to deal with cycle lane parkers.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/04/leadership-followship-sadiq-khan-ulez
Put it in a sidecar, and link it up to a heart rate monitor. If you go, they go.
https://www.birketts.co.uk/legal-update/cyclist-convicted-of-wanton-and-furious-driving/
In an alternate world without motor vehicles, would we have ever imposed speed limits (rather than using some other behaviour-based definitions for laws against dangerous road use)? My guess is not, because very few cyclists are even capable of exceeding most limits.
EDIT: Given the enthusiasm for 20mph limits, cyclists (especially assisted cycle) speed are going to be a thing.
DfE knew 300-400 schools needed RAAC work, treasury only agreed to fund 100 but then-chancellor Sunak revised down to 50.
Something of the last 13 years in microcosm in this RAAC palaver.
And that will fund extra spending on everything.
Well that's alright then.
Magic wands already ordered I assume.
The law is Rule 140, where the word Must is used.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Cycle lanes are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation.
The sign says the hours of operation. If its 24/7 you can never park there, if its Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm (eg a cycle lane near me) its perfectly legal to park there at weekends.
Of course if we followed my policy of building new roads, with physically segregated cycling paths, it'd be impossible to park in them anyway.
Lord Ashcroft's poll ' the state we are in' published today is worthy of a read by anyone interested in politics
so at 20 mph...
velocity is 8.9408 meters / second
say the car is 1 ton
0.5 * 1000 * 8.9408 * 8.9408 = 39968.95
for the cyclist - say 100Kg of bike and person
0.5 * 100 * v2 = 39968.95
v2 = 39968.95/50
v2 = 799.379
v = 28.27
which is 62.6mph for equal kinetic energy.
Someone tell me where the mistake is.
Would they have pressed every button they could think of if they didn't think there was a 'need' to do so ?
Or would the opportunity of being able to apply their version of 'Britannia unchained' have been unmissable ?
Yes, it’s as easy as 1/2 mv^2
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/kinetic.php
As for assisted bikes, if they're assisted past 15mph then they're illegal (and 99% of people are not going to be strong enough to get a heavy e-bike past 20mph without assistance). If they assistance isn't limited to 15mph then they're, legally speaking motorbikes.
(Fwiw, the energy is my bike crash was converted into a neat front flip into a hedge)
Rule 140 is the law, and if you're engaging in vandalism over something not illegal then you're the only one breaking the law.
Its like Covid again. The advice was to only go for one walk a day, the law was to not throw parties in Downing Street. Or something like that.
There's an element of bad luck in it because the issues with RAAC moved very quickly from some time being available to no time being available. But there's no real fig leaf here - the Conservatives cannot reasonably say they have a good record on capital investment in schools, and now Sunak's fingerprints are personally on the failures.
Not sure it will shift large numbers of votes but, in line with OGH's article, it will harden the anti-Tory vote making it ever harder to get it back into competitive territory.
With control goes responsibility.
But some of those who wanted control thought entitlement went with control instead.
Dorries resignation is perhaps the best example of self-entitlement, self-pity, blaming others and unwillingness to take responsibility.
What's the stopping of a car at 20mph versus a bike that's "speeding"?
If you're Rishi's spin doctor, how do you even begin to talk about that?
Otherwise Sunak and Hunt are getting on with the job, inflation is falling and hopefully that will start to be reflected in voteshares. Otherwise no other Tory leader would likely poll any better than Sunak apart from Mordaunt who is too woke for party members and many Conservative MPs.
Indeed there is little appetite for any challenge from the ERG either, for them they may as well let Sunak and Hunt take the blame for general election defeat and then the right will try and take over the party in opposition
*In the sense of generic food delivery guys.
Don't be an arsehole is good advice.
Incidentally physically segregated cycle tracks (as opposed to painted cycle paths) which I advocate building along with new roads it is illegal to ever block them by parking, Rule 240 is must not, but for only cycle tracks, Rule 140 again defines cycle tracks.
But Starmer is going to face the impossibility of meeting a myriad of spending demands through 'economic growth'.
Incidentally economic growth includes the public sector increasing output faster than increasing workforce or pay.
A good thing if it happens but I suspect its the opposite of what the public sector unions want from a Labour government.
Edit: Say you were searching for a good analogy for a presentation.
Your boy Sunak was told that there was a critical risk to children's lives, and he chose to cut spending by almost half when he was Chancellor. It's unforgivable, and I absolutely believe that if we lived in a country where those at the top didn't segregate their children then the whole picture on education would be different. This particular scandal is just a particularly damning example.
A lot of mandatory cycle lanes won't signpost prescribed hours, but they'll still exist in the underlying, published traffic management order, and it's not an excuse to say there was no signpost (and indeed the prescribed hours are often but not always "at any time").
In general, unless you happen to know that a mandatory cycle lane (with a solid white line) has limited hours of operation, and what they are, it's not worth risking.
"Biden disappointed Xi will not attend G20 summit - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-66704059
The Tories have sadly replaced Labour as the party of the welfare state. The Tories are spending a higher proportion of state expenditure on welfare today than Labour did in 2010.
Public sector employee output is higher than welfare recipient output is, so a rebalancing certainly could boost productivity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66701626
Ouch!
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1698337203066150998
BBC News Press Team
@BBCNewsPR
Except she doesn’t, because that number doesn’t count people watching on phones, tablets, catch-up on iPlayer… which they do, in 2023!
That money had to come from somewhere.
There's likely numerous cutbacks in other places.
Many regrettable I'm sure but probably inevitable.
And how would the picture on education be different without private schools ?
If its more money you're suggesting - they would need 6% more just to deal with the extra pupils - then where is that coming from ?
Higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere.
He's in big trouble here. He doesn't look a vote winner at all.
Wonder how many were in Red Wall or similar marginal constituencies?
Due to... much smaller contact patch, no ABS and more pronounced rotational braking couple in the pitch axis caused by a relatively higher CofG.
I presume bikes with ABS and an IMU for anti-stoppie control are 5-10 years away.
E2A. I have been right through the back window of a VW Passat estate when doing suicidally quick descending in the Vosges. So can confirm that a car will outbrake a bike.
However, it's also worth pointing out that another factor in relation to speed is the time it gives to take evasive action both by the vehicle and pedestrian. So a cyclist at 40mph on an urban street is just more likely to hit you than a car going at 20mph even if the energy imparted by the latter is greater.
I have to say that, with a very few exceptions of very aggressive cyclists on steep hills, it's really rare to see a bicycle going at 40mph in an urban environment, whereas it's pretty common for cars in my experience. That's not to excuse it, but I think some people have an odd perspective on the scale of different risks.
If the country were to reelect the Tories again, in these circumstances, after the utter farce of recent years, it would indicate something amiss with our politics. Can't beat them from the left. Can't beat them from the centre. They govern regardless of how they do or what they do. This is unhealthy.
The good news? The public (to some extent subliminally) grasp this point and will act accordingly to prevent it happening. They have decided it's time for the change and are just waiting for the day. Not long now.
Time for those of us with above average incomes and wealth to pay.
Too many people are getting too many handouts.
And the danger is that a critical mass of welfare recipients has been achieved which makes it impossible to reform this.
I foresee some brutal Labour posters on the subject that make this one look nice.
Most of the time it’s fine, because you aren’t going fast enough for it to matter & at slow speeds braking distance is dominated by reaction times anyway. If you’re going 40mph though, beware!
Due to the way conservation of momentum works, the majority of the energy transfer in an impact with a vehicle is from vehicle -> cyclist. Pedestrians will be about equal as they’re roughly the same mass.
This logic is presumably what drove the legal limit for e-bike assist to be 15mph. Unfortunately there are people out there on unrestricted e-bikes that are effectively small motorbikes.
It's rather insane that the Tories today spend more on welfare than Labour did. It seems completely counterintuitive.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-66687817
There is no zero spend option. You cannot choose not to repair or replace these buildings. It is not a frippery, some civil servant pet project to waste taxpayer money.
The choice is to replace the schools in an orderly manner. Or pay to repair them, pay for emergency measures such as moving the kids into hired facilities, and then pay to replace the schools.
Spend some. Or spend some more. There is no option not to spend.
It does seem surprising that only yesterday Starmer emphasised he will not increase any taxes and he has already ruled out wealth taxes. The question follows then how will he change anything on taking office, as improving GDP can only be a long term aspiration
I mentioned Lord Ashcroft's poll published today about 'the state of the nation' and frankly none of our politicians are touching the surface on the extensive changes need to our society, not least the end to the triple lock
Some on here (@BartholomewRoberts) have quite radical views on equalising tax and NI rates and applying them across all income, earned and unearned, but when have we ever heard a mainstem politician raise it
Yes, the conservatives are tired and out of ideas, and the opportunity now afforded to Starmer to be brave and take the real opportunity to change things seems to be overruled by his inability to say or do anything that may be unpopular or scare the horses
There is a real danger the opportunity is going to be missed
Then you have the disabled and long-term sick. Then far too much subsiding high-rent landlords. Very little spent on people who can work but aren't.
They would experiment with converting a conventional frame and rapidly move to welding strengthening on, then get into custom frame making.
There's also a place in Poland (where else?) where you can send the guts of the system to be reprogrammed with a 1 week turnaround but Brexit makes that an unpredictable pain in the dick when it comes to getting your bits back.
Asking where is all that money going is a better criticism than claiming they're not spending it.
My guess is that it’ll blow over as yet another story of this crapola government failing. But it cements (no pun intended) intent and views.
& the problem for this government is precisely that they seem to be incapable of anything remotely resembling good governance & the voters have had enough: This episode just underlines that choice for those who have already made it.
Someone on UC faces a real Income Tax rate of 69.4% ... 78.4% if they are repaying student loans too. That's not generous. And that's excluding Employers NICs.
Harsh, but it's the only way.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1698229731190079833
Checkmate. Maybe on one of those chess boards Rishi is allowing councils to bid for.
https://youtu.be/XOnhPtqj3Jo?si=DrhePijdBKJerR6R
There was one in the CCF armoury at school. But they wouldn’t let us take it out. Sob.
Also frankly, I would want some assurances from my school that it's safe before I sent children back.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/03/rishi-sunak-overturn-onshore-wind-farm-ban/