Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Yet, somehow, cars manage to kill approximately one pedestrian a day, while bikes and scooters combined average less than one a month.
Sure, but in aggregate cars drive more than 30x the distance of bicycles, so that makes the bikes more dangerous on a per mile basis.
You'd need to weight that by the proportion of miles that are in urban areas where pedestrians and vehicles mix.
A simple way would be to subtract motorway miles, where pedestrians are forbidden. Perhaps A-roads/dual carriageways too, though not as clear cut.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Yet, somehow, cars manage to kill approximately one pedestrian a day, while bikes and scooters combined average less than one a month.
Sure, but in aggregate cars drive more than 30x the distance of bicycles, so that makes the bikes more dangerous on a per mile basis.
But a lot of the car miles will be on motorways where there are no pedestrians, so those don't really count. A car travelling a mile through town is probably more likely to kill someone than a bike travelling a mile through town.
The Tories seem to be heading full speed into complete lunacy .
The party does seem to be falling into the vortex awfully quickly now. Perhaps the problem is that you have people starting the Leadership '24/'25 campaigns, and the winning move there is to appeal to a party membership who are in the mood for pleasing themselves rather than the public.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Yet, somehow, cars manage to kill approximately one pedestrian a day, while bikes and scooters combined average less than one a month.
Sure, but in aggregate cars drive more than 30x the distance of bicycles, so that makes the bikes more dangerous on a per mile basis.
I don't think you can go too far with this without some pretty complex calculations. Does your mileage include motorways, where pedestrian deaths are relatively uncommon? If so, you should probably do something to weight them down because the implication that cars are safe because they don't kill many pedestrians in situations where pedestrians are barred, that would be a little odd.
Lunar rovers have also killed vanishingly few pedestrians, but that's not a function of their intrinsic safety as a transport mode nor the responsibility and skill of the drivers.
Lunar Rovers are prohibitively expensive however. Still think bikes are the best form of urban transport for distances less than 5km.
As well as doing the standard primary and favorability polling, the pollsters showed the voter a picture of him and a different Kennedy and ask them to identify him. Result:
"But the most striking difference in favorability for RFK Jr. is among partisans who correctly identified him. Republican-leaning voters viewed him favorably by a margin of 31 points while Democratic-leaning voters viewed him unfavorably by a margin of 43 points. Take away the ghost of Bobby Kennedy, and voters for both parties divided on him in a way that confirms he might be running in the wrong primary."
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Yet, somehow, cars manage to kill approximately one pedestrian a day, while bikes and scooters combined average less than one a month.
Sure, but in aggregate cars drive more than 30x the distance of bicycles, so that makes the bikes more dangerous on a per mile basis.
But a lot of the car miles will be on motorways where there are no pedestrians, so those don't really count. A car travelling a mile through town is probably more likely to kill someone than a bike travelling a mile through town.
It might all be built on statistical sand. How do we know how far cyclists are travelling?
As much as Mark Harper might want me too, I don't log my rides with the DVLA.
The Tories seem to be heading full speed into complete lunacy .
The party does seem to be falling into the vortex awfully quickly now. Perhaps the problem is that you have people starting the Leadership '24/'25 campaigns, and the winning move there is to appeal to a party membership who are in the mood for pleasing themselves rather than the public.
Appearing at a fringe event in Manchester tomorrow - David Icke. (Only joking).
The Tories seem to be heading full speed into complete lunacy .
The party does seem to be falling into the vortex awfully quickly now. Perhaps the problem is that you have people starting the Leadership '24/'25 campaigns, and the winning move there is to appeal to a party membership who are in the mood for pleasing themselves rather than the public.
Appearing at a fringe event in Manchester tomorrow - David Icke. (Only joking).
The Tories seem to be heading full speed into complete lunacy .
The party does seem to be falling into the vortex awfully quickly now. Perhaps the problem is that you have people starting the Leadership '24/'25 campaigns, and the winning move there is to appeal to a party membership who are in the mood for pleasing themselves rather than the public.
Appearing at a fringe event in Manchester tomorrow - David Icke. (Only joking).
I wouldn’t have fallen for that one.
Obviously he will be the keynote in the main auditorium..
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Yet, somehow, cars manage to kill approximately one pedestrian a day, while bikes and scooters combined average less than one a month.
Sure, but in aggregate cars drive more than 30x the distance of bicycles, so that makes the bikes more dangerous on a per mile basis.
But a lot of the car miles will be on motorways where there are no pedestrians, so those don't really count. A car travelling a mile through town is probably more likely to kill someone than a bike travelling a mile through town.
It might all be built on statistical sand. How do we know how far cyclists are travelling?
As much as Mark Harper might want me too, I don't log my rides with the DVLA.
Being slightly less flippant, seems the gov do an national travel survey:
"The National Travel Survey (NTS) is a household survey of personal travel by residents of England travelling within Great Britain, from data collected via interviews and a seven-day travel diary"
I think this is the end of the line, an Orwellian dragnet which includes 'people like us'.
"Speaking at a fringe event of the Conservative party conference hosted by the Policy Exchange thinktank, Philp said: “I’m going to be asking police forces to search all of those databases – the police national database, which has custody images, but also other databases like the passport database – not just for shoplifting but for crime generally to get those matches, because the technology is now so good that you can get a blurred image and get a match for it.
“Operationally, I’m asking them to do it now. In the medium term, by which I mean the next two years, we’re going to try and create a new data platform so you can press one button [and it] lets you search it all in one go.
Until the new platform is created, he said police forces should search each database separately."
"It means that over 45 million of us with passports who gave our images for travel purposes will, without any kind of consent or the ability to object, be part of secret police lineups."
That's not correct. It's stated in HMPO's privacy guidelines that the information in your application is shared with other departments "to help fulfill their aims and objectives".
But it states: We may share data with business partners, other government departments, law enforcement agencies and local authorities to help fulfil their aims and objectives.
I believe the police are a law enforcement agency (allegedly).
Absolutely no problem with allowing Met policemen to trawl through the passport database containing pictures of women, their age and home addresses....... no, nothing remotely risky about that at all.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
If I was Labour, I'd ignore most if this though. The weirdest thing is leniency for illegal parking.
I'd pin this tweet to the wall. Bad parking drives people insane...
You have to park on the pavement in my street (half on, half off). That is literally the rules!
Can you still get past with a wheelchair/pram? And what's the condition of the pavement? (Often overlooked - councils spend money repairing the damage from pavement parking, including personal injury claims).
Note that London and Scotland have banned pavement parking.
Fake news. I live in London and you have to park on the pavement, as I say. Half on, half off - I’m not saying it’s sensible but those are the rules.
There is literally a rule in the Highway Code just for London:
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London
Um, how does that explain this sign right outside my house?
That does not give you permission to park partially on the pavement.
That sign shows that those seeking to park their vehicles must use an approved box device under the left hand wheels, so as to create a right to left angle of between 8 and 14 degrees.
It's an architectural thing, and ensures that vehicles' positioning will be in tune with nearby buildings.
Robert, I think you really need to "kerb" your enthusiasm!
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews It's not clear what Sunak is scrapping. Is it the "Western leg" - phase 2b of HS2, from Crewe to Manchester. Or is it 2a to Crewe as well? The latter got Royal Assent in 2021 so reversing it would, presumably, have to go through Parliament...
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Yet, somehow, cars manage to kill approximately one pedestrian a day, while bikes and scooters combined average less than one a month.
Sure, but in aggregate cars drive more than 30x the distance of bicycles, so that makes the bikes more dangerous on a per mile basis.
But a lot of the car miles will be on motorways where there are no pedestrians, so those don't really count. A car travelling a mile through town is probably more likely to kill someone than a bike travelling a mile through town.
It might all be built on statistical sand. How do we know how far cyclists are travelling?
As much as Mark Harper might want me too, I don't log my rides with the DVLA.
Being slightly less flippant, seems the gov do an national travel survey:
"The National Travel Survey (NTS) is a household survey of personal travel by residents of England travelling within Great Britain, from data collected via interviews and a seven-day travel diary"
Belated good wishes to Mike (I've been all day at the Tory conference) - we all appreciate what you've given us, and very much hope you'll be back with us soon.
The conference is strange. It's not quite as bonkers as the media suggest, since obviously the media focus on the most bonkers people, and the tone is universally friendly, including the (quite numerous) folk who recognise me and where I am on the political spectrum when I'm not acting for my charity. But attendance at the big Cabinet speeches is astonshingly thin - even Hunt's speech couldn't fill the hall. and it was more than half empty for the Culture Secretary. Gillian Keegan was objectively the most impressive, with a vigorous combative speech which deserved more of a response than the thin applause that she got.
I'm obviously biased, but although there's some anti-Labour rhetoric, they don't seem to have their heart in it. Some of the fringe events are packed, and I think the underlying feeling is that people don't really think the election is winnable, so they might as well relax with like-minded folk and have a good time.
"It's no wonder Labour seems so relaxed about taxing meat. Sir Keir Starmer doesn't eat it, and Ed Miliband is clearly scarred by his encounter with a bacon sandwich".
"It's no wonder Labour seems so relaxed about taxing meat. Sir Keir Starmer doesn't eat it, and Ed Miliband is clearly scarred by his encounter with a bacon sandwich".
Belated good wishes to Mike (I've been all day at the Tory conference) - we all appreciate what you've given us, and very much hope you'll be back with us soon.
The conference is strange. It's not quite as bonkers as the media suggest, since obviously the media focus on the most bonkers people, and the tone is universally friendly, including the (quite numerous) folk who recognise me and where I am on the political spectrum when I'm not acting for my charity. But attendance at the big Cabinet speeches is astonshingly thin - even Hunt's speech couldn't fill the hall. and it was more than half empty for the Culture Secretary. Gillian Keegan was objectively the most impressive, with a vigorous combative speech which deserved more of a response than the thin applause that she got.
I'm obviously biased, but although there's some anti-Labour rhetoric, they don't seem to have their heart in it. Some of the fringe events are packed, and I think the underlying feeling is that people don't really think the election is winnable, so they might as well relax with like-minded folk and have a good time.
It is no longer about HS2 detail and pro and cons.
The PR disaster has led to:
Fuck the North yet again is what voters will notice.
Londoners want, Londoners get.
Crossrail and HS2, on top of our tube, tram and bus network. Thank you very much.
Well at least we appreciate public transport down here. Reading PB at times you’d think out-of-towners would prefer to raze their towns and cities, knocking down any obstacles that prevented them reaching 40mph on their way to a retail park. Or maybe that is just Bart.
"Bronze Age Pervert will not save the American right The author of Bronze Age Mindset has galvanised US conservatives – but his adolescent philosophy will soon be forgotten. By John Gray"
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
Considering that cycling in that period represented 1% of non-motorway traffic mileage means that there is no risk difference between bikes and other vehicles.
"There's a huge movement going on globally to create essentially a world government that will have power to dictate to national governments what they should do in anticipation of another pandemic," says Tory MP Danny Kruger, who says there is "no greater threat to our national democracy""
They did the research. They found things on their phone. They believed them. Because everything on the internet is true. And everybody they know agrees. And it's very important that they stop it. 15-minute cities. Meat taxes. World government. Everything.
Meanwhile, real problems that exist outside phones - unbuilt projects, an aging population, killer dogs - are ignored
"There's a huge movement going on globally to create essentially a world government that will have power to dictate to national governments what they should do in anticipation of another pandemic," says Tory MP Danny Kruger, who says there is "no greater threat to our national democracy""
They did the research. They found things on their phone. They believed them. Because everything on the internet is true. And everybody they know agrees. And it's very important that they stop it. 15-minute cities. Meat taxes. World government. Everything.
Meanwhile, real problems that exist outside phones - unbuilt projects, an aging population, killer dogs - are ignored
We are governed by fools.
Fools are usually innocent though.
Most of guys know exactly what they are doing, it is a cynical attempt to scare and confuse the public.
Is the Tory dislike for 15 minute cities that they are too convenient or too inconvenient? Would they prefer 20 minute cities or 10 minute cities? Help!
Yes.
No problem with 15 minute towns or cities so long as its done without restricting people.
Places like Oxford have been putting in inconvenient restrictions in roads against driving to facilitate the 'convenience' of walking/cycling to a location.
Its the same discussion I've had before with Eabhal. If its done right, without restrictions, absolutely no qualms with that. If you start converting roads, blocking paths, trying to restrict people - then we have a problem.
Being able to walk to one shop in 15 minutes is no alternative to being able to drive to dozens of different shops of your choice within 15 minutes.
But even you've fallen for the conspiracy theories . An LTN is distinct from a 15-minute city.
An LTN attempts to reduce ratrunning through residential neighbourhoods, something that has recently become much more problematic by apps like Google Maps and Waze, along with an increase in car mileage in our cities and towns. A positive side effect of LTNs is they reduce the number of junctions on arterial roads, leading to better flow.
A 15-minute, which means important facilities are within walking distance for most people, just helps to increase accessibility of services for people who can't drive, which is a significant proportion of the population and correlates with poverty, old age and disability. They are exceptionally popular when explained properly.
Any new housing development is an LTN, but generally not a 15- minute city, for example. A pre-motorcar tenement area is likely the inverse.
It's really important that we keep an eye on this - the misinformation will now be off the scale following the Conservative conference.
In terms of "restriction", in an LTN no home is made inaccessible by car. It may take slightly longer to get there, as it does in a modern estate.
In terms of "freedom" - this is more debatable, but I think that the freedom for people to walk and cycle around is inhibited by car traffic, at least a bit. And the freedom to use public transport simply doesn't exist for many people outside London, even in built up areas.
Cars are an important way of getting around for most people, but most people are also open to alternatives, and for many driving isn't possible in the first place.
Freedom for pedestrians is inhibited by arsehole cyclists. I have never felt threatend by cars or hit by them I have by cyclists because they are arseholes who think laws dont apply to them
Even on pavements cars are more more dangerous.
Between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. Only 6 of those vehicles were bikes.
I talk from personal experience...in my 57 years of life never once come close to being hit by a car. Have been hit twice by arseholes on bikes and had my sons push chair slammed into and catapaulted into the middle of a 40 mph dual carriageway...luckily he wasnt in it but in my arms at the time....do forgive me when I think cyclists are complete and utter c**ts on the whole and the gene pool would be better without them
You seem well-adjusted
Ask most people like me ie pedestrians which they dislike and fear more cars or cyclists pretty sure the answer will be cyclists, followed by escooters
Yet, somehow, cars manage to kill approximately one pedestrian a day, while bikes and scooters combined average less than one a month.
Sure, but in aggregate cars drive more than 30x the distance of bicycles, so that makes the bikes more dangerous on a per mile basis.
I don't think you can go too far with this without some pretty complex calculations. Does your mileage include motorways, where pedestrian deaths are relatively uncommon? If so, you should probably do something to weight them down because the implication that cars are safe because they don't kill many pedestrians in situations where pedestrians are barred, that would be a little odd.
Lunar rovers have also killed vanishingly few pedestrians, but that's not a function of their intrinsic safety as a transport mode nor the responsibility and skill of the drivers.
Lunar Rovers are prohibitively expensive however. Still think bikes are the best form of urban transport for distances less than 5km.
Anyone who drives a lunar rover should be shot into space
I don't see the problem with them.
They are, of course EVs, and unlikely ever to exceed the 20mph limit.
Generalplan Westen ? https://twitter.com/mfphhh/status/1703502731959250945 A few weeks ago, leading Russian scientists published an extensive strategy paper on foreign and domestic policy strategy for the Russian government, which was now leaked by a Russian news site...
Comments
The Tories seem to be heading full speed into complete lunacy .
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-being-looked-at-host-24192949.
Why the Tories insist on holding all their conferences in Labour cities which hate them on the whole is beyond me.
It would be like Labour holding all their conferences in the likes of Clacton and Sevenoaks
But I am only on about page 5.
A simple way would be to subtract motorway miles, where pedestrians are forbidden. Perhaps A-roads/dual carriageways too, though not as clear cut.
https://echeloninsights.com/in-the-news/which-kennedy-is-it/
As well as doing the standard primary and favorability polling, the pollsters showed the voter a picture of him and a different Kennedy and ask them to identify him. Result:
"But the most striking difference in favorability for RFK Jr. is among partisans who correctly identified him. Republican-leaning voters viewed him favorably by a margin of 31 points while Democratic-leaning voters viewed him unfavorably by a margin of 43 points. Take away the ghost of Bobby Kennedy, and voters for both parties divided on him in a way that confirms he might be running in the wrong primary."
Cold War Steve
@coldwarsteve
·
3h
https://twitter.com/coldwarsteve/status/1708927006740468152
As much as Mark Harper might want me too, I don't log my rides with the DVLA.
Obviously he will be the keynote in the main auditorium..
"The National Travel Survey (NTS) is a household survey of personal travel by residents of England travelling within Great Britain, from data collected via interviews and a seven-day travel diary"
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2022/national-travel-survey-2022-active-travel#:~:text=Average walking distance travelled was,(205 miles per person).
Paul Mason
@paulmasonnews
It's not clear what Sunak is scrapping. Is it the "Western leg" - phase 2b of HS2, from Crewe to Manchester. Or is it 2a to Crewe as well? The latter got Royal Assent in 2021 so reversing it would, presumably, have to go through Parliament...
I wonder how representative it is.
The conference is strange. It's not quite as bonkers as the media suggest, since obviously the media focus on the most bonkers people, and the tone is universally friendly, including the (quite numerous) folk who recognise me and where I am on the political spectrum when I'm not acting for my charity. But attendance at the big Cabinet speeches is astonshingly thin - even Hunt's speech couldn't fill the hall. and it was more than half empty for the Culture Secretary. Gillian Keegan was objectively the most impressive, with a vigorous combative speech which deserved more of a response than the thin applause that she got.
I'm obviously biased, but although there's some anti-Labour rhetoric, they don't seem to have their heart in it. Some of the fringe events are packed, and I think the underlying feeling is that people don't really think the election is winnable, so they might as well relax with like-minded folk and have a good time.
New Environment Secretary Claire Coutinho.
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1708913451710484494
However I also support investment in roads. As does a majority, including the Council. https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/23580167.council-definitely-still-wants-build-western-link/
For sane people its not either/or, we need both.
The author of Bronze Age Mindset has galvanised US conservatives – but his adolescent philosophy will soon be forgotten.
By John Gray"
https://www.newstatesman.com/the-weekend-essay/2023/09/bronze-age-pervert-american-right
Meanwhile, real problems that exist outside phones - unbuilt projects, an aging population, killer dogs - are ignored
We are governed by fools.
Most of guys know exactly what they are doing, it is a cynical attempt to scare and confuse the public.
What ethical difference is there between cynical Tory apparatchiks and, say, shoplifters? Both are engaged in attempts to defraud the public.
And best wishes to TSE.
They are, of course EVs, and unlikely ever to exceed the 20mph limit.
Shin-Hanul No. 2 nuclear reactor begins testing for full operation next year
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=360297
What are we at for our new ones now lol
Of course, I suspect Korea is not just building then for their ability to generate electricity.
The new ones are as a result of shifting opinion on energy policy.
https://twitter.com/mfphhh/status/1703502731959250945
A few weeks ago, leading Russian scientists published an extensive strategy paper on foreign and domestic policy strategy for the Russian government, which was now leaked by a Russian news site...