Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

LAB edges up in the Mid Beds betting – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,762
edited October 2023 in General
imageLAB edges up in the Mid Beds betting – politicalbetting.com

The election date is October 19th so there’s some time for movement.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • Options
    Makes sense after the poll the other day. Plenty of potential Lib Dem votes to squeeze.
  • Options
    Britain’s economy almost as weak as Argentina, warns OECD
    Expectations for UK growth downgraded as high interest rates hamper the economy

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/19/uk-economy-weak-argentina-warns-oecd/ (£££)

    Coming to a Mid-Beds leaflet near you.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,967
    edited September 2023
    Responded after the end of the thread.
    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
  • Options
    Macron to give cufflinks to Starmer while Labour leader will bring Arsenal shirt
    Labour leader to use meeting with French president to ‘attempt to get a much better deal for the UK’ with the EU

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/19/macron-cufflinks-keir-starmer-arsenal-shirt-elysee-paris/ (£££)

    Starmer rarely wears cufflinks and Macron supports Marseille.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,676
    (FPT)
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    EPG said:

    The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.

    This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.

    If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.

    More experiments, less dogma!


    Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
    I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
    At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.

    This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.

    As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.

    It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.

    A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.

    The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.

    Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
    The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.

    In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc

    This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
    You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you

    . Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example

    As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
    So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.

    That's precisely the Drake's policy!
    Read what I said

    My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial

    That is not happening here
    My little Scottish village had a 30mph limit for as long as I can remember, and for equally as long has had a major issue with cars and lorries recklessly blasting through at 60mph+. Earlier this year I saw a huge vehicle recovery lorry going way above 30 fail to make the deceptively tight turn in the middle of the village, smash through a pedestrian island, take out several signs (thankfully no people) and carry on unconcerned.

    Apparently the council, supported by all the local councillors, decided a 20 limit was the answer to this - there was some kind of 'consultation' that not a single person I know was aware of until afterward, then the 20 limit signs went up.

    So now we still have vehicles tearing through the village at high speed, but with the added danger of encountering some law-abiding resident crawling along at 20 with their eyes on the speedometer, not the road or their mirrors.
    Cruise control is surprisingly useful in keeping to urban speed limits without having to pay too much attention to the speedometer.
    Mine has a minimum of 25 MPH.
    Some cars also have the facility to set a maximum speed - which usually does not have that limit.
    Mrs DA's iX has it, but it's 6 layers deep in the menu to set it. She would have wiped out a bus stop full of school kids by the time she finished arsing about setting it.
    First discovered this when I inadvertently activated it, and couldn't understand why the car wouldn't exceed 15mph as I entered a dual carriageway.

    Oddly terrifying.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,676

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    EVs will sort that.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,769
    Sleazy Lib Dems on the slide....................
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,720
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Pulpstar said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    EPG said:

    The last person in charge to think the civil service would be better moving fast and breaking thingswas the very famous and effective reformer Liz Truss, notably sacking the head civil servant in the Treasury during her thousand hour reich.

    This 20 limit should be treated as a case of moving fast and breaking things.

    If in 6 months you can show how many lives are saved or how much time is lost you can make a decision as to whether to continue with it. It should be set up that way from the start with as little expense in signage as possible.

    More experiments, less dogma!


    Personally I'm not convinced a blanket 20 is a good thing but I can't really see the problem with it in most residential areas so lets try it and see...
    I'm not sure you can change back from 20 to 30, at least not near schools where children have become used to stepping into the road without properly looking.
    At least round here all schools have a 20 limit around them already so I don't imagine they would go back to 30 if a blanket 20 was tried and then dropped.

    This argument is really about main roads through urban areas not next to schools. I usually find 30 is too fast in a lot of residential streets regardless of the speed limit so I can't see what the objection might be there.

    As an example, I had to go to the east coast last week. There are a lot of small villages that the main road passes through and the speed limit varies between 30 in the core urban area and 40 in the outer parts with few junctions. There are occasional stretches of 50 or 60 between villages.

    It is a very similar situation crossing parts of Wales.

    A blanket 20 limit would add significant time to the journey - getting on for 50% extra. Whilst for me as a one off it wouldn't be a big deal, it risks making rural communities even more cut off than they are already. A lot of the east coast is not doing very well at all and needs better links to population centres, not worse. There is no public transport to speak of.

    The idea that this is just an 'indicator' and there is an expectation that most people will still do 30 is nuts. Creating laws that are never intended to be enforced is stupid.

    Personally I would be very happy if the road outside my house was made a 20 limit, but should I be allowed to inconvenience everyone else? I knew what the road was like when I bought the house...
    The "main road" argument is undermined by the fact that most collisions and injuries occur on those roads, as you'd expect. They have the most traffic.

    In the Scottish Borders (under the Tories) there was a conscious decision to apply the 20mph to the A roads running through the villages precisely because of the level of traffic, lorries etc

    This is as also an argument for bypassing those villages, which I'm sympathetic to, but it's a lot cheaper to apply a speed limit in the medium term than a big infrastructure project.
    You may be surprised but I do not disagree with you

    . Indeed I recall being in Dunkeld last year and this was a good example

    As far as by passes are concerned absolutely, but Drakeford has cancelled all road building in Wales including the much needed third Menai crossing
    So why are you getting so upset? You're suggesting that main and residential roads in built up areas should be 20mph.

    That's precisely the Drake's policy!
    Read what I said

    My experience in Scotland is that most villages or small towns have a 30mph lead in and then drop to 20mph in the centre which is uncontroversial

    That is not happening here
    My little Scottish village had a 30mph limit for as long as I can remember, and for equally as long has had a major issue with cars and lorries recklessly blasting through at 60mph+. Earlier this year I saw a huge vehicle recovery lorry going way above 30 fail to make the deceptively tight turn in the middle of the village, smash through a pedestrian island, take out several signs (thankfully no people) and carry on unconcerned.

    Apparently the council, supported by all the local councillors, decided a 20 limit was the answer to this - there was some kind of 'consultation' that not a single person I know was aware of until afterward, then the 20 limit signs went up.

    So now we still have vehicles tearing through the village at high speed, but with the added danger of encountering some law-abiding resident crawling along at 20 with their eyes on the speedometer, not the road or their mirrors.
    Cruise control is surprisingly useful in keeping to urban speed limits without having to pay too much attention to the speedometer.
    Mine has a minimum of 25 MPH.
    Some cars also have the facility to set a maximum speed - which usually does not have that limit.
    Mrs DA's iX has it, but it's 6 layers deep in the menu to set it. She would have wiped out a bus stop full of school kids by the time she finished arsing about setting it.
    First discovered this when I inadvertently activated it, and couldn't understand why the car wouldn't exceed 15mph as I entered a dual carriageway.

    Oddly terrifying.
    A taste of the AI controlled future when everything in your life is outside of your control.



    A bit like being married.
  • Options
    ClippPClippP Posts: 1,741
    edited September 2023

    Makes sense after the poll the other day. Plenty of potential Lib Dem votes to squeeze.

    For a start, the poll the other day was commissioned by the Labour Party.

    Besides, Labour has a ceiling. Many people, let alone disillusioned Conservatives, would never vote Labour. The Lib Dem ceiling is much higher, so if anybody is going to displace the Tories, it will be the Lib Dems.

    Value for money is now with the Lib Dems, I think.
  • Options
    So a pair of polls at the same time showing the Tories tanking. I know that "they can't possibly win a landslide" is the orthodoxy, and for good reason. But the only thing that is true in todays politics is that impossible things keep happening.

    So I can understand why Labour are pushing on in MidBeds. If they can win that then they can win any seat. The challenge for the LibDems is what do we do in response?

    It isn't my position, but increasing numbers want it. I want Sir Ed Davey to readopt rejoin as a policy, And a penny on tax for education. Then see what happens in the polls.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,627
    "India expels Canadian diplomat as Sikh murder row escalates"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-66851939
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,212
    And that’s after right wing papers and the media in general trashed Starmers migrant proposals . That’s a dreadful poll for the Tories . Looks like the hysterical scaremongering from the Daily Hate and others has had zero impact .
  • Options

    So a pair of polls at the same time showing the Tories tanking. I know that "they can't possibly win a landslide" is the orthodoxy, and for good reason. But the only thing that is true in todays politics is that impossible things keep happening.

    So I can understand why Labour are pushing on in MidBeds. If they can win that then they can win any seat. The challenge for the LibDems is what do we do in response?

    It isn't my position, but increasing numbers want it. I want Sir Ed Davey to readopt rejoin as a policy, And a penny on tax for education. Then see what happens in the polls.
    Perfectly sensible but is Davey brave enough
  • Options

    Makes sense after the poll the other day. Plenty of potential Lib Dem votes to squeeze.

    Also plenty of potential Labour votes to squeeze.
    This could come down to the campaign on the ground.
    It's obviously a fairly unusual constituency and the result could be like Brecon and Radnor 1985 (36%, 34%, 28%).
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,967
    edited September 2023
    Nigelb said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    EVs will sort that.
    Agreed, many of those issues are legacy issues, but they're real legacy issues for today.

    And if you care about the environment for example then EV at 20 or EV at 30 is clean either way. But petrol at 20 can be less clean than petrol at 30.

    Of course that's for cruising. Rapid and repeated acceleration/deceleration or stopping and starting is far worse than which speed you are doing.

    Any Council that thinks its a good idea to put a red light on a roundabout, except major ones like motorway junctions, needs to be sent on a one way rocket to Mars.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,245

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    Fuel efficiency calculations are tricky here. You need to look beyond just the headline efficiency at that speed, but the acceleration parts of the trip. It more efficient to drive smoothly at 20 than be accelerating to the next set of lights. On some roads, getting up to 30 will be more efficient, and on other roads it's better not to bother.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,245

    Nigelb said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    EVs will sort that.
    Agreed, many of those issues are legacy issues, but they're real legacy issues for today.

    And if you care about the environment for example then EV at 20 or EV at 30 is clean either way. But petrol at 20 can be less clean than petrol at 30.

    Of course that's for cruising. Rapid and repeated acceleration/deceleration or stopping and starting is far worse than which speed you are doing.

    Any Council that thinks its a good idea to put a red light on a roundabout, except major ones like motorway junctions, needs to be sent on a one way rocket to Mars.
    Uh, how fuel efficient is the Martian rocket idea?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,738
    I don't believe these polls. Tory figure way too low, Labour figure way too high.

    Lab, low forties. Tories around 30 is my bet. The margin as we speak is, in my view 10 to 12 points
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,967
    edited September 2023
    Farooq said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    Fuel efficiency calculations are tricky here. You need to look beyond just the headline efficiency at that speed, but the acceleration parts of the trip. It more efficient to drive smoothly at 20 than be accelerating to the next set of lights. On some roads, getting up to 30 will be more efficient, and on other roads it's better not to bother.
    Yes I made the red light point myself on my next post, though 30 speed limits are better for red lights than 20 ones too, if you're smart enough to realise that the speed limit is a limit not a target.

    If I'm driving at 30 and I can see ahead that my car will reach the lights on red then I will take my foot off and naturally decelerate slowly (again EVs operate differently as they'd brake by doing this) and aim to reach the light just as its turning green so I'll never stop in the first place. Can't always do it, but there's more margin for adaptability there than if you're already going slowly.
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 601
    My car pings me when I cross preset thresholds but it is up to me whether to ignore them. Very helpful in avoiding accidental speeding.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,635

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    The modern car changes gear automatically. You must have an old banger.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,245
    edited September 2023

    I don't believe these polls. Tory figure way too low, Labour figure way too high.

    Lab, low forties. Tories around 30 is my bet. The margin as we speak is, in my view 10 to 12 points
    Why do you think that? Your own research (methodology?) or finger in the air?

    For reference, the Conservative VI hasn't been above 30 since June. Every one of the last 68 polls has put them below (65 times) or on (3 times) 30%.
  • Options
    Farooq said:

    Nigelb said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    EVs will sort that.
    Agreed, many of those issues are legacy issues, but they're real legacy issues for today.

    And if you care about the environment for example then EV at 20 or EV at 30 is clean either way. But petrol at 20 can be less clean than petrol at 30.

    Of course that's for cruising. Rapid and repeated acceleration/deceleration or stopping and starting is far worse than which speed you are doing.

    Any Council that thinks its a good idea to put a red light on a roundabout, except major ones like motorway junctions, needs to be sent on a one way rocket to Mars.
    Uh, how fuel efficient is the Martian rocket idea?
    Well I planned for it being one way, so cuts off half the fuel you'd need for a round trip.

    Other destinations are available. I was going to say the sun originally, but thought I'd mix it up.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,245

    Farooq said:

    Nigelb said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    EVs will sort that.
    Agreed, many of those issues are legacy issues, but they're real legacy issues for today.

    And if you care about the environment for example then EV at 20 or EV at 30 is clean either way. But petrol at 20 can be less clean than petrol at 30.

    Of course that's for cruising. Rapid and repeated acceleration/deceleration or stopping and starting is far worse than which speed you are doing.

    Any Council that thinks its a good idea to put a red light on a roundabout, except major ones like motorway junctions, needs to be sent on a one way rocket to Mars.
    Uh, how fuel efficient is the Martian rocket idea?
    Well I planned for it being one way, so cuts off half the fuel you'd need for a round trip.

    Other destinations are available. I was going to say the sun originally, but thought I'd mix it up.
    The sun is at least downhill. And you don't even have to hit the target: anything inside Mercury's orbit is likely going to need factor 5000000 sun cream.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,720
    Farooq said:

    I don't believe these polls. Tory figure way too low, Labour figure way too high.

    Lab, low forties. Tories around 30 is my bet. The margin as we speak is, in my view 10 to 12 points
    Why do you think that? Your own research (methodology?) or finger in the air?

    For reference, the Conservative VI hasn't been above 30 since June. Every one of the last 68 polls has put them below (65 times) or on (3 times) 30%.
    Its interesting. Despite the polling evidence most experienced people on PB do not think that ON THE DAY the Tories will be that low. I think there is merit to this - polls are just polls. The only vote that counts is the one on the day of the election (or when you submit your postal vote). And most people are not that interested in politics. Wait until the campaign starts.

    But right now, if you ask people the numbers going to vote Tory look less than 30.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,635
    On Topic: I like Labour for Beds and I'm on at 3.5. This byelection is a good test of whether the Landslide is on or not. I think it is.
  • Options
    CatManCatMan Posts: 2,878

    I don't believe these polls. Tory figure way too low, Labour figure way too high.

    Lab, low forties. Tories around 30 is my bet. The margin as we speak is, in my view 10 to 12 points
    I tend to agree, but petrol prices are going up again, so maybe related to that?
  • Options
    @Nigelb fpt
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Farooq said:

    ...

    Farooq said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’
    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting
    ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.

    “He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.

    “And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..



    Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
    Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?

    And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?

    It is precisely the sort of response @Luckyguy1983 has given which explains why so many women avoid reporting sexual assaults. Because they fear having their characters attacked and being blamed for what a man has done to them.
    I think if someone is making a serious allegation, especially after a long time has elapsed, they are well advised to keep their media commentary on the alleged perpetrator to a minimum, to avoid being seen to be grinding an ideological axe. I'm not a legal eagle, but I am surprised this lady wasn't given advice along these lines by her solicitor, as it seems basic to me.

    I'm not a fan of 'disclaimers' of the 'I don't like Putin' type, as I find them rather infantile, but I'll do so here. I am not a fan of Brand; I never was. I have always found him fairly gross, and I have never seen any episodes of his Youtube, or found anything he has to say very insightful. I knew he was a pig with women, which is an extremely offputting facet of his personality. I did see an interview with him on US telly where I thought he was very funny, it was Letterman, who usually tries to be wittier than his guests, which he couldn't do with Brand in this instance.

    That all said, I am suspicious of the more serious historic allegations, and the above accuser's interview on Women's Hour doesn't serve to reassure me. These are serious crimes, and should be treated as such, not as a jumping off point for a broad career critique.
    Part of the reason these crimes (the kind Brand is accused of) are serious is that they are tied up in cultures of shame, silence, power, and coercion. Your job as a non-participant, non-witness, non-victim, is relatively simple: avoid contributing to the culture that says victims must act in this or that way or they oughtn't be believed.

    You are doing the exact opposite of that.
    I am afraid what you appear to be doing is using dubious appeals to sentiment to try and complicate a very simple concept, not just in cases of sexual abuse, but in all legal cases, that witnesses and alleged victims need to focus on giving the the jury enough evidence of the crime to convict. Taking to the airwaves to denounce the alleged perpetrator on everything except the colour of his socks does not convince this layperson (perhaps lawyers will correct me) of the seriousness of the accusation, and could imo be used by the defence. If Brand is a rapist, he should be put on trial, convicted, and given an appropriate sentence. This intervention would seem to make that less likely.
    No appeal to sentiment from me. The facts of crimes like rape and sexual assault are that victims find if difficult to come forward because of various reasons, not least the weird insistence within the culture that victims ought comport themselves in a particular way. We should avoid doing that.
    It has nothing to do with comportment, it is about there being a fair, unprejudiced trial.
    So Brand gets to sound off to all and sundry about his accusers, which is fine by you, but should any if his accusers say anything in public, any trial is prejudiced ?

    You are a berk.
    I withdraw that - Luckyguy is not a berk. He was just acting as one in this particular case.
    I don't mind being called a berk, I've been called a lot worse, but I don't think I'm being one in this case. I haven't said anything about Brand's behaviour since the story broke; I haven't read any statements that he's made, let alone defended them. I am not 'Team Brand', but I consider the passage of the Women's Hour speech above to be ill-advised, because it gives the accusation a political slant that will be a key plank of Brand's defence should any charges ever be brought.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,311
    Curse of the new thread. FPT:

    The numbers of deaths for long term exposure to air pollution in the UK are put at 28,000 to 36,000:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution

    If you say the population of Wales is 4.5% of the UK, then a straight line pro rata gives 1,260 to 1,620 Welsh deaths due to poor quality air each year.

    So to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths from RTA's from 10, the Welsh Government is risking perhaps hundreds more deaths annually from increased air pollution caused by journeys that take 50% longer and make air quality poorer for 50% longer.

    It is also worth pointing out that as every journey takes 50% longer*, the risk of a vehicle being in a collision rises too. The chance of a child running out into a car rises by 50%. Yes, the child might not be so badly injured, but it is still a significantly enhanced risk.

    * This is of course slightly less than 50% longer, because of the time taken for the vehicle to get from 20 mph to 30 mph. But the bigger point is still valid.
  • Options
    SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 6,526
    edited September 2023

    So a pair of polls at the same time showing the Tories tanking. I know that "they can't possibly win a landslide" is the orthodoxy, and for good reason. But the only thing that is true in todays politics is that impossible things keep happening.

    So I can understand why Labour are pushing on in MidBeds. If they can win that then they can win any seat. The challenge for the LibDems is what do we do in response?

    It isn't my position, but increasing numbers want it. I want Sir Ed Davey to readopt rejoin as a policy, And a penny on tax for education. Then see what happens in the polls.
    My view is that rejoin would be a crazy policy to adopt. It immediately rules out a large group of people who have only recently started considering the Lib Dems again, particularly in many of the Tory seats Lib Dems are targeting (e.g. three of their four by-election gains have been in Leave constituencies). It is an unattractive promise (even for people who rather wish we'd not left) to reopen old wounds and spend several years picking at them. And it is probably unachievable in the short to medium term, not least because EU members might not be universally keen on playing the hokey-cokey with the UK.

    The fact quite a few people say to a pollster that they'd like to be back in an ideal world doesn't overcome those problems and doesn't mean it strongly motivates those people to switch to a party with a rejoin (rather than move closer) manifesto pledge.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,753

    I don't believe these polls. Tory figure way too low, Labour figure way too high.

    Lab, low forties. Tories around 30 is my bet. The margin as we speak is, in my view 10 to 12 points
    A reminder for anyone that had forgotten that this party voted for Truss to be our PM is certainly not helpful to the Tory cause. In fact anything that reminds people of her very existence probably falls into that category.
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    The modern car changes gear automatically. You must have an old banger.
    I do, yes, I decided about eight years ago that I've no intention to buy a new petrol/diesel vehicle until I can get an electric one so I'm keeping my now 13 year old vehicle until that's either no longer an option, or I can get an electric vehicle which will hopefully be in about 12 months time.

    Though as recently as 2019 most new cars were still manual transmission and many new cars sold today are still manuals. And many people don't have new cars of course, like myself.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,245

    kinabalu said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    The modern car changes gear automatically. You must have an old banger.
    I do, yes, I decided about eight years ago that I've no intention to buy a new petrol/diesel vehicle until I can get an electric one so I'm keeping my now 13 year old vehicle until that's either no longer an option, or I can get an electric vehicle which will hopefully be in about 12 months time.

    Though as recently as 2019 most new cars were still manual transmission and many new cars sold today are still manuals. And many people don't have new cars of course, like myself.
    Your car is newer than mine!
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,211

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    Despite your Alberto Ascari levels of car control. You can't get away from the drag equation. It takes 2.25x as much energy to move your car through the air at 30mph as it does at 20mph.

    Drag Force = 1/2 x ρ x v^2 x Cd x A
  • Options

    @Nigelb fpt

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Farooq said:

    ...

    Farooq said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’
    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting
    ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.

    “He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.

    “And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..



    Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
    Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?

    And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?

    It is precisely the sort of response @Luckyguy1983 has given which explains why so many women avoid reporting sexual assaults. Because they fear having their characters attacked and being blamed for what a man has done to them.
    I think if someone is making a serious allegation, especially after a long time has elapsed, they are well advised to keep their media commentary on the alleged perpetrator to a minimum, to avoid being seen to be grinding an ideological axe. I'm not a legal eagle, but I am surprised this lady wasn't given advice along these lines by her solicitor, as it seems basic to me.

    I'm not a fan of 'disclaimers' of the 'I don't like Putin' type, as I find them rather infantile, but I'll do so here. I am not a fan of Brand; I never was. I have always found him fairly gross, and I have never seen any episodes of his Youtube, or found anything he has to say very insightful. I knew he was a pig with women, which is an extremely offputting facet of his personality. I did see an interview with him on US telly where I thought he was very funny, it was Letterman, who usually tries to be wittier than his guests, which he couldn't do with Brand in this instance.

    That all said, I am suspicious of the more serious historic allegations, and the above accuser's interview on Women's Hour doesn't serve to reassure me. These are serious crimes, and should be treated as such, not as a jumping off point for a broad career critique.
    Part of the reason these crimes (the kind Brand is accused of) are serious is that they are tied up in cultures of shame, silence, power, and coercion. Your job as a non-participant, non-witness, non-victim, is relatively simple: avoid contributing to the culture that says victims must act in this or that way or they oughtn't be believed.

    You are doing the exact opposite of that.
    I am afraid what you appear to be doing is using dubious appeals to sentiment to try and complicate a very simple concept, not just in cases of sexual abuse, but in all legal cases, that witnesses and alleged victims need to focus on giving the the jury enough evidence of the crime to convict. Taking to the airwaves to denounce the alleged perpetrator on everything except the colour of his socks does not convince this layperson (perhaps lawyers will correct me) of the seriousness of the accusation, and could imo be used by the defence. If Brand is a rapist, he should be put on trial, convicted, and given an appropriate sentence. This intervention would seem to make that less likely.
    No appeal to sentiment from me. The facts of crimes like rape and sexual assault are that victims find if difficult to come forward because of various reasons, not least the weird insistence within the culture that victims ought comport themselves in a particular way. We should avoid doing that.
    It has nothing to do with comportment, it is about there being a fair, unprejudiced trial.
    So Brand gets to sound off to all and sundry about his accusers, which is fine by you, but should any if his accusers say anything in public, any trial is prejudiced ?

    You are a berk.
    I withdraw that - Luckyguy is not a berk. He was just acting as one in this particular case.
    I don't mind being called a berk, I've been called a lot worse, but I don't think I'm being one in this case. I haven't said anything about Brand's behaviour since the story broke; I haven't read any statements that he's made, let alone defended them. I am not 'Team Brand', but I consider the passage of the Women's Hour speech above to be ill-advised, because it gives the accusation a political slant that will be a key plank of Brand's defence should any charges ever be brought.
    I think you're completely wrong as the fact a victim grows to hate a perpetrator for more than his original alleged crime is utterly unsurprising, as the prosecution would point out.

    If that would constitute "a key plank of Brand's defence" should matters ever come to court, he really is in massive trouble, as it's incredibly weak.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,751

    @Nigelb fpt

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Farooq said:

    ...

    Farooq said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’
    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting
    ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.

    “He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.

    “And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..



    Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
    Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?

    And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?

    It is precisely the sort of response @Luckyguy1983 has given which explains why so many women avoid reporting sexual assaults. Because they fear having their characters attacked and being blamed for what a man has done to them.
    I think if someone is making a serious allegation, especially after a long time has elapsed, they are well advised to keep their media commentary on the alleged perpetrator to a minimum, to avoid being seen to be grinding an ideological axe. I'm not a legal eagle, but I am surprised this lady wasn't given advice along these lines by her solicitor, as it seems basic to me.

    I'm not a fan of 'disclaimers' of the 'I don't like Putin' type, as I find them rather infantile, but I'll do so here. I am not a fan of Brand; I never was. I have always found him fairly gross, and I have never seen any episodes of his Youtube, or found anything he has to say very insightful. I knew he was a pig with women, which is an extremely offputting facet of his personality. I did see an interview with him on US telly where I thought he was very funny, it was Letterman, who usually tries to be wittier than his guests, which he couldn't do with Brand in this instance.

    That all said, I am suspicious of the more serious historic allegations, and the above accuser's interview on Women's Hour doesn't serve to reassure me. These are serious crimes, and should be treated as such, not as a jumping off point for a broad career critique.
    Part of the reason these crimes (the kind Brand is accused of) are serious is that they are tied up in cultures of shame, silence, power, and coercion. Your job as a non-participant, non-witness, non-victim, is relatively simple: avoid contributing to the culture that says victims must act in this or that way or they oughtn't be believed.

    You are doing the exact opposite of that.
    I am afraid what you appear to be doing is using dubious appeals to sentiment to try and complicate a very simple concept, not just in cases of sexual abuse, but in all legal cases, that witnesses and alleged victims need to focus on giving the the jury enough evidence of the crime to convict. Taking to the airwaves to denounce the alleged perpetrator on everything except the colour of his socks does not convince this layperson (perhaps lawyers will correct me) of the seriousness of the accusation, and could imo be used by the defence. If Brand is a rapist, he should be put on trial, convicted, and given an appropriate sentence. This intervention would seem to make that less likely.
    No appeal to sentiment from me. The facts of crimes like rape and sexual assault are that victims find if difficult to come forward because of various reasons, not least the weird insistence within the culture that victims ought comport themselves in a particular way. We should avoid doing that.
    It has nothing to do with comportment, it is about there being a fair, unprejudiced trial.
    So Brand gets to sound off to all and sundry about his accusers, which is fine by you, but should any if his accusers say anything in public, any trial is prejudiced ?

    You are a berk.
    I withdraw that - Luckyguy is not a berk. He was just acting as one in this particular case.
    I don't mind being called a berk, I've been called a lot worse, but I don't think I'm being one in this case. I haven't said anything about Brand's behaviour since the story broke; I haven't read any statements that he's made, let alone defended them. I am not 'Team Brand', but I consider the passage of the Women's Hour speech above to be ill-advised, because it gives the accusation a political slant that will be a key plank of Brand's defence should any charges ever be brought.
    Perhaps this particular accuser knows that charges will not be brought particular to her case as she was over 16 and willing?
  • Options
    Dura_Ace said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    Despite your Alberto Ascari levels of car control. You can't get away from the drag equation. It takes 2.25x as much energy to move your car through the air at 30mph as it does at 20mph.

    Drag Force = 1/2 x ρ x v^2 x Cd x A
    Yes, but that's not the only factor involved now, is it?

    As many including myself have mentioned whether you are accelerating or not matters a lot more than drag - doing 30 while cruising at 30 is far more efficient than doing 30 while ragging your vehicle from 0 to 70. You might not appreciate this fact, I understand.

    And again, gears matter. While I'm driving I typically have the real time MPG displayed on my dashboard, which I appreciate is an estimate but still a reasonable estimate. Cruising at 30 in fifth displays a better MPG than cruising at 20 in third does.
  • Options

    kinabalu said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    The modern car changes gear automatically. You must have an old banger.
    I do, yes, I decided about eight years ago that I've no intention to buy a new petrol/diesel vehicle until I can get an electric one so I'm keeping my now 13 year old vehicle until that's either no longer an option, or I can get an electric vehicle which will hopefully be in about 12 months time.

    Though as recently as 2019 most new cars were still manual transmission and many new cars sold today are still manuals. And many people don't have new cars of course, like myself.
    And cars from the 21st century are much more reliable. A car from the 1980s might be a banger after 10 years or 100k miles. A car built in 2010 should still be in pretty good nick and last another 100k and an extra 5-10 years too.

    I have never quite understood why people feel the need to spend vast sums of hard earnt so they are driving a car that is less than 3 years old.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,245

    Curse of the new thread. FPT:

    The numbers of deaths for long term exposure to air pollution in the UK are put at 28,000 to 36,000:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution

    If you say the population of Wales is 4.5% of the UK, then a straight line pro rata gives 1,260 to 1,620 Welsh deaths due to poor quality air each year.

    So to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths from RTA's from 10, the Welsh Government is risking perhaps hundreds more deaths annually from increased air pollution caused by journeys that take 50% longer and make air quality poorer for 50% longer.

    It is also worth pointing out that as every journey takes 50% longer*, the risk of a vehicle being in a collision rises too. The chance of a child running out into a car rises by 50%. Yes, the child might not be so badly injured, but it is still a significantly enhanced risk.

    * This is of course slightly less than 50% longer, because of the time taken for the vehicle to get from 20 mph to 30 mph. But the bigger point is still valid.

    Unscientific claptrap.

    For starters, the idea that lower speeds automagically increase emissions is likelier an inversion of the truth:
    https://www.20splenty.org/do_emission_increase

    As indicated in a post to Bart, there will be some roads where a higher speed might be more efficient, so I'm not being absolute about this, but cmon, you're talking crap.

    Secondly, the stuff about accidents is egregious bullshit. Stop and think about it. Parked cars take an infinite amount of time on their "journey" but the number of children they run over is (as good as) zero. Slower speeds means you're more likely to stop before you hit something in the road, not just that if you do hit it you're going slower. Use your brain.

    Lastly, not all journeys are taken on roads that change from 30 to 20. Any stretch on still-30 roads, or faster ones will destroy that 50% increase. I did a calculation on here a few days ago, late at night, for a mid-Wales journey that someone else suggested. It went from 47 to 51 minutes. That's 8.5% up.
  • Options

    Dura_Ace said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    Despite your Alberto Ascari levels of car control. You can't get away from the drag equation. It takes 2.25x as much energy to move your car through the air at 30mph as it does at 20mph.

    Drag Force = 1/2 x ρ x v^2 x Cd x A
    Yes, but that's not the only factor involved now, is it?

    As many including myself have mentioned whether you are accelerating or not matters a lot more than drag - doing 30 while cruising at 30 is far more efficient than doing 30 while ragging your vehicle from 0 to 70. You might not appreciate this fact, I understand.

    And again, gears matter. While I'm driving I typically have the real time MPG displayed on my dashboard, which I appreciate is an estimate but still a reasonable estimate. Cruising at 30 in fifth displays a better MPG than cruising at 20 in third does.
    Can't imagine what sort of horrendous car would be comfortable in 5th at 30mph.
  • Options
    FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,025
    edited September 2023

    Dura_Ace said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    Despite your Alberto Ascari levels of car control. You can't get away from the drag equation. It takes 2.25x as much energy to move your car through the air at 30mph as it does at 20mph.

    Drag Force = 1/2 x ρ x v^2 x Cd x A
    Yes, but that's not the only factor involved now, is it?

    As many including myself have mentioned whether you are accelerating or not matters a lot more than drag - doing 30 while cruising at 30 is far more efficient than doing 30 while ragging your vehicle from 0 to 70. You might not appreciate this fact, I understand.

    And again, gears matter. While I'm driving I typically have the real time MPG displayed on my dashboard, which I appreciate is an estimate but still a reasonable estimate. Cruising at 30 in fifth displays a better MPG than cruising at 20 in third does.
    Can't imagine what sort of horrendous car would be comfortable in 5th at 30mph.
    Depends on how many gears you have.

    Mine is happiest in 5th at 30mph, when not in neutral. It has a 6th and a 7th though...
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,720

    Curse of the new thread. FPT:

    The numbers of deaths for long term exposure to air pollution in the UK are put at 28,000 to 36,000:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution

    If you say the population of Wales is 4.5% of the UK, then a straight line pro rata gives 1,260 to 1,620 Welsh deaths due to poor quality air each year.

    So to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths from RTA's from 10, the Welsh Government is risking perhaps hundreds more deaths annually from increased air pollution caused by journeys that take 50% longer and make air quality poorer for 50% longer.

    It is also worth pointing out that as every journey takes 50% longer*, the risk of a vehicle being in a collision rises too. The chance of a child running out into a car rises by 50%. Yes, the child might not be so badly injured, but it is still a significantly enhanced risk.

    * This is of course slightly less than 50% longer, because of the time taken for the vehicle to get from 20 mph to 30 mph. But the bigger point is still valid.

    Its probably not as simple as that, but this is a good illustration of the complexity here. I think this is being done with good intentions (why wouldn't it be?) but I think there are valid counter arguments.

    Bath has recently introduced large 20 mph zones. Some if not most of them are not roads that really need it, and its possible to view it as part of a wider anti car agenda (make is annoying enough and people will get on the bus or train, or use the park and ride - except of course they don't they just come and moan on PB...)

    People often seem bemused that actions have unforeseen consequences. My all time favourite is mandating GP's will see patients within a certain time, leading to the GP's limiting appointments and a scramble to phone at 8 am. Miss out and the GP will not see you at all, but all appointments are within x time...
  • Options
    I did say Labour were value when Dorries did formally stand down.

    Anyhoo.

    Deltapoll Westminster VI

    LAB: 47% (+1)
    CON: 23% (-5)
    LDM: 10% (=)
    GRN: 7% (=)
    RFM: 6% (+1)
    SNP: 4% (+1)
  • Options

    Dura_Ace said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    Despite your Alberto Ascari levels of car control. You can't get away from the drag equation. It takes 2.25x as much energy to move your car through the air at 30mph as it does at 20mph.

    Drag Force = 1/2 x ρ x v^2 x Cd x A
    Yes, but that's not the only factor involved now, is it?

    As many including myself have mentioned whether you are accelerating or not matters a lot more than drag - doing 30 while cruising at 30 is far more efficient than doing 30 while ragging your vehicle from 0 to 70. You might not appreciate this fact, I understand.

    And again, gears matter. While I'm driving I typically have the real time MPG displayed on my dashboard, which I appreciate is an estimate but still a reasonable estimate. Cruising at 30 in fifth displays a better MPG than cruising at 20 in third does.
    Can't imagine what sort of horrendous car would be comfortable in 5th at 30mph.
    What's horrendous about it? Its quite sensible and efficient for your cruising gear to be capable of cruising at the most common speed limit. My previous car before this one I'd have to be in fourth, being able to be in fifth at 30 is a step forwards for me not backwards and makes the car much more efficient to drive.

    As noneoftheabove wrote above, modern cars are better designed than old cars were, so they last longer but they can also handle things prior ones couldn't.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited September 2023




    21-21 on “Personality”

    Boris used to beat Sir Keir by 30-40 points

    I struggle to see any way that the Tories can turn it round. In a GE campaign, the time when normal people/undecided’s can be swayed, a big personality could have made a difference. But they don’t have one
  • Options
    FPT:
    Mr. Pioneers, I do wonder if Musk has any idea what he bought or why people use(d) Twitter.

    Putting up a login barrier is bad enough. A paywall will just destroy it.

    Not sure if other social media has ever committed suicide.
  • Options
    FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 3,945
    edited September 2023

    Dura_Ace said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    Despite your Alberto Ascari levels of car control. You can't get away from the drag equation. It takes 2.25x as much energy to move your car through the air at 30mph as it does at 20mph.

    Drag Force = 1/2 x ρ x v^2 x Cd x A
    Yes, but that's not the only factor involved now, is it?

    As many including myself have mentioned whether you are accelerating or not matters a lot more than drag - doing 30 while cruising at 30 is far more efficient than doing 30 while ragging your vehicle from 0 to 70. You might not appreciate this fact, I understand.

    And again, gears matter. While I'm driving I typically have the real time MPG displayed on my dashboard, which I appreciate is an estimate but still a reasonable estimate. Cruising at 30 in fifth displays a better MPG than cruising at 20 in third does.
    IIRC, petrol and diesel cars are typically at their most efficient when driven at their lowest comfortable speed in top gear, typically around 40 to 50 mph. With EVs, of course, the slower the better as far as efficiency is concerned, which makes EVs fantastic for town use. Of course modern cars also have cruise controls / speed limiters which makes keeping to speed limits a doddle.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,496
    edited September 2023
    Dura_Ace said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    Despite your Alberto Ascari levels of car control. You can't get away from the drag equation. It takes 2.25x as much energy to move your car through the air at 30mph as it does at 20mph.

    Drag Force = 1/2 x ρ x v^2 x Cd x A
    Completely coincidentally reading the Haynes "manual" - actually a historical account and anatomy - of the VW Kuebelwagen and Schwimmwagen (ie the military utility versions of the KdF-Wagen, aka Beetle, for those who don't know).

    Was interested to find they had an extra gear added to the KdF design to allow the driver to cruise along at official German marching pace, so the orficer could stay at the head of his column of troops in luxury. A bit too slow for our road hogs, though. .
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWales said:
    » show previous quotes
    This is the involvement of the fire service

    https://news.sky.com/story/fire-service-staff-to-stop-speeding-motorists-in-wales-ahead-of-new-20mph-speed-limit-12931695
    How dreadful! A public agency which rescues drivers and their victims from crashes is engaged in education to prevent crashes.

    How is this different from preventing fires by educational activities, such as inspections and advice on smoke alarms?

    Especially as many crashes end in fires.

    Big G, no one is saying there is no involvement from the fire service. I was doing it years ago, and my last day in the job involved a talk at a Sixth-form college chatting to new/ learner drivers about the Fatal Four. What I'm taking issue with is your rabid assertion that this is new and that firefighters will be "enforcing" it. Even The Drake can't give firefighters the same powers as the rozzers.
  • Options

    Dura_Ace said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    Despite your Alberto Ascari levels of car control. You can't get away from the drag equation. It takes 2.25x as much energy to move your car through the air at 30mph as it does at 20mph.

    Drag Force = 1/2 x ρ x v^2 x Cd x A
    Yes, but that's not the only factor involved now, is it?

    As many including myself have mentioned whether you are accelerating or not matters a lot more than drag - doing 30 while cruising at 30 is far more efficient than doing 30 while ragging your vehicle from 0 to 70. You might not appreciate this fact, I understand.

    And again, gears matter. While I'm driving I typically have the real time MPG displayed on my dashboard, which I appreciate is an estimate but still a reasonable estimate. Cruising at 30 in fifth displays a better MPG than cruising at 20 in third does.
    Can't imagine what sort of horrendous car would be comfortable in 5th at 30mph.
    I've had several. On the flat at a steady speed you need minimal power to actually maintain that momentum. So as long as the revs are above stall speed what is the problem.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,311
    edited September 2023
    Farooq said:

    Curse of the new thread. FPT:

    The numbers of deaths for long term exposure to air pollution in the UK are put at 28,000 to 36,000:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution

    If you say the population of Wales is 4.5% of the UK, then a straight line pro rata gives 1,260 to 1,620 Welsh deaths due to poor quality air each year.

    So to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths from RTA's from 10, the Welsh Government is risking perhaps hundreds more deaths annually from increased air pollution caused by journeys that take 50% longer and make air quality poorer for 50% longer.

    It is also worth pointing out that as every journey takes 50% longer*, the risk of a vehicle being in a collision rises too. The chance of a child running out into a car rises by 50%. Yes, the child might not be so badly injured, but it is still a significantly enhanced risk.

    * This is of course slightly less than 50% longer, because of the time taken for the vehicle to get from 20 mph to 30 mph. But the bigger point is still valid.

    Unscientific claptrap.

    For starters, the idea that lower speeds automagically increase emissions is likelier an inversion of the truth:
    https://www.20splenty.org/do_emission_increase

    As indicated in a post to Bart, there will be some roads where a higher speed might be more efficient, so I'm not being absolute about this, but cmon, you're talking crap.

    Secondly, the stuff about accidents is egregious bullshit. Stop and think about it. Parked cars take an infinite amount of time on their "journey" but the number of children they run over is (as good as) zero. Slower speeds means you're more likely to stop before you hit something in the road, not just that if you do hit it you're going slower. Use your brain.

    Lastly, not all journeys are taken on roads that change from 30 to 20. Any stretch on still-30 roads, or faster ones will destroy that 50% increase. I did a calculation on here a few days ago, late at night, for a mid-Wales journey that someone else suggested. It went from 47 to 51 minutes. That's 8.5% up.
    I will generously assume you are being wilfully stupid.

    For the portion of a journey that used to be driven at 30 mph, it can now only be driven at 20 mph. Let us say it was 3 miles. It will now take 9 minutes instead of 6 minutes. That is three extra minutes the car is creating pollution; three extra minutes opportunity for a child to have a collission with it.

    I am not evangelical about keeping 30 mph limits. But to fail to address the other side of the ledger from a change is just ignoring that there are consequences.
  • Options
    And

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 44% (-1)
    CON: 24% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (-)
    GRN: 8% (+2)
    REF: 4% (+1)

    via
    @IpsosUK
    , 09 - 12 Sep
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,211

    Dura_Ace said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    Despite your Alberto Ascari levels of car control. You can't get away from the drag equation. It takes 2.25x as much energy to move your car through the air at 30mph as it does at 20mph.

    Drag Force = 1/2 x ρ x v^2 x Cd x A
    Yes, but that's not the only factor involved now, is it?

    As many including myself have mentioned whether you are accelerating or not matters a lot more than drag - doing 30 while cruising at 30 is far more efficient than doing 30 while ragging your vehicle from 0 to 70. You might not appreciate this fact, I understand.

    And again, gears matter. While I'm driving I typically have the real time MPG displayed on my dashboard, which I appreciate is an estimate but still a reasonable estimate. Cruising at 30 in fifth displays a better MPG than cruising at 20 in third does.
    Can't imagine what sort of horrendous car would be comfortable in 5th at 30mph.
    My Firebird will pull like a train from 30mph to 140mph in 5th. It also gets 11mpg and, no matter how much money I lavish on suspension parts, the live rear axle means you feel like you're about to die whenever you brake from high speed with more than 2 deg of steering input.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,335

    I did say Labour were value when Dorries did formally stand down.

    Anyhoo.

    Deltapoll Westminster VI

    LAB: 47% (+1)
    CON: 23% (-5)
    LDM: 10% (=)
    GRN: 7% (=)
    RFM: 6% (+1)
    SNP: 4% (+1)

    Dirty sleazy Tories on the slide.
  • Options
    Somebody has sent me this, thought I would appreciate it, somes up the predicament the Tories find themselves in.


  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,753
    edited September 2023
    Another national disgrace courtesy of the Home Office: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-66846891

    No doubt the Home Secretary will have tendered her resignation already, if only because of this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66855830.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Another national disgrace courtesy of the Home Office: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-66846891

    No doubt the Home Secretary will have tendered her resignation already.

    She has resigned but Rishi Sunak reappointed her minutes later.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,967
    edited September 2023

    Dura_Ace said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    Despite your Alberto Ascari levels of car control. You can't get away from the drag equation. It takes 2.25x as much energy to move your car through the air at 30mph as it does at 20mph.

    Drag Force = 1/2 x ρ x v^2 x Cd x A
    Yes, but that's not the only factor involved now, is it?

    As many including myself have mentioned whether you are accelerating or not matters a lot more than drag - doing 30 while cruising at 30 is far more efficient than doing 30 while ragging your vehicle from 0 to 70. You might not appreciate this fact, I understand.

    And again, gears matter. While I'm driving I typically have the real time MPG displayed on my dashboard, which I appreciate is an estimate but still a reasonable estimate. Cruising at 30 in fifth displays a better MPG than cruising at 20 in third does.
    IIRC, petrol and diesel cars are typically at their most efficient when driven at their lowest comfortable speed in top gear, typically around 40 to 50 mph. With EVs, of course, the slower the better as far as efficiency is concerned, which makes EVs fantastic for town use. Of course modern cars also have cruise controls / speed limiters which makes keeping to speed limits a doddle.
    Yes exactly, hence why 30 is good for me as my car does handle 30 in its top gear. Though it gets about the same fuel efficiency whether travelling 30-50mph. Below 30 (so lower gears) or above 50 the fuel efficiency drops, increasingly significantly.

    Cruise control aiding sticking to the speed limit is a good point and as many cars cruise controls have a minimum speed of 25mph that's another reason why 30 mph speed limits is better than 20mph ones. 👍
  • Options
    Stocky said:

    @Nigelb fpt

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Farooq said:

    ...

    Farooq said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    Russell Brand accuser calls his response to allegations ‘insulting’
    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/18/russell-brand-accuser-calls-his-response-to-allegations-insulting
    ...“It’s insulting,” Alice told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour on Monday. “And it’s laughable that he would even imply that this is some kind of mainstream media conspiracy. He’s not outside the mainstream – he did a Universal Pictures movie last year, he did Minions, a children’s movie.

    “He is very much part of the mainstream media, he just happens to have a YouTube channel where he talks about conspiracy theories to an audience that laps it up. And, it may sound cynical, but I do think that he was building himself an audience for years of people that would then have great distrust of any publication that came forward with allegations. He knew it was coming for a long time.

    “And then, as for him denying that anything non-consensual happened. That’s not a surprise to me. These men always deny any of the allegations brought to them – I knew he would. What he didn’t deny was that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old.”..



    Not quite sounding like an innocent victim there.
    Perhaps you could explain to us how purported victims should sound for you to consider them 'innocent' ?

    And what you mean by 'innocent' in this case ?

    It is precisely the sort of response @Luckyguy1983 has given which explains why so many women avoid reporting sexual assaults. Because they fear having their characters attacked and being blamed for what a man has done to them.
    I think if someone is making a serious allegation, especially after a long time has elapsed, they are well advised to keep their media commentary on the alleged perpetrator to a minimum, to avoid being seen to be grinding an ideological axe. I'm not a legal eagle, but I am surprised this lady wasn't given advice along these lines by her solicitor, as it seems basic to me.

    I'm not a fan of 'disclaimers' of the 'I don't like Putin' type, as I find them rather infantile, but I'll do so here. I am not a fan of Brand; I never was. I have always found him fairly gross, and I have never seen any episodes of his Youtube, or found anything he has to say very insightful. I knew he was a pig with women, which is an extremely offputting facet of his personality. I did see an interview with him on US telly where I thought he was very funny, it was Letterman, who usually tries to be wittier than his guests, which he couldn't do with Brand in this instance.

    That all said, I am suspicious of the more serious historic allegations, and the above accuser's interview on Women's Hour doesn't serve to reassure me. These are serious crimes, and should be treated as such, not as a jumping off point for a broad career critique.
    Part of the reason these crimes (the kind Brand is accused of) are serious is that they are tied up in cultures of shame, silence, power, and coercion. Your job as a non-participant, non-witness, non-victim, is relatively simple: avoid contributing to the culture that says victims must act in this or that way or they oughtn't be believed.

    You are doing the exact opposite of that.
    I am afraid what you appear to be doing is using dubious appeals to sentiment to try and complicate a very simple concept, not just in cases of sexual abuse, but in all legal cases, that witnesses and alleged victims need to focus on giving the the jury enough evidence of the crime to convict. Taking to the airwaves to denounce the alleged perpetrator on everything except the colour of his socks does not convince this layperson (perhaps lawyers will correct me) of the seriousness of the accusation, and could imo be used by the defence. If Brand is a rapist, he should be put on trial, convicted, and given an appropriate sentence. This intervention would seem to make that less likely.
    No appeal to sentiment from me. The facts of crimes like rape and sexual assault are that victims find if difficult to come forward because of various reasons, not least the weird insistence within the culture that victims ought comport themselves in a particular way. We should avoid doing that.
    It has nothing to do with comportment, it is about there being a fair, unprejudiced trial.
    So Brand gets to sound off to all and sundry about his accusers, which is fine by you, but should any if his accusers say anything in public, any trial is prejudiced ?

    You are a berk.
    I withdraw that - Luckyguy is not a berk. He was just acting as one in this particular case.
    I don't mind being called a berk, I've been called a lot worse, but I don't think I'm being one in this case. I haven't said anything about Brand's behaviour since the story broke; I haven't read any statements that he's made, let alone defended them. I am not 'Team Brand', but I consider the passage of the Women's Hour speech above to be ill-advised, because it gives the accusation a political slant that will be a key plank of Brand's defence should any charges ever be brought.
    Perhaps this particular accuser knows that charges will not be brought particular to her case as she was over 16 and willing?
    It seems that that's a possibility. The accusation is just an extra rotten tomato to hurl at Brand.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,496

    Big_G_NorthWales said:
    » show previous quotes
    This is the involvement of the fire service

    https://news.sky.com/story/fire-service-staff-to-stop-speeding-motorists-in-wales-ahead-of-new-20mph-speed-limit-12931695
    How dreadful! A public agency which rescues drivers and their victims from crashes is engaged in education to prevent crashes.

    How is this different from preventing fires by educational activities, such as inspections and advice on smoke alarms?

    Especially as many crashes end in fires.

    Big G, no one is saying there is no involvement from the fire service. I was doing it years ago, and my last day in the job involved a talk at a Sixth-form college chatting to new/ learner drivers about the Fatal Four. What I'm taking issue with is your rabid assertion that this is new and that firefighters will be "enforcing" it. Even The Drake can't give firefighters the same powers as the rozzers.

    At this rate the Mallard might as well give them the powers, as it would make no difference at all to what every Tory in Wales seems to swear with hand on heart.

    They're always going on about not enough police, anyway, so what's not to like?
  • Options
    France and Germany have tabled a plan for an “inner circle” of countries willing to sign up to radical EU integration in a blueprint that includes a new outer tier of membership for “even the UK”.

    The paper comes as Sir Keir Starmer is in Paris to meet President Macron for talks on Labour’s plan to bring Britain closer to the EU if he wins the next election.

    Macron is known to be a strong supporter of the associate membership proposal, which a diplomatic source said is crafted to appeal to a future Labour government. EU leaders will begin talks on deeper integration and streamlined decision-making, with a target date of 2030 to allow the bloc to enlarge eastwards to include Ukraine and the Western Balkans.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-german-plan-for-eu-inner-circle-with-membership-for-uk-pkhn5vsmm
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,364

    Farooq said:

    Curse of the new thread. FPT:

    The numbers of deaths for long term exposure to air pollution in the UK are put at 28,000 to 36,000:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution

    If you say the population of Wales is 4.5% of the UK, then a straight line pro rata gives 1,260 to 1,620 Welsh deaths due to poor quality air each year.

    So to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths from RTA's from 10, the Welsh Government is risking perhaps hundreds more deaths annually from increased air pollution caused by journeys that take 50% longer and make air quality poorer for 50% longer.

    It is also worth pointing out that as every journey takes 50% longer*, the risk of a vehicle being in a collision rises too. The chance of a child running out into a car rises by 50%. Yes, the child might not be so badly injured, but it is still a significantly enhanced risk.

    * This is of course slightly less than 50% longer, because of the time taken for the vehicle to get from 20 mph to 30 mph. But the bigger point is still valid.

    Unscientific claptrap.

    For starters, the idea that lower speeds automagically increase emissions is likelier an inversion of the truth:
    https://www.20splenty.org/do_emission_increase

    As indicated in a post to Bart, there will be some roads where a higher speed might be more efficient, so I'm not being absolute about this, but cmon, you're talking crap.

    Secondly, the stuff about accidents is egregious bullshit. Stop and think about it. Parked cars take an infinite amount of time on their "journey" but the number of children they run over is (as good as) zero. Slower speeds means you're more likely to stop before you hit something in the road, not just that if you do hit it you're going slower. Use your brain.

    Lastly, not all journeys are taken on roads that change from 30 to 20. Any stretch on still-30 roads, or faster ones will destroy that 50% increase. I did a calculation on here a few days ago, late at night, for a mid-Wales journey that someone else suggested. It went from 47 to 51 minutes. That's 8.5% up.
    I will generously assume you are being wilfully stupid.

    For the portion of a journey that used to be driven at 30 mph, it can now only be driven at 20 mph. Let us say it was 3 miles. It will now take 9 minutes instead of 6 minutes. That is three extra minutes the car is creating pollution; three extra minutes opportunity for a child to have a collission with it.

    I am not evangelical about keeping 30 mph limits. But to fail to address the other side of the ledger from a change is just ignoring that there are consequences.
    "Three extra minutes opportunity to hit a child"

    Justification for doing 100mph, I suppose. This debate is getting increasingly entertaining.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,635

    kinabalu said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    The modern car changes gear automatically. You must have an old banger.
    I do, yes, I decided about eight years ago that I've no intention to buy a new petrol/diesel vehicle until I can get an electric one so I'm keeping my now 13 year old vehicle until that's either no longer an option, or I can get an electric vehicle which will hopefully be in about 12 months time.

    Though as recently as 2019 most new cars were still manual transmission and many new cars sold today are still manuals. And many people don't have new cars of course, like myself.
    Ah ok. Although I had the same car for 30 years till Ulez forced me to change it last year and it was still auto. Manual feels quite exotic to me. What do you have btw? Is it a Hillman Imp?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,335
    edited September 2023

    And

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 44% (-1)
    CON: 24% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (-)
    GRN: 8% (+2)
    REF: 4% (+1)

    via
    @IpsosUK
    , 09 - 12 Sep

    Are we at the point yet, near the anniversary of her brief period at the top, where Truss outpolls Sunak?
  • Options

    Dura_Ace said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    Despite your Alberto Ascari levels of car control. You can't get away from the drag equation. It takes 2.25x as much energy to move your car through the air at 30mph as it does at 20mph.

    Drag Force = 1/2 x ρ x v^2 x Cd x A
    Yes, but that's not the only factor involved now, is it?

    As many including myself have mentioned whether you are accelerating or not matters a lot more than drag - doing 30 while cruising at 30 is far more efficient than doing 30 while ragging your vehicle from 0 to 70. You might not appreciate this fact, I understand.

    And again, gears matter. While I'm driving I typically have the real time MPG displayed on my dashboard, which I appreciate is an estimate but still a reasonable estimate. Cruising at 30 in fifth displays a better MPG than cruising at 20 in third does.
    IIRC, petrol and diesel cars are typically at their most efficient when driven at their lowest comfortable speed in top gear, typically around 40 to 50 mph. With EVs, of course, the slower the better as far as efficiency is concerned, which makes EVs fantastic for town use. Of course modern cars also have cruise controls / speed limiters which makes keeping to speed limits a doddle.
    Yes exactly, hence why 30 is good for me as my car does handle 30 in its top gear. Though it gets about the same fuel efficiency whether travelling 30-50mph. Below 30 (so lower gears) or above 50 the fuel efficiency drops, increasingly significantly.

    Cruise control aiding sticking to the speed limit is a good point and as many cars cruise controls have a minimum speed of 25mph that's another reason why 30 mph speed limits is better than 20mph ones. 👍
    Cruise controls might be limited to 25 mph, but I don't think speed limiters are.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,364
    edited September 2023
    No expert, but my Higher Physics would suggest that more speed = much more drag (as per DA's fornula), and getting to that speed requires much more energy (velocity is squared, right?).

    So are we suggesting something about the gearing on cars completely offsets these two effects?
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    The modern car changes gear automatically. You must have an old banger.
    I do, yes, I decided about eight years ago that I've no intention to buy a new petrol/diesel vehicle until I can get an electric one so I'm keeping my now 13 year old vehicle until that's either no longer an option, or I can get an electric vehicle which will hopefully be in about 12 months time.

    Though as recently as 2019 most new cars were still manual transmission and many new cars sold today are still manuals. And many people don't have new cars of course, like myself.
    Ah ok. Although I had the same car for 30 years till Ulez forced me to change it last year and it was still auto. Manual feels quite exotic to me. What do you have btw? Is it a Hillman Imp?
    Kia Ceed.

    When I bought it, it had a 7 year warranty, which at the time was quite unusual other cars still had a 3 year warranty.

    Very well built vehicle, so no reason not to still be driving it.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,496
    Eabhal said:

    No expert, but my Higher Physics would suggest that more speed = much more drag (as per DA's fornula), and getting to that speed requires much more energy (velocity is squared, right?).

    So are we suggesting something about the gearing on cars completely offsets these two effects?

    Also don't forget friction because the tyres deform as they pass along the road, and heat loss caused by hysteresis of the tyre rubber (not quite the same thing).
  • Options
    RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,988
    Foxy said:

    I did say Labour were value when Dorries did formally stand down.

    Anyhoo.

    Deltapoll Westminster VI

    LAB: 47% (+1)
    CON: 23% (-5)
    LDM: 10% (=)
    GRN: 7% (=)
    RFM: 6% (+1)
    SNP: 4% (+1)

    Dirty sleazy Tories on the slide.
    You can see a Tory opposition now - lurching further to the right, obsessed with Brexit, all things woke etc.

    I reckon it’ll be a long period in opposition. And probably a well deserved one
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    France and Germany have tabled a plan for an “inner circle” of countries willing to sign up to radical EU integration in a blueprint that includes a new outer tier of membership for “even the UK”.

    The paper comes as Sir Keir Starmer is in Paris to meet President Macron for talks on Labour’s plan to bring Britain closer to the EU if he wins the next election.

    Macron is known to be a strong supporter of the associate membership proposal, which a diplomatic source said is crafted to appeal to a future Labour government. EU leaders will begin talks on deeper integration and streamlined decision-making, with a target date of 2030 to allow the bloc to enlarge eastwards to include Ukraine and the Western Balkans.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-german-plan-for-eu-inner-circle-with-membership-for-uk-pkhn5vsmm

    If something like that had been offered to Cameron a great deal of unpleasantness might have been avoided.
    Something like that was offered to Cameron.
  • Options
    Eabhal said:

    No expert, but my Higher Physics would suggest that more speed = much more drag (as per DA's fornula), and getting to that speed requires much more energy (velocity is squared, right?).

    So are we suggesting something about the gearing on cars completely offsets these two effects?

    Eabhal said:

    No expert, but my Higher Physics would suggest that more speed = much more drag (as per DA's fornula), and getting to that speed requires much more energy (velocity is squared, right?).

    So are we suggesting something about the gearing on cars completely offsets these two effects?

    Yes.

    Suggesting the gears matters, does indeed suggest that the gearing matters.

    I imagine its the same with bikes too. All but the most basic have different gears too, don't they? Cycling in one gear while at a speed you're maintaining, does that require a different amount of effort than accelerating from a standing start to that speed?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,496
    Eabhal said:

    No expert, but my Higher Physics would suggest that more speed = much more drag (as per DA's fornula), and getting to that speed requires much more energy (velocity is squared, right?).

    So are we suggesting something about the gearing on cars completely offsets these two effects?

    Also kinetic energy at 30mph is 9 x that at 10 mph and 9/4 that at 20mph. So zooming up and down between traffic lights loses most of that at 30mph, much more economical at 20, plus if you don;t need to keep stopping and accelerating anyway ...
  • Options
    FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 3,945
    edited September 2023
    Eabhal said:

    No expert, but my Higher Physics would suggest that more speed = much more drag (as per DA's fornula), and getting to that speed requires much more energy (velocity is squared, right?).

    So are we suggesting something about the gearing on cars completely offsets these two effects?

    ICEs are at their most efficient when running within a specific rev range and under a specific load. While the drag is less at lower speeds than around 45 mph, the engine also delivers power less efficiently.
  • Options

    Farooq said:

    I don't believe these polls. Tory figure way too low, Labour figure way too high.

    Lab, low forties. Tories around 30 is my bet. The margin as we speak is, in my view 10 to 12 points
    Why do you think that? Your own research (methodology?) or finger in the air?

    For reference, the Conservative VI hasn't been above 30 since June. Every one of the last 68 polls has put them below (65 times) or on (3 times) 30%.
    Its interesting. Despite the polling evidence most experienced people on PB do not think that ON THE DAY the Tories will be that low. I think there is merit to this - polls are just polls. The only vote that counts is the one on the day of the election (or when you submit your postal vote). And most people are not that interested in politics. Wait until the campaign starts.

    But right now, if you ask people the numbers going to vote Tory look less than 30.
    The Tories won the 2010GE by 7.2pp. There were only four polls in all of 2009 that had the lead at 7pp or lower.

    The Tories won the 2015GE by 6.6pp. In all of 2014 the largest poll lead for the then Tory government was 3pp (twice).

    So, well, obviously swingback to the government happens. We should expect some swingback to happen. But how much? And from what baseline?

    Well, those are the judgements that make people money. But, "not enough" and "from too far behind" would seem to be pretty solid answers to start with.

    The smallest poll lead for Labour so far this year is 10pp. I guess the Tory optimists can make the case for only losing by 6pp - but even that wouldn't be enough to deny Labour a majority.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,753

    DavidL said:

    France and Germany have tabled a plan for an “inner circle” of countries willing to sign up to radical EU integration in a blueprint that includes a new outer tier of membership for “even the UK”.

    The paper comes as Sir Keir Starmer is in Paris to meet President Macron for talks on Labour’s plan to bring Britain closer to the EU if he wins the next election.

    Macron is known to be a strong supporter of the associate membership proposal, which a diplomatic source said is crafted to appeal to a future Labour government. EU leaders will begin talks on deeper integration and streamlined decision-making, with a target date of 2030 to allow the bloc to enlarge eastwards to include Ukraine and the Western Balkans.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-german-plan-for-eu-inner-circle-with-membership-for-uk-pkhn5vsmm

    If something like that had been offered to Cameron a great deal of unpleasantness might have been avoided.
    Something like that was offered to Cameron.
    Not according to my understanding. The "deal" he got from Merkel was an embarrassment to the remain camp throughout the campaign.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,278

    Dura_Ace said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    Despite your Alberto Ascari levels of car control. You can't get away from the drag equation. It takes 2.25x as much energy to move your car through the air at 30mph as it does at 20mph.

    Drag Force = 1/2 x ρ x v^2 x Cd x A
    Yes, but that's not the only factor involved now, is it?

    As many including myself have mentioned whether you are accelerating or not matters a lot more than drag - doing 30 while cruising at 30 is far more efficient than doing 30 while ragging your vehicle from 0 to 70. You might not appreciate this fact, I understand.

    And again, gears matter. While I'm driving I typically have the real time MPG displayed on my dashboard, which I appreciate is an estimate but still a reasonable estimate. Cruising at 30 in fifth displays a better MPG than cruising at 20 in third does.
    IIRC, petrol and diesel cars are typically at their most efficient when driven at their lowest comfortable speed in top gear, typically around 40 to 50 mph. With EVs, of course, the slower the better as far as efficiency is concerned, which makes EVs fantastic for town use. Of course modern cars also have cruise controls / speed limiters which makes keeping to speed limits a doddle.
    Yes exactly, hence why 30 is good for me as my car does handle 30 in its top gear. Though it gets about the same fuel efficiency whether travelling 30-50mph. Below 30 (so lower gears) or above 50 the fuel efficiency drops, increasingly significantly.

    Cruise control aiding sticking to the speed limit is a good point and as many cars cruise controls have a minimum speed of 25mph that's another reason why 30 mph speed limits is better than 20mph ones. 👍
    Cruise controls might be limited to 25 mph, but I don't think speed limiters are.
    My speed limiter goes down to 30km/h, which is just under 20mph. I guess it would be 20mph if I set it to miles.

    Traditional cruise control at town speed is a bad idea, although a lot of modern cars do have “active cruise” which starts and stops with the car in front.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,038
    I'm still driving my 22 year old BMW. It's ULEZ compliant and knows me so well that it basically drives itself. Sometimes all the way to the west coast of Ireland. I just sit back. Not a problem. About 30 mpg.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    France and Germany have tabled a plan for an “inner circle” of countries willing to sign up to radical EU integration in a blueprint that includes a new outer tier of membership for “even the UK”.

    The paper comes as Sir Keir Starmer is in Paris to meet President Macron for talks on Labour’s plan to bring Britain closer to the EU if he wins the next election.

    Macron is known to be a strong supporter of the associate membership proposal, which a diplomatic source said is crafted to appeal to a future Labour government. EU leaders will begin talks on deeper integration and streamlined decision-making, with a target date of 2030 to allow the bloc to enlarge eastwards to include Ukraine and the Western Balkans.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-german-plan-for-eu-inner-circle-with-membership-for-uk-pkhn5vsmm

    If something like that had been offered to Cameron a great deal of unpleasantness might have been avoided.
    Something like that was offered to Cameron.
    Not according to my understanding. The "deal" he got from Merkel was an embarrassment to the remain camp throughout the campaign.
    Yes it was, but it is also probably much like what Macron is thinking for the "outer ring" idea, because leopards don't tend to change their spots.
  • Options
    AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,004
    edited September 2023
    DavidL said:

    France and Germany have tabled a plan for an “inner circle” of countries willing to sign up to radical EU integration in a blueprint that includes a new outer tier of membership for “even the UK”.

    The paper comes as Sir Keir Starmer is in Paris to meet President Macron for talks on Labour’s plan to bring Britain closer to the EU if he wins the next election.

    Macron is known to be a strong supporter of the associate membership proposal, which a diplomatic source said is crafted to appeal to a future Labour government. EU leaders will begin talks on deeper integration and streamlined decision-making, with a target date of 2030 to allow the bloc to enlarge eastwards to include Ukraine and the Western Balkans.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-german-plan-for-eu-inner-circle-with-membership-for-uk-pkhn5vsmm

    If something like that had been offered to Cameron a great deal of unpleasantness might have been avoided.
    Quite right. Brexit was won on the back of immigration. A sensible EU in 2015/16 should have realised that they needed to find a reasonable compromise. They are now battling with massive immigration issues themselves. Hopefully also seeing the situation in Ukraine right now they may now have realised that there are far more important matters where the UK and the EU have a lot in common.
  • Options
    Civic and joyous?

    AN SNP politician was embroiled in a foul-mouthed rammy on social media about the behaviour of Rangers fans and the Tartan Army.

    James Dornan branded one opponent a “f*****g moron” with a “blow-up girlfriend”, and called another a “Union Jock” amid a furious back-and-forth with anonymous trolls.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,364

    Eabhal said:

    No expert, but my Higher Physics would suggest that more speed = much more drag (as per DA's fornula), and getting to that speed requires much more energy (velocity is squared, right?).

    So are we suggesting something about the gearing on cars completely offsets these two effects?

    Eabhal said:

    No expert, but my Higher Physics would suggest that more speed = much more drag (as per DA's fornula), and getting to that speed requires much more energy (velocity is squared, right?).

    So are we suggesting something about the gearing on cars completely offsets these two effects?

    Yes.

    Suggesting the gears matters, does indeed suggest that the gearing matters.

    I imagine its the same with bikes too. All but the most basic have different gears too, don't they? Cycling in one gear while at a speed you're maintaining, does that require a different amount of effort than accelerating from a standing start to that speed?
    Certainly takes exponentially more effort to maintain 30kph than 10kph, whatever sexy groupset you have.

    Otherwise the Tour de France wouldn't be quite so impressive.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,627
    O/T

    "Rolf Degen
    @DegenRolf

    All over the world, the more affluent people showed more pro-social behavior. https://psyarxiv.com/zc5a3/"

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1703776185878978900
  • Options

    kinabalu said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    The modern car changes gear automatically. You must have an old banger.
    I do, yes, I decided about eight years ago that I've no intention to buy a new petrol/diesel vehicle until I can get an electric one so I'm keeping my now 13 year old vehicle until that's either no longer an option, or I can get an electric vehicle which will hopefully be in about 12 months time.

    Though as recently as 2019 most new cars were still manual transmission and many new cars sold today are still manuals. And many people don't have new cars of course, like myself.
    And cars from the 21st century are much more reliable. A car from the 1980s might be a banger after 10 years or 100k miles. A car built in 2010 should still be in pretty good nick and last another 100k and an extra 5-10 years too.

    I have never quite understood why people feel the need to spend vast sums of hard earnt so they are driving a car that is less than 3 years old.
    Well... Sometimes it's more complicated than that. The older VW diesel engines from before a couple of decades or so ago will last more miles than newer engines. This is because the newer engines run at a higher temperature to reduce noxious emissions, and that wears the engine out more quickly.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,364
    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    No expert, but my Higher Physics would suggest that more speed = much more drag (as per DA's fornula), and getting to that speed requires much more energy (velocity is squared, right?).

    So are we suggesting something about the gearing on cars completely offsets these two effects?

    Also kinetic energy at 30mph is 9 x that at 10 mph and 9/4 that at 20mph. So zooming up and down between traffic lights loses most of that at 30mph, much more economical at 20, plus if you don;t need to keep stopping and accelerating anyway ...
    Perhaps physics is different in Wales.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,278

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    France and Germany have tabled a plan for an “inner circle” of countries willing to sign up to radical EU integration in a blueprint that includes a new outer tier of membership for “even the UK”.

    The paper comes as Sir Keir Starmer is in Paris to meet President Macron for talks on Labour’s plan to bring Britain closer to the EU if he wins the next election.

    Macron is known to be a strong supporter of the associate membership proposal, which a diplomatic source said is crafted to appeal to a future Labour government. EU leaders will begin talks on deeper integration and streamlined decision-making, with a target date of 2030 to allow the bloc to enlarge eastwards to include Ukraine and the Western Balkans.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-german-plan-for-eu-inner-circle-with-membership-for-uk-pkhn5vsmm

    If something like that had been offered to Cameron a great deal of unpleasantness might have been avoided.
    Something like that was offered to Cameron.
    Not according to my understanding. The "deal" he got from Merkel was an embarrassment to the remain camp throughout the campaign.
    Yes it was, but it is also probably much like what Macron is thinking for the "outer ring" idea, because leopards don't tend to change their spots.
    The devil is always in the detail.

    Two simple questions to Macron:
    1. Regulatory alignment or regulatory equivalence, in both goods and services?
    2. Freedom of movement of people, yes/no?
  • Options
    FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 3,945
    edited September 2023
    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    No expert, but my Higher Physics would suggest that more speed = much more drag (as per DA's fornula), and getting to that speed requires much more energy (velocity is squared, right?).

    So are we suggesting something about the gearing on cars completely offsets these two effects?

    Also kinetic energy at 30mph is 9 x that at 10 mph and 9/4 that at 20mph. So zooming up and down between traffic lights loses most of that at 30mph, much more economical at 20, plus if you don;t need to keep stopping and accelerating anyway ...
    In heavy traffic, lower speed limits can, rather unintuitively, also increase the rate of traffic flow. This is because the stopping distances are also reduced, which means that gaps between cars are shorter and so more cars pass a given point within a given time. And the traffic also flows more steadily, resulting in better economy and less pollution.
  • Options
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    No expert, but my Higher Physics would suggest that more speed = much more drag (as per DA's fornula), and getting to that speed requires much more energy (velocity is squared, right?).

    So are we suggesting something about the gearing on cars completely offsets these two effects?

    Eabhal said:

    No expert, but my Higher Physics would suggest that more speed = much more drag (as per DA's fornula), and getting to that speed requires much more energy (velocity is squared, right?).

    So are we suggesting something about the gearing on cars completely offsets these two effects?

    Yes.

    Suggesting the gears matters, does indeed suggest that the gearing matters.

    I imagine its the same with bikes too. All but the most basic have different gears too, don't they? Cycling in one gear while at a speed you're maintaining, does that require a different amount of effort than accelerating from a standing start to that speed?
    Certainly takes exponentially more effort to maintain 30kph than 10kph, whatever sexy groupset you have.

    Otherwise the Tour de France wouldn't be quite so impressive.
    Well yes, because its a bike not a car, so of course it does. So scale accordingly.

    Just as in a car it takes exponentially more effort to maintain 100 mph than 50mph, even if 50mph is more fuel efficient than 20 mph.

    There tends to be with these things a 'sweet spot' where maintaining momentum requires minimal effort.

    If you cruise at roughly 10kph (or whatever else you cruise at) is that easier or harder than getting from 0 to 10kph.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,496
    Eabhal said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    No expert, but my Higher Physics would suggest that more speed = much more drag (as per DA's fornula), and getting to that speed requires much more energy (velocity is squared, right?).

    So are we suggesting something about the gearing on cars completely offsets these two effects?

    Also kinetic energy at 30mph is 9 x that at 10 mph and 9/4 that at 20mph. So zooming up and down between traffic lights loses most of that at 30mph, much more economical at 20, plus if you don;t need to keep stopping and accelerating anyway ...
    Perhaps physics is different in Wales.
    Like rabbits and cakes.
  • Options
    Million Scottish people missing from electoral register

    Only 81% of eligible voters were registered north of the border last year — the lowest proportion in the UK


    Up to one million people in Scotland are missing from the electoral register or incorrectly registered, meaning almost a fifth of the electorate are ineligible to vote.

    Young people, private renters and those who have recently moved home are most likely to be affected, according to research.

    The study found that proportionally fewer eligible voters in Scotland were registered compared with other parts of the UK.

    The Electoral Commission, an independent body which oversees elections and commissioned the research, warned the system needed “urgent reforms” to allow people to register more easily.

    It suggested that registration could be automated if the Passport Office shared its data directly with electoral registration officers, or if registration were integrated as part of university enrolment or application for driving licences.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/one-million-scottish-people-missing-from-electoral-register-2vk8qggll
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118


    Sone people were victim blaming as early as 2015. I wonder if O’Brien is actually capable of self awareness.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,402

    Farooq said:

    Curse of the new thread. FPT:

    The numbers of deaths for long term exposure to air pollution in the UK are put at 28,000 to 36,000:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution

    If you say the population of Wales is 4.5% of the UK, then a straight line pro rata gives 1,260 to 1,620 Welsh deaths due to poor quality air each year.

    So to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths from RTA's from 10, the Welsh Government is risking perhaps hundreds more deaths annually from increased air pollution caused by journeys that take 50% longer and make air quality poorer for 50% longer.

    It is also worth pointing out that as every journey takes 50% longer*, the risk of a vehicle being in a collision rises too. The chance of a child running out into a car rises by 50%. Yes, the child might not be so badly injured, but it is still a significantly enhanced risk.

    * This is of course slightly less than 50% longer, because of the time taken for the vehicle to get from 20 mph to 30 mph. But the bigger point is still valid.

    Unscientific claptrap.

    For starters, the idea that lower speeds automagically increase emissions is likelier an inversion of the truth:
    https://www.20splenty.org/do_emission_increase

    As indicated in a post to Bart, there will be some roads where a higher speed might be more efficient, so I'm not being absolute about this, but cmon, you're talking crap.

    Secondly, the stuff about accidents is egregious bullshit. Stop and think about it. Parked cars take an infinite amount of time on their "journey" but the number of children they run over is (as good as) zero. Slower speeds means you're more likely to stop before you hit something in the road, not just that if you do hit it you're going slower. Use your brain.

    Lastly, not all journeys are taken on roads that change from 30 to 20. Any stretch on still-30 roads, or faster ones will destroy that 50% increase. I did a calculation on here a few days ago, late at night, for a mid-Wales journey that someone else suggested. It went from 47 to 51 minutes. That's 8.5% up.
    I will generously assume you are being wilfully stupid.

    For the portion of a journey that used to be driven at 30 mph, it can now only be driven at 20 mph. Let us say it was 3 miles. It will now take 9 minutes instead of 6 minutes. That is three extra minutes the car is creating pollution; three extra minutes opportunity for a child to have a collission with it.

    I am not evangelical about keeping 30 mph limits. But to fail to address the other side of the ledger from a change is just ignoring that there are consequences.
    I like this argument! A car journey is a journey between two points. If the aim is to reduce the probability of injury, then what combination of speed and time would do this? IIUC the probability of child injury scales linearly to time, but non-linearly to speed. So doubling the journey time and halving the speed is not neutral.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,635

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    The modern car changes gear automatically. You must have an old banger.
    I do, yes, I decided about eight years ago that I've no intention to buy a new petrol/diesel vehicle until I can get an electric one so I'm keeping my now 13 year old vehicle until that's either no longer an option, or I can get an electric vehicle which will hopefully be in about 12 months time.

    Though as recently as 2019 most new cars were still manual transmission and many new cars sold today are still manuals. And many people don't have new cars of course, like myself.
    Ah ok. Although I had the same car for 30 years till Ulez forced me to change it last year and it was still auto. Manual feels quite exotic to me. What do you have btw? Is it a Hillman Imp?
    Kia Ceed.

    When I bought it, it had a 7 year warranty, which at the time was quite unusual other cars still had a 3 year warranty.

    Very well built vehicle, so no reason not to still be driving it.
    Kia Ceed. Ok. I have a red Golf GTI now. Let's see if we can spot each other on the M1 at some point.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,311
    Eabhal said:

    Farooq said:

    Curse of the new thread. FPT:

    The numbers of deaths for long term exposure to air pollution in the UK are put at 28,000 to 36,000:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution

    If you say the population of Wales is 4.5% of the UK, then a straight line pro rata gives 1,260 to 1,620 Welsh deaths due to poor quality air each year.

    So to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths from RTA's from 10, the Welsh Government is risking perhaps hundreds more deaths annually from increased air pollution caused by journeys that take 50% longer and make air quality poorer for 50% longer.

    It is also worth pointing out that as every journey takes 50% longer*, the risk of a vehicle being in a collision rises too. The chance of a child running out into a car rises by 50%. Yes, the child might not be so badly injured, but it is still a significantly enhanced risk.

    * This is of course slightly less than 50% longer, because of the time taken for the vehicle to get from 20 mph to 30 mph. But the bigger point is still valid.

    Unscientific claptrap.

    For starters, the idea that lower speeds automagically increase emissions is likelier an inversion of the truth:
    https://www.20splenty.org/do_emission_increase

    As indicated in a post to Bart, there will be some roads where a higher speed might be more efficient, so I'm not being absolute about this, but cmon, you're talking crap.

    Secondly, the stuff about accidents is egregious bullshit. Stop and think about it. Parked cars take an infinite amount of time on their "journey" but the number of children they run over is (as good as) zero. Slower speeds means you're more likely to stop before you hit something in the road, not just that if you do hit it you're going slower. Use your brain.

    Lastly, not all journeys are taken on roads that change from 30 to 20. Any stretch on still-30 roads, or faster ones will destroy that 50% increase. I did a calculation on here a few days ago, late at night, for a mid-Wales journey that someone else suggested. It went from 47 to 51 minutes. That's 8.5% up.
    I will generously assume you are being wilfully stupid.

    For the portion of a journey that used to be driven at 30 mph, it can now only be driven at 20 mph. Let us say it was 3 miles. It will now take 9 minutes instead of 6 minutes. That is three extra minutes the car is creating pollution; three extra minutes opportunity for a child to have a collission with it.

    I am not evangelical about keeping 30 mph limits. But to fail to address the other side of the ledger from a change is just ignoring that there are consequences.
    "Three extra minutes opportunity to hit a child"

    Justification for doing 100mph, I suppose. This debate is getting increasingly entertaining.
    Well, if we want to be absurd, then if all cars travelled just below the speed of light, the risk of any collisions would be tiny, as the journey times would be to all intents and purposes instant.

    But if there was a collision, man, it would release some energy....
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Responded after the end of the thread.

    Farooq said:

    I don't have cruise control and I don't have a max speed limiter. I have zero problems driving in places like Edinburgh where the limit is 20mph on almost all roads, and can still look where I'm going.

    Am I some kind of driving savant? I don't think I am. Why are people pretending it's difficult?

    It depends on the car. Many cars are designed to work better at certain speeds than others.

    My car if I'm at 20 then I need to be in third gear to maintain that and in third gear minor changes in foot pressure (or slope of the ground) can lead to accelerating or decelerating.

    If I'm at 30 then I can cruise (with or without cruise control) in fifth gear and minor slope/pressure changes don't result in sudden speed changes. Indeed if exiting a 30 and going to National Speed Limit then may need to drop down from fifth to fourth in order to rapidly accelerate.

    Bigger issue is the fuel efficiency. Cruising at 30 in fifth is far more fuel efficient than at 20 in third, in my vehicle at least.
    The modern car changes gear automatically. You must have an old banger.
    I do, yes, I decided about eight years ago that I've no intention to buy a new petrol/diesel vehicle until I can get an electric one so I'm keeping my now 13 year old vehicle until that's either no longer an option, or I can get an electric vehicle which will hopefully be in about 12 months time.

    Though as recently as 2019 most new cars were still manual transmission and many new cars sold today are still manuals. And many people don't have new cars of course, like myself.
    Ah ok. Although I had the same car for 30 years till Ulez forced me to change it last year and it was still auto. Manual feels quite exotic to me. What do you have btw? Is it a Hillman Imp?
    Kia Ceed.

    When I bought it, it had a 7 year warranty, which at the time was quite unusual other cars still had a 3 year warranty.

    Very well built vehicle, so no reason not to still be driving it.
    Kia Ceed. Ok. I have a red Golf GTI now. Let's see if we can spot each other on the M1 at some point.
    If you're ever on the M6 it would be more likely.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,364
    viewcode said:

    Farooq said:

    Curse of the new thread. FPT:

    The numbers of deaths for long term exposure to air pollution in the UK are put at 28,000 to 36,000:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution

    If you say the population of Wales is 4.5% of the UK, then a straight line pro rata gives 1,260 to 1,620 Welsh deaths due to poor quality air each year.

    So to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths from RTA's from 10, the Welsh Government is risking perhaps hundreds more deaths annually from increased air pollution caused by journeys that take 50% longer and make air quality poorer for 50% longer.

    It is also worth pointing out that as every journey takes 50% longer*, the risk of a vehicle being in a collision rises too. The chance of a child running out into a car rises by 50%. Yes, the child might not be so badly injured, but it is still a significantly enhanced risk.

    * This is of course slightly less than 50% longer, because of the time taken for the vehicle to get from 20 mph to 30 mph. But the bigger point is still valid.

    Unscientific claptrap.

    For starters, the idea that lower speeds automagically increase emissions is likelier an inversion of the truth:
    https://www.20splenty.org/do_emission_increase

    As indicated in a post to Bart, there will be some roads where a higher speed might be more efficient, so I'm not being absolute about this, but cmon, you're talking crap.

    Secondly, the stuff about accidents is egregious bullshit. Stop and think about it. Parked cars take an infinite amount of time on their "journey" but the number of children they run over is (as good as) zero. Slower speeds means you're more likely to stop before you hit something in the road, not just that if you do hit it you're going slower. Use your brain.

    Lastly, not all journeys are taken on roads that change from 30 to 20. Any stretch on still-30 roads, or faster ones will destroy that 50% increase. I did a calculation on here a few days ago, late at night, for a mid-Wales journey that someone else suggested. It went from 47 to 51 minutes. That's 8.5% up.
    I will generously assume you are being wilfully stupid.

    For the portion of a journey that used to be driven at 30 mph, it can now only be driven at 20 mph. Let us say it was 3 miles. It will now take 9 minutes instead of 6 minutes. That is three extra minutes the car is creating pollution; three extra minutes opportunity for a child to have a collission with it.

    I am not evangelical about keeping 30 mph limits. But to fail to address the other side of the ledger from a change is just ignoring that there are consequences.
    I like this argument! A car journey is a journey between two points. If the aim is to reduce the probability of injury, then what combination of speed and time would do this? IIUC the probability of child injury scales linearly to time, but non-linearly to speed. So doubling the journey time and halving the speed is not neutral.
    0mph. The rest of time.
This discussion has been closed.