In a world full of evils, I can say - without hyperbole - that there is nothing I despise more than my Hewlett Packard printer
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
Do you not have a plan with HP. I pay them 99p a month and they monitor my ink levels and when it gets to a certain level they send me new ones. I don't print a lot but a great service and hassle free.
“Instant ink”. What a faff. Wait til they send you their “upgraded” cartridges (unasked) which don’t fit and make an already wanky printer chuck a total mental
Anyway. Its over. I’ve just unboxed the new canon printer and as I did I TOLD the hewlett packard printer that I was replacing it with a “younger, better looking” printer
I know I know: gratuitously cruel. But fuck it. This is after years of passive aggressive abuse from the HP printer. Its lucky I haven’t poisoned it
It seems the Lib Dems are performing better than labour, and if I was a betting person (which I am not) I would be betting on a Lib Dem gain in Mid Bedfordshire
Colchester was Lib Dem at a parliamentary level within the last decade. Lib Dems have always been competitive here.
In a world full of evils, I can say - without hyperbole - that there is nothing I despise more than my Hewlett Packard printer
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
Do you not have a plan with HP. I pay them 99p a month and they monitor my ink levels and when it gets to a certain level they send me new ones. I don't print a lot but a great service and hassle free.
“Instant ink”. What a faff. Wait til they send you their “upgraded” cartridges (unasked) which don’t fit and make an already wanky printer chuck a total mental
Anyway. Its over. I’ve just unboxed the new canon printer and as I did I TOLD the hewlett packard printer that I was replacing it with a “younger, better looking” printer
I know I know: gratuitously cruel. But fuck it. This is after years of passive aggressive abuse from the HP printer. Its lucky I haven’t poisoned it
My last Canon was shit forever , pages jammed constantly , this wireless HP has been impeccable, never fails and I got 5 year warranty and 1 year's free ink. Just started paying the massive £0.99 a month now and great not having to run about looking for shops that have the correct cartridge at great cost etc.
It seems the Lib Dems are performing better than labour, and if I was a betting person (which I am not) I would be betting on a Lib Dem gain in Mid Bedfordshire
Honestly don’t waste your hypothetical money. It’s demographically wrong. See all elections passim. If the Tories don’t squeak it, Labour will gain it.
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
But as Cookie points out, if the requirement to wear a helmet puts people off cycling, you could end up losing more lives (through lack of exercise, etc.) than you save. Not everyone is going for it on the curves. I usually wear a helmet, but will sometimes not bother if just riding gently in the park or suchlike. I think recommend but not mandate is the best approach.
Yup- on many UK streets, helmets are wise; I wear one when I'm going down the shops and my children are pretty well-trained from that point of view. But not because they're the best way of improving safety, but they're the only one I can control.
And some places have entered the doom loop where streets are seen as too dangerous for people to use, so children have to be driven everywhere, so the streets are busier and more dangerous... With the side effect that @NerysHughes points out.
(Similarly, people having big cars because it makes them safer, even if it increases the risk for everyone else.)
Useful servants they may be, but cars are lousy masters. A bit like Dominic Cummings or Alistair Campbell.
I think helmets, high vis, 1000 lumen lights also contribute to that doom loop.
The cyclists people see on the road look like they are going into war. Hardly the positive, carefree, relaxed vibe you get in Europe, where cycling is normal.
After a number of pedestrians were killed by drivers in Glasgow, Police Scotland advised people to wear high vis while they were just walking round the city. Victim blaming arseholes.
Agreed. The "dressed for combat" look is counterproductive. I wear a big straw hat, and carry flowers in my front basket.
Then, when I pull out the hammer and break the wing mirror of the white van at the lights, they are always surprised.
I find the flat palm of the hand against the side of a van, or the roof of a car, is both personally satisfying, and (to the vehicle's driver) absolutely terrifying.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
Well if I was going out for a ride which involved descending the Pennines at 30mph, I'd wear a helmet. If, however, I am pootling the 1km to the leisure centre at an unhurried 10mph or so, perhaps not. And the majority of the cycling, and the vast majority of the potential cycling which doesn't cycle at the moment, falls into the second category.
You can easily cause yourself a head injury - even a serious one -cycling at 10MPH.
Would you wear a seatbelt in your car when 'pootling along' at 10 MPH?
Do you wear a helmet when running?
A fair number of parkrunners manage a 10mph pace. Is that what you would recommend for them? It's absurd.
Aside from the drivers, cycling isn't so dangerous that it requires a helmet. I never wore a helmet when skiing. I even broke my leg skiing, but it never occurred to me to wear a helmet. I only wear a helmet cycling because of having to mix it with dangerous car traffic.
No, but I almost always wear a hat of some description. And I don't go anywhere near a 10MPH pace (I wish!). In addition, when running you have your hands free to ease any fall - as I've found out in the past. On a bike, you often get catapulted, depending on the type of accident.
And besides, 10MPH is pretty much the top level (above the top level) for many runners - ir's a 37min 10k, or in the top few percent of speed for runners in an event. It's at the low end for most cyclists.
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
I'd always advise someone to wear a helmet, including my friends and PBers.
But it's funny how every conversation on PB about cycling turns into "must wear helmets", rather than providing safe cycling provision or cracking down on dangerous driving. Classic transfer of responsibility to the vulnerable.
More drivers die from head injuries each year than cyclists, but I don't hear any calls for them to have helmets on.
It seems the Lib Dems are performing better than labour, and if I was a betting person (which I am not) I would be betting on a Lib Dem gain in Mid Bedfordshire
Honestly don’t waste your hypothetical money. It’s demographically wrong. See all elections passim. If the Tories don’t squeak it, Labour will gain it.
It seems the Lib Dems are performing better than labour, and if I was a betting person (which I am not) I would be betting on a Lib Dem gain in Mid Bedfordshire
In a world full of evils, I can say - without hyperbole - that there is nothing I despise more than my Hewlett Packard printer
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
When else are they supposed to run out of ink, or go wrong?
Its like asking why your keys are always in the last place you look.
But it's like getting in your car and finding out that 50% of the time it won't start, or has no petrol, or needs to be reconnected to your fucking microwave or something
Just PHENOMENALLY unreliable
Anyway I've had enough. I'm off to Argos to buy a replacement - Canon. HP can go fuck themselves, with their "instant ink programme"
I might actually smash the old one out of sheer revenge, teach HP a lesson, then stamp on the bits and laugh
All Printers Are Bastards.
The biggest among which are those which will only run via some sort of subscription arrangement - like the instant ink programme you so rightly lament.
We have some HP job. Spent hours trying to get the laptops to talk to it wirelessly. Gave up in the end: if we need to print something else, we just plug the printers USB cable into the computer in question like God intended. (Our family is slightly odd; I have been a tech refusenik since my 20s; my Dad delights in tech and in being able to do things remotely that really don't need to be done remotely like change the settings on the fountain in his pond).
Weirdly, however, it prints off entirely happily from my daughter's phone (and possibly from other phones too, though I've never felt the need to print something off from a phone). I have also accidentally printed something off on my home printer when I've been at work and very definitely not plugged into the printer.
Having access to a serviced A3 colour laser printer scanner, which has functioned without incident for several years, is one of the very few advantages of going in to an office for work.
It would cost Leon a lot less to own than a car - and he could probably set it off against tax. A *knapper* of his means ought to consider it.
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
The figures I can find show that the Dutch age group that cycle least, the over-75s, cycle as far as the average Briton does in a year in just 45 days. So that age group cycles about eight times further than the average Briton, and all other age groups cycle further. Some, a lot further.
In a world full of evils, I can say - without hyperbole - that there is nothing I despise more than my Hewlett Packard printer
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
When else are they supposed to run out of ink, or go wrong?
Its like asking why your keys are always in the last place you look.
But it's like getting in your car and finding out that 50% of the time it won't start, or has no petrol, or needs to be reconnected to your fucking microwave or something
Just PHENOMENALLY unreliable
Anyway I've had enough. I'm off to Argos to buy a replacement - Canon. HP can go fuck themselves, with their "instant ink programme"
I might actually smash the old one out of sheer revenge, teach HP a lesson, then stamp on the bits and laugh
All Printers Are Bastards.
The biggest among which are those which will only run via some sort of subscription arrangement - like the instant ink programme you so rightly lament.
We have some HP job. Spent hours trying to get the laptops to talk to it wirelessly. Gave up in the end: if we need to print something else, we just plug the printers USB cable into the computer in question like God intended. (Our family is slightly odd; I have been a tech refusenik since my 20s; my Dad delights in tech and in being able to do things remotely that really don't need to be done remotely like change the settings on the fountain in his pond).
Weirdly, however, it prints off entirely happily from my daughter's phone (and possibly from other phones too, though I've never felt the need to print something off from a phone). I have also accidentally printed something off on my home printer when I've been at work and very definitely not plugged into the printer.
Having access to a serviced A3 colour laser printer scanner, which has functioned without incident for several years, is one of the very few advantages of going in to an office for work.
It would cost Leon a lot less to own than a car - and he could probably set it off against tax. A *knapper* of his means ought to consider it.
Certainly relying on an inkjet when you’re away from home a lot is foolish; they just gum up if they’re not used regularly. A laser printer is def the way to go.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
But as Cookie points out, if the requirement to wear a helmet puts people off cycling, you could end up losing more lives (through lack of exercise, etc.) than you save. Not everyone is going for it on the curves. I usually wear a helmet, but will sometimes not bother if just riding gently in the park or suchlike. I think recommend but not mandate is the best approach.
That's one heck of a big conditional. And it's not just about saving lives: it's about preventing head injuries that may not kill.
It's not that big a conditional. There is indeed evidence of bicycle use falling substantially following the introduction of helmet mandates, as this article explains (among other things):
There are also other effects that have already been mentioned, such as the tendency of drivers to pass helmeted cyclists more closely. All in all, the issue is nowhere near as clear-cut as you seem to presume.
It seems the Lib Dems are performing better than labour, and if I was a betting person (which I am not) I would be betting on a Lib Dem gain in Mid Bedfordshire
Honestly don’t waste your hypothetical money. It’s demographically wrong. See all elections passim. If the Tories don’t squeak it, Labour will gain it.
There’s a lot of building in the Highwoods area.
I think the LibDems might have had a shout, if not for the independent picking up a lot of the lapsed Tory vote in the largest commuter town, which might have fallen to them.
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
Also the evidence for the claim that helmets reduces cycling seems to be very thin and weak indeed. A lot of it based on some dodgy studies in Australia that didn't control for confounding variables, other studies have found no relationship between helmet mandates and cycling rates.
Really, if you're not a braindead moron you should understand your head is your bodies most important element and protect it.
The worst attitude is people who act like wearing a helmet is "for children" or "childish" or that they're "more cool" to not be wearing one. Same ludicrous peer pressure that encourages people to take up vaping/smoking - and just as stupid.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
But as Cookie points out, if the requirement to wear a helmet puts people off cycling, you could end up losing more lives (through lack of exercise, etc.) than you save. Not everyone is going for it on the curves. I usually wear a helmet, but will sometimes not bother if just riding gently in the park or suchlike. I think recommend but not mandate is the best approach.
That's one heck of a big conditional. And it's not just about saving lives: it's about preventing head injuries that may not kill.
It's not that big a conditional. There is indeed evidence of bicycle use falling substantially following the introduction of helmet mandates, as this article explains (among other things):
There are also other effects that have already been mentioned, such as the tendency of drivers to pass helmeted cyclists more closely. All in all, the issue is nowhere near as clear-cut as you seem to presume.
"...such as the tendency of drivers to pass helmeted cyclists more closely."
I believe that claim is based on a somewhat b/s study. Certainly it requires some rather strong evidence.
I've just complained to the BBC (not that they will take any notice, but one has to try).
I had "Today" on this morning, and heard Mishal Husain interviewing Rachel Reeves. She allowed Reeves to get away completely unchallenged with the whopper that "of course electricity is a lot cheaper than gas, petrol or diesel". whist discussing the Climate Targets.
I put some numbers in my complaint to the BBC, pointing out that gas is under a third of the price of electricity per unit, and a typical domestic heat-pump is going to do well to manage 300% real world efficiency*.
I also pointed out that electric cars are around 10p/mile from normal rate electric, and 15-25p/mile from public chargers (based on 3kWh/mile), whilst my diesel car is 14p a mile and half of that is tax rather than actual fuel cost.
I suppose running an electric car is probably lots cheaper than running W12 Bentley Flying Spur (20mpg on a good day), but Reeve's claim was either stunning ignorance or a barfaced lie. Sunak is a stupid lying oaf, but frankly he's a fount of honesty compared to the other lot if this sort of thing is typical.
*People think heat pumps save them money because they combine installation with extra insulation and a really well matched central heating setup - in reality they would mostly get the same saving without bothering the with heat-pump part of the package.
Ye Gods. The Luddism on PB is out of this world. I’m amazed people don’t write to Mike and demand he moves PB to quill and ink correspondence.
How the holy moley do these people string a life together?
Not wanting phone companies to have your financial info isn't luddism it's sensibilism.
They don't – this stuff is trivialbly googleable – and has been discussed at length on here.
When you use Apple Pay on your iPhone or Apple Watch to confirm a purchase from your Mac in Safari, your Mac and the authorising device communicate over an encrypted channel via Apple servers. Apple doesn’t retain any of this information in a form that personally identifies you.
...neither Apple nor your device sends your actual payment card number.
Starmer needs to stop apologizing for his attempts to have a closer relationship with the EU .
Not sure whose advising him but they’re not doing a good job. He should be framing the argument as re-working the Brexit deal to help lower prices for hardworking families by reducing red tape .
He really should be making a positive argument here .
The ignorance about simply technology in daily use by millions is absolutely astounding, right here on PB. I am amazed these tin hatters are even willing to use That Internet.
Leon’s printer frustrations - a surely universal experience - are surely coming to an EV near you?
I think Rishi is crap, and the abandoned deadline disappointing, but we are witnessing “enshittification” across many of our digital services, and how else are EV manufacturers going to make incremental revenue given how long the batteries last?
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
Also the evidence for the claim that helmets reduces cycling seems to be very thin and weak indeed. A lot of it based on some dodgy studies in Australia that didn't control for confounding variables, other studies have found no relationship between helmet mandates and cycling rates.
Really, if you're not a braindead moron you should understand your head is your bodies most important element and protect it.
The worst attitude is people who act like wearing a helmet is "for children" or "childish" or that they're "more cool" to not be wearing one. Same ludicrous peer pressure that encourages people to take up vaping/smoking - and just as stupid.
I'm looking forward to you bringing this new-found fervour for cyclist safety to LTNs, 20mph, segregated cycle lanes and the reduction of car use in all urban areas.
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
The figures I can find show that the Dutch age group that cycle least, the over-75s, cycle as far as the average Briton does in a year in just 45 days. So that age group cycles about eight times further than the average Briton, and all other age groups cycle further. Some, a lot further.
Yup, JJ's "belief" that Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK is way off the mark. According to this article, for example, Dutch people cycle over 10 times as far as British people do, and have less than half the number of fatalities per kilometre than we do:
Ye Gods. The Luddism on PB is out of this world. I’m amazed people don’t write to Mike and demand he moves PB to quill and ink correspondence.
How the holy moley do these people string a life together?
Not wanting phone companies to have your financial info isn't luddism it's sensibilism.
They don't – this stuff is trivialbly googleable – and has been discussed at length on here.
When you use Apple Pay on your iPhone or Apple Watch to confirm a purchase from your Mac in Safari, your Mac and the authorising device communicate over an encrypted channel via Apple servers. Apple doesn’t retain any of this information in a form that personally identifies you.
an 'encrypted channel'. How gullible do you think i am?
It seems the Lib Dems are performing better than labour, and if I was a betting person (which I am not) I would be betting on a Lib Dem gain in Mid Bedfordshire
Maybe get your percentage changes correct first?
Think they're right, compared with the May 2023 elections- Colchester does it by thirds.
The Labour seat that fell was won by them in a close by election in December 2022.
If anyone really wants to do some statistical straw clutching, look at that improvement in the Conservative share.
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
I'd always advise someone to wear a helmet, including my friends and PBers.
But it's funny how every conversation on PB about cycling turns into "must wear helmets", rather than providing safe cycling provision or cracking down on dangerous driving. Classic transfer of responsibility to the vulnerable.
More drivers die from head injuries each year than cyclists, but I don't hear any calls for them to have helmets on.
Not sure which PB you are reading. Mine always ends up with we should be like the Netherlands and cycle everywhere on roads designed for two wheels, but if those injury rates are correct, maybe not.
Don’t know much about the We Think pollsters but their poll conducted after Sunaks man of the people broadcast shows no change in terms of Labour lead . Stays at 17 points .
Quite surprised by this .
A clear majority 59% do support the delay from 2030 to 2035 so that area could be troublesome for Labour unless they can mitigate likely Tory attack lines .
The ignorance about simply technology in daily use by millions is absolutely astounding, right here on PB. I am amazed these tin hatters are even willing to use That Internet.
Scary stuff.
You shoudn't make assumptions. I have some crypto coin assets, but I would never use my phone to access them.
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
The figures I can find show that the Dutch age group that cycle least, the over-75s, cycle as far as the average Briton does in a year in just 45 days. So that age group cycles about eight times further than the average Briton, and all other age groups cycle further. Some, a lot further.
Yup, JJ's "belief" that Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK is way off the mark. According to this article, for example, Dutch people cycle over 10 times as far as British people do, and have less than half the number of fatalities per kilometre than we do:
I'm surprised it's as little as 10x. Possibly because UK cyclists do big social rides (100k etc), or cycle tours, while the Dutch do lots of small 5k commutes?
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
Also the evidence for the claim that helmets reduces cycling seems to be very thin and weak indeed. A lot of it based on some dodgy studies in Australia that didn't control for confounding variables, other studies have found no relationship between helmet mandates and cycling rates.
Really, if you're not a braindead moron you should understand your head is your bodies most important element and protect it.
The worst attitude is people who act like wearing a helmet is "for children" or "childish" or that they're "more cool" to not be wearing one. Same ludicrous peer pressure that encourages people to take up vaping/smoking - and just as stupid.
I'm looking forward to you bringing this new-found fervour for cyclist safety to LTNs, 20mph, segregated cycle lanes and the reduction of car use in all urban areas.
There is absolutely zero reason whatsoever to support either 20mph or the reduction of car use in urban areas. If someone is cycling on a segregated cycle path then who cares if roads are 30mph or 40mph?
I completely and 100% support segregated cycle lanes and LTNs and completely and wholeheartedly support the investment in new roads that makes that possible.
I've been advocating that investment more than you.
Ye Gods. The Luddism on PB is out of this world. I’m amazed people don’t write to Mike and demand he moves PB to quill and ink correspondence.
How the holy moley do these people string a life together?
Not wanting phone companies to have your financial info isn't luddism it's sensibilism.
They don't – this stuff is trivialbly googleable – and has been discussed at length on here.
When you use Apple Pay on your iPhone or Apple Watch to confirm a purchase from your Mac in Safari, your Mac and the authorising device communicate over an encrypted channel via Apple servers. Apple doesn’t retain any of this information in a form that personally identifies you.
an 'encrypted channel'. How gullible do you think i am?
How do you string a life together? Do you never use cards – cash only for everything you do?
The cycling helmets debate is a classic example of where individual freedom comes up against safety: "I want the freedom not to wear a helmet" versus "I don't want you to injure yourself".
Witness car seatbelts, where some people still insist on not wearing them, even though non-seatbelt wearers make up about a quarter of car occupant fatalities (1).
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
The figures I can find show that the Dutch age group that cycle least, the over-75s, cycle as far as the average Briton does in a year in just 45 days. So that age group cycles about eight times further than the average Briton, and all other age groups cycle further. Some, a lot further.
Yup, JJ's "belief" that Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK is way off the mark. According to this article, for example, Dutch people cycle over 10 times as far as British people do, and have less than half the number of fatalities per kilometre than we do:
I'm surprised it's as little as 10x. Possibly because UK cyclists do big social rides (100k etc), or cycle tours, while the Dutch do lots of small 5k commutes?
That plus the Dutch do lots of popping-round-the-corner via bike.
It’s not that they hate cars - they simply use them for longer journeys, and those that require carrying multiple people and/or significant loads.
At least, that’s my experience of the Netherlands.
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
The figures I can find show that the Dutch age group that cycle least, the over-75s, cycle as far as the average Briton does in a year in just 45 days. So that age group cycles about eight times further than the average Briton, and all other age groups cycle further. Some, a lot further.
Yup, JJ's "belief" that Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK is way off the mark. According to this article, for example, Dutch people cycle over 10 times as far as British people do, and have less than half the number of fatalities per kilometre than we do:
I'm surprised it's as little as 10x. Possibly because UK cyclists do big social rides (100k etc), or cycle tours, while the Dutch do lots of small 5k commutes?
Of course the Netherlands is also as flat as a pancake so we will never be 'like them', its geographically impossible. English towns and cities tend to be built on hilly areas unlike the Netherlands.
Australia has higher cycling rates than the UK and hills and helmet mandates.
It seems the Lib Dems are performing better than labour, and if I was a betting person (which I am not) I would be betting on a Lib Dem gain in Mid Bedfordshire
Maybe get your percentage changes correct first?
Actually, they are correct, when comparing to May 2023, when the LibDems won this ward for the first time. But the seat defended was from May 2022, when Labour won.
It seems the Lib Dems are performing better than labour, and if I was a betting person (which I am not) I would be betting on a Lib Dem gain in Mid Bedfordshire
Maybe get your percentage changes correct first?
Think they're right, compared with the May 2023 elections- Colchester does it by thirds.
The Labour seat that fell was won by them in a close by election in December 2022.
If anyone really wants to do some statistical straw clutching, look at that improvement in the Conservative share.
As I posted earlier, there’s been a lot of building in that area. Very fancy some of it.
Ye Gods. The Luddism on PB is out of this world. I’m amazed people don’t write to Mike and demand he moves PB to quill and ink correspondence.
How the holy moley do these people string a life together?
Not wanting phone companies to have your financial info isn't luddism it's sensibilism.
They don't – this stuff is trivialbly googleable – and has been discussed at length on here.
When you use Apple Pay on your iPhone or Apple Watch to confirm a purchase from your Mac in Safari, your Mac and the authorising device communicate over an encrypted channel via Apple servers. Apple doesn’t retain any of this information in a form that personally identifies you.
an 'encrypted channel'. How gullible do you think i am?
How do you string a life together? Do you never use cards – cash only for everything you do?
Given that most phones have a software-security-update lifetime measured in only a few years, it's actually very expensive to buy a new phone every few years just because of that, if the thing is [e3dit] otherwise working and functional for one's needs. We don't all want a phone that does everything from tell you where you are to wiping your bum and spraying perfume around the offending area.
It seems the Lib Dems are performing better than labour, and if I was a betting person (which I am not) I would be betting on a Lib Dem gain in Mid Bedfordshire
Maybe get your percentage changes correct first?
That's why I don't bet but over recent locals the lib dems are performing the best as far as I can tell
The cycling helmets debate is a classic example of where individual freedom comes up against safety: "I want the freedom not to wear a helmet" versus "I don't want you to injure yourself".
Witness car seatbelts, where some people still insist on not wearing them, even though non-seatbelt wearers make up about a quarter of car occupant fatalities (1).
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
Also the evidence for the claim that helmets reduces cycling seems to be very thin and weak indeed. A lot of it based on some dodgy studies in Australia that didn't control for confounding variables, other studies have found no relationship between helmet mandates and cycling rates.
Really, if you're not a braindead moron you should understand your head is your bodies most important element and protect it.
The worst attitude is people who act like wearing a helmet is "for children" or "childish" or that they're "more cool" to not be wearing one. Same ludicrous peer pressure that encourages people to take up vaping/smoking - and just as stupid.
I'm looking forward to you bringing this new-found fervour for cyclist safety to LTNs, 20mph, segregated cycle lanes and the reduction of car use in all urban areas.
There is absolutely zero reason whatsoever to support either 20mph or the reduction of car use in urban areas. If someone is cycling on a segregated cycle path then who cares if roads are 30mph or 40mph?
I completely and 100% support segregated cycle lanes and LTNs and completely and wholeheartedly support the investment in new roads that makes that possible.
I've been advocating that investment more than you.
Aye, only after you've spent £1 trillion on roads ploughing through our towns and cities. An impossible condition.
No one believes you have any interest in cycling or walking provision at all. A risible charade.
The Lib Dems apparently will promise 5 billion a year for social care . A good policy and certainly will put the frighteners on the Tories in those Tory Lib Dem marginals.
Off topic, but may help some to understand American politics:
What has been striking me even more strongly in recent days is how our “mainstream” journalists are — in effect — backing Trump. The amount of time and space they give to him is far in excess of the total given to all the other candidates. (I believe the same was true in 2016.)
So far I have seen the following from other candidates: 1. A TV ad from Doug Burgum 2. Part of a speech from Nikki Haley on Fox Live. 3. Part of an interview with Asa Hutchinson on Fox Live. (All three were quite good.)
And that’s it.
(To be fair, I have not watched the news programs on major networks for years, and don’t plan to start watching them now. I read the NYT only once a week (Tuesday) and the Seattle Times only on Sunday — but I read the WaPo on line every day. And I look through the MS$ Edge aggregation, Mediaite, and Memeorandum every day.
(Cross posted at Patterico's. I perhaps should add that hostile coverage from "mainstream" sources probably helps Trump, net.)
Don’t know much about the We Think pollsters but their poll conducted after Sunaks man of the people broadcast shows no change in terms of Labour lead . Stays at 17 points .
Quite surprised by this .
A clear majority 59% do support the delay from 2030 to 2035 so that area could be troublesome for Labour unless they can mitigate likely Tory attack lines .
I suspect the whole issue is way down the list of most people's priorities - way below stuff like: feed the kids, heat the home, pay the mortgage/rent, don't get ill...
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
The figures I can find show that the Dutch age group that cycle least, the over-75s, cycle as far as the average Briton does in a year in just 45 days. So that age group cycles about eight times further than the average Briton, and all other age groups cycle further. Some, a lot further.
Yup, JJ's "belief" that Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK is way off the mark. According to this article, for example, Dutch people cycle over 10 times as far as British people do, and have less than half the number of fatalities per kilometre than we do:
"The cumulative distance the Dutch cycle is around 15 billion kilometres. Some sources say it is a bit less, others claim it is well over that figure" (1),. Looking into ti further, (3) has it at 17.6 billion km
For the UK, it is between 3.5 and 4.2 billion miles, with 5.3 billion miles in 2020. 5.3 billion miles is 8.5 billion km, so about half the Dutch figure. Even if we take the lower 3.5 billion mile figure, that's 5.6 billion km, or above a third of the Dutch figure.
I linked to my source for the injuries figures earlier.
The cycling helmets debate is a classic example of where individual freedom comes up against safety: "I want the freedom not to wear a helmet" versus "I don't want you to injure yourself".
Witness car seatbelts, where some people still insist on not wearing them, even though non-seatbelt wearers make up about a quarter of car occupant fatalities (1).
I don't think we can have a sensible discussion over the merits, or otherwise, of helmet-wearing when the number one and number two causes of death and injury to cyclists are not addressed (those being the lack of cycling infrastructure and dangerous driving).
It comes across as victim-blaming, particularly when most cyclists in Britain already do wear helmets, and most cyclists in countries where cycling is more normal (such as the Netherlands or Denmark) do not.
It feels a lot like an avoidance technique. Avoiding doing anything about the real problem by talking about a pretend one.
The cycling helmets debate is a classic example of where individual freedom comes up against safety: "I want the freedom not to wear a helmet" versus "I don't want you to injure yourself".
Witness car seatbelts, where some people still insist on not wearing them, even though non-seatbelt wearers make up about a quarter of car occupant fatalities (1).
Once again, I can mention that my wife is a coroner's officer, and before that was a traffic police officer. I can't remember in which role she dealt with the single-vehicle accident where one back seat occupant, not wearing a seatbelt, killed themselves and all the three other people in the car. It took a devil of a time, but they could match up specific injury sites on him with the injuries inflicted on the other people as he cannoned around the vehicle. Wear the f*king seatbelt!
Don’t know much about the We Think pollsters but their poll conducted after Sunaks man of the people broadcast shows no change in terms of Labour lead . Stays at 17 points .
Quite surprised by this .
A clear majority 59% do support the delay from 2030 to 2035 so that area could be troublesome for Labour unless they can mitigate likely Tory attack lines .
I think a lot of people wish we could keep making patrols cars for the romance of them and, frankly, simple things like the noise (also better than diesel for that reason). I do myself, I am just persuaded we need to make the change.
Starmer needs to stop apologizing for his attempts to have a closer relationship with the EU .
Not sure whose advising him but they’re not doing a good job. He should be framing the argument as re-working the Brexit deal to help lower prices for hardworking families by reducing red tape .
He really should be making a positive argument here .
He simply is trying not to upset anyone but for the first time I heard Sky outlining his previous pro EU stance and his demands for a second referendum
I do not understand why he doesn't say he will look to join the single market when each time he categorically denies it
I'm surprised it's as little as 10x. Possibly because UK cyclists do big social rides (100k etc), or cycle tours, while the Dutch do lots of small 5k commutes?
Of course the Netherlands is also as flat as a pancake so we will never be 'like them', its geographically impossible. English towns and cities tend to be built on hilly areas unlike the Netherlands.
Australia has higher cycling rates than the UK and hills and helmet mandates.
We could focus economic development on East Anglia and build bike-friendly new towns there.
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
Also the evidence for the claim that helmets reduces cycling seems to be very thin and weak indeed. A lot of it based on some dodgy studies in Australia that didn't control for confounding variables, other studies have found no relationship between helmet mandates and cycling rates.
Really, if you're not a braindead moron you should understand your head is your bodies most important element and protect it.
The worst attitude is people who act like wearing a helmet is "for children" or "childish" or that they're "more cool" to not be wearing one. Same ludicrous peer pressure that encourages people to take up vaping/smoking - and just as stupid.
I'm looking forward to you bringing this new-found fervour for cyclist safety to LTNs, 20mph, segregated cycle lanes and the reduction of car use in all urban areas.
There is absolutely zero reason whatsoever to support either 20mph or the reduction of car use in urban areas. If someone is cycling on a segregated cycle path then who cares if roads are 30mph or 40mph?
I completely and 100% support segregated cycle lanes and LTNs and completely and wholeheartedly support the investment in new roads that makes that possible.
I've been advocating that investment more than you.
Aye, only after you've spent £1 trillion on roads ploughing through our towns and cities. An impossible condition.
No one believes you have any interest in cycling or walking provision at all. A risible charade.
No, not only after, cycle paths should be getting included with new roads from day one is what I've consistently said. 🤦♂️
You don't have any interest in cycling provision either, you just have a pathological hatred of cars and cycling is tangential to that. That's why you oppose new cycle paths being built with new roads, like the Dutch and other countries around the globe have done successfully.
Ye Gods. The Luddism on PB is out of this world. I’m amazed people don’t write to Mike and demand he moves PB to quill and ink correspondence.
How the holy moley do these people string a life together?
The same way we did 20 years ago! There have been no great technological leaps forward since the mp3 player that I have felt the need to be a part of.
I have always felt that this newfangled “Fire” crap is going to turn out badly.
#MamouthTartare
I've never been wholly convinced about 'the wheel' either
Well, the Aztecs and the like managed without it.
You realise that when AIs are amusing themselves by reading the archives of the extinct human race in 10-15 years' time, that comment is going to seem really funny to them?
Starmer needs to stop apologizing for his attempts to have a closer relationship with the EU .
Not sure whose advising him but they’re not doing a good job. He should be framing the argument as re-working the Brexit deal to help lower prices for hardworking families by reducing red tape .
He really should be making a positive argument here .
He simply is trying not to upset anyone but for the first time I heard Sky outlining his previous pro EU stance and his demands for a second referendum
I do not understand why he doesn't say he will look to join the single market when each time he categorically denies it
He couldn’t go there as that entails FOM . But he needs to just stand up and embrace a closer relationship and connect that with cost of living issues .
The Lib Dems apparently will promise 5 billion a year for social care . A good policy and certainly will put the frighteners on the Tories in those Tory Lib Dem marginals.
The first question will be where is the money coming from ?
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
But as Cookie points out, if the requirement to wear a helmet puts people off cycling, you could end up losing more lives (through lack of exercise, etc.) than you save. Not everyone is going for it on the curves. I usually wear a helmet, but will sometimes not bother if just riding gently in the park or suchlike. I think recommend but not mandate is the best approach.
That's one heck of a big conditional. And it's not just about saving lives: it's about preventing head injuries that may not kill.
It's not that big a conditional. There is indeed evidence of bicycle use falling substantially following the introduction of helmet mandates, as this article explains (among other things):
There are also other effects that have already been mentioned, such as the tendency of drivers to pass helmeted cyclists more closely. All in all, the issue is nowhere near as clear-cut as you seem to presume.
"...such as the tendency of drivers to pass helmeted cyclists more closely."
I believe that claim is based on a somewhat b/s study. Certainly it requires some rather strong evidence.
Given that your belief that the Dutch cycle just twice as much as us was already shown to be completely wrong, I'd be reluctant to put much faith in your belief concerning the validity of this study. Or any of your other beliefs for that matter.
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
The figures I can find show that the Dutch age group that cycle least, the over-75s, cycle as far as the average Briton does in a year in just 45 days. So that age group cycles about eight times further than the average Briton, and all other age groups cycle further. Some, a lot further.
Yup, JJ's "belief" that Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK is way off the mark. According to this article, for example, Dutch people cycle over 10 times as far as British people do, and have less than half the number of fatalities per kilometre than we do:
I'm surprised it's as little as 10x. Possibly because UK cyclists do big social rides (100k etc), or cycle tours, while the Dutch do lots of small 5k commutes?
Of course the Netherlands is also as flat as a pancake so we will never be 'like them', its geographically impossible. English towns and cities tend to be built on hilly areas unlike the Netherlands.
Australia has higher cycling rates than the UK and hills and helmet mandates.
My Dutch cycling friend who cycles around hilly Edinburgh says that the wind that blows across the wide open Dutch landscape can be as bad, or worse, than the hills.
This crap about hills, or the other perennial, the weather, is simply lame excuse-making.
I'm surprised it's as little as 10x. Possibly because UK cyclists do big social rides (100k etc), or cycle tours, while the Dutch do lots of small 5k commutes?
Of course the Netherlands is also as flat as a pancake so we will never be 'like them', its geographically impossible. English towns and cities tend to be built on hilly areas unlike the Netherlands.
Australia has higher cycling rates than the UK and hills and helmet mandates.
We could focus economic development on East Anglia and build bike-friendly new towns there.
You'll need bikes convertible to sampans, the way things are heading.
The Lib Dems apparently will promise 5 billion a year for social care . A good policy and certainly will put the frighteners on the Tories in those Tory Lib Dem marginals.
A penny on income tax to fund it like the old days?
This thread has been punctured because it ran over a mobile phone which some idiot dropped a mobile phone out of the door of the bus when trying to pay instead of using a pass like all sensible people.
I'm surprised it's as little as 10x. Possibly because UK cyclists do big social rides (100k etc), or cycle tours, while the Dutch do lots of small 5k commutes?
Of course the Netherlands is also as flat as a pancake so we will never be 'like them', its geographically impossible. English towns and cities tend to be built on hilly areas unlike the Netherlands.
Australia has higher cycling rates than the UK and hills and helmet mandates.
We could focus economic development on East Anglia and build bike-friendly new towns there.
You'll need bikes convertible to sampans, the way things are heading.
The Dutch do have to fish an extraordinary amount of bikes out of the water:
I've been listening to LBC again. Nick Ferrari interviewed Jeremy Hunt this morning, who made the point which has been pushed all day that Starmer is trying to steal your Brexit.
I understand Starmer stealing your car and your boiler is gaining traction for Rishi, but surely he is welcome to Brexit.
The cycling helmets debate is a classic example of where individual freedom comes up against safety: "I want the freedom not to wear a helmet" versus "I don't want you to injure yourself".
Witness car seatbelts, where some people still insist on not wearing them, even though non-seatbelt wearers make up about a quarter of car occupant fatalities (1).
I don't think we can have a sensible discussion over the merits, or otherwise, of helmet-wearing when the number one and number two causes of death and injury to cyclists are not addressed (those being the lack of cycling infrastructure and dangerous driving).
It comes across as victim-blaming, particularly when most cyclists in Britain already do wear helmets, and most cyclists in countries where cycling is more normal (such as the Netherlands or Denmark) do not.
It feels a lot like an avoidance technique. Avoiding doing anything about the real problem by talking about a pretend one.
It's not a 'pretend' problem. And improving cycling infrastructure and wearing helmets are not mutually exclusive.
(BTW, I'm not calling for compulsory helmet wearing for cyclists; just that they should.)
I'm surprised it's as little as 10x. Possibly because UK cyclists do big social rides (100k etc), or cycle tours, while the Dutch do lots of small 5k commutes?
Of course the Netherlands is also as flat as a pancake so we will never be 'like them', its geographically impossible. English towns and cities tend to be built on hilly areas unlike the Netherlands.
Australia has higher cycling rates than the UK and hills and helmet mandates.
We could focus economic development on East Anglia and build bike-friendly new towns there.
"Too hilly" comes far down the list of reasons why people don't cycle. The big ones tend to be danger posed by drivers, weather, distance, cycle storage, road conditions.
It's a cynical attempt to claim it's simply not possible for cycling to occur in the UK, even though cycling mileage has fallen by 8x since 1950.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
But as Cookie points out, if the requirement to wear a helmet puts people off cycling, you could end up losing more lives (through lack of exercise, etc.) than you save. Not everyone is going for it on the curves. I usually wear a helmet, but will sometimes not bother if just riding gently in the park or suchlike. I think recommend but not mandate is the best approach.
That's one heck of a big conditional. And it's not just about saving lives: it's about preventing head injuries that may not kill.
It's not that big a conditional. There is indeed evidence of bicycle use falling substantially following the introduction of helmet mandates, as this article explains (among other things):
There are also other effects that have already been mentioned, such as the tendency of drivers to pass helmeted cyclists more closely. All in all, the issue is nowhere near as clear-cut as you seem to presume.
"...such as the tendency of drivers to pass helmeted cyclists more closely."
I believe that claim is based on a somewhat b/s study. Certainly it requires some rather strong evidence.
Given that your belief that the Dutch cycle just twice as much as us was already shown to be completely wrong, I'd be reluctant to put much faith in your belief concerning the validity of this study. Or any of your other beliefs for that matter.
I link to my sources for that claim. On the basis of those links, I'd argue that I'm pretty much correct.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
But as Cookie points out, if the requirement to wear a helmet puts people off cycling, you could end up losing more lives (through lack of exercise, etc.) than you save. Not everyone is going for it on the curves. I usually wear a helmet, but will sometimes not bother if just riding gently in the park or suchlike. I think recommend but not mandate is the best approach.
That's one heck of a big conditional. And it's not just about saving lives: it's about preventing head injuries that may not kill.
It's not that big a conditional. There is indeed evidence of bicycle use falling substantially following the introduction of helmet mandates, as this article explains (among other things):
There are also other effects that have already been mentioned, such as the tendency of drivers to pass helmeted cyclists more closely. All in all, the issue is nowhere near as clear-cut as you seem to presume.
"...such as the tendency of drivers to pass helmeted cyclists more closely."
I believe that claim is based on a somewhat b/s study. Certainly it requires some rather strong evidence.
Lots of potential confounders, including cycling style, speed, age, other attire etc. The teenager too 'cool' for a helmet or the doddery old maid heading to church are both likely to be given more clearance by a driver than the lycra-clad 20mph-er.
Different users would also frequent different roads, too, but that may have been controlled for.
It would be a hard study to do really well outside of some kind of trial where you get the same people (or some kind of randomisation) to ride up and down roads with and without helmets.
Ye Gods. The Luddism on PB is out of this world. I’m amazed people don’t write to Mike and demand he moves PB to quill and ink correspondence.
How the holy moley do these people string a life together?
Not wanting phone companies to have your financial info isn't luddism it's sensibilism.
They don't – this stuff is trivialbly googleable – and has been discussed at length on here.
When you use Apple Pay on your iPhone or Apple Watch to confirm a purchase from your Mac in Safari, your Mac and the authorising device communicate over an encrypted channel via Apple servers. Apple doesn’t retain any of this information in a form that personally identifies you.
an 'encrypted channel'. How gullible do you think i am?
How do you string a life together? Do you never use cards – cash only for everything you do?
I use credit cards. The contactless feature is excellent. I just don't ever put their details in my phone.
Starmer needs to stop apologizing for his attempts to have a closer relationship with the EU .
Not sure whose advising him but they’re not doing a good job. He should be framing the argument as re-working the Brexit deal to help lower prices for hardworking families by reducing red tape .
He really should be making a positive argument here .
He simply is trying not to upset anyone but for the first time I heard Sky outlining his previous pro EU stance and his demands for a second referendum
I do not understand why he doesn't say he will look to join the single market when each time he categorically denies it
He couldn’t go there as that entails FOM . But he needs to just stand up and embrace a closer relationship and connect that with cost of living issues .
The problem is only the single market will see a closer relationship
The rest is like Sunak's WF and rejoining Horizon, but trade is the number one issue
I've been listening to LBC again. Nick Ferrari interviewed Jeremy Hunt this morning, who made the point which has been pushed all day that Starmer is trying to steal your Brexit.
I understand Starmer stealing your car and your boiler is gaining traction for Rishi, but surely he is welcome to Brexit.
I'm surprised it's as little as 10x. Possibly because UK cyclists do big social rides (100k etc), or cycle tours, while the Dutch do lots of small 5k commutes?
Of course the Netherlands is also as flat as a pancake so we will never be 'like them', its geographically impossible. English towns and cities tend to be built on hilly areas unlike the Netherlands.
Australia has higher cycling rates than the UK and hills and helmet mandates.
We could focus economic development on East Anglia and build bike-friendly new towns there.
If, as a country, we're embracing future climate change, rather than trying to avoid it, then focusing economic development on the part of the country most likely to suffer from rising sea levels would be a bit short-sighted.
Wearing a cycle helmet is important if you have a collision.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
" Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets."
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
Also the evidence for the claim that helmets reduces cycling seems to be very thin and weak indeed. A lot of it based on some dodgy studies in Australia that didn't control for confounding variables, other studies have found no relationship between helmet mandates and cycling rates.
Really, if you're not a braindead moron you should understand your head is your bodies most important element and protect it.
The worst attitude is people who act like wearing a helmet is "for children" or "childish" or that they're "more cool" to not be wearing one. Same ludicrous peer pressure that encourages people to take up vaping/smoking - and just as stupid.
I'm looking forward to you bringing this new-found fervour for cyclist safety to LTNs, 20mph, segregated cycle lanes and the reduction of car use in all urban areas.
There is absolutely zero reason whatsoever to support either 20mph or the reduction of car use in urban areas. If someone is cycling on a segregated cycle path then who cares if roads are 30mph or 40mph?
I completely and 100% support segregated cycle lanes and LTNs and completely and wholeheartedly support the investment in new roads that makes that possible.
I've been advocating that investment more than you.
Aye, only after you've spent £1 trillion on roads ploughing through our towns and cities. An impossible condition.
No one believes you have any interest in cycling or walking provision at all. A risible charade.
No, not only after, cycle paths should be getting included with new roads from day one is what I've consistently said. 🤦♂️
You don't have any interest in cycling provision either, you just have a pathological hatred of cars and cycling is tangential to that. That's why you oppose new cycle paths being built with new roads, like the Dutch and other countries around the globe have done successfully.
I have a car.
I don't oppose new cycle lanes with new roads. Find the quote.
Starmer needs to stop apologizing for his attempts to have a closer relationship with the EU .
Not sure whose advising him but they’re not doing a good job. He should be framing the argument as re-working the Brexit deal to help lower prices for hardworking families by reducing red tape .
He really should be making a positive argument here .
He simply is trying not to upset anyone but for the first time I heard Sky outlining his previous pro EU stance and his demands for a second referendum
I do not understand why he doesn't say he will look to join the single market when each time he categorically denies it
He couldn’t go there as that entails FOM . But he needs to just stand up and embrace a closer relationship and connect that with cost of living issues .
The problem is only the single market will see a closer relationship
The rest is like Sunak's WF and rejoining Horizon, but trade is the number one issue
Don't let the best be the enemy of the good. Something like the May plan was on the table once and there's no reason to think it couldn't be again, if that's really what the UK wanted. It has negatives, but that's the nature of negotiations- give something to get something.
Saying "there's no point in anything less than the Single Market" when a lot of voters aren't yet ready for the consequences of that is effectively saying "there's no point in anything".
Remember Starmer is a lawyer- he won't ask the question without already knowing the answer.
Which is smarter statecraft than Cameron or his successors showed
Ye Gods. The Luddism on PB is out of this world. I’m amazed people don’t write to Mike and demand he moves PB to quill and ink correspondence.
How the holy moley do these people string a life together?
The same way we did 20 years ago! There have been no great technological leaps forward since the mp3 player that I have felt the need to be a part of.
I have always felt that this newfangled “Fire” crap is going to turn out badly.
#MamouthTartare
I've never been wholly convinced about 'the wheel' either
Well, the Aztecs and the like managed without it.
You realise that when AIs are amusing themselves by reading the archives of the extinct human race in 10-15 years' time, that comment is going to seem really funny to them?
You mean I’ll be famous after death! Success at last!
Zac Goldsmith was critical of Sunak’s Net Zero policy change. Kemi Badenoch was quoted in the Standard criticising Goldsmith, saying, “Zac Goldsmith is someone who cares very much about the environment,... But the fact is, he has way more money than pretty much everyone in the UK.”
That’s a brave line to take when Rishi Sunak has way more money than Zac Goldsmith!
The theory of “luxury beliefs” is going to be an increasingly important political issue in the next few years.
It starts with mocking those who turn up to climate change summits in private planes, but quickly goes into retail local politics, with Conservatives pointing at Sadiq Khan and Mark Drakeford as evidence that Labour want to make cars something that only the rich have, and everyone else can get the bus.
Same with the ‘meat tax’. Fillet steak and caviar for the climate summit attendees, but bugs and salad for the rest of us.
If we take your argument to be correct, where does this leave Sunak? Is he seen as a man of the people, or do people think about his family’s immense wealth?
If I was advising Sunak, my very first comment would be to never be seen near another helicopter. Even if he’s at the factory that makes them. Have the diary secretary work through proper timings with road or rail transport.
(I do wonder if a lot of the Tory party machine are still writing lines for Boris Johnson to say, and haven’t yet realised that Rishi Sunak is a very different personality).
That seems like sensible advice.
And do you think it’s sensible for a Cabinet Minister, Kemi Badenoch, to dismiss someone’s (Zac Goldsmith’s) view on a topic on the grounds that he’s too rich to understand? Doesn’t that just open the door to the same criticism being levelled at Sunak?
(Or maybe Badenoch did it deliberately to undermine Sunak? Leadership manoeuvres?)
Yes, I’m on Team Badenoch.
The point is that the likes of Goldsmith is so rich that he doesn’t think about the cost of “net zero”. It’s lovely to have these luxury beliefs when they don’t meaningfully impact your life. Meanwhile, the rest of us do think about the cost, and Rishi, although he’s also rich, thinks about you too.
Now, you may not agree with that, but that’s the politics they’re playing.
Comments
Peter Hitchens is a devout helmet hater. He gets rather worked up about them.
Anyway. Its over. I’ve just unboxed the new canon printer and as I did I TOLD the hewlett packard printer that I was replacing it with a “younger, better looking” printer
I know I know: gratuitously cruel. But fuck it. This is after years of passive aggressive abuse from the HP printer. Its lucky I haven’t poisoned it
❗️❗️ Biden informed Zelensky that the 🇺🇸US will send a small number of long-range ATACMS missiles to 🇺🇦Ukraine, — NBC News.
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1705234709603582377?s=20
Interestingly, I just found the following:
"United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury." (1)
If that's correct, perhaps the Dutch should take a leaf out of our book, not us out of theirs?
Now, there's another point there. It may depend on what 'serious injuries' are defined as, but 50,000 out of ~17 million is a lot. In the UK, we had: "In 2021, 111 pedal cyclists were killed in Great Britain, whilst 4,353 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 11,994 slightly injured (adjusted)." (2)
I believe Dutch people cycle about double the amount (in terms of km/miles) that we do here in the UK. In which case, their injury levels may well be above ours.
(1): https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-neurologists-call-cyclists-wear-helmets-286871
(2): https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2021/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2021
And besides, 10MPH is pretty much the top level (above the top level) for many runners - ir's a 37min 10k, or in the top few percent of speed for runners in an event. It's at the low end for most cyclists.
But it's funny how every conversation on PB about cycling turns into "must wear helmets", rather than providing safe cycling provision or cracking down on dangerous driving. Classic transfer of responsibility to the vulnerable.
More drivers die from head injuries each year than cyclists, but I don't hear any calls for them to have helmets on.
It would cost Leon a lot less to own than a car - and he could probably set it off against tax.
A *knapper* of his means ought to consider it.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels
There are also other effects that have already been mentioned, such as the tendency of drivers to pass helmeted cyclists more closely. All in all, the issue is nowhere near as clear-cut as you seem to presume.
Really, if you're not a braindead moron you should understand your head is your bodies most important element and protect it.
The worst attitude is people who act like wearing a helmet is "for children" or "childish" or that they're "more cool" to not be wearing one. Same ludicrous peer pressure that encourages people to take up vaping/smoking - and just as stupid.
I believe that claim is based on a somewhat b/s study. Certainly it requires some rather strong evidence.
I had "Today" on this morning, and heard Mishal Husain interviewing Rachel Reeves. She allowed Reeves to get away completely unchallenged with the whopper that "of course electricity is a lot cheaper than gas, petrol or diesel". whist discussing the Climate Targets.
I put some numbers in my complaint to the BBC, pointing out that gas is under a third of the price of electricity per unit, and a typical domestic heat-pump is going to do well to manage 300% real world efficiency*.
I also pointed out that electric cars are around 10p/mile from normal rate electric, and 15-25p/mile from public chargers (based on 3kWh/mile), whilst my diesel car is 14p a mile and half of that is tax rather than actual fuel cost.
I suppose running an electric car is probably lots cheaper than running W12 Bentley Flying Spur (20mpg on a good day), but Reeve's claim was either stunning ignorance or a barfaced lie. Sunak is a stupid lying oaf, but frankly he's a fount of honesty compared to the other lot if this sort of thing is typical.
*People think heat pumps save them money because they combine installation with extra insulation and a really well matched central heating setup - in reality they would mostly get the same saving without bothering the with heat-pump part of the package.
When you use Apple Pay on your iPhone or Apple Watch to confirm a purchase from your Mac in Safari, your Mac and the authorising device communicate over an encrypted channel via Apple servers. Apple doesn’t retain any of this information in a form that personally identifies you.
...neither Apple nor your device sends your actual payment card number.
Not sure whose advising him but they’re not doing a good job. He should be framing the argument as re-working the Brexit deal to help lower prices for hardworking families by reducing red tape .
He really should be making a positive argument here .
Scary stuff.
I think Rishi is crap, and the abandoned deadline disappointing, but we are witnessing “enshittification” across many of our digital services, and how else are EV manufacturers going to make incremental revenue given how long the batteries last?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/02/24/the-more-cyclists-in-a-country-the-fewer-fatal-crashes-report-infographic/
The Labour seat that fell was won by them in a close by election in December 2022.
If anyone really wants to do some statistical straw clutching, look at that improvement in the Conservative share.
Quite surprised by this .
A clear majority 59% do support the delay from 2030 to 2035 so that area could be troublesome for Labour unless they can mitigate likely Tory attack lines .
I completely and 100% support segregated cycle lanes and LTNs and completely and wholeheartedly support the investment in new roads that makes that possible.
I've been advocating that investment more than you.
How do you string a life together? Do you never use cards – cash only for everything you do?
Witness car seatbelts, where some people still insist on not wearing them, even though non-seatbelt wearers make up about a quarter of car occupant fatalities (1).
(1): https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/driving-law/almost-one-in-four-people-killed-on-uk-roads-were-not-wearing-seatbelts/
It’s not that they hate cars - they simply use them for longer journeys, and those that require carrying multiple people and/or significant loads.
At least, that’s my experience of the Netherlands.
Australia has higher cycling rates than the UK and hills and helmet mandates.
No one believes you have any interest in cycling or walking provision at all. A risible charade.
What has been striking me even more strongly in recent days is how our “mainstream” journalists are — in effect — backing Trump. The amount of time and space they give to him is far in excess of the total given to all the other candidates. (I believe the same was true in 2016.)
So far I have seen the following from other candidates:
1. A TV ad from Doug Burgum
2. Part of a speech from Nikki Haley on Fox Live.
3. Part of an interview with Asa Hutchinson on Fox Live.
(All three were quite good.)
And that’s it.
(To be fair, I have not watched the news programs on major networks for years, and don’t plan to start watching them now. I read the NYT only once a week (Tuesday) and the Seattle Times only on Sunday — but I read the WaPo on line every day. And I look through the MS$ Edge aggregation, Mediaite, and Memeorandum every day.
(Cross posted at Patterico's. I perhaps should add that hostile coverage from "mainstream" sources probably helps Trump, net.)
"The cumulative distance the Dutch cycle is around 15 billion kilometres. Some sources say it is a bit less, others claim it is well over that figure" (1),. Looking into ti further, (3) has it at 17.6 billion km
For the UK, it is between 3.5 and 4.2 billion miles, with 5.3 billion miles in 2020. 5.3 billion miles is 8.5 billion km, so about half the Dutch figure. Even if we take the lower 3.5 billion mile figure, that's 5.6 billion km, or above a third of the Dutch figure.
I linked to my source for the injuries figures earlier.
(1): https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/dutch-cycling-figures
(2): https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics
(3): https://s23705.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Netherlands-Cycling-Facts-2020.pdf
It comes across as victim-blaming, particularly when most cyclists in Britain already do wear helmets, and most cyclists in countries where cycling is more normal (such as the Netherlands or Denmark) do not.
It feels a lot like an avoidance technique. Avoiding doing anything about the real problem by talking about a pretend one.
I can't remember in which role she dealt with the single-vehicle accident where one back seat occupant, not wearing a seatbelt, killed themselves and all the three other people in the car. It took a devil of a time, but they could match up specific injury sites on him with the injuries inflicted on the other people as he cannoned around the vehicle. Wear the f*king seatbelt!
I do not understand why he doesn't say he will look to join the single market when each time he categorically denies it
You don't have any interest in cycling provision either, you just have a pathological hatred of cars and cycling is tangential to that. That's why you oppose new cycle paths being built with new roads, like the Dutch and other countries around the globe have done successfully.
This crap about hills, or the other perennial, the weather, is simply lame excuse-making.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PACat_tRXgs
I understand Starmer stealing your car and your boiler is gaining traction for Rishi, but surely he is welcome to Brexit.
(BTW, I'm not calling for compulsory helmet wearing for cyclists; just that they should.)
It's a cynical attempt to claim it's simply not possible for cycling to occur in the UK, even though cycling mileage has fallen by 8x since 1950.
Different users would also frequent different roads, too, but that may have been controlled for.
It would be a hard study to do really well outside of some kind of trial where you get the same people (or some kind of randomisation) to ride up and down roads with and without helmets.
The rest is like Sunak's WF and rejoining Horizon, but trade is the number one issue
I don't oppose new cycle lanes with new roads. Find the quote.
Saying "there's no point in anything less than the Single Market" when a lot of voters aren't yet ready for the consequences of that is effectively saying "there's no point in anything".
Remember Starmer is a lawyer- he won't ask the question without already knowing the answer.
Which is smarter statecraft than Cameron or his successors showed
Success at last!
The point is that the likes of Goldsmith is so rich that he doesn’t think about the cost of “net zero”. It’s lovely to have these luxury beliefs when they don’t meaningfully impact your life. Meanwhile, the rest of us do think about the cost, and Rishi, although he’s also rich, thinks about you too.
Now, you may not agree with that, but that’s the politics they’re playing.