Quite. There are certain things that humans find beautiful in buildings, relating to inherited ideals of safety, plenty, security. Ornament, symmetry, natural materials like wood and stone, deep set windows, lush vegetation etc. Brutalist architecture is demonstrably fuck ugly, that's why brutalist architects famously choose to live in Tudor mansions.
I don't think you can safely generalise about all humans. The place I must enjoyed living in was on the top floor of this:
- which I suppose you'd see as rather brutalist? Airy flat with two balconies, clean lines devoid of fiddly ornaments, no plants but spacious, and still just £1725/month because the high density makes the building affordable.
Affordable for you. Most people earning a mere 50k would find that swallows up a huge chunk of their pay
NP didn't say when he lived there, mind. Could have been ages ago.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
They're both idiots. As a motorist I would always check my left mirror before turning left across a cycle lane. As a cyclist I would never try to cycle past a car signalling left across my path like that, given the high likelihood of the driver being an idiot. I would imagine that the motorist is at fault legally though as he is crossing another lane of traffic without ensuring there's nothing coming. The cyclist is well within his rights but I would say not very smart as you should always cycle with the assumption that motorists and pedestrians can't see you. That's my procedure and at the risk of tempting fate so far it has kept me accident free.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
80 the cyclist, 20% the driver. He put himself into a dangerous position; the car was ahead, and indicated as early as it could, given there was a previous road junction. The car braking alone should have indicated to any cyclist that the driver might be about to do something, or there was something ahead.
I'd also argue that the cyclist was too close to the car for much of that.
Quite. There are certain things that humans find beautiful in buildings, relating to inherited ideals of safety, plenty, security. Ornament, symmetry, natural materials like wood and stone, deep set windows, lush vegetation etc. Brutalist architecture is demonstrably fuck ugly, that's why brutalist architects famously choose to live in Tudor mansions.
I don't think you can safely generalise about all humans. The place I must enjoyed living in was on the top floor of this:
- which I suppose you'd see as rather brutalist? Airy flat with two balconies, clean lines devoid of fiddly ornaments, no plants but spacious, and still just £1725/month because the high density makes the building affordable.
That's because living there you were lucky not to have to look at it.
In all seriousness though, there's nothing wrong with hig density, the tenement blocks of Edinburgh are high density. There's nothing wrong with clean lines either. But truly beautiful buildings do follow certain immutable traits, that's why decades and centuries after they were built, people take photos of them and go and see them.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car was indicating with plenty of time, the cyclist should have been prepared to stop even if the right of way was theirs (I don't know if it was or not, but I don't think so).
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
I believe the driver should have to give way to traffic in the cycle lane. Admittedly it was poor decision making by the cyclist.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
80 the cyclist, 20% the driver. He put himself into a dangerous position; the car was ahead, and indicated as early as it could, given there was a previous road junction. The car braking alone should have indicated to any cyclist that the driver might be about to do something, or there was something ahead.
I'd also argue that the cyclist was too close to the car for much of that.
Cyclist sits in car's blind spot, does not notice car is indicating to turn left and undertakes into the junction. If the bike had been another car, people would be speculating about crash for cash.
Driver should have known there was a cyclist somewhere behind, even if currently hidden, and did swing wide to turn left.
Quite. There are certain things that humans find beautiful in buildings, relating to inherited ideals of safety, plenty, security. Ornament, symmetry, natural materials like wood and stone, deep set windows, lush vegetation etc. Brutalist architecture is demonstrably fuck ugly, that's why brutalist architects famously choose to live in Tudor mansions.
I don't think you can safely generalise about all humans. The place I must enjoyed living in was on the top floor of this:
- which I suppose you'd see as rather brutalist? Airy flat with two balconies, clean lines devoid of fiddly ornaments, no plants but spacious, and still just £1725/month because the high density makes the building affordable.
That's because living there you were lucky not to have to look at it.
In all seriousness though, there's nothing wrong with hig density, the tenement blocks of Edinburgh are high density. There's nothing wrong with clean lines either. But truly beautiful buildings do follow certain immutable traits, that's why decades and centuries after they were built, people take photos of them and go and see them.
On topic - I am probably out on my own here but yesterday I went to Hereford. What a lovely city it is. Arriving on the train, via Newport (everything in Welsh, if you can believe it - now I know the Welsh for platform is platfform), I was met by a large number of school children, all bright and bubbly and upbeat. Approaching the station the environs seemed well-kept and typically rural, was there a river? I then went not to the heart of the city centre (although I hear it's charming) but to just beyond and it seemed all neat and near-Cotswoldy. Some new developments, they were all fine, some business parks, well people have to make a living somehow.
I do love our rural English country. Perhaps I'll write an article about my experiences. Or perhaps not.
Just looked at where Hereford is on the map. It's really the arse end of nowhere, isn't it. How is it not in Wales?
Indeed. You have to go to Wales to get there from London. My train left from Newport Platfform 4.
On topic - I am probably out on my own here but yesterday I went to Hereford. What a lovely city it is. Arriving on the train, via Newport (everything in Welsh, if you can believe it - now I know the Welsh for platform is platfform), I was met by a large number of school children, all bright and bubbly and upbeat. Approaching the station the environs seemed well-kept and typically rural, was there a river? I then went not to the heart of the city centre (although I hear it's charming) but to just beyond and it seemed all neat and near-Cotswoldy. Some new developments, they were all fine, some business parks, well people have to make a living somehow.
I do love our rural English country. Perhaps I'll write an article about my experiences. Or perhaps not.
Just looked at where Hereford is on the map. It's really the arse end of nowhere, isn't it. How is it not in Wales?
Indeed. You have to go to Wales to get there from London. My train left from Newport Platfform 4.
Have they closed the Chiltern line service from Paddington to Hereford, calling at Charlbury, Evesham, Worcester, Malvern Link, Great Malvern, Colwall and Ledbury?
Elon Musk ordered Starlink to be turned off during Ukraine offensive, book says
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/07/elon-musk-ordered-starlink-turned-off-ukraine-offensive-biography ...The biography, due out on Tuesday, alleges Musk ordered Starlink engineers to turn off service in the area of the attack because of his concern that Vladimir Putin would respond with nuclear weapons to a Ukrainian attack on Russian-occupied Crimea. He is reported to have said that Ukraine was “going too far” in threatening to inflict a “strategic defeat” on the Kremlin.
Musk’s threats to withdraw Starlink communications at various stages of the conflict have been previously reported, but this is the first time it has been alleged he cut off Ukrainian forces in the middle of a specific operation.
The date of the would-be attack was not specified. Musk reportedly referred to it as a “mini Pearl Harbor”, although Ukrainian forces were operating within their internationally recognised territorial waters...
There is a whiff of rancid Chornoye More caviar about this story. Why would an "armed submarine drone" need Starlink? It uses Ku band which obviously doesn't work underwater. You can't use it for positioning with any reliability or accuracy on a moving vehicle. An autonomous vehicle, as the story states, would use some commercial IMU/INS or maybe even ArduPilot in times of true desperation not a continuous Internet link.
There's also the possibility that Musk got his instructions from elsewhere. The US does like to fiddle with the controls when fine tuning the Ukrainian offensive capability.
I think the story is less cheesy than you think. The drones the Ukranians currently operate are not true submarines - they don't dive and surface, they just have a very shallow superstructure that allows waves to travel over them. They have developed prototype submarine drones but even they have communication masts. The larger, self-operating ones (with no masts) are not yet deployed
A Starlink antenna has to be either a traditional dish or the phased array flat antenna that has been nicknamed Dishy.
The Ukrainian drone boats, to date, have all used an adaption of Dishy - look for the structure that looks a bit like a spoiler to the rear of the boat.
You cannot use a typical submarine communication mast (vertical antenna) to communicate with the constellation. A mast to raise a dish, unfold it and hold it well enough to communicate with the system would be a substantial effort. There is no evidence of that on the underwater prototypes, to date.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car was indicating with plenty of time, the cyclist should have been prepared to stop even if the right of way was theirs (I don't know if it was or not, but I don't think so).
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
I believe the driver should have to give way to traffic in the cycle lane. Admittedly it was poor decision making by the cyclist.
Yes I took a look at the highway code and my initial guess was right, from a legal point of view the fault lies unambiguously with the motorist. However, as a cyclist getting home alive is more important than trying to enforce your legal rights on the road. If I had been the cyclist and had seen the motorist indicating left I would have stayed behind the vehicle because it is always safest to assume that the motorist is a twat. In fact when I'm cycling about 80% of my mental activity is trying to anticipate the idiocy of pedestrians, motorists and other cyclists (in that order).
Quite. There are certain things that humans find beautiful in buildings, relating to inherited ideals of safety, plenty, security. Ornament, symmetry, natural materials like wood and stone, deep set windows, lush vegetation etc. Brutalist architecture is demonstrably fuck ugly, that's why brutalist architects famously choose to live in Tudor mansions.
I don't think you can safely generalise about all humans. The place I must enjoyed living in was on the top floor of this:
- which I suppose you'd see as rather brutalist? Airy flat with two balconies, clean lines devoid of fiddly ornaments, no plants but spacious, and still just £1725/month because the high density makes the building affordable.
Affordable for you. Most people earning a mere 50k would find that swallows up a huge chunk of their pay
NP didn't say when he lived there, mind. Could have been ages ago.
He quoted a current rental price "still just £1725/month because the high density makes the building affordable" it was that I was responding to and pointing out that its not affordable for most. Even for a couple both earning 30k who have therefore a takehome pay of circa 1900 a month....that is almost 50% of their combined wages....sorry I laugh at the word affordable here
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
They're both idiots. As a motorist I would always check my left mirror before turning left across a cycle lane. As a cyclist I would never try to cycle past a car signalling left across my path like that, given the high likelihood of the driver being an idiot. I would imagine that the motorist is at fault legally though as he is crossing another lane of traffic without ensuring there's nothing coming. The cyclist is well within his rights but I would say not very smart as you should always cycle with the assumption that motorists and pedestrians can't see you. That's my procedure and at the risk of tempting fate so far it has kept me accident free.
My question would be whether the cyclist was fully visible when the driver would have checked the mirrors, just before making the move. Doesn't the cyclist also make the move to undertake after the driver has started indicating, which is a dickish move.
I was taught defensive driving - though I'll freely admit to not always driving defensively. The opposite is aggressive driving. This was, IMO, a case of aggressive cycling. The rider could have done much more to protect himself from any potential incident. Another question, though, is whether the cyclist in turn was getting any pressure from traffic behind.
I will spare you a photo of my Hungarian lunch and offer you one of the parliament building, which as you can see from the scaling dog is smaller than often imagined.
The dog is up to sixteen countries now, and we soon will have both done eleven non-UK ones this year, which I think is a personal record for us both.
Are the 5 UK countries England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Wight?
Elon Musk ordered Starlink to be turned off during Ukraine offensive, book says
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/07/elon-musk-ordered-starlink-turned-off-ukraine-offensive-biography ...The biography, due out on Tuesday, alleges Musk ordered Starlink engineers to turn off service in the area of the attack because of his concern that Vladimir Putin would respond with nuclear weapons to a Ukrainian attack on Russian-occupied Crimea. He is reported to have said that Ukraine was “going too far” in threatening to inflict a “strategic defeat” on the Kremlin.
Musk’s threats to withdraw Starlink communications at various stages of the conflict have been previously reported, but this is the first time it has been alleged he cut off Ukrainian forces in the middle of a specific operation.
The date of the would-be attack was not specified. Musk reportedly referred to it as a “mini Pearl Harbor”, although Ukrainian forces were operating within their internationally recognised territorial waters...
There is a whiff of rancid Chornoye More caviar about this story. Why would an "armed submarine drone" need Starlink? It uses Ku band which obviously doesn't work underwater. You can't use it for positioning with any reliability or accuracy on a moving vehicle. An autonomous vehicle, as the story states, would use some commercial IMU/INS or maybe even ArduPilot in times of true desperation not a continuous Internet link.
There's also the possibility that Musk got his instructions from elsewhere. The US does like to fiddle with the controls when fine tuning the Ukrainian offensive capability.
I think the story is less cheesy than you think. The drones the Ukranians currently operate are not true submarines - they don't dive and surface, they just have a very shallow superstructure that allows waves to travel over them. They have developed prototype submarine drones but even they have communication masts. The larger, self-operating ones (with no masts) are not yet deployed
A Starlink antenna has to be either a traditional dish or the phased array flat antenna that has been nicknamed Dishy.
You cannot use a typical submarine communication mast (vertical antenna) to communicate with the constellation.
The Ukrainian drone boats, to date, have all used an adaption of Dishy - look for the structure that often looks like a spoiler to the rear of the boat.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car was indicating with plenty of time, the cyclist should have been prepared to stop even if the right of way was theirs (I don't know if it was or not, but I don't think so).
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
I believe the driver should have to give way to traffic in the cycle lane. Admittedly it was poor decision making by the cyclist.
Yes I took a look at the highway code and my initial guess was right, from a legal point of view the fault lies unambiguously with the motorist. However, as a cyclist getting home alive is more important than trying to enforce your legal rights on the road. If I had been the cyclist and had seen the motorist indicating left I would have stayed behind the vehicle because it is always safest to assume that the motorist is a twat. In fact when I'm cycling about 80% of my mental activity is trying to anticipate the idiocy of pedestrians, motorists and other cyclists (in that order).
In my case, also trying to anticipate my own idiocy as well (cycled 75 miles this week at my usual clow pace).
On topic - I am probably out on my own here but yesterday I went to Hereford. What a lovely city it is. Arriving on the train, via Newport (everything in Welsh, if you can believe it - now I know the Welsh for platform is platfform), I was met by a large number of school children, all bright and bubbly and upbeat. Approaching the station the environs seemed well-kept and typically rural, was there a river? I then went not to the heart of the city centre (although I hear it's charming) but to just beyond and it seemed all neat and near-Cotswoldy. Some new developments, they were all fine, some business parks, well people have to make a living somehow.
I do love our rural English country. Perhaps I'll write an article about my experiences. Or perhaps not.
Just looked at where Hereford is on the map. It's really the arse end of nowhere, isn't it. How is it not in Wales?
Indeed. You have to go to Wales to get there from London. My train left from Newport Platfform 4.
Have they closed the Chiltern line service from Paddington to Hereford, calling at Charlbury, Evesham, Worcester, Malvern Link, Great Malvern, Colwall and Ledbury?
They have. Or at least SWR and Trainline thinks they have.
On topic - I am probably out on my own here but yesterday I went to Hereford. What a lovely city it is. Arriving on the train, via Newport (everything in Welsh, if you can believe it - now I know the Welsh for platform is platfform), I was met by a large number of school children, all bright and bubbly and upbeat. Approaching the station the environs seemed well-kept and typically rural, was there a river? I then went not to the heart of the city centre (although I hear it's charming) but to just beyond and it seemed all neat and near-Cotswoldy. Some new developments, they were all fine, some business parks, well people have to make a living somehow.
I do love our rural English country. Perhaps I'll write an article about my experiences. Or perhaps not.
On topic - I am probably out on my own here but yesterday I went to Hereford. What a lovely city it is. Arriving on the train, via Newport (everything in Welsh, if you can believe it - now I know the Welsh for platform is platfform), I was met by a large number of school children, all bright and bubbly and upbeat. Approaching the station the environs seemed well-kept and typically rural, was there a river? I then went not to the heart of the city centre (although I hear it's charming) but to just beyond and it seemed all neat and near-Cotswoldy. Some new developments, they were all fine, some business parks, well people have to make a living somehow.
I do love our rural English country. Perhaps I'll write an article about my experiences. Or perhaps not.
Just looked at where Hereford is on the map. It's really the arse end of nowhere, isn't it. How is it not in Wales?
Indeed. You have to go to Wales to get there from London. My train left from Newport Platfform 4.
Have they closed the Chiltern line service from Paddington to Hereford, calling at Charlbury, Evesham, Worcester, Malvern Link, Great Malvern, Colwall and Ledbury?
Lovely line, with the tunnel through the Malverns. A quick check indicates not, thankfully - if it was the one from *Paddington* via Oxford.
Quite. There are certain things that humans find beautiful in buildings, relating to inherited ideals of safety, plenty, security. Ornament, symmetry, natural materials like wood and stone, deep set windows, lush vegetation etc. Brutalist architecture is demonstrably fuck ugly, that's why brutalist architects famously choose to live in Tudor mansions.
I don't think you can safely generalise about all humans. The place I must enjoyed living in was on the top floor of this:
- which I suppose you'd see as rather brutalist? Airy flat with two balconies, clean lines devoid of fiddly ornaments, no plants but spacious, and still just £1725/month because the high density makes the building affordable.
Affordable for you. Most people earning a mere 50k would find that swallows up a huge chunk of their pay
NP didn't say when he lived there, mind. Could have been ages ago.
He quoted a current rental price "still just £1725/month because the high density makes the building affordable" it was that I was responding to and pointing out that its not affordable for most. Even for a couple both earning 30k who have therefore a takehome pay of circa 1900 a month....that is almost 50% of their combined wages....sorry I laugh at the word affordable here
One of the fascinating things, how distorted peoples perception of property and value have become.
Try telling someone in rural France, say that a 100m2 on the top of a tower block is worth £1 million.
On topic - I am probably out on my own here but yesterday I went to Hereford. What a lovely city it is. Arriving on the train, via Newport (everything in Welsh, if you can believe it - now I know the Welsh for platform is platfform), I was met by a large number of school children, all bright and bubbly and upbeat. Approaching the station the environs seemed well-kept and typically rural, was there a river? I then went not to the heart of the city centre (although I hear it's charming) but to just beyond and it seemed all neat and near-Cotswoldy. Some new developments, they were all fine, some business parks, well people have to make a living somehow.
I do love our rural English country. Perhaps I'll write an article about my experiences. Or perhaps not.
Just looked at where Hereford is on the map. It's really the arse end of nowhere, isn't it. How is it not in Wales?
Indeed. You have to go to Wales to get there from London. My train left from Newport Platfform 4.
Have they closed the Chiltern line service from Paddington to Hereford, calling at Charlbury, Evesham, Worcester, Malvern Link, Great Malvern, Colwall and Ledbury?
Definitely not closed, though there are fewer Paddington-Hereford trains than there used to be - you'll often have to change at Malvern or Worcester. But it is often quicker to change at Newport so the various apps/websites will send you that way.
It's the Cotswold Line though, not the Chiltern Line - the latter is the services from Marylebone.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
They're both idiots. As a motorist I would always check my left mirror before turning left across a cycle lane. As a cyclist I would never try to cycle past a car signalling left across my path like that, given the high likelihood of the driver being an idiot. I would imagine that the motorist is at fault legally though as he is crossing another lane of traffic without ensuring there's nothing coming. The cyclist is well within his rights but I would say not very smart as you should always cycle with the assumption that motorists and pedestrians can't see you. That's my procedure and at the risk of tempting fate so far it has kept me accident free.
My question would be whether the cyclist was fully visible when the driver would have checked the mirrors, just before making the move. Doesn't the cyclist also make the move to undertake after the driver has started indicating, which is a dickish move.
I was taught defensive driving - though I'll freely admit to not always driving defensively. The opposite is aggressive driving. This was, IMO, a case of aggressive cycling. The rider could have done much more to protect himself from any potential incident. Another question, though, is whether the cyclist in turn was getting any pressure from traffic behind.
The car and bike had been close to each other for some time, the driver should have known the bike was there. In my mind there is no doubt that the motorist is at fault, but the cyclist should have anticipated that kind of dick move. You don't have to cycle for very long before you realise that it is safer to assume that every other road user has had a lobotomy rather than simply following the highway code to the letter.
Rental market: a friend of mine has a small rental business. He's sent me the email below on the state of things.
Having little knowledge in this area - do any of you guys have any comments? @MattW perhaps.
(snip)
1st question is why isn't it a C or a D already? These requirements have been coming down the track since 2013 - they were an Ed Davey initiative in the coalition.
I agree lack of predictability by the Govt makes it very difficult at present. I have no idea what I am supposed to meet by when, and whether I am going to get adequate warning. That's just the bloody Govt politicking, potentially creating havoc by demanding that the industry do 3-4 years of renovation work in 6 months.
I think perhaps he doesn't know his detail around the basics of cost effective property renovation. Don't imagine the cost - work it out from a thermal model of your house, and if necessary advice from an EPC Assessor (which is what they are there for). The EPC system does not entirely follow the model, as it is also about saving on primary (not point of delivery) energy.
To take the specific points:
A terraced house is inherently easier to get to a C in some ways, because physics - surface area to volume ratio. A mid terrace only has 2 external walls and a roof, so is better thermally. An end terrace is just a semi-detached house, as any estate agent will tell when explaining why it is so expensive. More costly to insulate wrt to mid terrace, but easier than detached.
There is also some difference between say a 3-4 storey thrown-up Georgian terrace in London, and say a mining village or railway 2 up 2 down 2 bed terrace. There may be physical space problems particularly in the latter.
I don't buy the cost arguments any more than I do for owner occupiers. House prices virtually across the country are up quite seriously since pre-COVID aiui, and even more from before then - so financing should not be a problem for anyone. If he is an LL, he should be running conservative financial policies anyway and have reserves to cover unexpected expenses.
Rental market: a friend of mine has a small rental business. He's sent me the email below on the state of things.
Having little knowledge in this area - do any of you guys have any comments? @MattW perhaps.
(snip)
1st question is why isn't it a C or a D already? These requirements have been coming down the track since 2013 - they were an Ed Davey initiative in the coalition.
I agree lack of predictability by the Govt makes it very difficult at present. I have no idea what I am supposed to meet by when, and whether I am going to get adequate warning. That's just the bloody Govt politicking, potentially creating havoc by demanding that the industry do 3-4 years of renovation work in 6 months.
I think perhaps he doesn't know his detail around the basics of cost effective property renovation. Don't imagine the cost - work it out from a thermal model of your house, and if necessary advice from an EPC Assessor (which is what they are there for). The EPC system does not entirely follow the model, as it is also about saving on primary (not point of delivery) energy.
To take the specific points:
A terraced house is inherently easier to get to a C in some ways, because physics - surface area to volume ratio. A mid terrace only has 2 external walls and a roof, so is better thermally. An end terrace is just a semi-detached house, as any estate agent will tell when explaining why it is so expensive. More costly to insulate wrt to mid terrace, but easier than detached.
There is also some difference between say a 3-4 storey thrown-up Georgian terrace in London, and say a mining village or railway 2 up 2 down 2 bed terrace. There may be physical space problems particularly in the latter.
I don't buy the cost arguments any more than I do for owner occupiers. House prices virtually across the country are up quite seriously since pre-COVID aiui, and even more from before then - so financing should not be a problem for anyone. If he is an LL, he should be running conservative financial policies anyway and have reserves to cover unexpected expenses.
(1/2)
Costs. Loft insulation is typically free via your energy company and is installed in minutes (room in roof is more tricky, but should have been done properly when they added it).
Dry lining is not expensive for a LL - this morning I can buy 70/80mm Kingspan (=6 inches of polystyrene) at £26+VAT per 8x4 sheet (=£8 per sqm) from Seconds & co, or £54 from Wickes. Call the drylining £20-40 (very ish) per sqm of outside facing wall, installed and depending on whether it is 'dot and dab' or framed out.
Underfloor insulation. Depends how you do it. My cheapskate approach is to use 100mm rockwool and a staple gun through one lifted floorboard every arm length. Slightly more tricky with a solid floor, as it may need a lift and door trimming - which can get messy, or increase other aspects of reno to compensate.
May not require both underfloor and wall insulation.
Radiators. Need 50% extra, then just replace the existing with double panel ones at perhaps £400-1000 for an entire house.
Electric water heating is normal now - well insulated tank and use Economy 7 or one of the umpteen similar tariffs. Just like the 1970s / 1980s.
I'll have give him gas boiler, though I think the "noisy heat pumps" stuff is out of date - though possible space limitations in a small terrace.. But if he puts a replacement boiler in a bit before they are banned in existing installs if he is having kittens about it, it will cover him for decades.
Uninhabitable property - true. But it's only going to take 2-3 weeks if that, between tenants. If he moves tenants out to do it then he is responsible for their accommodation. Or negotiate to do it during their extra-long-holiday-this-year in exchange for bunging them £400-500 spending money and half rent for the period.
Also if his house is cheaper to run (say bills are half of the unrenovated version) he will get a fair chunk (I use half of estd savings for a win-win) on the rent, and tenants will want to stay, so he saves on the most expensive exercise which is when tenants change.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car was indicating with plenty of time, the cyclist should have been prepared to stop even if the right of way was theirs (I don't know if it was or not, but I don't think so).
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
I believe the driver should have to give way to traffic in the cycle lane. Admittedly it was poor decision making by the cyclist.
Yes I took a look at the highway code and my initial guess was right, from a legal point of view the fault lies unambiguously with the motorist. However, as a cyclist getting home alive is more important than trying to enforce your legal rights on the road. If I had been the cyclist and had seen the motorist indicating left I would have stayed behind the vehicle because it is always safest to assume that the motorist is a twat. In fact when I'm cycling about 80% of my mental activity is trying to anticipate the idiocy of pedestrians, motorists and other cyclists (in that order).
In my case, also trying to anticipate my own idiocy as well (cycled 75 miles this week at my usual clow pace).
Yes keeping one's own idiocy in check is critical too. Important to avoid the red mist, triggered most often by other cyclists in my experience.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car was indicating with plenty of time, the cyclist should have been prepared to stop even if the right of way was theirs (I don't know if it was or not, but I don't think so).
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
I believe the driver should have to give way to traffic in the cycle lane. Admittedly it was poor decision making by the cyclist.
Which starts about three metres before the turning. Cyclist says on twitter he saw the car indicating but thought car was turning further up the road which is never a good assumption. Cyclist was however behind for a long time so driver must have known cyclist there or thereabouts.
Both careless imo as well as bad luck in terms of timing of switch to cycle lane.
On topic - I am probably out on my own here but yesterday I went to Hereford. What a lovely city it is. Arriving on the train, via Newport (everything in Welsh, if you can believe it - now I know the Welsh for platform is platfform), I was met by a large number of school children, all bright and bubbly and upbeat. Approaching the station the environs seemed well-kept and typically rural, was there a river? I then went not to the heart of the city centre (although I hear it's charming) but to just beyond and it seemed all neat and near-Cotswoldy. Some new developments, they were all fine, some business parks, well people have to make a living somehow.
I do love our rural English country. Perhaps I'll write an article about my experiences. Or perhaps not.
Just looked at where Hereford is on the map. It's really the arse end of nowhere, isn't it. How is it not in Wales?
Indeed. You have to go to Wales to get there from London. My train left from Newport Platfform 4.
Have they closed the Chiltern line service from Paddington to Hereford, calling at Charlbury, Evesham, Worcester, Malvern Link, Great Malvern, Colwall and Ledbury?
They have. Or at least SWR and Trainline thinks they have.
Just checked. You are absolutely right. What is the world coming to?
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
80 the cyclist, 20% the driver. He put himself into a dangerous position; the car was ahead, and indicated as early as it could, given there was a previous road junction. The car braking alone should have indicated to any cyclist that the driver might be about to do something, or there was something ahead.
I'd also argue that the cyclist was too close to the car for much of that.
Agree (from a cyclist POV mostly, although I also drive).
As a cyclist, I'd not be sat on the nearside back of a car like that. If the cars are doing similar speed to me, I'll be in the middle posessing the lane, more visible and obvious to the driver that Im not going to cut up the inside (and also stops idiot drivers cruising along beside you when they can't actually get the speed to overtake). Its more relaxing and safer for everyone. A cyclist just behind you on nearside is a constant distraction. If I was there on a bike, I'd be watching the car like a hawk, matching it's speed unless I was going past if it was stuck in traffic. Any brake light would have me slowing down (unless it's braking for queued traffic and there's no left turn coming up) and the cyclist should have seen the indicators and given way.
Driver has some liability as you have to make sure when turning that you're not taking someone out, even if they're being a bit of an idiot. As driver, I like to think I'd have come to a complete stop if needed, while holding position and waited for the cyclist ot either stop too or come past and then make the turn (I've done that before in similar situation and had cyclists undertake when I've got a left signal running).
Legally - I'm not sure.
ETA: Modifed view after seeing (after other comments) that it was a cycle lane. Cyclist therefore has priority in theory, so driver should give way. Main thought is that it's a really silly place to start a cycle lane what looks to be only a few metres before a turning! As a cyclist, I'd stil be doing what I described above, I think, but the driver is more culpable than I initially thought.
When I was a kid, my dad used to say something that has stuck in my mind: "He was dead right as he sped along, But he’s just as dead as if he'd been wrong."
In other words: it does not matter if you are in the 'right'; if there's a danger, do the safer option instead. Being right won't bring your life back.
On topic - I am probably out on my own here but yesterday I went to Hereford. What a lovely city it is. Arriving on the train, via Newport (everything in Welsh, if you can believe it - now I know the Welsh for platform is platfform), I was met by a large number of school children, all bright and bubbly and upbeat. Approaching the station the environs seemed well-kept and typically rural, was there a river? I then went not to the heart of the city centre (although I hear it's charming) but to just beyond and it seemed all neat and near-Cotswoldy. Some new developments, they were all fine, some business parks, well people have to make a living somehow.
I do love our rural English country. Perhaps I'll write an article about my experiences. Or perhaps not.
Just looked at where Hereford is on the map. It's really the arse end of nowhere, isn't it. How is it not in Wales?
Indeed. You have to go to Wales to get there from London. My train left from Newport Platfform 4.
Have they closed the Chiltern line service from Paddington to Hereford, calling at Charlbury, Evesham, Worcester, Malvern Link, Great Malvern, Colwall and Ledbury?
They have. Or at least SWR and Trainline thinks they have.
Just checked. You are absolutely right. What is the world coming to?
The Paddington-Hereford service still runs. It just stops at about 15 stations along the way (including the town where I live) and the track is fairly slow, so it's often faster to take a 125mph run to Newport and then get the connecting service. The apps generally look for the fastest route so that's what they suggest.
ETA: Modifed view after seeing (after other comments) that it was a cycle lane. Cyclist therefore has priority in theory, so driver should give way. Main thought is that it's a really silly place to start a cycle lane what looks to be only a few metres before a turning! As a cyclist, I'd stil be doing what I described above, I think, but the driver is more culpable than I initially thought.
Another example of why painted cycle lanes are pretty useless really.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
They're both idiots. As a motorist I would always check my left mirror before turning left across a cycle lane. As a cyclist I would never try to cycle past a car signalling left across my path like that, given the high likelihood of the driver being an idiot. I would imagine that the motorist is at fault legally though as he is crossing another lane of traffic without ensuring there's nothing coming. The cyclist is well within his rights but I would say not very smart as you should always cycle with the assumption that motorists and pedestrians can't see you. That's my procedure and at the risk of tempting fate so far it has kept me accident free.
My question would be whether the cyclist was fully visible when the driver would have checked the mirrors, just before making the move. Doesn't the cyclist also make the move to undertake after the driver has started indicating, which is a dickish move.
I was taught defensive driving - though I'll freely admit to not always driving defensively. The opposite is aggressive driving. This was, IMO, a case of aggressive cycling. The rider could have done much more to protect himself from any potential incident. Another question, though, is whether the cyclist in turn was getting any pressure from traffic behind.
The car and bike had been close to each other for some time, the driver should have known the bike was there. In my mind there is no doubt that the motorist is at fault, but the cyclist should have anticipated that kind of dick move. You don't have to cycle for very long before you realise that it is safer to assume that every other road user has had a lobotomy rather than simply following the highway code to the letter.
Pride in knowing the rules doesn't go very far when they plow into you after all.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car was indicating with plenty of time, the cyclist should have been prepared to stop even if the right of way was theirs (I don't know if it was or not, but I don't think so).
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
I believe the driver should have to give way to traffic in the cycle lane. Admittedly it was poor decision making by the cyclist.
Which starts about three metres before the turning. Cyclist says on twitter he saw the car indicating but thought car was turning further up the road which is never a good assumption. Cyclist was however behind for a long time so driver must have known cyclist there or thereabouts.
Both careless imo as well as bad luck in terms of timing of switch to cycle lane.
That the cyclelane had just started literally feet before the turning probably explains the accident, and is a matter for the council.
Driving in Holland last month, you have to be so careful there, as they have cyclelanes running around the outside of roundabouts and cutting across junctions in all sorts of weird ways, and the cyclists always have priority and often take this for granted
I've been out a few times in Mid-Beds. It's really hard to call but if you gave me £100 to put on the betting market at current odds, I'd put £90 on a Tory hold and £10 on the Indy (Gareth Mackey.) Has to be a decent chance that the split opposition LD/Lab enables a Con hold on a low vote share. Con candidate is a good choice, very personable, decent track record as PCC. LDs can reach areas that Lab just can't, but rely on people confident that they are the best anti-Tory choice. I don't see how either can back out from here and they may just cancel each other out.
The Indy - more a Residents Association candidate really - is a wildcard, but swept the board at the locals in May and seems to be very well established in the constituency. I just don't know whether they can scale up to a parliamentary campaign as they did so well in the locals. But a decent trading bet at current odds.
Quite. There are certain things that humans find beautiful in buildings, relating to inherited ideals of safety, plenty, security. Ornament, symmetry, natural materials like wood and stone, deep set windows, lush vegetation etc. Brutalist architecture is demonstrably fuck ugly, that's why brutalist architects famously choose to live in Tudor mansions.
I don't think you can safely generalise about all humans. The place I must enjoyed living in was on the top floor of this:
- which I suppose you'd see as rather brutalist? Airy flat with two balconies, clean lines devoid of fiddly ornaments, no plants but spacious, and still just £1725/month because the high density makes the building affordable.
Affordable for you. Most people earning a mere 50k would find that swallows up a huge chunk of their pay
NP didn't say when he lived there, mind. Could have been ages ago.
He quoted a current rental price "still just £1725/month because the high density makes the building affordable" it was that I was responding to and pointing out that its not affordable for most. Even for a couple both earning 30k who have therefore a takehome pay of circa 1900 a month....that is almost 50% of their combined wages....sorry I laugh at the word affordable here
Yes, fair enough (though a couple on £30K each shouldn't be having a combined income of just £1900/month, surely?). I was living there 50 years ago when I didn't even know what the rent was (my parents were paying!), but if one needs 3 bedrooms and 111 m2 (and likes being on two floors) then £1725 would be pretty good in terms of much of the UK. I pay £1200/month for a pretty basic 1-bedroom semi, and I know someone in rural Lincs paying the same for a small 2-bed house. My point was that high density does mean that prices are lower than they would otherwise be, and for a lot of people that makes the building look more attractive than a pure aesthete might think.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
80 the cyclist, 20% the driver. He put himself into a dangerous position; the car was ahead, and indicated as early as it could, given there was a previous road junction. The car braking alone should have indicated to any cyclist that the driver might be about to do something, or there was something ahead.
I'd also argue that the cyclist was too close to the car for much of that.
Agree (from a cyclist POV mostly, although I also drive).
As a cyclist, I'd not be sat on the nearside back of a car like that. If the cars are doing similar speed to me, I'll be in the middle posessing the lane, more visible and obvious to the driver that Im not going to cut up the inside (and also stops idiot drivers cruising along beside you when they can't actually get the speed to overtake). Its more relaxing and safer for everyone. A cyclist just behind you on nearside is a constant distraction. If I was there on a bike, I'd be watching the car like a hawk, matching it's speed unless I was going past if it was stuck in traffic. Any brake light would have me slowing down (unless it's braking for queued traffic and there's no left turn coming up) and the cyclist should have seen the indicators and given way.
Driver has some liability as you have to make sure when turning that you're not taking someone out, even if they're being a bit of an idiot. As driver, I like to think I'd have come to a complete stop if needed, while holding position and waited for the cyclist ot either stop too or come past and then make the turn (I've done that before in similar situation and had cyclists undertake when I've got a left signal running).
Legally - I'm not sure.
ETA: Modifed view after seeing (after other comments) that it was a cycle lane. Cyclist therefore has priority in theory, so driver should give way. Main thought is that it's a really silly place to start a cycle lane what looks to be only a few metres before a turning! As a cyclist, I'd stil be doing what I described above, I think, but the driver is more culpable than I initially thought.
A situation where both are responsible in my view but probably more on the cyclist (this is coming from a cyclist). Driver should have checked their mirror but it is possible they did and cyclist was in the blind spot. Cyclist with a bit of common sense should have clocked the indicator and not be right on their inside. I would have also if travelling at the same speed as cars tried to not be right on the edge of the road constantly.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
They're both idiots. As a motorist I would always check my left mirror before turning left across a cycle lane. As a cyclist I would never try to cycle past a car signalling left across my path like that, given the high likelihood of the driver being an idiot. I would imagine that the motorist is at fault legally though as he is crossing another lane of traffic without ensuring there's nothing coming. The cyclist is well within his rights but I would say not very smart as you should always cycle with the assumption that motorists and pedestrians can't see you. That's my procedure and at the risk of tempting fate so far it has kept me accident free.
My question would be whether the cyclist was fully visible when the driver would have checked the mirrors, just before making the move. Doesn't the cyclist also make the move to undertake after the driver has started indicating, which is a dickish move.
I was taught defensive driving - though I'll freely admit to not always driving defensively. The opposite is aggressive driving. This was, IMO, a case of aggressive cycling. The rider could have done much more to protect himself from any potential incident. Another question, though, is whether the cyclist in turn was getting any pressure from traffic behind.
The car and bike had been close to each other for some time, the driver should have known the bike was there. In my mind there is no doubt that the motorist is at fault, but the cyclist should have anticipated that kind of dick move. You don't have to cycle for very long before you realise that it is safer to assume that every other road user has had a lobotomy rather than simply following the highway code to the letter.
Pride in knowing the rules doesn't go very far when they plow into you after all.
Indeed. It's a shame though. You wouldn't tell a motorist that they shouldn't drive at 70mph on the motorway because they need to anticipate the possibility someone might be driving at them in the wrong direction. It would be nice if cyclists could rely on motorists to know and follow the highway code. Indeed it's revealing how people on here didn't immediately know that the driver is at fault here legally. I didn't know for sure, but it was still pretty obvious to me that it would be the case.
One further comment: watch the 21st September Newport Pagnell South by-election in Milton Keynes. It's one ward away from Mid Beds, with many of the same factors/demographics in play, and Labour making a real go of things in a ward they don't usually have scope to target. Would not shock me if the 1-2-3 there is the same as in Mid Beds.
Listened to the new Stones single. Not bad at all! The guitar riff time travels from long ago and makes the journey intact. I'd say it's the best original single ever released by a rock band of average age 80.
I've not listened yet. Best Stones single since...?
I'll say since One Hit (To the Body) 1986. Although despite my fandom I couldn't swear to have heard all the intervenings.
On topic - I am probably out on my own here but yesterday I went to Hereford. What a lovely city it is. Arriving on the train, via Newport (everything in Welsh, if you can believe it - now I know the Welsh for platform is platfform), I was met by a large number of school children, all bright and bubbly and upbeat. Approaching the station the environs seemed well-kept and typically rural, was there a river? I then went not to the heart of the city centre (although I hear it's charming) but to just beyond and it seemed all neat and near-Cotswoldy. Some new developments, they were all fine, some business parks, well people have to make a living somehow.
I do love our rural English country. Perhaps I'll write an article about my experiences. Or perhaps not.
Just looked at where Hereford is on the map. It's really the arse end of nowhere, isn't it. How is it not in Wales?
Indeed. You have to go to Wales to get there from London. My train left from Newport Platfform 4.
Have they closed the Chiltern line service from Paddington to Hereford, calling at Charlbury, Evesham, Worcester, Malvern Link, Great Malvern, Colwall and Ledbury?
They have. Or at least SWR and Trainline thinks they have.
Just checked. You are absolutely right. What is the world coming to?
The Paddington-Hereford service still runs. It just stops at about 15 stations along the way (including the town where I live) and the track is fairly slow, so it's often faster to take a 125mph run to Newport and then get the connecting service. The apps generally look for the fastest route so that's what they suggest.
I last used it about 18 months ago from Colwall to Ledbury. The train was from Birmingham Snow Hill, I think.
I have seen cyclists maintain their right of way right into a car just to prove they were in the right and this was one of those occasions.
I'm cycling and see a car in front of me signal then that car is turning left across me so I am now looking for when that might be and when I come to the first left turn I let it turn.
Cycle lane? Who cares. It's half a tonne of metal telling me it's going to turn and so I let it do its thing.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
They're both idiots. As a motorist I would always check my left mirror before turning left across a cycle lane. As a cyclist I would never try to cycle past a car signalling left across my path like that, given the high likelihood of the driver being an idiot. I would imagine that the motorist is at fault legally though as he is crossing another lane of traffic without ensuring there's nothing coming. The cyclist is well within his rights but I would say not very smart as you should always cycle with the assumption that motorists and pedestrians can't see you. That's my procedure and at the risk of tempting fate so far it has kept me accident free.
My question would be whether the cyclist was fully visible when the driver would have checked the mirrors, just before making the move. Doesn't the cyclist also make the move to undertake after the driver has started indicating, which is a dickish move.
I was taught defensive driving - though I'll freely admit to not always driving defensively. The opposite is aggressive driving. This was, IMO, a case of aggressive cycling. The rider could have done much more to protect himself from any potential incident. Another question, though, is whether the cyclist in turn was getting any pressure from traffic behind.
The car and bike had been close to each other for some time, the driver should have known the bike was there. In my mind there is no doubt that the motorist is at fault, but the cyclist should have anticipated that kind of dick move. You don't have to cycle for very long before you realise that it is safer to assume that every other road user has had a lobotomy rather than simply following the highway code to the letter.
Pride in knowing the rules doesn't go very far when they plow into you after all.
Indeed. It's a shame though. You wouldn't tell a motorist that they shouldn't drive at 70mph on the motorway because they need to anticipate the possibility someone might be driving at them in the wrong direction. It would be nice if cyclists could rely on motorists to know and follow the highway code. Indeed it's revealing how people on here didn't immediately know that the driver is at fault here legally. I didn't know for sure, but it was still pretty obvious to me that it would be the case.
No, it is like telling a car driver in lane 2 not to sit in the blind spot of a lorry in lane 1, especially if it is indicating to change lane.
ETA: Modifed view after seeing (after other comments) that it was a cycle lane. Cyclist therefore has priority in theory, so driver should give way. Main thought is that it's a really silly place to start a cycle lane what looks to be only a few metres before a turning! As a cyclist, I'd stil be doing what I described above, I think, but the driver is more culpable than I initially thought.
Another example of why painted cycle lanes are pretty useless really.
They are fine because they usually keep the cars out and that gives space on the road. But as in this case I wouldn't look at them as a protective cloak against motorised vehicles.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car was indicating with plenty of time, the cyclist should have been prepared to stop even if the right of way was theirs (I don't know if it was or not, but I don't think so).
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
I believe the driver should have to give way to traffic in the cycle lane. Admittedly it was poor decision making by the cyclist.
The driver *does* have to give way to traffic in a cycle lane, and to cyclists going straight on. Both in the Highway Code.
But the consensus on my normal cycling site is that both got it wrong.
Driver turned across a cycle lane without checking properly (but note it had literally only just started), and indicated crazily late - 3 ticks ffs. Turning across a traffic lane without checking properly is driving without due care; he wouldn't do that across a bus lane.
But the cyclist was too close for defensive cycling, and had placed himself in the blind spot of the mirror if the driver did not have a wide angle mirror or neglected to do his shoulder check. My car has a system with a warning light in the door mirror option for this as I notice myself make this mistake when changing lanes on the motorway, once a year or so.
As explanation, I have seen a comment that the cyclist was expecting him to turn into the next road not the forecourt. That does not excuse that the cyclist should have anticipated that possibility.
So half and half. I hope that in those circs I would slow my car to walking pace, *then* do a lifesaver shoulder check, *before* turning.
Quite. There are certain things that humans find beautiful in buildings, relating to inherited ideals of safety, plenty, security. Ornament, symmetry, natural materials like wood and stone, deep set windows, lush vegetation etc. Brutalist architecture is demonstrably fuck ugly, that's why brutalist architects famously choose to live in Tudor mansions.
I don't think you can safely generalise about all humans. The place I must enjoyed living in was on the top floor of this:
- which I suppose you'd see as rather brutalist? Airy flat with two balconies, clean lines devoid of fiddly ornaments, no plants but spacious, and still just £1725/month because the high density makes the building affordable.
Affordable for you. Most people earning a mere 50k would find that swallows up a huge chunk of their pay
NP didn't say when he lived there, mind. Could have been ages ago.
He quoted a current rental price "still just £1725/month because the high density makes the building affordable" it was that I was responding to and pointing out that its not affordable for most. Even for a couple both earning 30k who have therefore a takehome pay of circa 1900 a month....that is almost 50% of their combined wages....sorry I laugh at the word affordable here
Yes, fair enough (though a couple on £30K each shouldn't be having a combined income of just £1900/month, surely?). I was living there 50 years ago when I didn't even know what the rent was (my parents were paying!), but if one needs 3 bedrooms and 111 m2 (and likes being on two floors) then £1725 would be pretty good in terms of much of the UK. I pay £1200/month for a pretty basic 1-bedroom semi, and I know someone in rural Lincs paying the same for a small 2-bed house. My point was that high density does mean that prices are lower than they would otherwise be, and for a lot of people that makes the building look more attractive than a pure aesthete might think.
1900 x 2. Sorry should have clarified it was the income for each. But 1725 is basically still just a touch off 50% of their money per month and I don't call that affordable
Agree with all the posts about the cyclist/driver.
The only downside with being careful is drivers will never get used to having to give way in situations like that.
That's particularly the case when crossing a side road as a pedestrian - drivers should give way, but few pedestrians will be brave enough to assert that part of the Highway Code. Much better to redesign the junctions with continuous pavements and tighter angles.
Listened to the new Stones single. Not bad at all! The guitar riff time travels from long ago and makes the journey intact. I'd say it's the best original single ever released by a rock band of average age 80.
I've not listened yet. Best Stones single since...?
I'll say since One Hit (To the Body) 1986. Although despite my fandom I couldn't swear to have heard all the intervenings.
Oh so not that good then! Last genuinely good Stones single was Miss You (1978) IMHO. If disco's not your thing you'd have to go back to the 1974 offerings, before I was born!
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car was indicating with plenty of time, the cyclist should have been prepared to stop even if the right of way was theirs (I don't know if it was or not, but I don't think so).
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
I believe the driver should have to give way to traffic in the cycle lane. Admittedly it was poor decision making by the cyclist.
The driver *does* have to give way to traffic in a cycle lane, and to cyclists going straight on. Both in the Highway Code.
But the consensus on my normal cycling site is that both got it wrong.
Driver turned across a cycle lane without checking properly (but note it had literally only just started), and indicated crazily late - 3 ticks ffs. Turning across a traffic lane without checking properly is driving without due care; he wouldn't do that across a bus lane.
But the cyclist was too close for defensive cycling, and had placed himself in the blind spot of the mirror if the driver did not have a wide angle mirror or neglected to do his shoulder check. My car has a system with a warning light in the door mirror option for this as I notice myself make this mistake when changing lanes on the motorway, once a year or so.
As explanation, I have seen a comment that the cyclist was expecting him to turn into the next road not the forecourt. That does not excuse that the cyclist should have anticipated that possibility.
So half and half. I hope that in those circs I would slow my car to walking pace, *then* do a lifesaver shoulder check, *before* turning.
"... and indicated crazily late - 3 ticks ffs"
I'm unsure that's fair There was another road junction just before that one, which can lead people following to think you've just left your indicator on, or are going to go on for an age before turning. The driver also braked in plenty of time as well.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car was indicating with plenty of time, the cyclist should have been prepared to stop even if the right of way was theirs (I don't know if it was or not, but I don't think so).
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
I believe the driver should have to give way to traffic in the cycle lane. Admittedly it was poor decision making by the cyclist.
The driver *does* have to give way to traffic in a cycle lane, and to cyclists going straight on. Both in the Highway Code.
But the consensus on my normal cycling site is that both got it wrong.
Driver turned across a cycle lane without checking properly (but note it had literally only just started), and indicated crazily late - 3 ticks ffs. Turning across a traffic lane without checking properly is driving without due care; he wouldn't do that across a bus lane.
But the cyclist was too close for defensive cycling, and had placed himself in the blind spot of the mirror if the driver did not have a wide angle mirror or neglected to do his shoulder check. My car has a system with a warning light in the door mirror option for this as I notice myself make this mistake when changing lanes on the motorway, once a year or so.
As explanation, I have seen a comment that the cyclist was expecting him to turn into the next road not the forecourt. That does not excuse that the cyclist should have anticipated that possibility.
So half and half. I hope that in those circs I would slow my car to walking pace, *then* do a lifesaver shoulder check, *before* turning.
"... and indicated crazily late - 3 ticks ffs"
I'm unsure that's fair There was another road junction just before that one, which can lead people following to think you've just left your indicator on, or are going to go on for an age before turning. The driver also braked in plenty of time as well.
Indicating too early is a minor fault on the driving test, IIRC. Not an immediate fail, but if you get too many, you do.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car was indicating with plenty of time, the cyclist should have been prepared to stop even if the right of way was theirs (I don't know if it was or not, but I don't think so).
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
I believe the driver should have to give way to traffic in the cycle lane. Admittedly it was poor decision making by the cyclist.
Which starts about three metres before the turning. Cyclist says on twitter he saw the car indicating but thought car was turning further up the road which is never a good assumption. Cyclist was however behind for a long time so driver must have known cyclist there or thereabouts.
Both careless imo as well as bad luck in terms of timing of switch to cycle lane.
That the cyclelane had just started literally feet before the turning probably explains the accident, and is a matter for the council.
I think that's moot, because the turn was into a business driveway not a road - and cycle lanes have to start somewhere.
Though I'd say there should have been some provision far earlier, from before the roundabout.
Listened to the new Stones single. Not bad at all! The guitar riff time travels from long ago and makes the journey intact. I'd say it's the best original single ever released by a rock band of average age 80.
I've not listened yet. Best Stones single since...?
I'll say since One Hit (To the Body) 1986. Although despite my fandom I couldn't swear to have heard all the intervenings.
Oh so not that good then! Last genuinely good Stones single was Miss You (1978) IMHO. If disco's not your thing you'd have to go back to the 1974 offerings, before I was born!
No, only 37 years. Blink of an eye
I'd upgrade Miss You from good to great. Esp since it was a different sound for them. This one (like 'One Hit' in fact) is more your standard Stones r&b riff based fare, which is fine by me.
ETA: Modifed view after seeing (after other comments) that it was a cycle lane. Cyclist therefore has priority in theory, so driver should give way. Main thought is that it's a really silly place to start a cycle lane what looks to be only a few metres before a turning! As a cyclist, I'd stil be doing what I described above, I think, but the driver is more culpable than I initially thought.
Another example of why painted cycle lanes are pretty useless really.
They are fine because they usually keep the cars out and that gives space on the road. But as in this case I wouldn't look at them as a protective cloak against motorised vehicles.
They induce close passes and don't prevent people parking in them. A waste of paint.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car was indicating with plenty of time, the cyclist should have been prepared to stop even if the right of way was theirs (I don't know if it was or not, but I don't think so).
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
I believe the driver should have to give way to traffic in the cycle lane. Admittedly it was poor decision making by the cyclist.
The driver *does* have to give way to traffic in a cycle lane, and to cyclists going straight on. Both in the Highway Code.
But the consensus on my normal cycling site is that both got it wrong.
Driver turned across a cycle lane without checking properly (but note it had literally only just started), and indicated crazily late - 3 ticks ffs. Turning across a traffic lane without checking properly is driving without due care; he wouldn't do that across a bus lane.
But the cyclist was too close for defensive cycling, and had placed himself in the blind spot of the mirror if the driver did not have a wide angle mirror or neglected to do his shoulder check. My car has a system with a warning light in the door mirror option for this as I notice myself make this mistake when changing lanes on the motorway, once a year or so.
As explanation, I have seen a comment that the cyclist was expecting him to turn into the next road not the forecourt. That does not excuse that the cyclist should have anticipated that possibility.
So half and half. I hope that in those circs I would slow my car to walking pace, *then* do a lifesaver shoulder check, *before* turning.
"... and indicated crazily late - 3 ticks ffs"
I'm unsure that's fair There was another road junction just before that one, which can lead people following to think you've just left your indicator on, or are going to go on for an age before turning. The driver also braked in plenty of time as well.
Indicating too early is a minor fault on the driving test, IIRC. Not an immediate fail, but if you get too many, you do.
*----------------------- (messed up the blockquotes - MattW answer to the last comment)
As I see it the timing supports my analysis. Normal MSM procedure would say 'signal before brake if there is no good reason to do otherwise', which there is not here.
Driver passes midpoint of previous sideroad at 0:22. Brake lights on at 0:24. First indicator flash at 0:25. Driver turns into driveway at 0:29.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car was indicating with plenty of time, the cyclist should have been prepared to stop even if the right of way was theirs (I don't know if it was or not, but I don't think so).
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
I believe the driver should have to give way to traffic in the cycle lane. Admittedly it was poor decision making by the cyclist.
Which starts about three metres before the turning. Cyclist says on twitter he saw the car indicating but thought car was turning further up the road which is never a good assumption. Cyclist was however behind for a long time so driver must have known cyclist there or thereabouts.
Both careless imo as well as bad luck in terms of timing of switch to cycle lane.
That the cyclelane had just started literally feet before the turning probably explains the accident, and is a matter for the council.
I think that's moot, because the turn was into a business driveway not a road - and cycle lanes have to start somewhere.
Though I'd say there should have been some provision far earlier, from before the roundabout.
I'd still say it shoud be shoved a bit further up the road (there seem to houses a few metres further). The toolsttion etc will have a fair bit of traffic and can easily miss the cycle lane while looking for the shop turning. Further up, home owners have less turning in traffic and owners should be aware of the cycle lane.
Listened to the new Stones single. Not bad at all! The guitar riff time travels from long ago and makes the journey intact. I'd say it's the best original single ever released by a rock band of average age 80.
I've not listened yet. Best Stones single since...?
I'll say since One Hit (To the Body) 1986. Although despite my fandom I couldn't swear to have heard all the intervenings.
Oh so not that good then! Last genuinely good Stones single was Miss You (1978) IMHO. If disco's not your thing you'd have to go back to the 1974 offerings, before I was born!
No, only 37 years. Blink of an eye
I'd upgrade Miss You from good to great. Esp since it was a different sound for them. This one (like 'One Hit' in fact) is more your standard Stones r&b riff based fare, which is fine by me.
It's a great track. Mind you, if someone called me up and said "We're gonna come around at twelve With some Puerto Rican girls that are just dyin' to meet you" I think I'd sound a bit more chuffed about it. I guess I'm not Mick Jagger.
Significant change - Conservatives slightly up, Labour down a lot, and LD up.
So taking this all together for movement this year, the Conservatives are up accross the patch, but not by much. Labour is retaining their votes in the Red Wall seats, but there is a material switch to the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall.
Compared with 2019 it appears to be fairly consistent swing although the movement to Labour away from the Conservatives might be greater in the Red Wall seats.
Agree with all the posts about the cyclist/driver.
The only downside with being careful is drivers will never get used to having to give way in situations like that.
That's particularly the case when crossing a side road as a pedestrian - drivers should give way, but few pedestrians will be brave enough to assert that part of the Highway Code. Much better to redesign the junctions with continuous pavements and tighter angles.
The Highway Code now says:
"You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them. Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist, horse rider or horse drawn vehicle going straight ahead to stop or swerve. You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary"
Therefore the car driver was clearly going against this.
However, this is an example of "should" guidance rather than "must" legal requirement. IMO the HIghway Code changes of early 22 are a disaster.
The scenario depicted in the video is one in which most drivers would feel the cyclist was at fault given that the driver was indicating and was ahead of the cyclist. Stopping to allow the cyclist to pass would be counterintuitive and would invite being rear-ended by another car. Another example of these Code changes which will be routinely ignored, because they are bonkers, is the requirement that a car turning left or right at a roundabout "should" stop if a pedestrian looks like they may want to cross the road - this would be dangerous to all concerned.
Significant change - Conservatives slightly up, Labour down a lot, and LD up.
So taking this all together for movement this year, the Conservatives are up accross the patch, but not by much. Labour is retaining their votes in the Red Wall seats, but there is a material switch to the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall.
Compared with 2019 it appears to be fairly consistent swing although the movement to Labour away from the Conservatives might be greater in the Red Wall seats.
Would suggest Labour's vote is very efficient this time around.
Significant change - Conservatives slightly up, Labour down a lot, and LD up.
So taking this all together for movement this year, the Conservatives are up accross the patch, but not by much. Labour is retaining their votes in the Red Wall seats, but there is a material switch to the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall.
Compared with 2019 it appears to be fairly consistent swing although the movement to Labour away from the Conservatives might be greater in the Red Wall seats.
Agreed, except that on those figures Labour is up a bit in the Red Wall, not down a bit, and the Tories vice versa?
Listened to the new Stones single. Not bad at all! The guitar riff time travels from long ago and makes the journey intact. I'd say it's the best original single ever released by a rock band of average age 80.
I've not listened yet. Best Stones single since...?
I'll say since One Hit (To the Body) 1986. Although despite my fandom I couldn't swear to have heard all the intervenings.
Oh so not that good then! Last genuinely good Stones single was Miss You (1978) IMHO. If disco's not your thing you'd have to go back to the 1974 offerings, before I was born!
Start Me Up (1981).
I actually think Jagger’s recent “Strange Game” theme for Slow Horses is pretty good.
So taking this all together for movement this year, the Conservatives are up accross the patch, but not by much. Labour is retaining their votes in the Red Wall seats, but there is a material switch to the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall.
This must despite rather than because of Sir Ed Davey because he's completely invisible.
Agree with all the posts about the cyclist/driver.
The only downside with being careful is drivers will never get used to having to give way in situations like that.
That's particularly the case when crossing a side road as a pedestrian - drivers should give way, but few pedestrians will be brave enough to assert that part of the Highway Code. Much better to redesign the junctions with continuous pavements and tighter angles.
The Highway Code now says:
"You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them. Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist, horse rider or horse drawn vehicle going straight ahead to stop or swerve. You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary"
Therefore the car driver was clearly going against this.
However, this is an example of "should" guidance rather than "must" legal requirement. IMO the HIghway Code changes of early 22 are a disaster.
The scenario depicted in the video is one in which most drivers would feel the cyclist was at fault given that the driver was indicating and was ahead of the cyclist. Stopping to allow the cyclist to pass would be counterintuitive and would invite being rear-ended by another car. Another example of these Code changes which will be routinely ignored, because they are bonkers, is the requirement that a car turning left or right at a roundabout "should" stop if a pedestrian looks like they may want to cross the road - this would be dangerous to all concerned.
The old tombstone inscription (though no doubt apocryphal) is relevant:
Here lies John Augustus May. He died defending his right of way. He was right , he was right, right all along. But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
Listened to the new Stones single. Not bad at all! The guitar riff time travels from long ago and makes the journey intact. I'd say it's the best original single ever released by a rock band of average age 80.
I've not listened yet. Best Stones single since...?
I'll say since One Hit (To the Body) 1986. Although despite my fandom I couldn't swear to have heard all the intervenings.
Oh so not that good then! Last genuinely good Stones single was Miss You (1978) IMHO. If disco's not your thing you'd have to go back to the 1974 offerings, before I was born!
No, only 37 years. Blink of an eye
I'd upgrade Miss You from good to great. Esp since it was a different sound for them. This one (like 'One Hit' in fact) is more your standard Stones r&b riff based fare, which is fine by me.
It's a great track. Mind you, if someone called me up and said "We're gonna come around at twelve With some Puerto Rican girls that are just dyin' to meet you" I think I'd sound a bit more chuffed about it. I guess I'm not Mick Jagger.
Never been a Stones fan beyond the classics that everyone knows, but I think the song Jagger did for the theme of Apple TV’s Slow Horses is very good indeed: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tegw25qqbAs
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car was indicating with plenty of time, the cyclist should have been prepared to stop even if the right of way was theirs (I don't know if it was or not, but I don't think so).
Even though cars are supposed to stop at a zebra crossing you don't just walk out blindly, it's similar - take due care regardless.
I believe the driver should have to give way to traffic in the cycle lane. Admittedly it was poor decision making by the cyclist.
Which starts about three metres before the turning. Cyclist says on twitter he saw the car indicating but thought car was turning further up the road which is never a good assumption. Cyclist was however behind for a long time so driver must have known cyclist there or thereabouts.
Both careless imo as well as bad luck in terms of timing of switch to cycle lane.
That the cyclelane had just started literally feet before the turning probably explains the accident, and is a matter for the council.
I think that's moot, because the turn was into a business driveway not a road - and cycle lanes have to start somewhere.
Though I'd say there should have been some provision far earlier, from before the roundabout.
Interesting one, and not entirely 100% either way.
On general principles I'd say the cyclist is the more vulnerable and the motorist has to be on the look out all the time for hazards like that. The bike was behind for a while so no reason why the motorist shouldn't have picked it up earlier, especially if he/she was planning to turn left. In a 20mph zone, you kind of have to expect cyclists nipping up the inside.
In mitigation, the motorist did signal in good time and it's hard to see why the cyclist didn't spot that and stop. Not sure the cycle lane makes much difference to all this, and it is a dumb place to start one.
I'd go for 70/30 motorist/bike. Looks like a slow speed, low impact collision, so I trust nobody hurt.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car pulled clearly ahead to signal giving the cyclist plenty of time to slow down.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
The car pulled clearly ahead to signal giving the cyclist plenty of time to slow down.
Entirely the cyclist’s fault
My initial reaction - then you read the Highway Code inc the 2022 amendments ...
Significant change - Conservatives slightly up, Labour down a lot, and LD up.
So taking this all together for movement this year, the Conservatives are up accross the patch, but not by much. Labour is retaining their votes in the Red Wall seats, but there is a material switch to the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall.
Compared with 2019 it appears to be fairly consistent swing although the movement to Labour away from the Conservatives might be greater in the Red Wall seats.
Agreed, except that on those figures Labour is up a bit in the Red Wall, not down a bit, and the Tories vice versa?
Listened to the new Stones single. Not bad at all! The guitar riff time travels from long ago and makes the journey intact. I'd say it's the best original single ever released by a rock band of average age 80.
I've not listened yet. Best Stones single since...?
I'll say since One Hit (To the Body) 1986. Although despite my fandom I couldn't swear to have heard all the intervenings.
Oh so not that good then! Last genuinely good Stones single was Miss You (1978) IMHO. If disco's not your thing you'd have to go back to the 1974 offerings, before I was born!
Start Me Up (1981).
I actually think Jagger’s recent “Strange Game” theme for Slow Horses is pretty good.
I've never really got the love for Start Me Up, it's always left me cold. I like some of their early singles and one or two late era songs but between 68 and 72 they mine an incredible musical seam that raises them above almost any other artists IMHO. Let It Bleed is probably my all time favourite record by anyone.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
80 the cyclist, 20% the driver. He put himself into a dangerous position; the car was ahead, and indicated as early as it could, given there was a previous road junction. The car braking alone should have indicated to any cyclist that the driver might be about to do something, or there was something ahead.
I'd also argue that the cyclist was too close to the car for much of that.
Cyclist sits in car's blind spot, does not notice car is indicating to turn left and undertakes into the junction. If the bike had been another car, people would be speculating about crash for cash.
Driver should have known there was a cyclist somewhere behind, even if currently hidden, and did swing wide to turn left.
I think the driver knew, which is why he accelerated before the turn to put some space between them
There is something rather strange about the loony-right hatred for Obama. A man who hasn't been President (or in any position of political power) now for nearly seven years. And followed by their own Poster Boy Trump, who didn't undo any of the 'bad things' Obama clearly did.
Like the UK in Russia, Obama lives rent free in the loony right heads.
Agree with all the posts about the cyclist/driver.
The only downside with being careful is drivers will never get used to having to give way in situations like that.
That's particularly the case when crossing a side road as a pedestrian - drivers should give way, but few pedestrians will be brave enough to assert that part of the Highway Code. Much better to redesign the junctions with continuous pavements and tighter angles.
The Highway Code now says:
"You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them. Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist, horse rider or horse drawn vehicle going straight ahead to stop or swerve. You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary"
Therefore the car driver was clearly going against this.
However, this is an example of "should" guidance rather than "must" legal requirement. IMO the HIghway Code changes of early 22 are a disaster.
The scenario depicted in the video is one in which most drivers would feel the cyclist was at fault given that the driver was indicating and was ahead of the cyclist. Stopping to allow the cyclist to pass would be counterintuitive and would invite being rear-ended by another car. Another example of these Code changes which will be routinely ignored, because they are bonkers, is the requirement that a car turning left or right at a roundabout "should" stop if a pedestrian looks like they may want to cross the road - this would be dangerous to all concerned.
The old tombstone inscription (though no doubt apocryphal) is relevant:
Here lies John Augustus May. He died defending his right of way. He was right , he was right, right all along. But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
They're both idiots. As a motorist I would always check my left mirror before turning left across a cycle lane. As a cyclist I would never try to cycle past a car signalling left across my path like that, given the high likelihood of the driver being an idiot. I would imagine that the motorist is at fault legally though as he is crossing another lane of traffic without ensuring there's nothing coming. The cyclist is well within his rights but I would say not very smart as you should always cycle with the assumption that motorists and pedestrians can't see you. That's my procedure and at the risk of tempting fate so far it has kept me accident free.
My question would be whether the cyclist was fully visible when the driver would have checked the mirrors, just before making the move. Doesn't the cyclist also make the move to undertake after the driver has started indicating, which is a dickish move.
I was taught defensive driving - though I'll freely admit to not always driving defensively. The opposite is aggressive driving. This was, IMO, a case of aggressive cycling. The rider could have done much more to protect himself from any potential incident. Another question, though, is whether the cyclist in turn was getting any pressure from traffic behind.
The car and bike had been close to each other for some time, the driver should have known the bike was there. In my mind there is no doubt that the motorist is at fault, but the cyclist should have anticipated that kind of dick move. You don't have to cycle for very long before you realise that it is safer to assume that every other road user has had a lobotomy rather than simply following the highway code to the letter.
Regardless of who is at fault it’s not a dick move.
The car accelerated to create space, indicated early and turned slowly.
He may have misjudged but he wasn’t being a dick. The cyclist took no action to slow down or manoeuvre so clearly wasn’t paying attention
Agree with all the posts about the cyclist/driver.
The only downside with being careful is drivers will never get used to having to give way in situations like that.
That's particularly the case when crossing a side road as a pedestrian - drivers should give way, but few pedestrians will be brave enough to assert that part of the Highway Code. Much better to redesign the junctions with continuous pavements and tighter angles.
The Highway Code now says:
"You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them. Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist, horse rider or horse drawn vehicle going straight ahead to stop or swerve. You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary"
Therefore the car driver was clearly going against this.
However, this is an example of "should" guidance rather than "must" legal requirement. IMO the HIghway Code changes of early 22 are a disaster.
The scenario depicted in the video is one in which most drivers would feel the cyclist was at fault given that the driver was indicating and was ahead of the cyclist. Stopping to allow the cyclist to pass would be counterintuitive and would invite being rear-ended by another car. Another example of these Code changes which will be routinely ignored, because they are bonkers, is the requirement that a car turning left or right at a roundabout "should" stop if a pedestrian looks like they may want to cross the road - this would be dangerous to all concerned.
Interesting. My perspective is on a different angle:
1 - These Highway Code changes represent required changes in our road culture, for the sake of a safe environment. I accept that they will take time.
2 - Equally we need to change our eg routinely dangerous roundabout designs to focus first on safety, not on maximising through-speed and capacity-on-the-cheap.
Example changes that we need in our roundabouts are things like fewer parallel approach lanes, orthogonal approaches and greater directional deviation to ensure lower approach speed, adverse camber on the roundabout to slow down circulating traffic, less through visibility to make the drivers pay attention to the road where they are not dream about their exit, and others.
3 - I think a huge problem is the almost complete absence of any public information programme on the changes, and the total absence of any routine continuing education for drivers. Which leaves us with perceptions such as "I've been driving for 35 years; I don't need any more training".
There is something rather strange about the loony-right hatred for Obama. A man who hasn't been President (or in any position of political power) now for nearly seven years. And followed by their own Poster Boy Trump, who didn't undo any of the 'bad things' Obama clearly did.
Like the UK in Russia, Obama lives rent free in the loony right heads.
Hard to imagine why he exercises them so much, I'm struggling to see what made Obama different from any other president before or since. A real head scratcher.
There is something rather strange about the loony-right hatred for Obama. A man who hasn't been President (or in any position of political power) now for nearly seven years. And followed by their own Poster Boy Trump, who didn't undo any of the 'bad things' Obama clearly did.
Like the UK in Russia, Obama lives rent free in the loony right heads.
They fear his wife. And the best way to undermine any possible chance of her running in the future (although I don't think she even wants to) is to comprehensively trash his record, character and morals.
In a 20 zone, I see. I don't think cyclists should have the right to cycle as though there's no vehicle in front of them in such areas. I think overtaking and then turning left across a cyclist is a very different thing to what's happened here.
They're both idiots. As a motorist I would always check my left mirror before turning left across a cycle lane. As a cyclist I would never try to cycle past a car signalling left across my path like that, given the high likelihood of the driver being an idiot. I would imagine that the motorist is at fault legally though as he is crossing another lane of traffic without ensuring there's nothing coming. The cyclist is well within his rights but I would say not very smart as you should always cycle with the assumption that motorists and pedestrians can't see you. That's my procedure and at the risk of tempting fate so far it has kept me accident free.
My question would be whether the cyclist was fully visible when the driver would have checked the mirrors, just before making the move. Doesn't the cyclist also make the move to undertake after the driver has started indicating, which is a dickish move.
I was taught defensive driving - though I'll freely admit to not always driving defensively. The opposite is aggressive driving. This was, IMO, a case of aggressive cycling. The rider could have done much more to protect himself from any potential incident. Another question, though, is whether the cyclist in turn was getting any pressure from traffic behind.
The car and bike had been close to each other for some time, the driver should have known the bike was there. In my mind there is no doubt that the motorist is at fault, but the cyclist should have anticipated that kind of dick move. You don't have to cycle for very long before you realise that it is safer to assume that every other road user has had a lobotomy rather than simply following the highway code to the letter.
Regardless of who is at fault it’s not a dick move.
The car accelerated to create space, indicated early and turned slowly.
He may have misjudged but he wasn’t being a dick. The cyclist took no action to slow down or manoeuvre so clearly wasn’t paying attention
Turning across the path of an oncoming vehicle, forcing them to brake to avoid you, is definitely a dick move in my book. Wait until your path is clear.
There is something rather strange about the loony-right hatred for Obama. A man who hasn't been President (or in any position of political power) now for nearly seven years. And followed by their own Poster Boy Trump, who didn't undo any of the 'bad things' Obama clearly did.
Like the UK in Russia, Obama lives rent free in the loony right heads.
For some reason, I like to point out that the Confederacy Of Slow Learning Slavers lasted 4.25 years , whereas Barack Obama was president for 8.
Incidentally, can anyone remember the explanation of why they fulminated about Obama wearing a summer suit in summer, in Washington? Something about being badly dressed?
So taking this all together for movement this year, the Conservatives are up accross the patch, but not by much. Labour is retaining their votes in the Red Wall seats, but there is a material switch to the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall.
This must despite rather than because of Sir Ed Davey because he's completely invisible.
Compared to the previous leader, being invisible is a plus!
Listened to the new Stones single. Not bad at all! The guitar riff time travels from long ago and makes the journey intact. I'd say it's the best original single ever released by a rock band of average age 80.
I've not listened yet. Best Stones single since...?
I'll say since One Hit (To the Body) 1986. Although despite my fandom I couldn't swear to have heard all the intervenings.
Oh so not that good then! Last genuinely good Stones single was Miss You (1978) IMHO. If disco's not your thing you'd have to go back to the 1974 offerings, before I was born!
Waiting on a Friend 1981. Brilliant, almost archetypal, Stones track.
Listened to the new Stones single. Not bad at all! The guitar riff time travels from long ago and makes the journey intact. I'd say it's the best original single ever released by a rock band of average age 80.
Listened to it last night. Liked it so much I have immediately put the album on my wish list.
Listened to the new Stones single. Not bad at all! The guitar riff time travels from long ago and makes the journey intact. I'd say it's the best original single ever released by a rock band of average age 80.
I've not listened yet. Best Stones single since...?
I'll say since One Hit (To the Body) 1986. Although despite my fandom I couldn't swear to have heard all the intervenings.
Oh so not that good then! Last genuinely good Stones single was Miss You (1978) IMHO. If disco's not your thing you'd have to go back to the 1974 offerings, before I was born!
Start Me Up (1981).
I actually think Jagger’s recent “Strange Game” theme for Slow Horses is pretty good.
I've never really got the love for Start Me Up, it's always left me cold. I like some of their early singles and one or two late era songs but between 68 and 72 they mine an incredible musical seam that raises them above almost any other artists IMHO. Let It Bleed is probably my all time favourite record by anyone.
I’m so old that when I hear “Start Me Up” I think of Windows ‘95.
Agree with all the posts about the cyclist/driver.
The only downside with being careful is drivers will never get used to having to give way in situations like that.
That's particularly the case when crossing a side road as a pedestrian - drivers should give way, but few pedestrians will be brave enough to assert that part of the Highway Code. Much better to redesign the junctions with continuous pavements and tighter angles.
The Highway Code now says:
"You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them. Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist, horse rider or horse drawn vehicle going straight ahead to stop or swerve. You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary"
Therefore the car driver was clearly going against this.
However, this is an example of "should" guidance rather than "must" legal requirement. IMO the HIghway Code changes of early 22 are a disaster.
The scenario depicted in the video is one in which most drivers would feel the cyclist was at fault given that the driver was indicating and was ahead of the cyclist. Stopping to allow the cyclist to pass would be counterintuitive and would invite being rear-ended by another car. Another example of these Code changes which will be routinely ignored, because they are bonkers, is the requirement that a car turning left or right at a roundabout "should" stop if a pedestrian looks like they may want to cross the road - this would be dangerous to all concerned.
Interesting. My perspective is on a different angle:
1 - These Highway Code changes represent required changes in our road culture, for the sake of a safe environment. I accept that they will take time.
2 - Equally we need to change our eg routinely dangerous roundabout designs to focus first on safety, not on maximising through-speed and capacity-on-the-cheap.
Example changes that we need in our roundabouts are things like fewer parallel approach lanes, orthogonal approaches and greater directional deviation to ensure lower approach speed, adverse camber on the roundabout to slow down circulating traffic, less through visibility to make the drivers pay attention to the road where they are not dream about their exit, and others.
3 - I think a huge problem is the almost complete absence of any public information programme on the changes, and the total absence of any routine continuing education for drivers. Which leaves us with perceptions such as "I've been driving for 35 years; I don't need any more training".
That is key: insufficient or near-absent public information. Anyone over a certain age will remember "clunk click every trip" when seatbelts were made compulsory, but these more extensive changes to the highway code seem to have slipped out almost unnoticed.
Those comments by the mayor of New York City are quite something. Saying the city is in danger of being destroyed by 10,000 illegal migrants a week arriving.
So taking this all together for movement this year, the Conservatives are up accross the patch, but not by much. Labour is retaining their votes in the Red Wall seats, but there is a material switch to the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall.
This must despite rather than because of Sir Ed Davey because he's completely invisible.
Compared to the previous leader, being invisible is a plus!
Comments
And Rishi won't be going to election before the London race.
I'd also argue that the cyclist was too close to the car for much of that.
Driver should have known there was a cyclist somewhere behind, even if currently hidden, and did swing wide to turn left.
The Ukrainian drone boats, to date, have all used an adaption of Dishy - look for the structure that looks a bit like a spoiler to the rear of the boat.
You cannot use a typical submarine communication mast (vertical antenna) to communicate with the constellation. A mast to raise a dish, unfold it and hold it well enough to communicate with the system would be a substantial effort. There is no evidence of that on the underwater prototypes, to date.
I was taught defensive driving - though I'll freely admit to not always driving defensively. The opposite is aggressive driving. This was, IMO, a case of aggressive cycling. The rider could have done much more to protect himself from any potential incident. Another question, though, is whether the cyclist in turn was getting any pressure from traffic behind.
You cannot use a typical submarine communication mast (vertical antenna) to communicate with the constellation.
The Ukrainian drone boats, to date, have all used an adaption of Dishy - look for the structure that often looks like a spoiler to the rear of the boat.
Try telling someone in rural France, say that a 100m2 on the top of a tower block is worth £1 million.
It's the Cotswold Line though, not the Chiltern Line - the latter is the services from Marylebone.
I agree lack of predictability by the Govt makes it very difficult at present. I have no idea what I am supposed to meet by when, and whether I am going to get adequate warning. That's just the bloody Govt politicking, potentially creating havoc by demanding that the industry do 3-4 years of renovation work in 6 months.
I think perhaps he doesn't know his detail around the basics of cost effective property renovation. Don't imagine the cost - work it out from a thermal model of your house, and if necessary advice from an EPC Assessor (which is what they are there for). The EPC system does not entirely follow the model, as it is also about saving on primary (not point of delivery) energy.
To take the specific points:
A terraced house is inherently easier to get to a C in some ways, because physics - surface area to volume ratio. A mid terrace only has 2 external walls and a roof, so is better thermally. An end terrace is just a semi-detached house, as any estate agent will tell when explaining why it is so expensive. More costly to insulate wrt to mid terrace, but easier than detached.
There is also some difference between say a 3-4 storey thrown-up Georgian terrace in London, and say a mining village or railway 2 up 2 down 2 bed terrace. There may be physical space problems particularly in the latter.
I don't buy the cost arguments any more than I do for owner occupiers. House prices virtually across the country are up quite seriously since pre-COVID aiui, and even more from before then - so financing should not be a problem for anyone. If he is an LL, he should be running conservative financial policies anyway and have reserves to cover unexpected expenses.
(1/2)
Costs. Loft insulation is typically free via your energy company and is installed in minutes (room in roof is more tricky, but should have been done properly when they added it).
Dry lining is not expensive for a LL - this morning I can buy 70/80mm Kingspan (=6 inches of polystyrene) at £26+VAT per 8x4 sheet (=£8 per sqm) from Seconds & co, or £54 from Wickes. Call the drylining £20-40 (very ish) per sqm of outside facing wall, installed and depending on whether it is 'dot and dab' or framed out.
Underfloor insulation. Depends how you do it. My cheapskate approach is to use 100mm rockwool and a staple gun through one lifted floorboard every arm length. Slightly more tricky with a solid floor, as it may need a lift and door trimming - which can get messy, or increase other aspects of reno to compensate.
May not require both underfloor and wall insulation.
Radiators. Need 50% extra, then just replace the existing with double panel ones at perhaps £400-1000 for an entire house.
Electric water heating is normal now - well insulated tank and use Economy 7 or one of the umpteen similar tariffs. Just like the 1970s / 1980s.
I'll have give him gas boiler, though I think the "noisy heat pumps" stuff is out of date - though possible space limitations in a small terrace.. But if he puts a replacement boiler in a bit before they are banned in existing installs if he is having kittens about it, it will cover him for decades.
Uninhabitable property - true. But it's only going to take 2-3 weeks if that, between tenants. If he moves tenants out to do it then he is responsible for their accommodation. Or negotiate to do it during their extra-long-holiday-this-year in exchange for bunging them £400-500 spending money and half rent for the period.
Also if his house is cheaper to run (say bills are half of the unrenovated version) he will get a fair chunk (I use half of estd savings for a win-win) on the rent, and tenants will want to stay, so he saves on the most expensive exercise which is when tenants change.
My take.
(2/2)
Both careless imo as well as bad luck in terms of timing of switch to cycle lane.
Checked the wrong service. It is still going.
As a cyclist, I'd not be sat on the nearside back of a car like that. If the cars are doing similar speed to me, I'll be in the middle posessing the lane, more visible and obvious to the driver that Im not going to cut up the inside (and also stops idiot drivers cruising along beside you when they can't actually get the speed to overtake). Its more relaxing and safer for everyone. A cyclist just behind you on nearside is a constant distraction. If I was there on a bike, I'd be watching the car like a hawk, matching it's speed unless I was going past if it was stuck in traffic. Any brake light would have me slowing down (unless it's braking for queued traffic and there's no left turn coming up) and the cyclist should have seen the indicators and given way.
Driver has some liability as you have to make sure when turning that you're not taking someone out, even if they're being a bit of an idiot. As driver, I like to think I'd have come to a complete stop if needed, while holding position and waited for the cyclist ot either stop too or come past and then make the turn (I've done that before in similar situation and had cyclists undertake when I've got a left signal running).
Legally - I'm not sure.
ETA: Modifed view after seeing (after other comments) that it was a cycle lane. Cyclist therefore has priority in theory, so driver should give way. Main thought is that it's a really silly place to start a cycle lane what looks to be only a few metres before a turning! As a cyclist, I'd stil be doing what I described above, I think, but the driver is more culpable than I initially thought.
When I was a kid, my dad used to say something that has stuck in my mind: "He was dead right as he sped along, But he’s just as dead as if he'd been wrong."
In other words: it does not matter if you are in the 'right'; if there's a danger, do the safer option instead. Being right won't bring your life back.
Thanks to the wonders of t'Internet, I see it may have come from Dale Carnegie:
"“Here lies the body of William Jay, Who died maintaining his right of way— He was right, dead right, as he sped along, But he’s just as dead as if he were wrong.”"
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7312781-here-lies-the-body-of-william-jay-who-died-maintaining
Driving in Holland last month, you have to be so careful there, as they have cyclelanes running around the outside of roundabouts and cutting across junctions in all sorts of weird ways, and the cyclists always have priority and often take this for granted
The Indy - more a Residents Association candidate really - is a wildcard, but swept the board at the locals in May and seems to be very well established in the constituency. I just don't know whether they can scale up to a parliamentary campaign as they did so well in the locals. But a decent trading bet at current odds.
I'm cycling and see a car in front of me signal then that car is turning left across me so I am now looking for when that might be and when I come to the first left turn I let it turn.
Cycle lane? Who cares. It's half a tonne of metal telling me it's going to turn and so I let it do its thing.
But the consensus on my normal cycling site is that both got it wrong.
Driver turned across a cycle lane without checking properly (but note it had literally only just started), and indicated crazily late - 3 ticks ffs. Turning across a traffic lane without checking properly is driving without due care; he wouldn't do that across a bus lane.
But the cyclist was too close for defensive cycling, and had placed himself in the blind spot of the mirror if the driver did not have a wide angle mirror or neglected to do his shoulder check. My car has a system with a warning light in the door mirror option for this as I notice myself make this mistake when changing lanes on the motorway, once a year or so.
As explanation, I have seen a comment that the cyclist was expecting him to turn into the next road not the forecourt. That does not excuse that the cyclist should have anticipated that possibility.
So half and half. I hope that in those circs I would slow my car to walking pace, *then* do a lifesaver shoulder check, *before* turning.
The only downside with being careful is drivers will never get used to having to give way in situations like that.
That's particularly the case when crossing a side road as a pedestrian - drivers should give way, but few pedestrians will be brave enough to assert that part of the Highway Code. Much better to redesign the junctions with continuous pavements and tighter angles.
I'm unsure that's fair There was another road junction just before that one, which can lead people following to think you've just left your indicator on, or are going to go on for an age before turning. The driver also braked in plenty of time as well.
Though I'd say there should have been some provision far earlier, from before the roundabout.
I'd upgrade Miss You from good to great. Esp since it was a different sound for them. This one (like 'One Hit' in fact) is more your standard Stones r&b riff based fare, which is fine by me.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/07/23/could-jeremy-corbyn-hand-the-tories-the-london-mayoralty-next-year/
and
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/09/03/starmer-is-more-popular-than-corbyn-in-london/
But the consensus on my normal cycling site is that both got it wrong.
Driver turned across a cycle lane without checking properly (but note it had literally only just started), and indicated crazily late - 3 ticks ffs. Turning across a traffic lane without checking properly is driving without due care; he wouldn't do that across a bus lane.
But the cyclist was too close for defensive cycling, and had placed himself in the blind spot of the mirror if the driver did not have a wide angle mirror or neglected to do his shoulder check. My car has a system with a warning light in the door mirror option for this as I notice myself make this mistake when changing lanes on the motorway, once a year or so.
As explanation, I have seen a comment that the cyclist was expecting him to turn into the next road not the forecourt. That does not excuse that the cyclist should have anticipated that possibility.
So half and half. I hope that in those circs I would slow my car to walking pace, *then* do a lifesaver shoulder check, *before* turning.
"... and indicated crazily late - 3 ticks ffs"
I'm unsure that's fair There was another road junction just before that one, which can lead people following to think you've just left your indicator on, or are going to go on for an age before turning. The driver also braked in plenty of time as well.
Indicating too early is a minor fault on the driving test, IIRC. Not an immediate fail, but if you get too many, you do.
*-----------------------
(messed up the blockquotes - MattW answer to the last comment)
As I see it the timing supports my analysis. Normal MSM procedure would say 'signal before brake if there is no good reason to do otherwise', which there is not here.
Driver passes midpoint of previous sideroad at 0:22.
Brake lights on at 0:24.
First indicator flash at 0:25.
Driver turns into driveway at 0:29.
But I still go with about 50:50 fault allocation.
Or, indeed, start it earlier.
With some Puerto Rican girls that are just dyin' to meet you" I think I'd sound a bit more chuffed about it. I guess I'm not Mick Jagger.
Current poll (3rd September) C28, L44, LD14, G4, R6.
January (8th January) C26, L48, LD9, G5, R6.
GE 2019 (GB) C45, L33, LD12, G3, R2
So Conservatives slightly up, Labour down and LD up (although 14 might be an outlier).
Looking at the Red Wall polling
Latest poll (20th August) C28, L53, LD6, G4, R7
January (9th January) C29, L51, LD5, G3, R9
GE 2019 C47, L38, LD5, G1, R7
So not much change. Conservatives up a bit, Labour down a bit, LD up a bit.
Looking at the Blue Wall polling
Latest poll (27th August) C32, L33, LD25, G4, R5
January (11th January) C30, L40, LD21, G3, R6
GE 2019 C50, L21, LD27, G1, R-
Significant change - Conservatives slightly up, Labour down a lot, and LD up.
So taking this all together for movement this year, the Conservatives are up accross the patch, but not by much. Labour is retaining their votes in the Red Wall seats, but there is a material switch to the Lib Dems in the Blue Wall.
Compared with 2019 it appears to be fairly consistent swing although the movement to Labour away from the Conservatives might be greater in the Red Wall seats.
"You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them. Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist, horse rider or horse drawn vehicle going straight ahead to stop or swerve. You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary"
Therefore the car driver was clearly going against this.
However, this is an example of "should" guidance rather than "must" legal requirement. IMO the HIghway Code changes of early 22 are a disaster.
The scenario depicted in the video is one in which most drivers would feel the cyclist was at fault given that the driver was indicating and was ahead of the cyclist. Stopping to allow the cyclist to pass would be counterintuitive and would invite being rear-ended by another car. Another example of these Code changes which will be routinely ignored, because they are bonkers, is the requirement that a car turning left or right at a roundabout "should" stop if a pedestrian looks like they may want to cross the road - this would be dangerous to all concerned.
I actually think Jagger’s recent “Strange Game” theme for Slow Horses is pretty good.
Here lies John Augustus May.
He died defending his right of way.
He was right , he was right, right all along.
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
On general principles I'd say the cyclist is the more vulnerable and the motorist has to be on the look out all the time for hazards like that. The bike was behind for a while so no reason why the motorist shouldn't have picked it up earlier, especially if he/she was planning to turn left. In a 20mph zone, you kind of have to expect cyclists nipping up the inside.
In mitigation, the motorist did signal in good time and it's hard to see why the cyclist didn't spot that and stop. Not sure the cycle lane makes much difference to all this, and it is a dumb place to start one.
I'd go for 70/30 motorist/bike. Looks like a slow speed, low impact collision, so I trust nobody hurt.
Entirely the cyclist’s fault
I shall do a thread on electoral voting systems to educate you and other PBers on the joys of AV.
A man who hasn't been President (or in any position of political power) now for nearly seven years.
And followed by their own Poster Boy Trump, who didn't undo any of the 'bad things' Obama clearly did.
Like the UK in Russia, Obama lives rent free in the loony right heads.
The car accelerated to create space, indicated early and turned slowly.
He may have misjudged but he wasn’t being a dick. The cyclist took no action to slow down or manoeuvre so clearly wasn’t paying attention
1 - These Highway Code changes represent required changes in our road culture, for the sake of a safe environment. I accept that they will take time.
2 - Equally we need to change our eg routinely dangerous roundabout designs to focus first on safety, not on maximising through-speed and capacity-on-the-cheap.
Example changes that we need in our roundabouts are things like fewer parallel approach lanes, orthogonal approaches and greater directional deviation to ensure lower approach speed, adverse camber on the roundabout to slow down circulating traffic, less through visibility to make the drivers pay attention to the road where they are not dream about their exit, and others.
3 - I think a huge problem is the almost complete absence of any public information programme on the changes, and the total absence of any routine continuing education for drivers. Which leaves us with perceptions such as "I've been driving for 35 years; I don't need any more training".
At least that is what the loonies think.
Incidentally, can anyone remember the explanation of why they fulminated about Obama wearing a summer suit in summer, in Washington? Something about being badly dressed?
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4192152-migrant-crisis-will-destroy-new-york-city-mayor-says/
Date of next GE - with 2024 split into four quarters.