Starmer doesn't have to say, or do, anything much while the Tories are in self-destruct mode. It's not the time to pre-announce the detail of what will be in Labour's GE manifesto.
Those who think, however, that Labour has no plan and no policies should relax. Starmer would be an absolute idiot to go into the next GE without a coherent plan to turn things around, combined with some well-tested retail policies to seduce wavering voters. And, whatever your opinion of Starmer, he isn't an absolute idiot.
Hes an empty suit
He will end up disappointing
If you don't expect anything of him, he can only disappoint on the upside.
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
Yes, but others have answered that.
However, it's not just the kinetic energy of the impacting object that matters in a collision, but the area of contact that determines the forces and damage. I'd rather be hit by a car (large, deformable bonnet) at 20mph than a bike (small rigid metal tubes, pointy handle-bars).
I'll take the bike, looking at car/bike pedestrian death rates.
90kg of bike vs 1000-2500kg of car
This is the three people on bicycles freewheeling at 39mph through the village on Exmoor on the A-road?
I stayed off the scrimmage thread - where I think Cycling Mikey was unusually trying to be too black-and-white about it, but there were good conversations elsewhere.
My take is that it was perhaps too quick due to blind entrances, Zebra crossing and so on, but that the police should have framed the conversation around possible "cycling without due care" rather than speed. Far more useful than stirring up a social media stooshie.
I would never trust the surface quality of *any* UK road to go at that speed on a cycle, unless I knew it intimately.
Beware - just thwarted a very convincing scam on my my bank credit card. Got a text message (it showed my bank as named so looked proper). It said there was suspicious transactions and a further text will arrive. It did. It said my card had been blocked and that I would receive a phone call from the fraud dept of the bank. Sure enough, two phone calls followed (I didn't answer). I checked my banking App and indeed there were four transactions today for Apple.Com ranging from Nil value to £10 - not mine.
I Googled the bank fraud number and called from a different phone to which the texts came in. It is a fraud and my card is being cancelled and a new one issued.
Bullet dodged - but it is very concerning that the scammer had my credit card number and my mobile number. I suppose I could change my mobile number but this would be a nuisance.
That's very interesting as those Sender IDs are meant to be restricted precisely to avoid such scam texts with scammers pretending to be legitimate companies, and in particular banks. Was it exactly the same as your bank normally uses or only close?
I'd tell your bank and your mobile carrier about it, there is a registry for blocking those close names and your example could be added, if it was a correctly formatted bank name they should really want to know it, as it ought to have been blocked upstream.
Nandy to international development feels like a sidelining.
She was Shadow Foreign Secretary for a while under Starmer, so this is a second successive demotion.
I guess Starmer felt the need to reward leadership rivals in 2020 but he didn't really rate either of them. Long-Bailey (remember her?) did enough to have herself cast into the outer darkness, whereas Nandy just hasn't impressed the boss.
This is part of the genius of Boris Johnson who realized that if you give someone in your government a ridiculous job title, someone in the opposite party will have an even more ridiculous one.
Starmer doesn't have to say, or do, anything much while the Tories are in self-destruct mode. It's not the time to pre-announce the detail of what will be in Labour's GE manifesto.
Those who think, however, that Labour has no plan and no policies should relax. Starmer would be an absolute idiot to go into the next GE without a coherent plan to turn things around, combined with some well-tested retail policies to seduce wavering voters. And, whatever your opinion of Starmer, he isn't an absolute idiot.
Hes an empty suit
He will end up disappointing
Whilst I agree that he inevitably will end up disappointing, the "empty suit" jibe backfires a little.
The issue with Sunak and the current ministerial team is that they are a blockage. The civil service is highlighting oncoming catastrophes - such as hundreds of schools that need emergency repair and rapid replacement. Sunak and Zahawi et al are saying no. An empty suit would not be such an impediment and we wouldn't now be in this mess.
We got in this mess about 30 years ago when we built the schools. All three parties have been in government and have done nothing about it. SKS wont either he has no money.
This argument is utterly stupid. There is no "spend no money" option.
The government needs someone who can play an equivalent role to Peter Mandelson when Gordon Brown became overwhelmed by the job, but I can't think of anyone who could do it.
Starmer doesn't have to say, or do, anything much while the Tories are in self-destruct mode. It's not the time to pre-announce the detail of what will be in Labour's GE manifesto.
Those who think, however, that Labour has no plan and no policies should relax. Starmer would be an absolute idiot to go into the next GE without a coherent plan to turn things around, combined with some well-tested retail policies to seduce wavering voters. And, whatever your opinion of Starmer, he isn't an absolute idiot.
Hes an empty suit
He will end up disappointing
Whilst I agree that he inevitably will end up disappointing, the "empty suit" jibe backfires a little.
The issue with Sunak and the current ministerial team is that they are a blockage. The civil service is highlighting oncoming catastrophes - such as hundreds of schools that need emergency repair and rapid replacement. Sunak and Zahawi et al are saying no. An empty suit would not be such an impediment and we wouldn't now be in this mess.
We got in this mess about 30 years ago when we built the schools. All three parties have been in government and have done nothing about it. SKS wont either he has no money.
This argument is utterly stupid. There is no "spend no money" option.
LOL
then why has nt any party spent it to date ?
Theyll all spend the money on their pet projects and skint on schools.
Nandy to international development feels like a sidelining.
She was Shadow Foreign Secretary for a while under Starmer, so this is a second successive demotion.
I guess Starmer felt the need to reward leadership rivals in 2020 but he didn't really rate either of them. Long-Bailey (remember her?) did enough to have herself cast into the outer darkness, whereas Nandy just hasn't impressed the boss.
Nandy is overrated, RLB made herself irrelevant by being anti-Semitic.
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
Theyll all spend the money on their pet projects and skint on schools.
Didn't New Labour renew most of the schools in London?
No, or we wouldnt be looking at the problem today. Brown spent a fortune on PFI for improving some schools. The fact that direct procurement by HMG would have been infinitely cheaper was quietly forgotten.
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
Your mate Dave is single-handedly responsible for the hole we fell into.
Starmer doesn't have to say, or do, anything much while the Tories are in self-destruct mode. It's not the time to pre-announce the detail of what will be in Labour's GE manifesto.
Those who think, however, that Labour has no plan and no policies should relax. Starmer would be an absolute idiot to go into the next GE without a coherent plan to turn things around, combined with some well-tested retail policies to seduce wavering voters. And, whatever your opinion of Starmer, he isn't an absolute idiot.
Hes an empty suit
He will end up disappointing
Whilst I agree that he inevitably will end up disappointing, the "empty suit" jibe backfires a little.
The issue with Sunak and the current ministerial team is that they are a blockage. The civil service is highlighting oncoming catastrophes - such as hundreds of schools that need emergency repair and rapid replacement. Sunak and Zahawi et al are saying no. An empty suit would not be such an impediment and we wouldn't now be in this mess.
We got in this mess about 30 years ago when we built the schools. All three parties have been in government and have done nothing about it. SKS wont either he has no money.
This argument is utterly stupid. There is no "spend no money" option.
LOL
then why has nt any party spent it to date ?
Theyll all spend the money on their pet projects and skint on schools.
We need a separate Department for Infrastructure that would include management of public sector buildings.
At the moment, pay rises for staff are communicated as 'more money for schools and hospitals', even if the schools and hospitals temselves are being neglected.
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
If we had listened to Dave (pbuh) we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Theyll all spend the money on their pet projects and skint on schools.
Didn't New Labour renew most of the schools in London?
No, or we wouldnt be looking at the problem today. Brown spent a fortune on PFI for improving some schools. The fact that direct procurement by HMG would have been infinitely cheaper was quietly forgotten.
No it wasn't. Lots of us have complained about it ever since.
'Building Skools for the Future' came up only a couple of days ago.
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
If we had listened to Dave (pbuh) we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Dave offered that referendum for absolutely no reason.
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
If we had listened to Dave (pbuh) we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Dave offered that referendum for absolutely no reason.
If there was no reason for it, why did Labour and the Lib Dems vote for it in parliament?
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
If we had listened to Dave (pbuh) we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Dave offered that referendum for absolutely no reason.
If there was no reason for it, why did Labour and the Lib Dems vote for it in parliament?
Liz Kendall - there’s a blast from the past. I remember those heady days after the 2015 GE where everyone thought she was the next Labour leader. Instead we got Corbyn….
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
If we had listened to Dave (pbuh) we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
The government needs someone who can play an equivalent role to Peter Mandelson when Gordon Brown became overwhelmed by the job, but I can't think of anyone who could do it.
Liz Kendall - there’s a blast from the past. I remember those heady days after the 2015 GE where everyone thought she was the next Labour leader. Instead we got Corbyn….
The election when Andy Burnham decided he was centrist for a week and then went a bit further left because Corbyn was winning. No principles.
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
If we had listened to Dave (pbuh) we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Correct.
We'd be in an even bigger one.
I remember and yearn for the days when a government crisis involved pasties.
No I am not. After his talk last night I am utterly convinced the country would be in a much better state if he'd become PM in 2019.
Yes just what we need another Eton, Oxford type.
Diversity in action
Diversity is not background or skin colour. Diversity, in the human sense, is in the mind.
Rory Stewart has a different take on the world to most MPs.
Rory Stewart is as diverse as a Rolo in a pack of Rolos
That depends on how you define 'diverse'. IMV politically the identikit Oxford, and particularly Oxford PPE, politicians that we've had leading us for decades are about as 'diverse' as a bag of sick. Background and diversity are much greater concepts than a person's situation at birth.
(Yes, I know Stewart was an Oxford PPE guy as well; he does at least seem to have grown out of that a little ...)
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
If we had listened to Dave (pbuh) we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Dave offered that referendum for absolutely no reason.
There would have been one at some point. The boil was getting very large, and pressure in the Tory party would have required it to be lanced at some point. 2016 was the best timing for the Tory Party rather than the country though.
The government needs someone who can play an equivalent role to Peter Mandelson when Gordon Brown became overwhelmed by the job, but I can't think of anyone who could do it.
The call-up by France of Bastien Chalureau, who was convicted of racist violence three years ago, is threatening to overshadow the opening week of the host nation’s Rugby World Cup.
The 31-year-old lock’s late selection as a replacement for the injured Paul Willemse, before France open the tournament against New Zealand in Paris on Friday, has been criticised by left-wing politicians in the country. Fabien Galthié, the France head coach, said that the debate had not affected his team because “the World Cup isn’t for wimps”.
Chalureau was given a suspended six-month prison sentence in 2020 for attacking two men — Yannick Larguet, a former rugby player for Colomiers and Agen, and Nassim Arif — after a night out, with the court in Toulouse stipulating that the acts were committed due to the race or ethnicity of the victim. Chalureau admitted the assault but denied it was motivated by race and has appealed against the judgment, with the case ongoing.
The government needs someone who can play an equivalent role to Peter Mandelson when Gordon Brown became overwhelmed by the job, but I can't think of anyone who could do it.
The nearest figure I can think of is Gove. But he has rather lost his va va voom. And whereas Mandy was loyal to the cause, Gove's reputation is for loyalty to himself.
But if Gove is their finest fixer, the Conservatives really are in trouble.
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
If we had listened to Dave (pbuh) we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Correct.
We'd be in an even bigger one.
I remember and yearn for the days when a government crisis involved pasties.
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
If we had listened to Dave (pbuh) we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Dave offered that referendum for absolutely no reason.
It wasn’t just the referendum; it was the way he ran the Yes campaign.
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
If we had listened to Dave (pbuh) we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Correct.
We'd be in an even bigger one.
I remember and yearn for the days when a government crisis involved pasties.
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
If we had listened to Dave (pbuh) we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Correct.
We'd be in an even bigger one.
I remember and yearn for the days when a government crisis involved pasties.
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
If we had listened to Dave (pbuh) we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Dave offered that referendum for absolutely no reason.
It wasn’t just the referendum; it was the way he ran the Yes campaign.
If anyone wants to have a history of Andy "I have no policies or principles" Burnham just look at him here in 2015 warning against Corbynism and going too left. Now he's the most left-wing person in the Labour Party and thinks Corbyn had a point!
How can this man who was a Blairite and then a Brownite be popular with anyone, he doesn't stand for anything!
Liz Kendall - there’s a blast from the past. I remember those heady days after the 2015 GE where everyone thought she was the next Labour leader. Instead we got Corbyn….
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
If we had listened to Dave (pbuh) we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Dave offered that referendum for absolutely no reason.
There would have been one at some point. The boil was getting very large, and pressure in the Tory party would have required it to be lanced at some point. 2016 was the best timing for the Tory Party rather than the country though.
The government needs someone who can play an equivalent role to Peter Mandelson when Gordon Brown became overwhelmed by the job, but I can't think of anyone who could do it.
Theresa May?
Hague.
Theresa doesn't deserve The Hague, she was just a bit shit which makes her a colossus among recent Tory PMs.
Liz Kendall - there’s a blast from the past. I remember those heady days after the 2015 GE where everyone thought she was the next Labour leader. Instead we got Corbyn….
"everyone"? She got 4%...
The commentariat certainly thought she was in with a chance in the days after the election. I remember a lot of animated discussion on here about it.
Liz Kendall - there’s a blast from the past. I remember those heady days after the 2015 GE where everyone thought she was the next Labour leader. Instead we got Corbyn….
"everyone"? She got 4%...
There was about a two week period when she’d started her campaign and no-one else had when she had some good press. She advanced the novel idea of trying to engage with and perhaps sometimes agree with Labour’s target vote. (In comparison to Chuka, who appeared to regard the inhabitants of places like Swindon as some weird foreign species). It seemed a good idea but Labour had other ideas. In any case, it quickly became apparent that what LK had meant was agreeing with Labour’s target voter on those issues (and only those issues) where they happened to agree with Liz Kendall – otherwise it was back to telling them they were wrong and bad.
Checkmate. Maybe on one of those chess boards Rishi is allowing councils to bid for.
Of all the difficult situations the Tories have found themselves in since the last GE, the maintainance of schools is likely to have a lasting impact on voters. It strongly reinforces the stereotype that the Tories cut spending while letting the long term infrastructure of in the UK crumble. On top of that a decision to massively cut school maintainance spending 3 years ago by the Chancellor, now looks terrible, even though the last 3 years is a minor compared to the decisions made over the last 13 years. The problem for the Prime Minister is that he can't even push the blame onto the Chancellor who made that decision!
I think in the last few days the chances have plummeted, that the Tories can regain many of the opinion poll don't knows and reduce the deficit in VI-Polls to under 5%.
I utterly disagree with all of you.
How on earth are the Conservatives allowing the Concrete Crisis to be stitched up as all their fault, and definition of their 13 years of rule?
Why don’t they fight back and explain the truth?
1 - it’s Labours fault. Labour were in power for 13 important years and should have been dealing with this, and when thrown out there was no money left. Meaning money was tight for Tories, there’s tough decisions. 2 - Covid. Meaning money is tight, there’s tough decisions. 3 - Putin. Meaning money is tight, there’s tough decisions.
The call-up by France of Bastien Chalureau, who was convicted of racist violence three years ago, is threatening to overshadow the opening week of the host nation’s Rugby World Cup.
The 31-year-old lock’s late selection as a replacement for the injured Paul Willemse, before France open the tournament against New Zealand in Paris on Friday, has been criticised by left-wing politicians in the country. Fabien Galthié, the France head coach, said that the debate had not affected his team because “the World Cup isn’t for wimps”.
Chalureau was given a suspended six-month prison sentence in 2020 for attacking two men — Yannick Larguet, a former rugby player for Colomiers and Agen, and Nassim Arif — after a night out, with the court in Toulouse stipulating that the acts were committed due to the race or ethnicity of the victim. Chalureau admitted the assault but denied it was motivated by race and has appealed against the judgment, with the case ongoing.
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.
My 10 year old grandson was playing a game on his computer with a friend on line at the time Hunt was being interviewed on TV yesterday and he suddenly said
'Is my school safe, Papa'
My instant reaction was yes it is, but then as the Welsh Government also have no idea how it effects Welsh schools then it is incumbent on them to tell Welsh parents just how safe their schools are here in Wales
It's crazy isn't it? So far seems to be mainly England people are talking about - but you'd imagine at least some Welsh schools would also be affected.
If anyone wants to have a history of Andy "I have no policies or principles" Burnham just look at him here in 2015 warning against Corbynism and going too left. Now he's the most left-wing person in the Labour Party and thinks Corbyn had a point!
How can this man who was a Blairite and then a Brownite be popular with anyone, he doesn't stand for anything!
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
Yes, but others have answered that.
However, it's not just the kinetic energy of the impacting object that matters in a collision, but the area of contact that determines the forces and damage. I'd rather be hit by a car (large, deformable bonnet) at 20mph than a bike (small rigid metal tubes, pointy handle-bars).
I'll take the bike, looking at car/bike pedestrian death rates.
90kg of bike vs 1000-2500kg of car
Let's take top end (2.5T) then, for the car.
Contact area of, say 40cm (body width) x 10cm in car collision. If you assume you're stopping (not realistic, see below) the other object in one second then at 20mph (~9ms^-1) you need to apply a deceleration of 9ms^-2 which is 22.5kN or 56.25Ncm^-2
For the bike, area of say 10cm X 1cm (1x drop handlebars impacting on body - assume that the rider at least turns wheel a bit in avoidance - contat actually likely pointier and smaller, but still). Same speed assumption, you need 810N of force which is 81Ncm^-2
Now, that's all, in typical physicist style*, spherical cow in a vacuum territory. But the assumptions are not skewed towards penalising the car. You're not actually going to stop the car, so the force transferred is less (you'll bounce off). You likely would pretty much stop the bike, so you are going to experience most of that force. I haven't accounted for deformation in the car panels, which would lessen the impact force for the car, too.
Now, it varies of course. The car might knock you down and run you over, which is worse than the bike. You might get hit by a sharper part of the car, reducing contact area. Maybe you get smacked by the cyclist's helmet rather than the frame, which increases the contact are and makes it softer, too.
*chances are I've cocked up the maths too, also in typial physicist style. These who can, do math, those who can't, do physics
ETA: If you're looking at death rates, most cyclists are not reaching 20mph routinely. Most drivers are rarely as slow as 20mph. So, of course cars are more dangerous overall, but for a given speed, I'd take the car over the bike if the collision occurred. The bike is probably better able to avoid you in most cases too (it's a smaller thing to get around you).
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
Yes, but others have answered that.
However, it's not just the kinetic energy of the impacting object that matters in a collision, but the area of contact that determines the forces and damage. I'd rather be hit by a car (large, deformable bonnet) at 20mph than a bike (small rigid metal tubes, pointy handle-bars).
Gosh. How's that Physics For Dummies course going?
I never got round to it after the MPhys and the PhD
Worse than that. He announced he was standing, then withdrew a few days later.
The suggestion from the tabloids at the time, was that there was a story that remains untold. The likes of Guido definitely insinuated that there was something that would come out, if he didn’t withdraw - and he did cross paths with Paul Staines, when the latter was a rave promotor in the ‘90s.
Liz Kendall - there’s a blast from the past. I remember those heady days after the 2015 GE where everyone thought she was the next Labour leader. Instead we got Corbyn….
"everyone"? She got 4%...
The commentariat certainly thought she was in with a chance in the days after the election. I remember a lot of animated discussion on here about it.
Fwiw I predicted Corbyn from the start. A footnote is that she and Corbyn really hit it off during the umpteen hustings they were on - IIRC she wasn't part of the MPs' insurgency against him a year later, and perhaps personal liking had something to do with that.
Those interested in that period will probably enjoy https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/candidate-alex-nunns-2nd-edition/?mc_cid=6a57e20627&mc_eid=12e3d0b421 . It explains pretty well how Corbyn got the nomination by 35 MPs (and the subsequent campaign), with the interesting note that McDonnell wouldn't got it - the difference was that uncommitted MPs who wouldn't have gone for McDonnell's abrasive style really liked Corbyn. The book's weakness is that it doesn't explore what went wrong after 2017, but it's a good account of that year.
This particular type of misogyny is very common, a lof of the time Sunak is criticised it's because of something his wife did, or it's related to her family, as though his wife has no autonomy and as though Sunak is responsible for his inlaws. It's very odd, and even odder is that it invariably comes from the sort of people who usually get mad as hell about such old-fashioned attitudes.
Just a question, how can anyone justify that the papers on Prince Andrew be kept secret until 2065. Why does he get special rights?
The justification is that it is a general rule for the Royal Family (rather than specific to Prince Andrew) that papers that relate to an individual aren't released to the National Archives until 105 years after their birth, in contrast with the general 20 year rule for papers of government departments.
Presumably the underlying basis is that political careers are relatively short, whereas a member of the Royal Family remains active for many decades.
It should be revisited, though. It impedes research for a start, and there's no particular reason why it would put living Royals in an impossible position to the extent they've made honest mistakes (cf Prince Andrew). John Major, Tony Blair and other senior public figures have seen papers from their time in office released. Some of which reflect well on them, and some poorly, but it's essentially historical 20+ years on.
Nandy to international development feels like a sidelining.
Second demotion in a row. Starmer either:
Doesn't like her Doesn't rate her Feels threatened
I voted for Nandy for the leadership, so disappointed to see her being undermined.
Note the subtext, though - although she's shadowing Mitchell (middle-ranking Foreign Office Minister) she's identified as being in the Shadow Cabinet - confirmation that Labour is likely to restore an independent DfID. That's a niche policy for most (and aid-sceptics will hate it), but those of us engaged in foreign aid issues see it as hugely important, and probably linked to a pledge to move back to 0.7% aid by the end of the next Parliament. If Nandy gets that through she'll be a hero to a lot of us.
Oh BJO thought Ed M would be PM? Well a lot of people did to be fair
Ultimately, Britain faced a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong Government with David Cameron, or chaos with Ed Miliband. And the electorate is never wrong.
The electorate was right in 2015, in 2016 the electorate screwed up.
The electorate voted for the guy who created 2016 or shall we just pass over that ?
If we had listened to Dave (pbuh) we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Dave offered that referendum for absolutely no reason.
It wasn’t just the referendum; it was the way he ran the Yes campaign.
The ignomy. Beaten by a bus,
The descent of Tory leaders:
Dave Cameron lost to a bus. Then Tories found May's Brexit suss. With Boris caught lying, Liz seemed mystifying, Now Rishi drops concrete on us.
This particular type of misogyny is very common, a lof of the time Sunak is criticised it's because of something his wife did, or it's related to her family, as though his wife has no autonomy and as though Sunak is responsible for his inlaws. It's very odd, and even odder is that it invariably comes from the sort of people who usually get mad as hell about such old-fashioned attitudes.
It is really common, I used to work with an idiot who reckoned I was a buy to let landlord as my wife had a house she rented out when we first got together. I pointed out it was her house and it was temp to see how things went.
Didn't matter. Some people are just dense.
Misogyny is really ingrained in society to this very day
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
Yes, but others have answered that.
However, it's not just the kinetic energy of the impacting object that matters in a collision, but the area of contact that determines the forces and damage. I'd rather be hit by a car (large, deformable bonnet) at 20mph than a bike (small rigid metal tubes, pointy handle-bars).
I'll take the bike, looking at car/bike pedestrian death rates.
90kg of bike vs 1000-2500kg of car
Let's take top end (2.5T) then, for the car.
Contact area of, say 40cm (body width) x 10cm in car collision. If you assume you're stopping (not realistic, see below) the other object in one second then at 20mph (~9ms^-1) you need to apply a deceleration of 9ms^-2 which is 22.5kN or 56.25Ncm^-2
For the bike, area of say 10cm X 1cm (1x drop handlebars impacting on body - assume that the rider at least turns wheel a bit in avoidance - contat actually likely pointier and smaller, but still). Same speed assumption, you need 810N of force which is 81Ncm^-2
Now, that's all, in typical physicist style*, spherical cow in a vacuum territory. But the assumptions are not skewed towards penalising the car. You're not actually going to stop the car, so the force transferred is less (you'll bounce off). You likely would pretty much stop the bike, so you are going to experience most of that force. I haven't accounted for deformation in the car panels, which would lessen the impact force for the car, too.
Now, it varies of course. The car might knock you down and run you over, which is worse than the bike. You might get hit by a sharper part of the car, reducing contact area. Maybe you get smacked by the cyclist's helmet rather than the frame, which increases the contact are and makes it softer, too.
*chances are I've cocked up the maths too, also in typial physicist style. These who can, do math, those who can't, do physics
ETA: If you're looking at death rates, most cyclists are not reaching 20mph routinely. Most drivers are rarely as slow as 20mph. So, of course cars are more dangerous overall, but for a given speed, I'd take the car over the bike if the collision occurred. The bike is probably better able to avoid you in most cases too (it's a smaller thing to get around you).
Plausible enough. But yes, probably not the relevant numbers, for the reasons you cite.
Ultimately, pedestrian casualties due to bikes are rare (3 deaths per year, as opposed to 300 per year for cars), but not zero;
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.
You are however missing something. While to calculation of energy is correct you also have to take into account the area over which that energy is a applied. Which is why it takes a lot less applied force to stab some with a knife than a brick.
On Pincher, I had forgotten that part of his justification for why he shouldn't be punished is he was just too damn drunk to remember sexually assaulting anyone, and he was a great MP when not assaulting people.
Classy dude, credit to the House.
He also states suspension means his constituents are deprived of service, which is just an argument against any standards regime at all. A bit obvious.
IFS: Capital spending on schools 50 per cent below 2010 peak
Which is less than ideal if you'd been in power since, say, 2010 and fundamental problems with buildings that should have been replaced in the last 13 years are found...
How is Sunak expecting to defend a budget that can update 50 schools a year when we have 22,000 of them?
Number 10 gets refurbed about 100x more often than a typical school.....if only there was a politician who campaigned for better maths education Sunak wouldn't have made this glaring error.
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
Yes, but others have answered that.
However, it's not just the kinetic energy of the impacting object that matters in a collision, but the area of contact that determines the forces and damage. I'd rather be hit by a car (large, deformable bonnet) at 20mph than a bike (small rigid metal tubes, pointy handle-bars).
I'll take the bike, looking at car/bike pedestrian death rates.
90kg of bike vs 1000-2500kg of car
Let's take top end (2.5T) then, for the car.
Contact area of, say 40cm (body width) x 10cm in car collision. If you assume you're stopping (not realistic, see below) the other object in one second then at 20mph (~9ms^-1) you need to apply a deceleration of 9ms^-2 which is 22.5kN or 56.25Ncm^-2
For the bike, area of say 10cm X 1cm (1x drop handlebars impacting on body - assume that the rider at least turns wheel a bit in avoidance - contat actually likely pointier and smaller, but still). Same speed assumption, you need 810N of force which is 81Ncm^-2
Now, that's all, in typical physicist style*, spherical cow in a vacuum territory. But the assumptions are not skewed towards penalising the car. You're not actually going to stop the car, so the force transferred is less (you'll bounce off). You likely would pretty much stop the bike, so you are going to experience most of that force. I haven't accounted for deformation in the car panels, which would lessen the impact force for the car, too.
Now, it varies of course. The car might knock you down and run you over, which is worse than the bike. You might get hit by a sharper part of the car, reducing contact area. Maybe you get smacked by the cyclist's helmet rather than the frame, which increases the contact are and makes it softer, too.
*chances are I've cocked up the maths too, also in typial physicist style. These who can, do math, those who can't, do physics
ETA: If you're looking at death rates, most cyclists are not reaching 20mph routinely. Most drivers are rarely as slow as 20mph. So, of course cars are more dangerous overall, but for a given speed, I'd take the car over the bike if the collision occurred. The bike is probably better able to avoid you in most cases too (it's a smaller thing to get around you).
The lycra-clad boys and girls are regularly cruising at 20mph on the flat (let alone downhill). I'm a leisure cyclist who'd typically be around 15mph on the flat. At that speed, I'm probably around average pace but am regularly overtaken.
So you'd expect a significant number of bicycle/pedestrian impacts at that sort of speed. Whilst that's not pretty, and likely to require treatment, it simply beggars belief that it'd be anywhere close to being hit by a tonne plus of car at 20mph, pointy edges notwithstanding.
Remember that the cyclist and pedestrian are likely to take at least some defensive/evasive action such that it's more of a glancing blow, whereas that isn't generally realistic for a car given the steering.
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
Yes, but others have answered that.
However, it's not just the kinetic energy of the impacting object that matters in a collision, but the area of contact that determines the forces and damage. I'd rather be hit by a car (large, deformable bonnet) at 20mph than a bike (small rigid metal tubes, pointy handle-bars).
I'll take the bike, looking at car/bike pedestrian death rates.
90kg of bike vs 1000-2500kg of car
Let's take top end (2.5T) then, for the car.
Contact area of, say 40cm (body width) x 10cm in car collision. If you assume you're stopping (not realistic, see below) the other object in one second then at 20mph (~9ms^-1) you need to apply a deceleration of 9ms^-2 which is 22.5kN or 56.25Ncm^-2
For the bike, area of say 10cm X 1cm (1x drop handlebars impacting on body - assume that the rider at least turns wheel a bit in avoidance - contat actually likely pointier and smaller, but still). Same speed assumption, you need 810N of force which is 81Ncm^-2
Now, that's all, in typical physicist style*, spherical cow in a vacuum territory. But the assumptions are not skewed towards penalising the car. You're not actually going to stop the car, so the force transferred is less (you'll bounce off). You likely would pretty much stop the bike, so you are going to experience most of that force. I haven't accounted for deformation in the car panels, which would lessen the impact force for the car, too.
Now, it varies of course. The car might knock you down and run you over, which is worse than the bike. You might get hit by a sharper part of the car, reducing contact area. Maybe you get smacked by the cyclist's helmet rather than the frame, which increases the contact are and makes it softer, too.
*chances are I've cocked up the maths too, also in typial physicist style. These who can, do math, those who can't, do physics
ETA: If you're looking at death rates, most cyclists are not reaching 20mph routinely. Most drivers are rarely as slow as 20mph. So, of course cars are more dangerous overall, but for a given speed, I'd take the car over the bike if the collision occurred. The bike is probably better able to avoid you in most cases too (it's a smaller thing to get around you).
Plausible enough. But yes, probably not the relevant numbers, for the reasons you cite.
Ultimately, pedestrian casualties due to bikes are rare (3 deaths per year, as opposed to 300 per year for cars), but not zero;
I would guess a lot of the energy is transferred to the cyclist flipping/skidding/catapulting down the road too in most cases.
Also note that is "vehicle involved" - so if a car hit a cyclist and a pedestrian, it would show up in the cyclist column too. STATS19 data is awkward for that and other reasons.
Nandy to international development feels like a sidelining.
Second demotion in a row. Starmer either:
Doesn't like her Doesn't rate her Feels threatened
I voted for Nandy for the leadership, so disappointed to see her being undermined.
Note the subtext, though - although she's shadowing Mitchell (middle-ranking Foreign Office Minister) she's identified as being in the Shadow Cabinet - confirmation that Labour is likely to restore an independent DfID. That's a niche policy for most (and aid-sceptics will hate it), but those of us engaged in foreign aid issues see it as hugely important, and probably linked to a pledge to move back to 0.7% aid by the end of the next Parliament. If Nandy gets that through she'll be a hero to a lot of us.
I am in favour of foreign aid and think it important but really don't understand the obsession with 0.7%. Why not 0.8% or 0.6%? Should it not change as the UK becomes less wealthy compared to global average and the poorer countries catch up? Should it not change after natural disasters and major wars? Could the UK use its soft power to increase foreign aid from other rich countries elsewhere?
IFS: Capital spending on schools 50 per cent below 2010 peak
Which is less than ideal if you'd been in power since, say, 2010 and fundamental problems with buildings that should have been replaced in the last 13 years are found...
If people are saying Sunak is straightforward lying into the cameras about this this morning, then why doesn’t Starmer ask it at PMQs, where Sunak cannot lie, rather than Labour just launch gimmicky posters?
How is Sunak expecting to defend a budget that can update 50 schools a year when we have 22,000 of them?
Number 10 gets refurbed about 100x more often than a typical school.....if only there was a politician who campaigned for better maths education Sunak wouldn't have made this glaring error.
How? Fuck the Proles.
I still haven't seen any PB Tory travellers even try to defend this. With the exception of "who would have paid for it" which ignores that we are spending the money anyway and a lot more on top.
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
Yes, but others have answered that.
However, it's not just the kinetic energy of the impacting object that matters in a collision, but the area of contact that determines the forces and damage. I'd rather be hit by a car (large, deformable bonnet) at 20mph than a bike (small rigid metal tubes, pointy handle-bars).
I'll take the bike, looking at car/bike pedestrian death rates.
90kg of bike vs 1000-2500kg of car
Let's take top end (2.5T) then, for the car.
Contact area of, say 40cm (body width) x 10cm in car collision. If you assume you're stopping (not realistic, see below) the other object in one second then at 20mph (~9ms^-1) you need to apply a deceleration of 9ms^-2 which is 22.5kN or 56.25Ncm^-2
For the bike, area of say 10cm X 1cm (1x drop handlebars impacting on body - assume that the rider at least turns wheel a bit in avoidance - contat actually likely pointier and smaller, but still). Same speed assumption, you need 810N of force which is 81Ncm^-2
Now, that's all, in typical physicist style*, spherical cow in a vacuum territory. But the assumptions are not skewed towards penalising the car. You're not actually going to stop the car, so the force transferred is less (you'll bounce off). You likely would pretty much stop the bike, so you are going to experience most of that force. I haven't accounted for deformation in the car panels, which would lessen the impact force for the car, too.
Now, it varies of course. The car might knock you down and run you over, which is worse than the bike. You might get hit by a sharper part of the car, reducing contact area. Maybe you get smacked by the cyclist's helmet rather than the frame, which increases the contact are and makes it softer, too.
*chances are I've cocked up the maths too, also in typial physicist style. These who can, do math, those who can't, do physics
ETA: If you're looking at death rates, most cyclists are not reaching 20mph routinely. Most drivers are rarely as slow as 20mph. So, of course cars are more dangerous overall, but for a given speed, I'd take the car over the bike if the collision occurred. The bike is probably better able to avoid you in most cases too (it's a smaller thing to get around you).
The lycra-clad boys and girls are regularly cruising at 20mph on the flat (let alone downhill). I'm a leisure cyclist who'd typically be around 15mph on the flat. At that speed, I'm probably around average pace but am regularly overtaken.
So you'd expect a significant number of bicycle/pedestrian impacts at that sort of speed. Whilst that's not pretty, and likely to require treatment, it simply beggars belief that it'd be anywhere close to being hit by a tonne plus of car at 20mph, pointy edges notwithstanding.
Remember that the cyclist and pedestrian are likely to take at least some defensive/evasive action such that it's more of a glancing blow, whereas that isn't generally realistic for a car given the steering.
Which again takes us back to cyclists (old maid, Holy Communion) and Cyclists (Tour de France wannabes). Different things, somewhat different issues.
How is Sunak expecting to defend a budget that can update 50 schools a year when we have 22,000 of them?
Number 10 gets refurbed about 100x more often than a typical school.....if only there was a politician who campaigned for better maths education Sunak wouldn't have made this glaring error.
Rishi may be good at sums, but he doesn't have useful number grock. The inability to look at a statement about rebuilding 50 schools a year and notice that the replacement cycle is then measured in centuries. A lot of the maths we need in society is of that form, but it's a state of mind that isn't easy to teach.
Theyll all spend the money on their pet projects and skint on schools.
Didn't New Labour renew most of the schools in London?
No, or we wouldnt be looking at the problem today. Brown spent a fortune on PFI for improving some schools. The fact that direct procurement by HMG would have been infinitely cheaper was quietly forgotten.
No it wasn't. Lots of us have complained about it ever since.
'Building Skools for the Future' came up only a couple of days ago.
You know who else had a major row with Blair & Brown about PFI being a daft way to raise money? Ken Livingstone.
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
Yes, but others have answered that.
However, it's not just the kinetic energy of the impacting object that matters in a collision, but the area of contact that determines the forces and damage. I'd rather be hit by a car (large, deformable bonnet) at 20mph than a bike (small rigid metal tubes, pointy handle-bars).
I'll take the bike, looking at car/bike pedestrian death rates.
90kg of bike vs 1000-2500kg of car
Let's take top end (2.5T) then, for the car.
Contact area of, say 40cm (body width) x 10cm in car collision. If you assume you're stopping (not realistic, see below) the other object in one second then at 20mph (~9ms^-1) you need to apply a deceleration of 9ms^-2 which is 22.5kN or 56.25Ncm^-2
For the bike, area of say 10cm X 1cm (1x drop handlebars impacting on body - assume that the rider at least turns wheel a bit in avoidance - contat actually likely pointier and smaller, but still). Same speed assumption, you need 810N of force which is 81Ncm^-2
Now, that's all, in typical physicist style*, spherical cow in a vacuum territory. But the assumptions are not skewed towards penalising the car. You're not actually going to stop the car, so the force transferred is less (you'll bounce off). You likely would pretty much stop the bike, so you are going to experience most of that force. I haven't accounted for deformation in the car panels, which would lessen the impact force for the car, too.
Now, it varies of course. The car might knock you down and run you over, which is worse than the bike. You might get hit by a sharper part of the car, reducing contact area. Maybe you get smacked by the cyclist's helmet rather than the frame, which increases the contact are and makes it softer, too.
*chances are I've cocked up the maths too, also in typial physicist style. These who can, do math, those who can't, do physics
ETA: If you're looking at death rates, most cyclists are not reaching 20mph routinely. Most drivers are rarely as slow as 20mph. So, of course cars are more dangerous overall, but for a given speed, I'd take the car over the bike if the collision occurred. The bike is probably better able to avoid you in most cases too (it's a smaller thing to get around you).
I don't buy this. Unless the bike has specially sharpened handlebars or no bar end plugs (never ride without bar end plugs!) I'd take the bike every time.
What you need is the impact force which depends on the deformation of the material that hits you.
Most bikes are not infinitely stiff and in any case unless you are hit absolutely dead centre you will end up with rotational energy in both the bike and rider and not a dead stop.
If you are hit by a car you are relying entirely on the deformation of the car bumper and bonnet to lessen the impact. The spring coefficient depends on the material properties (Young's modulus, etc etc). If it has bull bars you are out of luck.
As PM TB launched the Building Schools for the Future programme, committing £55bn to rebuild every school. In 2010 Michael Gove scrapped the scheme. In 2021 Sunak then halved the school repair budget. By now, under Labour, the country would have had world class school buildings.
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
Yes, but others have answered that.
However, it's not just the kinetic energy of the impacting object that matters in a collision, but the area of contact that determines the forces and damage. I'd rather be hit by a car (large, deformable bonnet) at 20mph than a bike (small rigid metal tubes, pointy handle-bars).
I'll take the bike, looking at car/bike pedestrian death rates.
90kg of bike vs 1000-2500kg of car
Let's take top end (2.5T) then, for the car.
Contact area of, say 40cm (body width) x 10cm in car collision. If you assume you're stopping (not realistic, see below) the other object in one second then at 20mph (~9ms^-1) you need to apply a deceleration of 9ms^-2 which is 22.5kN or 56.25Ncm^-2
For the bike, area of say 10cm X 1cm (1x drop handlebars impacting on body - assume that the rider at least turns wheel a bit in avoidance - contat actually likely pointier and smaller, but still). Same speed assumption, you need 810N of force which is 81Ncm^-2
Now, that's all, in typical physicist style*, spherical cow in a vacuum territory. But the assumptions are not skewed towards penalising the car. You're not actually going to stop the car, so the force transferred is less (you'll bounce off). You likely would pretty much stop the bike, so you are going to experience most of that force. I haven't accounted for deformation in the car panels, which would lessen the impact force for the car, too.
Now, it varies of course. The car might knock you down and run you over, which is worse than the bike. You might get hit by a sharper part of the car, reducing contact area. Maybe you get smacked by the cyclist's helmet rather than the frame, which increases the contact are and makes it softer, too.
*chances are I've cocked up the maths too, also in typial physicist style. These who can, do math, those who can't, do physics
ETA: If you're looking at death rates, most cyclists are not reaching 20mph routinely. Most drivers are rarely as slow as 20mph. So, of course cars are more dangerous overall, but for a given speed, I'd take the car over the bike if the collision occurred. The bike is probably better able to avoid you in most cases too (it's a smaller thing to get around you).
The lycra-clad boys and girls are regularly cruising at 20mph on the flat (let alone downhill). I'm a leisure cyclist who'd typically be around 15mph on the flat. At that speed, I'm probably around average pace but am regularly overtaken.
So you'd expect a significant number of bicycle/pedestrian impacts at that sort of speed. Whilst that's not pretty, and likely to require treatment, it simply beggars belief that it'd be anywhere close to being hit by a tonne plus of car at 20mph, pointy edges notwithstanding.
Remember that the cyclist and pedestrian are likely to take at least some defensive/evasive action such that it's more of a glancing blow, whereas that isn't generally realistic for a car given the steering.
Last para - see my last para above, where I make exactly that point.
The discussion (or at least my original post) was what happens in the event of a collision taking place.
Of course (can I make this any clearer?) in general it's much better to be in a collision with a bike than a car. But at a given speed the mass of the thing hitting you is not the whole story. Bullets, afterall, are pretty light (if fast) as are knives. I'd take a bike at 20mph over a sharp knife at 20mph, too
Liz Kendall - there’s a blast from the past. I remember those heady days after the 2015 GE where everyone thought she was the next Labour leader. Instead we got Corbyn….
"everyone"? She got 4%...
The commentariat certainly thought she was in with a chance in the days after the election. I remember a lot of animated discussion on here about it.
Fwiw I predicted Corbyn from the start. A footnote is that she and Corbyn really hit it off during the umpteen hustings they were on - IIRC she wasn't part of the MPs' insurgency against him a year later, and perhaps personal liking had something to do with that.
Those interested in that period will probably enjoy https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/candidate-alex-nunns-2nd-edition/?mc_cid=6a57e20627&mc_eid=12e3d0b421 . It explains pretty well how Corbyn got the nomination by 35 MPs (and the subsequent campaign), with the interesting note that McDonnell wouldn't got it - the difference was that uncommitted MPs who wouldn't have gone for McDonnell's abrasive style really liked Corbyn. The book's weakness is that it doesn't explore what went wrong after 2017, but it's a good account of that year.
You mean there should have been a chapter which said "And then everyone realised what a filthy anti-semite Corbyn was"?
IFS: Capital spending on schools 50 per cent below 2010 peak
Which is less than ideal if you'd been in power since, say, 2010 and fundamental problems with buildings that should have been replaced in the last 13 years are found...
If people are saying Sunak is straightforward lying into the cameras about this this morning, then why doesn’t Starmer ask it at PMQs, where Sunak cannot lie, rather than Labour just launch gimmicky posters?
As PM TB launched the Building Schools for the Future programme, committing £55bn to rebuild every school. In 2010 Michael Gove scrapped the scheme. In 2021 Sunak then halved the school repair budget. By now, under Labour, the country would have had world class school buildings.
Just a question, how can anyone justify that the papers on Prince Andrew be kept secret until 2065. Why does he get special rights?
The justification is that it is a general rule for the Royal Family (rather than specific to Prince Andrew) that papers that relate to an individual aren't released to the National Archives until 105 years after their birth, in contrast with the general 20 year rule for papers of government departments.
Presumably the underlying basis is that political careers are relatively short, whereas a member of the Royal Family remains active for many decades.
It should be revisited, though. It impedes research for a start, and there's no particular reason why it would put living Royals in an impossible position to the extent they've made honest mistakes (cf Prince Andrew). John Major, Tony Blair and other senior public figures have seen papers from their time in office released. Some of which reflect well on them, and some poorly, but it's essentially historical 20+ years on.
Some of the papers on the Cambridge Spies are still secret, and I do not suppose it is to hide their contents from the KGB.
He merely pretends that the government has been generous whereas we all know capital spending has collapsed since 2010 (and we also now know that Rishi cut it further).
On Pincher, I had forgotten that part of his justification for why he shouldn't be punished is he was just too damn drunk to remember sexually assaulting anyone, and he was a great MP when not assaulting people.
Classy dude, credit to the House.
He also states suspension means his constituents are deprived of service, which is just an argument against any standards regime at all. A bit obvious.
He also rather wonderfully argued that, since he was speaking at the Carlton Club event in his capacity as a former minister rather than as an MP, his conduct did not damage the reputation of Parliament.
So, if you're ever being groped by a politician, do remember to clarify with them the precise capacity in which they are shoving their sweaty little hand down your trousers. Then you can establish whether it reflects badly on Parliament, the Government, or the political party concerned.
Comments
I stayed off the scrimmage thread - where I think Cycling Mikey was unusually trying to be too black-and-white about it, but there were good conversations elsewhere.
My take is that it was perhaps too quick due to blind entrances, Zebra crossing and so on, but that the police should have framed the conversation around possible "cycling without due care" rather than speed. Far more useful than stirring up a social media stooshie.
I would never trust the surface quality of *any* UK road to go at that speed on a cycle, unless I knew it intimately.
I'd tell your bank and your mobile carrier about it, there is a registry for blocking those close names and your example could be added, if it was a correctly formatted bank name they should really want to know it, as it ought to have been blocked upstream.
I guess Starmer felt the need to reward leadership rivals in 2020 but he didn't really rate either of them. Long-Bailey (remember her?) did enough to have herself cast into the outer darkness, whereas Nandy just hasn't impressed the boss.
then why has nt any party spent it to date ?
Theyll all spend the money on their pet projects and skint on schools.
James O'Brien meets Keir Starmer | LBC
From a year ago but one of the better interviews SKS has done.
@LeicesterLiz
has been appointed Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1698651926173249783
At the moment, pay rises for staff are communicated as 'more money for schools and hospitals', even if the schools and hospitals temselves are being neglected.
Rory Stewart has a different take on the world to most MPs.
Lots of us have complained about it ever since.
'Building Skools for the Future' came up only a couple of days ago.
The categories of stuff kept secret until everyone it might matter to is long dead are ridiculously broad.
We'd be in an even bigger one.
Essentially, Mrs Sunak making a big donation to her alma mater.
But now the Daily Mirror thinks that a woman is the property of her husband, when it is convenient for them do so, and hates foreigners, also when it is convenient for them to do so.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/out-touch-rishi-sunak-gives-30148374
(Yes, I know Stewart was an Oxford PPE guy as well; he does at least seem to have grown out of that a little ...)
Doesn't like her
Doesn't rate her
Feels threatened
I voted for Nandy for the leadership, so disappointed to see her being undermined.
The call-up by France of Bastien Chalureau, who was convicted of racist violence three years ago, is threatening to overshadow the opening week of the host nation’s Rugby World Cup.
The 31-year-old lock’s late selection as a replacement for the injured Paul Willemse, before France open the tournament against New Zealand in Paris on Friday, has been criticised by left-wing politicians in the country. Fabien Galthié, the France head coach, said that the debate had not affected his team because “the World Cup isn’t for wimps”.
Chalureau was given a suspended six-month prison sentence in 2020 for attacking two men — Yannick Larguet, a former rugby player for Colomiers and Agen, and Nassim Arif — after a night out, with the court in Toulouse stipulating that the acts were committed due to the race or ethnicity of the victim. Chalureau admitted the assault but denied it was motivated by race and has appealed against the judgment, with the case ongoing.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rugby-world-cup-france-racism-outcry-bastien-chalureau-selection-criticised-jz29tplhp
The nearest figure I can think of is Gove. But he has rather lost his va va voom. And whereas Mandy was loyal to the cause, Gove's reputation is for loyalty to himself.
But if Gove is their finest fixer, the Conservatives really are in trouble.
Darren Jones MP @DarrenPJones has been appointed Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1698657159658016912
Or have I been paying too much attention to BJO?
If anyone wants to have a history of Andy "I have no policies or principles" Burnham just look at him here in 2015 warning against Corbynism and going too left. Now he's the most left-wing person in the Labour Party and thinks Corbyn had a point!
How can this man who was a Blairite and then a Brownite be popular with anyone, he doesn't stand for anything!
Theresa doesn't deserve The Hague, she was just a bit shit which makes her a colossus among recent Tory PMs.
How on earth are the Conservatives allowing the Concrete Crisis to be stitched up as all their fault, and definition of their 13 years of rule?
Why don’t they fight back and explain the truth?
1 - it’s Labours fault. Labour were in power for 13 important years and should have been dealing with this, and when thrown out there was no money left. Meaning money was tight for Tories, there’s tough decisions.
2 - Covid. Meaning money is tight, there’s tough decisions.
3 - Putin. Meaning money is tight, there’s tough decisions.
So far seems to be mainly England people are talking about - but you'd imagine at least some Welsh schools would also be affected.
Contact area of, say 40cm (body width) x 10cm in car collision. If you assume you're stopping (not realistic, see below) the other object in one second then at 20mph (~9ms^-1) you need to apply a deceleration of 9ms^-2 which is 22.5kN or 56.25Ncm^-2
For the bike, area of say 10cm X 1cm (1x drop handlebars impacting on body - assume that the rider at least turns wheel a bit in avoidance - contat actually likely pointier and smaller, but still). Same speed assumption, you need 810N of force which is 81Ncm^-2
Now, that's all, in typical physicist style*, spherical cow in a vacuum territory. But the assumptions are not skewed towards penalising the car. You're not actually going to stop the car, so the force transferred is less (you'll bounce off). You likely would pretty much stop the bike, so you are going to experience most of that force. I haven't accounted for deformation in the car panels, which would lessen the impact force for the car, too.
Now, it varies of course. The car might knock you down and run you over, which is worse than the bike. You might get hit by a sharper part of the car, reducing contact area. Maybe you get smacked by the cyclist's helmet rather than the frame, which increases the contact are and makes it softer, too.
*chances are I've cocked up the maths too, also in typial physicist style. These who can, do math, those who can't, do physics
ETA: If you're looking at death rates, most cyclists are not reaching 20mph routinely. Most drivers are rarely as slow as 20mph. So, of course cars are more dangerous overall, but for a given speed, I'd take the car over the bike if the collision occurred. The bike is probably better able to avoid you in most cases too (it's a smaller thing to get around you).
The suggestion from the tabloids at the time, was that there was a story that remains untold. The likes of Guido definitely insinuated that there was something that would come out, if he didn’t withdraw - and he did cross paths with Paul Staines, when the latter was a rave promotor in the ‘90s.
Those interested in that period will probably enjoy https://www.orbooks.com/catalog/candidate-alex-nunns-2nd-edition/?mc_cid=6a57e20627&mc_eid=12e3d0b421 . It explains pretty well how Corbyn got the nomination by 35 MPs (and the subsequent campaign), with the interesting note that McDonnell wouldn't got it - the difference was that uncommitted MPs who wouldn't have gone for McDonnell's abrasive style really liked Corbyn. The book's weakness is that it doesn't explore what went wrong after 2017, but it's a good account of that year.
Presumably the underlying basis is that political careers are relatively short, whereas a member of the Royal Family remains active for many decades.
It should be revisited, though. It impedes research for a start, and there's no particular reason why it would put living Royals in an impossible position to the extent they've made honest mistakes (cf Prince Andrew). John Major, Tony Blair and other senior public figures have seen papers from their time in office released. Some of which reflect well on them, and some poorly, but it's essentially historical 20+ years on.
Dave Cameron lost to a bus.
Then Tories found May's Brexit suss.
With Boris caught lying,
Liz seemed mystifying,
Now Rishi drops concrete on us.
Didn't matter. Some people are just dense.
Misogyny is really ingrained in society to this very day
Ultimately, pedestrian casualties due to bikes are rare (3 deaths per year, as opposed to 300 per year for cars), but not zero;
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021#which-vehicles-are-involved-in-collisions-with-pedestrians
Classy dude, credit to the House.
He also states suspension means his constituents are deprived of service, which is just an argument against any standards regime at all. A bit obvious.
Which is less than ideal if you'd been in power since, say, 2010 and fundamental problems with buildings that should have been replaced in the last 13 years are found...
Number 10 gets refurbed about 100x more often than a typical school.....if only there was a politician who campaigned for better maths education Sunak wouldn't have made this glaring error.
So you'd expect a significant number of bicycle/pedestrian impacts at that sort of speed. Whilst that's not pretty, and likely to require treatment, it simply beggars belief that it'd be anywhere close to being hit by a tonne plus of car at 20mph, pointy edges notwithstanding.
Remember that the cyclist and pedestrian are likely to take at least some defensive/evasive action such that it's more of a glancing blow, whereas that isn't generally realistic for a car given the steering.
Also note that is "vehicle involved" - so if a car hit a cyclist and a pedestrian, it would show up in the cyclist column too. STATS19 data is awkward for that and other reasons.
I still haven't seen any PB Tory travellers even try to defend this. With the exception of "who would have paid for it" which ignores that we are spending the money anyway and a lot more on top.
Which links a bit to... Rishi may be good at sums, but he doesn't have useful number grock. The inability to look at a statement about rebuilding 50 schools a year and notice that the replacement cycle is then measured in centuries. A lot of the maths we need in society is of that form, but it's a state of mind that isn't easy to teach.
What you need is the impact force which depends on the deformation of the material that hits you.
Most bikes are not infinitely stiff and in any case unless you are hit absolutely dead centre you will end up with rotational energy in both the bike and rider and not a dead stop.
If you are hit by a car you are relying entirely on the deformation of the car bumper and bonnet to lessen the impact. The spring coefficient depends on the material properties (Young's modulus, etc etc). If it has bull bars you are out of luck.
https://twitter.com/DanielSleat/status/1698631003349074414
The discussion (or at least my original post) was what happens in the event of a collision taking place.
Of course (can I make this any clearer?) in general it's much better to be in a collision with a bike than a car. But at a given speed the mass of the thing hitting you is not the whole story. Bullets, afterall, are pretty light (if fast) as are knives. I'd take a bike at 20mph over a sharp knife at 20mph, too
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/09/damning-report-slams-firms-who-built-fault-ridden-scottish-schools
"Lloyds Bank faces backlash for ditching savings passbooks"
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-12473147/JEFF-PRESTRIDGE-Lloyds-faces-backlash-ditching-passbooks.html
He merely pretends that the government has been generous whereas we all know capital spending has collapsed since 2010 (and we also now know that Rishi cut it further).
So, if you're ever being groped by a politician, do remember to clarify with them the precise capacity in which they are shoving their sweaty little hand down your trousers. Then you can establish whether it reflects badly on Parliament, the Government, or the political party concerned.
I still rate Nandy and I thought Allin-Khan was an effective media performer.
Keir is appointing the team he expects to bring to power.
Let’s see.
Not lining the pockets of assorted crooks and funding projects that do untold environmental damage.