A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
70 clearly the wrong number looking at the graph.
Would suggest tests (perhaps not full ones) at 80, 85, 90 and each year from then onwards.
Sunak is teasing labour and others desperate for a May election, when Autumn is still his choice
But it will make him look like a bottler.
I doubt when the GE is actually called it will matter
Gordon Brown would like to have a word with you.
To be fair, not calling an election when you've teased it, very obviously prepared for it, and are double-digits ahead, is a rather different business from not calling one when you're (substantial) double-digits behind and have already said it'll be in 2024H2.
Then why set the hare running by failing to rule it out? He could simply have answered: “No.”
Because he'd like to go in May if conditions allow.
Problem is, they won't.
Will “conditions allow” in November?
January 2025 it is then
I mean, under our constitution (lack of) it only takes a simple majority in the House to decide you don’t fancy having elections at all until “conditions allow”. 2030? 2040?
Not quite. Regular dissolutions and GEs are statutory, and any changes would have to be agreed by the HoL and get through all the stages in both Houses. If you try it last minute you won't have time to do this, and if you try it early you will be taking on the King, the Armed Forces, the SC, the general public and the entire media apart from the Daily Express and GB News.
If it came to it the King would, I imagine, dissolve parliament on his own authority instead of signing the bill to make it an Act. A GE would follow under the existing law. It would at least be good fun for PBers.
Have we covered this? Red Bull have suspended the woman who made accusations against Christian Horner.
Not a good look...
Maybe not (and checks to see if cyclefree is about) but not every complaint is true.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that the complainant deserves to be suspended.
Don't most companies have an anti-retaliation policy?
Isn't there legal issues involved? Retaliation against someone making such a complaint is banned in quite a few places.
That's what I would have thought - it's been part of the company handbook everywhere I've ever worked.
I can see why they'd want to get rid of her, but surely a generous payout backed with a compromise agreement including a strict NDA would be the right way to go?
I'm no HR expert or lawyer, but as part of management training I was always told
1) Separate the parties to the complaint without acting against them outside the process. 2) Call in HR and the lawyers 3) Do nothing clever
How do do you do 1), in the situation where the parties are the CEO and his own PA?
Either the PA or the CEO gets gardening leave, probably.
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
That data is quite heavily normalised to improve comparisons, but we need to read alongside eg single vehicle collisions and total numbers.
If eg the male over female excess in the 17-24 age group represents 500+ hospital admissions as well as double the rate, then imo that should make it a priority.
For elderly, I'd point out that old drivers mowing people down because they did not see them is prominent in media reports. And that elderly people often do not have practical and safe alternative options to driving since we have just done overwhelmingly motor infrastructure since about 1950, so pressure to 'forget to tell' DVLA about inadequate eyesight is heavy. An example in my town is that virtually every away-from-road footpath is barriered off and difficult to access unless you can do hula-hoops and sometimes limbo-dancing.
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
70 clearly the wrong number looking at the graph.
Would suggest tests (perhaps not full ones) at 80, 85, 90 and each year from then onwards.
Pensioners have to renew their licence every 3 years from 70 and are required to declare any changes in their health from a long list of medical conditions and also their eyesight
All drivers must inform the DVLA on a long list of medical issues as well
In my case my pacemaker is declared to the DVLA and shows on my car insurance policy
Generally the DVLA depend on the doctors advice on patients driving
It will be interesting to see how a New Labour-style government copes under the glare of social media with terminally online activists calling them Tories every time they point out that they don't have unlimited resources or say anything about helping people get back into work.
Sunak is teasing labour and others desperate for a May election, when Autumn is still his choice
Labour are not remotely desperate for an Autumn election, they just have to say this in just the same way every minister has to deny it till Sunak says it first.
No doubt in my mind Labour wanted the election after the explosion of boats, after the covid report and after a million forced by Tory party onto higher mortgage deals, because that election would be an extinction event for the Conservatives.
It is 100% a May election. I don’t say this becuase I am Labour, I’m never voting Labour in my life, I say it because I understand the decision Sunak has made exactly why he’s gone for May 2nd. And that is the three things in the previous paragraph, peculiar in that for every bit they are devastating to his chances of any swingback they are equally completely outside of his control.
Sunak is teasing labour and others desperate for a May election, when Autumn is still his choice
But it will make him look like a bottler.
I doubt when the GE is actually called it will matter
Gordon Brown would like to have a word with you.
To be fair, not calling an election when you've teased it, very obviously prepared for it, and are double-digits ahead, is a rather different business from not calling one when you're (substantial) double-digits behind and have already said it'll be in 2024H2.
Then why set the hare running by failing to rule it out? He could simply have answered: “No.”
If all the political journalists are running around talking about possible election dates then they are not running around talking about the weak points found in the budget, the fantasy of the aspiration to abolish NI, or the cuts and tax increases pencilled in to keep debt under control.
Nope. They are talking about those as well. If this is Sunny’s idea of 4D chess, then he has much to learn.
Sunak is teasing labour and others desperate for a May election, when Autumn is still his choice
But it will make him look like a bottler.
I doubt when the GE is actually called it will matter
Gordon Brown would like to have a word with you.
To be fair, not calling an election when you've teased it, very obviously prepared for it, and are double-digits ahead, is a rather different business from not calling one when you're (substantial) double-digits behind and have already said it'll be in 2024H2.
Then why set the hare running by failing to rule it out? He could simply have answered: “No.”
Because he'd like to go in May if conditions allow.
Problem is, they won't.
Will “conditions allow” in November?
January 2025 it is then
Will “conditions allow” in January?
No. So he should go now when he might have the chance of closing the gap. Look brave. Be the bigger man.
He's 20% behind. That's as close to certain defeat as it gets. He'll wait.
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
The age-sex split is fascinating. The numbers of elderly males and females shouldn't matter if it's normalised (as it appears) to miles driven. But maybe it's older males doing longer/safer motorway trips with partner to see family whereas the females left alone are doing more hazardous shorter trips on more dangerous roads?
Historically, which maybe feeds into the figures, there was a tendency for males to do more of the driving, which maybe reduced female driving skills/awareness at older ages. If so, you'd expect that effect to drop out over time.
Re the video you posted, I've only seen the video and not context, but I did wonder whether the driver simply cocked up, was too fast/not paying enough attention and came up on the minibus suddenly, in panic veered on to the grass and then - unable to really brake on the verge - ended up doing the multiple undertaking. You'd have thought he would instead have moved into the other lane, but verge may have been a panic reaction if uncertain if the road ahead was clear.
Sky saying Sunak promised that the standard rate tax would be at 19% by the end of the parliament and conservative mps expect an Autumn statement reducing the tax to 19% before going to a GE in October or November
Sky's presenter commented it looks more and more likely
Do you have a date on that autumn statement/fiscal event?
It will be interesting to see how a New Labour-style government copes under the glare of social media with terminally online activists calling them Tories every time they point out that they don't have unlimited resources or say anything about helping people get back into work.
And then there will be Mandelson stage managing Sir Jabba the Gut and making him do push ups every 10 minutes until he shrinks to the size of Sunak.
I think Sunak hasn't got the foggiest idea what he was up to.
Despite initial hopes he's never really managed to get a grip on things, so has just lurched from crisis to crisis, with a spatter of inconsistent messaging and policy ideas. Getting by week to week appears to be the order of the day.
Sad to think that just about the only measurable effect of the government's change to the electoral system - in defiance of a referendum, no less - is that support for Binface will crater.
The cynical attempt at a fix isn't going to result in Susan Hall becoming mayor, that's for sure...
Sky saying Sunak promised that the standard rate tax would be at 19% by the end of the parliament and conservative mps expect an Autumn statement reducing the tax to 19% before going to a GE in October or November
Sky's presenter commented it looks more and more likely
SkyNews political team seemed to make a call very early yesterday on can’t be an election before another fiscal event, and then go looking for and creating things to suit that narrative, and I think poor political journalism, that does not think out of the box much just relies on the old painting by numbers - you always hang on for better economic news - misleads too many PBers.
Maybe sky news will learn from this mistake, in future read PB more often and take notes from my analysis. 😇
@HugoBebb “Former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss spent more than £15,000 on in-flight catering for a single trip to Australia while she was running the Foreign Office.” - via @e_casalicchio
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
70 clearly the wrong number looking at the graph.
Would suggest tests (perhaps not full ones) at 80, 85, 90 and each year from then onwards.
Comparing to a population pyramid, each of M&F in the 17-24 age category are ~4.8%, whilst M85-89 are 0.6%, and F85-89 are 0.9%.
So that suggests a more thought through gradual accrual of driving privileges (eg after dusk from age 19 or 21), or post-test CDE (continuing driver education), might give good results. In addition to an improved eye-test regime (which is currently under consideration).
Sky saying Sunak promised that the standard rate tax would be at 19% by the end of the parliament and conservative mps expect an Autumn statement reducing the tax to 19% before going to a GE in October or November
Sky's presenter commented it looks more and more likely
SkyNews political team seemed to make a call very early yesterday on can’t be an election before another fiscal event, and then go looking for and creating things to suit that narrative, and I think poor political journalism, that does not think out of the box much just relies on the old painting by numbers - you always hang on for better economic news - misleads too many PBers.
Maybe sky news will learn from this mistake, in future read PB more often and take notes from my analysis. 😇
Sky political correspondent has been speaking to conservative mps who are of this mindset
Sky saying Sunak promised that the standard rate tax would be at 19% by the end of the parliament and conservative mps expect an Autumn statement reducing the tax to 19% before going to a GE in October or November
Sky's presenter commented it looks more and more likely
Do you have a date on that autumn statement/fiscal event?
September has been muted
Brave. Brings to mind the 2022 fiscal statement.
The OBR is required to report twice a year on government economic forecasts. So if there is an early autumn election it is possible to have one after. If the election is not until December or January 2025 there would need to be an autumn statement.
Sunak is teasing labour and others desperate for a May election, when Autumn is still his choice
But it will make him look like a bottler.
I doubt when the GE is actually called it will matter
Gordon Brown would like to have a word with you.
To be fair, not calling an election when you've teased it, very obviously prepared for it, and are double-digits ahead, is a rather different business from not calling one when you're (substantial) double-digits behind and have already said it'll be in 2024H2.
Then why set the hare running by failing to rule it out? He could simply have answered: “No.”
Because he'd like to go in May if conditions allow.
Problem is, they won't.
Will “conditions allow” in November?
January 2025 it is then
I mean, under our constitution (lack of) it only takes a simple majority in the House to decide you don’t fancy having elections at all until “conditions allow”. 2030? 2040?
No it's not. The Lords retains its absolute right of veto on extending the length of a parliament, under the Parliament Act.
It's the only thing the Lords *does* have full veto powers on (although its 12-month veto is sufficient now for the rest of this parliament).
Yeah ok - “in both Houses”. But joking aside, it’s one of the few things that makes me want something a bit more fixed into a Constitution.
The 'both Houses' bit does matter though, given that governments tend to have a majority in one but not the other - as now.
We did, of course, have that Fixed-Term Parliaments bit in our constitution for a while. People decided it didn't work very well. Personally, I quite liked it and think it only needed a bit of tinkering to smooth out the rough edges.
Possibly. It does mean Labour cannot really complain about the PM playing games with when the election might be, since they too supported repealing it.
They will complain, but they wanted the ability to play this game, and the complaints are part of that.
@PeterOuld What if the Government's plan is to hold an early (May) election if, and only if, the Rwanda Bill is held up by Parliamentary Process / the Lords? A kind of "the people vs the lefty immigration fans" thing?
Would let them have an ideological conflict linked to Brexit.
Sounds a bit desperate, but it might be worth a roll of the dice compared with other options. After all, this conflict around Brexit approach paid huge dividends for Boris in 2019.
Sky saying Sunak promised that the standard rate tax would be at 19% by the end of the parliament and conservative mps expect an Autumn statement reducing the tax to 19% before going to a GE in October or November
Sky's presenter commented it looks more and more likely
All it needs is twelve billion quid the Chancellor doesn't have.
Has the stress of the role sent our Prime Minister over the edge, leading to the delusion that he is in fact Montague Brewster from the book and cinematic entertainment "Brewster's Millions"?
Sad to think that just about the only measurable effect of the government's change to the electoral system - in defiance of a referendum, no less - is that support for Binface will crater.
The cynical attempt at a fix isn't going to result in Susan Hall becoming mayor, that's for sure...
NEW: In a leaked recording Susan Hall, Tory Mayoral candidate, says she would deal with Qs over Met police misconduct "behind closed doors" and attributes issues to "wrong un's" and "badduns".
Funnily enough I think Tyson Paul will be a good fight. Yes Tyson is a monster but Paul isn't stupid bad. I don't think it will be close at all I think that Tyson gets him out of there as and when he wants but it will be interesting to see how Paul gets on. I'll certainly watch it on Netflix.
Sky saying Sunak promised that the standard rate tax would be at 19% by the end of the parliament and conservative mps expect an Autumn statement reducing the tax to 19% before going to a GE in October or November
Sky's presenter commented it looks more and more likely
SkyNews political team seemed to make a call very early yesterday on can’t be an election before another fiscal event, and then go looking for and creating things to suit that narrative, and I think poor political journalism, that does not think out of the box much just relies on the old painting by numbers - you always hang on for better economic news - misleads too many PBers.
Maybe sky news will learn from this mistake, in future read PB more often and take notes from my analysis. 😇
I am very interested in how you will react if it is not 2nd May
Sad to think that just about the only measurable effect of the government's change to the electoral system - in defiance of a referendum, no less - is that support for Binface will crater.
The cynical attempt at a fix isn't going to result in Susan Hall becoming mayor, that's for sure...
NEW: In a leaked recording Susan Hall, Tory Mayoral candidate, says she would deal with Qs over Met police misconduct "behind closed doors" and attributes issues to "wrong un's" and "badduns".
Perhaps not as sensational as you think? How would you categorise the bad coppers.
Sad to think that just about the only measurable effect of the government's change to the electoral system - in defiance of a referendum, no less - is that support for Binface will crater.
The cynical attempt at a fix isn't going to result in Susan Hall becoming mayor, that's for sure...
NEW: In a leaked recording Susan Hall, Tory Mayoral candidate, says she would deal with Qs over Met police misconduct "behind closed doors" and attributes issues to "wrong un's" and "badduns".
Perhaps not as sensational as you think? How would you categorise the bad coppers.
They are the ones with a secondary burner phone hidden in the spare wheel compartment of their car.
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
The age-sex split is fascinating. The numbers of elderly males and females shouldn't matter if it's normalised (as it appears) to miles driven. But maybe it's older males doing longer/safer motorway trips with partner to see family whereas the females left alone are doing more hazardous shorter trips on more dangerous roads?
Historically, which maybe feeds into the figures, there was a tendency for males to do more of the driving, which maybe reduced female driving skills/awareness at older ages. If so, you'd expect that effect to drop out over time.
Re the video you posted, I've only seen the video and not context, but I did wonder whether the driver simply cocked up, was too fast/not paying enough attention and came up on the minibus suddenly, in panic veered on to the grass and then - unable to really brake on the verge - ended up doing the multiple undertaking. You'd have thought he would instead have moved into the other lane, but verge may have been a panic reaction if uncertain if the road ahead was clear.
I suspect the switcheroo at 85 is that old men are more stubborn and refuse to give up the car. So the remaining women drivers post 85 are only those who can still do it safely,
@HugoBebb “Former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss spent more than £15,000 on in-flight catering for a single trip to Australia while she was running the Foreign Office.” - via @e_casalicchio
Sad to think that just about the only measurable effect of the government's change to the electoral system - in defiance of a referendum, no less - is that support for Binface will crater.
The cynical attempt at a fix isn't going to result in Susan Hall becoming mayor, that's for sure...
NEW: In a leaked recording Susan Hall, Tory Mayoral candidate, says she would deal with Qs over Met police misconduct "behind closed doors" and attributes issues to "wrong un's" and "badduns".
Perhaps not as sensational as you think? How would you categorise the bad coppers.
The product of a wrong and bad system, which encourages the recruitment, retention, and advancement of wrong un's and bad un's, an institutional leadership which mouths platitudes but shows resistance to any hint of change or positive growth, and political interest which dissipates when difficult decisions need to be made.
But in any case I think the implication is she doesn't want to air dirty laundry and is willing to attribute problems to individuals, suggesting she doesn't believe there are major issues with the Met at all. Which is fine if others agree, but if they do not, it will look bad.
Police misconduct should be dealt with “behind closed doors” and problems in Britain’s biggest force are the result of individual “bad ’uns”, the Conservative London mayoral candidate has said.
In a leaked recording, Susan Hall can be heard telling backers that she would “support [the Met] completely in front of other people”, adding: “If they’re doing something wrong, you take them into your office, you close the door, and you have the conversation and that’s exactly what we should be doing with the police.”
Hall also suggested that problems of sexism and misogyny in the Met are down to “bad ’uns” and “wrong ’uns”. This runs counter to the central finding of Baroness Casey’s review of the Met, which concluded that the force was institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic...
...The leaked remarks were made at a campaign event for Hall in January, during which she was challenged on her approach to the Met by a member of the audience who warned her against failing to publicly recognise the need for reform.
In response, Hall replied: “There have been some disgraceful episodes, you’re quite right. And they are now rooting out the bad ’uns, if you like. There’s 250 that are on suspension, not allowed to work and there’s about 1,000 that are being watched. Totally not good enough … Having said that, if you’re running a business, if you want things to go well with your staff, you support them completely in front of other people.
“If they’re doing something wrong, you take them into your office, you close the door, and you have the conversation and that’s exactly what we should be doing with the police.”
Hall went on to praise the majority of Met officers who feel “battered and bruised” by the criticism directed at the force in recent years, adding: “And some of the wrong ’uns are the ones that have gotten a bad reputation. So I will continue to support [the majority].
“But what I say to the commissioner behind closed doors will stay behind closed doors. But I promise you, we will get results. It will be much, much better under a Hall mayoralty.”
Hall’s campaign slogan is “Safer with Susan” and she has been deeply critical of the current Labour mayor Sadiq Khan’s record on policing. The former leader of Harrow council was selected by the Conservative Party to fight the City Hall election this May.
A Conservative source said the remarks risked sending relations between the Met and the public “back to square one”.
They said: “To tackle the deep-rooted issues in the Met police you need to first actually tackle the problem and also regain the trust of the public. To do that you have to call out bad behaviour publicly and to suggest she won’t say that anything is wrong is worrying. Susan has to show the public she understands the depth of the problem.”
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
Surprised that females have more accidents than men in most age-groups (boy racers the major exception!)
I thought women were supposed to be safer drivers? Didn't they get cheaper insurance before that was deemed sexist and discriminatory, ergo illegal?
Police misconduct should be dealt with “behind closed doors” and problems in Britain’s biggest force are the result of individual “bad ’uns”, the Conservative London mayoral candidate has said.
In a leaked recording, Susan Hall can be heard telling backers that she would “support [the Met] completely in front of other people”, adding: “If they’re doing something wrong, you take them into your office, you close the door, and you have the conversation and that’s exactly what we should be doing with the police.”
Hall also suggested that problems of sexism and misogyny in the Met are down to “bad ’uns” and “wrong ’uns”. This runs counter to the central finding of Baroness Casey’s review of the Met, which concluded that the force was institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic...
...The leaked remarks were made at a campaign event for Hall in January, during which she was challenged on her approach to the Met by a member of the audience who warned her against failing to publicly recognise the need for reform.
In response, Hall replied: “There have been some disgraceful episodes, you’re quite right. And they are now rooting out the bad ’uns, if you like. There’s 250 that are on suspension, not allowed to work and there’s about 1,000 that are being watched. Totally not good enough … Having said that, if you’re running a business, if you want things to go well with your staff, you support them completely in front of other people.
“If they’re doing something wrong, you take them into your office, you close the door, and you have the conversation and that’s exactly what we should be doing with the police.”
Hall went on to praise the majority of Met officers who feel “battered and bruised” by the criticism directed at the force in recent years, adding: “And some of the wrong ’uns are the ones that have gotten a bad reputation. So I will continue to support [the majority].
“But what I say to the commissioner behind closed doors will stay behind closed doors. But I promise you, we will get results. It will be much, much better under a Hall mayoralty.”
Hall’s campaign slogan is “Safer with Susan” and she has been deeply critical of the current Labour mayor Sadiq Khan’s record on policing. The former leader of Harrow council was selected by the Conservative Party to fight the City Hall election this May.
A Conservative source said the remarks risked sending relations between the Met and the public “back to square one”.
They said: “To tackle the deep-rooted issues in the Met police you need to first actually tackle the problem and also regain the trust of the public. To do that you have to call out bad behaviour publicly and to suggest she won’t say that anything is wrong is worrying. Susan has to show the public she understands the depth of the problem.”
Sad to think that just about the only measurable effect of the government's change to the electoral system - in defiance of a referendum, no less - is that support for Binface will crater.
The cynical attempt at a fix isn't going to result in Susan Hall becoming mayor, that's for sure...
NEW: In a leaked recording Susan Hall, Tory Mayoral candidate, says she would deal with Qs over Met police misconduct "behind closed doors" and attributes issues to "wrong un's" and "badduns".
Perhaps not as sensational as you think? How would you categorise the bad coppers.
They are the ones with a secondary burner phone hidden in the spare wheel compartment of their car.
Well indeed and I think the terms "wrong 'uns" and "badduns" will resonate with plenty of people. As for the "behind closed doors" this is less clear but I'm sure it will be explained away as not conducted on the front page of the Mail.
Police misconduct should be dealt with “behind closed doors” and problems in Britain’s biggest force are the result of individual “bad ’uns”, the Conservative London mayoral candidate has said.
In a leaked recording, Susan Hall can be heard telling backers that she would “support [the Met] completely in front of other people”, adding: “If they’re doing something wrong, you take them into your office, you close the door, and you have the conversation and that’s exactly what we should be doing with the police.”
Hall also suggested that problems of sexism and misogyny in the Met are down to “bad ’uns” and “wrong ’uns”. This runs counter to the central finding of Baroness Casey’s review of the Met, which concluded that the force was institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic...
...The leaked remarks were made at a campaign event for Hall in January, during which she was challenged on her approach to the Met by a member of the audience who warned her against failing to publicly recognise the need for reform.
In response, Hall replied: “There have been some disgraceful episodes, you’re quite right. And they are now rooting out the bad ’uns, if you like. There’s 250 that are on suspension, not allowed to work and there’s about 1,000 that are being watched. Totally not good enough … Having said that, if you’re running a business, if you want things to go well with your staff, you support them completely in front of other people.
“If they’re doing something wrong, you take them into your office, you close the door, and you have the conversation and that’s exactly what we should be doing with the police.”
Hall went on to praise the majority of Met officers who feel “battered and bruised” by the criticism directed at the force in recent years, adding: “And some of the wrong ’uns are the ones that have gotten a bad reputation. So I will continue to support [the majority].
“But what I say to the commissioner behind closed doors will stay behind closed doors. But I promise you, we will get results. It will be much, much better under a Hall mayoralty.”
Hall’s campaign slogan is “Safer with Susan” and she has been deeply critical of the current Labour mayor Sadiq Khan’s record on policing. The former leader of Harrow council was selected by the Conservative Party to fight the City Hall election this May.
A Conservative source said the remarks risked sending relations between the Met and the public “back to square one”.
They said: “To tackle the deep-rooted issues in the Met police you need to first actually tackle the problem and also regain the trust of the public. To do that you have to call out bad behaviour publicly and to suggest she won’t say that anything is wrong is worrying. Susan has to show the public she understands the depth of the problem.”
Police misconduct should be dealt with “behind closed doors” and problems in Britain’s biggest force are the result of individual “bad ’uns”, the Conservative London mayoral candidate has said.
In a leaked recording, Susan Hall can be heard telling backers that she would “support [the Met] completely in front of other people”, adding: “If they’re doing something wrong, you take them into your office, you close the door, and you have the conversation and that’s exactly what we should be doing with the police.”
Hall also suggested that problems of sexism and misogyny in the Met are down to “bad ’uns” and “wrong ’uns”. This runs counter to the central finding of Baroness Casey’s review of the Met, which concluded that the force was institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic...
...The leaked remarks were made at a campaign event for Hall in January, during which she was challenged on her approach to the Met by a member of the audience who warned her against failing to publicly recognise the need for reform.
In response, Hall replied: “There have been some disgraceful episodes, you’re quite right. And they are now rooting out the bad ’uns, if you like. There’s 250 that are on suspension, not allowed to work and there’s about 1,000 that are being watched. Totally not good enough … Having said that, if you’re running a business, if you want things to go well with your staff, you support them completely in front of other people.
“If they’re doing something wrong, you take them into your office, you close the door, and you have the conversation and that’s exactly what we should be doing with the police.”
Hall went on to praise the majority of Met officers who feel “battered and bruised” by the criticism directed at the force in recent years, adding: “And some of the wrong ’uns are the ones that have gotten a bad reputation. So I will continue to support [the majority].
“But what I say to the commissioner behind closed doors will stay behind closed doors. But I promise you, we will get results. It will be much, much better under a Hall mayoralty.”
Hall’s campaign slogan is “Safer with Susan” and she has been deeply critical of the current Labour mayor Sadiq Khan’s record on policing. The former leader of Harrow council was selected by the Conservative Party to fight the City Hall election this May.
A Conservative source said the remarks risked sending relations between the Met and the public “back to square one”.
They said: “To tackle the deep-rooted issues in the Met police you need to first actually tackle the problem and also regain the trust of the public. To do that you have to call out bad behaviour publicly and to suggest she won’t say that anything is wrong is worrying. Susan has to show the public she understands the depth of the problem.”
Not being willing enough to criticise such an important service, in the fallacious idea it is necessary in order to show them 'support', is a major problem. It's why the police know they don't have to take meaningful action.
It is much easier to address problems when they are openly acknowledged and discussed.
Sad to think that just about the only measurable effect of the government's change to the electoral system - in defiance of a referendum, no less - is that support for Binface will crater.
The cynical attempt at a fix isn't going to result in Susan Hall becoming mayor, that's for sure...
NEW: In a leaked recording Susan Hall, Tory Mayoral candidate, says she would deal with Qs over Met police misconduct "behind closed doors" and attributes issues to "wrong un's" and "badduns".
Perhaps not as sensational as you think? How would you categorise the bad coppers.
The product of a wrong and bad system, which encourages the recruitment, retention, and advancement of wrong un's and bad un's, an institutional leadership which mouths platitudes but shows resistance to any hint of change or positive growth, and political interest which dissipates when difficult decisions need to be made.
But in any case I think the implication is she doesn't want to air dirty laundry and is willing to attribute problems to individuals, suggesting she doesn't believe there are major issues with the Met at all. Which is fine if others agree, but if they do not, it will look bad.
Not a bad point. It seems that Hall thinks the Met is fundamentally decent. If she really thinks it's rotten to the core then that's another matter. Does Khan?
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
Surprised that females have more accidents than men in most age-groups (boy racers the major exception!)
I thought women were supposed to be safer drivers? Didn't they use to get cheaper insurance before that was deemed sexist and discriminatory, ergo illegal?
Sad to think that just about the only measurable effect of the government's change to the electoral system - in defiance of a referendum, no less - is that support for Binface will crater.
The cynical attempt at a fix isn't going to result in Susan Hall becoming mayor, that's for sure...
NEW: In a leaked recording Susan Hall, Tory Mayoral candidate, says she would deal with Qs over Met police misconduct "behind closed doors" and attributes issues to "wrong un's" and "badduns".
Perhaps not as sensational as you think? How would you categorise the bad coppers.
The product of a wrong and bad system, which encourages the recruitment, retention, and advancement of wrong un's and bad un's, an institutional leadership which mouths platitudes but shows resistance to any hint of change or positive growth, and political interest which dissipates when difficult decisions need to be made.
But in any case I think the implication is she doesn't want to air dirty laundry and is willing to attribute problems to individuals, suggesting she doesn't believe there are major issues with the Met at all. Which is fine if others agree, but if they do not, it will look bad.
Not a bad point. It seems that Hall thinks the Met is fundamentally decent. If she really thinks it's rotten to the core then that's another matter. Does Khan?
I think he would do whatever is momentarily convenient on it, but probably more on the side of it having deeper issues than Hall.
Sunak is teasing labour and others desperate for a May election, when Autumn is still his choice
But it will make him look like a bottler.
I doubt when the GE is actually called it will matter
Gordon Brown would like to have a word with you.
To be fair, not calling an election when you've teased it, very obviously prepared for it, and are double-digits ahead, is a rather different business from not calling one when you're (substantial) double-digits behind and have already said it'll be in 2024H2.
Then why set the hare running by failing to rule it out? He could simply have answered: “No.”
Because he'd like to go in May if conditions allow.
Problem is, they won't.
Will “conditions allow” in November?
January 2025 it is then
I mean, under our constitution (lack of) it only takes a simple majority in the House to decide you don’t fancy having elections at all until “conditions allow”. 2030? 2040?
No it's not. The Lords retains its absolute right of veto on extending the length of a parliament, under the Parliament Act.
It's the only thing the Lords *does* have full veto powers on (although its 12-month veto is sufficient now for the rest of this parliament).
Yeah ok - “in both Houses”. But joking aside, it’s one of the few things that makes me want something a bit more fixed into a Constitution.
The 'both Houses' bit does matter though, given that governments tend to have a majority in one but not the other - as now.
We did, of course, have that Fixed-Term Parliaments bit in our constitution for a while. People decided it didn't work very well. Personally, I quite liked it and think it only needed a bit of tinkering to smooth out the rough edges.
It was utterly shit legislation. I think we had one term – one! – which was fixed. It's a miracle other countries manage it. It is disgraceful that governments can choose their own election timetable.
Funnily enough I think Tyson Paul will be a good fight. Yes Tyson is a monster but Paul isn't stupid bad. I don't think it will be close at all I think that Tyson gets him out of there as and when he wants but it will be interesting to see how Paul gets on. I'll certainly watch it on Netflix.
It sounds pretty dumn, but it makes definite sense as a commercial spectacle - I don't follow boxing and apart from the big heavyweight title fights the only ones I seem to hear about is when Youtubers are involved, so the media hype does its job well.
Good. A replacement for the Port of Gaza, which has recently been reduced to rubble, is going to be a necessary part of sorting out the future for that part of the world, no matter what it looks like.
While they're at it, maybe they might like to hint that US-registered ships will occasionally be calling there once it's built - I imagine that they'd be less likely to be boarded or sunk by Shayetet 13...
Now the PM tells BBC: "I was very clear about this at the beginning of the year about my working assumption for the election being in the second half of the year – nothing has changed since then."
Sky saying Sunak promised that the standard rate tax would be at 19% by the end of the parliament and conservative mps expect an Autumn statement reducing the tax to 19% before going to a GE in October or November
Sky's presenter commented it looks more and more likely
Do you have a date on that autumn statement/fiscal event?
@HugoBebb “Former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss spent more than £15,000 on in-flight catering for a single trip to Australia while she was running the Foreign Office.” - via @e_casalicchio
Presumably she just racked up the bill and we footed the bill.
I’ve just come in. So Sunak hasn’t called the election yet? 🤷♀️
We are still waiting.
Is he going to bottle it?
It’s not a case of bottling it, it’s a case he has no choice. Autumn election hasn’t been possible for months.
Polling wise they are in a false position, there’s a lot of votes out there, on reform, don’t know, even on Labour, they can still win back in May. By the end of the year, after the boat surge, the covid report and so many having to switch to higher mortgage, many of those voters they need for swingback will have hardened up into wanting them out.
Looks like Monday at 1038 he’ll call it then. A customary cabinet to unanimously back him first?
The judging in the young dog best of show ... the judge chooses the winner as the Bearded Collie (Dulux dog) - with the miniatur Schnauzer as the runner-up
Now the PM tells BBC: "I was very clear about this at the beginning of the year about my working assumption for the election being in the second half of the year – nothing has changed since then."
'working assumption' makes the supposed clarity meaningless because it means people perfectly reasonably questioned if the assumption was liable to change, but in his defence it is a rare situation where 'I was very clear' is not being used to a) make things less clear b) to pretend a previous confusing statement was very clear.
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
Surprised that females have more accidents than men in most age-groups (boy racers the major exception!)
I thought women were supposed to be safer drivers? Didn't they get cheaper insurance before that was deemed sexist and discriminatory, ergo illegal?
On my weekly visits to Sainsbury's, I'm often surprised by the number of cars showing evidence of low speed collisions. Car park dings, perhaps. Scuffed bumpers, dents in wings or doors, that sort of minor damage. Trouble is, I doubt this sort of thing would even make it to the statistics.
Sky saying Sunak promised that the standard rate tax would be at 19% by the end of the parliament and conservative mps expect an Autumn statement reducing the tax to 19% before going to a GE in October or November
Sky's presenter commented it looks more and more likely
Do you have a date on that autumn statement/fiscal event?
September has been muted
Fiscal Event to election day, my Maths. Election day early October, Fiscal event August? Parliament back from Summer holiday 1st September, immediate fiscal event is Mid October election? Any Fiscal Event from the 2nd week of November on, and it’s a Christmas Shut Down fortnight election Day?
And what can they actually do in an Autumn budget that makes up for all the voters lost over the summer from having to hang on for yet another dishonest piss taking budget? The giveaways from this weeks budget barely held together after going down the back of every sofa in Whitehall 😃
“We’ve had to wait another 6 months just for a penny off income tax, and funded by some mythical headroom we supposedly have five years from now? Get me to the polling station.”
Not providing legal advice in principle may be the position. But in this case I assume the options are she ignored advice or the advice was crap, and since the government is footing the bill I expect it's the latter.
Sky saying Sunak promised that the standard rate tax would be at 19% by the end of the parliament and conservative mps expect an Autumn statement reducing the tax to 19% before going to a GE in October or November
Sky's presenter commented it looks more and more likely
SkyNews political team seemed to make a call very early yesterday on can’t be an election before another fiscal event, and then go looking for and creating things to suit that narrative, and I think poor political journalism, that does not think out of the box much just relies on the old painting by numbers - you always hang on for better economic news - misleads too many PBers.
Maybe sky news will learn from this mistake, in future read PB more often and take notes from my analysis. 😇
I am very interested in how you will react if it is not 2nd May
You have rather painted yourself into a corner
As have the plethora of PBers who have assured us it is NOT May, TBF
Now the PM tells BBC: "I was very clear about this at the beginning of the year about my working assumption for the election being in the second half of the year – nothing has changed since then."
@HugoBebb “Former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss spent more than £15,000 on in-flight catering for a single trip to Australia while she was running the Foreign Office.” - via @e_casalicchio
Presumably she just racked up the bill and we footed the bill.
I would guess it's just a flat fee for catering on the chartered flight so it's fake news to imply she was living it large at taxpayers' expense.
Now the PM tells BBC: "I was very clear about this at the beginning of the year about my working assumption for the election being in the second half of the year – nothing has changed since then."
Now the PM tells BBC: "I was very clear about this at the beginning of the year about my working assumption for the election being in the second half of the year – nothing has changed since then."
Now the PM tells BBC: "I was very clear about this at the beginning of the year about my working assumption for the election being in the second half of the year – nothing has changed since then."
@HugoBebb “Former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss spent more than £15,000 on in-flight catering for a single trip to Australia while she was running the Foreign Office.” - via @e_casalicchio
Presumably she just racked up the bill and we footed the bill.
£15,000 on catering sounds like a lot and I'm not sure I believe it out-of-context. First, what is a trip? Does it include days parked in an Australian airport? Did Liz Truss neck £15,000's worth of champagne or is that the cost of an RAF stewards team for a week?
I’ve just come in. So Sunak hasn’t called the election yet? 🤷♀️
We are still waiting.
Is he going to bottle it?
It’s not a case of bottling it, it’s a case he has no choice. Autumn election hasn’t been possible for months.
Polling wise they are in a false position, there’s a lot of votes out there, on reform, don’t know, even on Labour, they can still win back in May. By the end of the year, after the boat surge, the covid report and so many having to switch to higher mortgage, many of those voters they need for swingback will have hardened up into wanting them out.
Looks like Monday at 1038 he’ll call it then. A customary cabinet to unanimously back him first?
Now the PM tells BBC: "I was very clear about this at the beginning of the year about my working assumption for the election being in the second half of the year – nothing has changed since then."
Count Binface is clearly liberal-left but he also has a cracking sense of humour, and his style is very very British.
I could be tempted.
I admired the effort he put in last time, with his website, songs, and so on. And his book was decent, again greater effort than most.
Last time he got 1.0%, better than a great many serious candidates (and also Piers Corbyn). I'd like to think he could better than and come behind only the main parties and maybe a good independent or two.
But with it now being FPTP I suspect he'll go backwards.
Sky saying Sunak promised that the standard rate tax would be at 19% by the end of the parliament and conservative mps expect an Autumn statement reducing the tax to 19% before going to a GE in October or November
Sky's presenter commented it looks more and more likely
SkyNews political team seemed to make a call very early yesterday on can’t be an election before another fiscal event, and then go looking for and creating things to suit that narrative, and I think poor political journalism, that does not think out of the box much just relies on the old painting by numbers - you always hang on for better economic news - misleads too many PBers.
Maybe sky news will learn from this mistake, in future read PB more often and take notes from my analysis. 😇
Sky political correspondent has been speaking to conservative mps who are of this mindset
They all know by now it’s May 2nd, but can’t say anything till the boss says it first.
If he is announcing Monday, we’ll know on Sunday, because they will brief the papers there’s a special cabinet Monday, and probably look to get to the microphones first with some arguments and slogans into the client media.
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
Surprised that females have more accidents than men in most age-groups (boy racers the major exception!)
I thought women were supposed to be safer drivers? Didn't they get cheaper insurance before that was deemed sexist and discriminatory, ergo illegal?
On my weekly visits to Sainsbury's, I'm often surprised by the number of cars showing evidence of low speed collisions. Car park dings, perhaps. Scuffed bumpers, dents in wings or doors, that sort of minor damage. Trouble is, I doubt this sort of thing would even make it to the statistics.
Many of those doubtless incurred in Sainsbury's car park.
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
Surprised that females have more accidents than men in most age-groups (boy racers the major exception!)
I thought women were supposed to be safer drivers? Didn't they get cheaper insurance before that was deemed sexist and discriminatory, ergo illegal?
It looks like the data say women drivers are more likely to die in accidents. Could this relate to cars, and safety tests and standards, being designed around men?
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
The age-sex split is fascinating. The numbers of elderly males and females shouldn't matter if it's normalised (as it appears) to miles driven. But maybe it's older males doing longer/safer motorway trips with partner to see family whereas the females left alone are doing more hazardous shorter trips on more dangerous roads?
Historically, which maybe feeds into the figures, there was a tendency for males to do more of the driving, which maybe reduced female driving skills/awareness at older ages. If so, you'd expect that effect to drop out over time.
Re the video you posted, I've only seen the video and not context, but I did wonder whether the driver simply cocked up, was too fast/not paying enough attention and came up on the minibus suddenly, in panic veered on to the grass and then - unable to really brake on the verge - ended up doing the multiple undertaking. You'd have thought he would instead have moved into the other lane, but verge may have been a panic reaction if uncertain if the road ahead was clear.
That's a good comment.
You are right on the normalisation - I missed that wrt the elderly.
On the video, even in the circs you describe I don't see that as a cockup. A decision to drive close enough to the vehicle in front so as to make the row of vehicles overtaking the cycle invisible is a deliberate decision, as is the coming up suddenly not to give proper time to observe before the overtake. Both are against how every UK driver has been trained.
As also was the decision to accelerate past along the verge rather than de-accelerate and let the truck be slowed down by the friction etc on the verge whilst the speed reduced.
The overtake on the verge was imo a series of deliberate decisions, and that makes it reckless or dangerous not careless.
However, imo he got the conviction for dangerous driving because he pled guilty - any decent solicitor would have said do not admit, say it was a mistake, and then they will charge you with Careless Driving (especially in Scotland *) because they need to prove intent to get you for Dangerous Driving.
* Scottish Police are poor at motoring offences (not having a pop at Scotland).
Now the PM tells BBC: "I was very clear about this at the beginning of the year about my working assumption for the election being in the second half of the year – nothing has changed since then."
Now the PM tells BBC: "I was very clear about this at the beginning of the year about my working assumption for the election being in the second half of the year – nothing has changed since then."
Now the PM tells BBC: "I was very clear about this at the beginning of the year about my working assumption for the election being in the second half of the year – nothing has changed since then."
Now the PM tells BBC: "I was very clear about this at the beginning of the year about my working assumption for the election being in the second half of the year – nothing has changed since then."
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
Survivability? Old men ain’t very robust.
Nonsense, they go from strength to strength, just look at american politics.
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
Surprised that females have more accidents than men in most age-groups (boy racers the major exception!)
I thought women were supposed to be safer drivers? Didn't they get cheaper insurance before that was deemed sexist and discriminatory, ergo illegal?
It looks like the data say women drivers are more likely to die in accidents. Could this relate to cars, and safety tests and standards, being designed around men?
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
Surprised that females have more accidents than men in most age-groups (boy racers the major exception!)
I thought women were supposed to be safer drivers? Didn't they get cheaper insurance before that was deemed sexist and discriminatory, ergo illegal?
These are normalised per distance driven, so if men drive further on average than women (I think that still holds) that will mean more total accidents for men if the miles driven ratio is greater than the lower accidents per mile ratio.
And insurance companies pay out on all the total of accidents.
Now the PM tells BBC: "I was very clear about this at the beginning of the year about my working assumption for the election being in the second half of the year – nothing has changed since then."
@HugoBebb “Former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss spent more than £15,000 on in-flight catering for a single trip to Australia while she was running the Foreign Office.” - via @e_casalicchio
Presumably she just racked up the bill and we footed the bill.
@HugoBebb “Former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss spent more than £15,000 on in-flight catering for a single trip to Australia while she was running the Foreign Office.” - via @e_casalicchio
Presumably she just racked up the bill and we footed the bill.
£15,000 on catering sounds like a lot and I'm not sure I believe it out-of-context. First, what is a trip? Does it include days parked in an Australian airport? Did Liz Truss neck £15,000's worth of champagne or is that the cost of an RAF stewards team for a week?
It is but how long was the flight (how many meals) , was there a refuelling stop, and how many were in the Foreign Office entourage
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
Surprised that females have more accidents than men in most age-groups (boy racers the major exception!)
I thought women were supposed to be safer drivers? Didn't they get cheaper insurance before that was deemed sexist and discriminatory, ergo illegal?
It looks like the data say women drivers are more likely to die in accidents. Could this relate to cars, and safety tests and standards, being designed around men?
Yes, potentially, imo.
Also possibly if women buy smaller vehicles - remember all those small, purple hatchbacks !
@PeterOuld What if the Government's plan is to hold an early (May) election if, and only if, the Rwanda Bill is held up by Parliamentary Process / the Lords? A kind of "the people vs the lefty immigration fans" thing?
Would let them have an ideological conflict linked to Brexit.
Sounds a bit desperate, but it might be worth a roll of the dice compared with other options. After all, this conflict around Brexit approach paid huge dividends for Boris in 2019.
No. The Rwanda gimmick is over now. It’s run its course.
It’s May 2nd because they know there’s a surge in crossings this summer, and even putting Rwanda flights in the air whilst the boat surge is on, saying we are moving 400 Asylum Seekers to Rwanda at cost of one million pound each, is not going to wash with voters as breaking the gangs and stopping the boats.
I can probably find you the exact minute they gave up of the Rwanda folly, it was the moment they finally, after all these years hiding the true cost, finally slipped it out last week in order to clear the decks for Aprils campaigning.
@PeterOuld What if the Government's plan is to hold an early (May) election if, and only if, the Rwanda Bill is held up by Parliamentary Process / the Lords? A kind of "the people vs the lefty immigration fans" thing?
Would let them have an ideological conflict linked to Brexit.
Sounds a bit desperate, but it might be worth a roll of the dice compared with other options. After all, this conflict around Brexit approach paid huge dividends for Boris in 2019.
No. The Rwanda gimmick is over now. It’s run its course.
It’s May 2nd because they know there’s a surge in crossings this summer,
Isn't that the same reason Cameron rushed his Euro deal?
A little FPT: I'm baffled by the ingrowing complacency of some on PB with respect to road safety. It's not as if we can't vastly improve it with fairly minor changes.
Here's one that came across my screen today.
Dangerous driver in an uninsured, untaxed, un-MOTd vehicle barely avoiding killing someone because of his impatience to save a few seconds. An army soldier who has access to guns. He also plainly lied on oath, so I expect his army career will be as a Private.
The sentence? 12 month ban and a fine of just over £500.
As discussed per mile of a car driving there's no fatalities until you get to nine significant figures, that's how incredibly safe our roads are.
But those are averages. Averages mask variance.
Law abiding, legal drivers are even safer than that.
Criminals who break the law are more dangerous by far.
We should clamp down more on the criminals, and less on the law abiding.
Can we agree on that?
I agree with most of that - certainly to a crackdown on criminals.
However I'd say the guy in the 4x4 in the video (who nearly rolled when he put it sideways on the verge as well) is a young-lad-who-thinks-he's-immortal-and-did-not-think-of-possible-consequences (he's 25) rather than a 'criminal'.
I know something about this because I spun my parents' car off a frosted traffic island at the age of 17 years and 8 months (no injuries, bent but driveable). My sister did exactly the same thing with my first car 12 months later (no injuries, bent but driveable).
I'm not sure what "law abiding" means in this context, when perhaps 70-80% of people who drive vehicles admit to breaking various laws in any 12 month period.
But I think that dividing it into 'others', such as 'criminals', 'drunk drivers' etc, and 'us', distracts from the very significant elements caused by laziness, carelessness and complacency amongst the 'normal' driving population - for example people who can get a phone cradle from Amazon for £5, but don't bother and do hand-held phone calls instead - at a much higher risk level. Me, I switch my phone off and put it in the glovebox.
Much of this statistical, and amenable to analysis and targeted adjustments.
Here's an example of an opportunity to target high risk groups. Fatals per distance driven, segmented by age and sex. On the LHS I'd say it's testosterone, male showing off and trying to pull women. On the RHS it's mainly more old women living than old men, but 85+ year old males seem to have disproportionate numbers of casualty collisions compared to the 1/3 of the age group they comprise- I wonder why?
Banning >70 year olds from driving would be good for road safety, bad for electoral prospects, study says.
70 clearly the wrong number looking at the graph.
Would suggest tests (perhaps not full ones) at 80, 85, 90 and each year from then onwards.
Comparing to a population pyramid, each of M&F in the 17-24 age category are ~4.8%, whilst M85-89 are 0.6%, and F85-89 are 0.9%.
So that suggests a more thought through gradual accrual of driving privileges (eg after dusk from age 19 or 21), or post-test CDE (continuing driver education), might give good results. In addition to an improved eye-test regime (which is currently under consideration).
The 'gradual accrual of privileges' has been the case in Northern Ireland for a long time.
Newly-qualified drivers have to display 'R' plates and were, until recently, limited to a max speed of 45mph. Since 2016, that's now been replaced with the requirement to be accompanied by someone over the age of 21 when driving at night.
For all that, I don't see any noticeable difference in the stats - road traffic accident & fatality rates are both very similar to those in Scotland and Wales, with all three being higher than in England. Presumably that's a result of increased rural vs urban driving, more than anything else...
@PeterOuld What if the Government's plan is to hold an early (May) election if, and only if, the Rwanda Bill is held up by Parliamentary Process / the Lords? A kind of "the people vs the lefty immigration fans" thing?
Would let them have an ideological conflict linked to Brexit.
Sounds a bit desperate, but it might be worth a roll of the dice compared with other options. After all, this conflict around Brexit approach paid huge dividends for Boris in 2019.
No. The Rwanda gimmick is over now. It’s run its course.
It’s May 2nd because they know there’s a surge in crossings this summer, and even putting Rwanda flights in the air whilst the boat surge is on, saying we are moving 400 Asylum Seekers to Rwanda at cost of one million pound each, is not going to wash with voters as breaking the gangs and stopping the boats.
I can probably find you the exact minute they gave up of the Rwanda folly, it was the moment they finally, after all these years hiding the true cost, finally slipped it out last week in order to clear the decks for Aprils campaigning.
Strange that Sky (I do watch Sky regularly) said that after next week the bill will return to the HOC for ping pong and will go through by the end of the month as labour want to move on
Sky saying Sunak promised that the standard rate tax would be at 19% by the end of the parliament and conservative mps expect an Autumn statement reducing the tax to 19% before going to a GE in October or November
Sky's presenter commented it looks more and more likely
The thing is you can’t change income tax part way through a tax year - the earliest would be April 2025 by which point Labour will be in, looked at the REAL figures and reversed it.
So Autumn could only be another cut to NI with a months notice and even that wouldn’t be seen until the end of November at the earliest unless the autumn statement was done in early September before the conferences
Comments
Would suggest tests (perhaps not full ones) at 80, 85, 90 and each year from then onwards.
If it came to it the King would, I imagine, dissolve parliament on his own authority instead of signing the bill to make it an Act. A GE would follow under the existing law. It would at least be good fun for PBers.
If eg the male over female excess in the 17-24 age group represents 500+ hospital admissions as well as double the rate, then imo that should make it a priority.
For elderly, I'd point out that old drivers mowing people down because they did not see them is prominent in media reports. And that elderly people often do not have practical and safe alternative options to driving since we have just done overwhelmingly motor infrastructure since about 1950, so pressure to 'forget to tell' DVLA about inadequate eyesight is heavy. An example in my town is that virtually every away-from-road footpath is barriered off and difficult to access unless you can do hula-hoops and sometimes limbo-dancing.
All drivers must inform the DVLA on a long list of medical issues as well
In my case my pacemaker is declared to the DVLA and shows on my car insurance policy
Generally the DVLA depend on the doctors advice on patients driving
No doubt in my mind Labour wanted the election after the explosion of boats, after the covid report and after a million forced by Tory party onto higher mortgage deals, because that election would be an extinction event for the Conservatives.
It is 100% a May election. I don’t say this becuase I am Labour, I’m never voting Labour in my life, I say it because I understand the decision Sunak has made exactly why he’s gone for May 2nd. And that is the three things in the previous paragraph, peculiar in that for every bit they are devastating to his chances of any swingback they are equally completely outside of his control.
And go now.
Historically, which maybe feeds into the figures, there was a tendency for males to do more of the driving, which maybe reduced female driving skills/awareness at older ages. If so, you'd expect that effect to drop out over time.
Re the video you posted, I've only seen the video and not context, but I did wonder whether the driver simply cocked up, was too fast/not paying enough attention and came up on the minibus suddenly, in panic veered on to the grass and then - unable to really brake on the verge - ended up doing the multiple undertaking. You'd have thought he would instead have moved into the other lane, but verge may have been a panic reaction if uncertain if the road ahead was clear.
The cynical attempt at a fix isn't going to result in Susan Hall becoming mayor, that's for sure...
Maybe sky news will learn from this mistake, in future read PB more often and take notes from my analysis. 😇
@HugoBebb
“Former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss spent more than £15,000 on in-flight catering for a single trip to Australia while she was running the Foreign Office.” - via @e_casalicchio
So that suggests a more thought through gradual accrual of driving privileges (eg after dusk from age 19 or 21), or post-test CDE (continuing driver education), might give good results. In addition to an improved eye-test regime (which is currently under consideration).
The OBR is required to report twice a year on government economic forecasts. So if there is an early autumn election it is possible to have one after. If the election is not until December or January 2025 there would need to be an autumn statement.
They will complain, but they wanted the ability to play this game, and the complaints are part of that.
What if the Government's plan is to hold an early (May) election if, and only if, the Rwanda Bill is held up by Parliamentary Process / the Lords? A kind of "the people vs the lefty immigration fans" thing?
Would let them have an ideological conflict linked to Brexit.
Sounds a bit desperate, but it might be worth a roll of the dice compared with other options. After all, this conflict around Brexit approach paid huge dividends for Boris in 2019.
Has the stress of the role sent our Prime Minister over the edge, leading to the delusion that he is in fact Montague Brewster from the book and cinematic entertainment "Brewster's Millions"?
NEW: In a leaked recording Susan Hall, Tory Mayoral candidate, says she would deal with Qs over Met police misconduct "behind closed doors" and attributes issues to "wrong un's" and "badduns".
You have rather painted yourself into a corner
But in any case I think the implication is she doesn't want to air dirty laundry and is willing to attribute problems to individuals, suggesting she doesn't believe there are major issues with the Met at all. Which is fine if others agree, but if they do not, it will look bad.
Police misconduct should be dealt with “behind closed doors” and problems in Britain’s biggest force are the result of individual “bad ’uns”, the Conservative London mayoral candidate has said.
In a leaked recording, Susan Hall can be heard telling backers that she would “support [the Met] completely in front of other people”, adding: “If they’re doing something wrong, you take them into your office, you close the door, and you have the conversation and that’s exactly what we should be doing with the police.”
Hall also suggested that problems of sexism and misogyny in the Met are down to “bad ’uns” and “wrong ’uns”. This runs counter to the central finding of Baroness Casey’s review of the Met, which concluded that the force was institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic...
...The leaked remarks were made at a campaign event for Hall in January, during which she was challenged on her approach to the Met by a member of the audience who warned her against failing to publicly recognise the need for reform.
In response, Hall replied: “There have been some disgraceful episodes, you’re quite right. And they are now rooting out the bad ’uns, if you like. There’s 250 that are on suspension, not allowed to work and there’s about 1,000 that are being watched. Totally not good enough … Having said that, if you’re running a business, if you want things to go well with your staff, you support them completely in front of other people.
“If they’re doing something wrong, you take them into your office, you close the door, and you have the conversation and that’s exactly what we should be doing with the police.”
Hall went on to praise the majority of Met officers who feel “battered and bruised” by the criticism directed at the force in recent years, adding: “And some of the wrong ’uns are the ones that have gotten a bad reputation. So I will continue to support [the majority].
“But what I say to the commissioner behind closed doors will stay behind closed doors. But I promise you, we will get results. It will be much, much better under a Hall mayoralty.”
Hall’s campaign slogan is “Safer with Susan” and she has been deeply critical of the current Labour mayor Sadiq Khan’s record on policing. The former leader of Harrow council was selected by the Conservative Party to fight the City Hall election this May.
A Conservative source said the remarks risked sending relations between the Met and the public “back to square one”.
They said: “To tackle the deep-rooted issues in the Met police you need to first actually tackle the problem and also regain the trust of the public. To do that you have to call out bad behaviour publicly and to suggest she won’t say that anything is wrong is worrying. Susan has to show the public she understands the depth of the problem.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/met-police-problems-susan-hall-tory-london-mayor-candidate-pps59ln3g
I thought women were supposed to be safer drivers? Didn't they get cheaper insurance before that was deemed sexist and discriminatory, ergo illegal?
Is he going to bottle it?
It's just wishful thinking.
It is much easier to address problems when they are openly acknowledged and discussed.
https://youtu.be/thHWvoYfNyo?si=LJJYWeYhYoydM_hJ
While they're at it, maybe they might like to hint that US-registered ships will occasionally be calling there once it's built - I imagine that they'd be less likely to be boarded or sunk by Shayetet 13...
I could be tempted.
Now the PM tells BBC: "I was very clear about this at the beginning of the year about my working assumption for the election being in the second half of the year – nothing has changed since then."
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1765797127609815214
https://twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/1765720770284511542
Polling wise they are in a false position, there’s a lot of votes out there, on reform, don’t know, even on Labour, they can still win back in May. By the end of the year, after the boat surge, the covid report and so many having to switch to higher mortgage, many of those voters they need for swingback will have hardened up into wanting them out.
Looks like Monday at 1038 he’ll call it then. A customary cabinet to unanimously back him first?
OMG. He's crap, isn't he?
Election day early October, Fiscal event August?
Parliament back from Summer holiday 1st September, immediate fiscal event is Mid October election?
Any Fiscal Event from the 2nd week of November on, and it’s a Christmas Shut Down fortnight election Day?
And what can they actually do in an Autumn budget that makes up for all the voters lost over the summer from having to hang on for yet another dishonest piss taking budget? The giveaways from this weeks budget barely held together after going down the back of every sofa in Whitehall 😃
“We’ve had to wait another 6 months just for a penny off income tax, and funded by some mythical headroom we supposedly have five years from now? Get me to the polling station.”
NEW: Rishi Sunak says "nothing has changed".
When he loses, it's going to be our fault, isn't it?
Last time he got 1.0%, better than a great many serious candidates (and also Piers Corbyn). I'd like to think he could better than and come behind only the main parties and maybe a good independent or two.
But with it now being FPTP I suspect he'll go backwards.
If he is announcing Monday, we’ll know on Sunday, because they will brief the papers there’s a special cabinet Monday, and probably look to get to the microphones first with some arguments and slogans into the client media.
Old men ain’t very robust.
You are right on the normalisation - I missed that wrt the elderly.
On the video, even in the circs you describe I don't see that as a cockup. A decision to drive close enough to the vehicle in front so as to make the row of vehicles overtaking the cycle invisible is a deliberate decision, as is the coming up suddenly not to give proper time to observe before the overtake. Both are against how every UK driver has been trained.
As also was the decision to accelerate past along the verge rather than de-accelerate and let the truck be slowed down by the friction etc on the verge whilst the speed reduced.
The overtake on the verge was imo a series of deliberate decisions, and that makes it reckless or dangerous not careless.
However, imo he got the conviction for dangerous driving because he pled guilty - any decent solicitor would have said do not admit, say it was a mistake, and then they will charge you with Careless Driving (especially in Scotland *) because they need to prove intent to get you for Dangerous Driving.
* Scottish Police are poor at motoring offences (not having a pop at Scotland).
Even Braverman said yesterday Sunak will lead into the next election
And insurance companies pay out on all the total of accidents.
I guess we'll see if you are right.
Also possibly if women buy smaller vehicles - remember all those small, purple hatchbacks !
It’s May 2nd because they know there’s a surge in crossings this summer, and even putting Rwanda flights in the air whilst the boat surge is on, saying we are moving 400 Asylum Seekers to Rwanda at cost of one million pound each, is not going to wash with voters as breaking the gangs and stopping the boats.
I can probably find you the exact minute they gave up of the Rwanda folly, it was the moment they finally, after all these years hiding the true cost, finally slipped it out last week in order to clear the decks for Aprils campaigning.
This is the extremism Rishi Sunak warned us about last week.
Still the people that spammed PB about Starmer having a curry are curiously silent on this story.
Newly-qualified drivers have to display 'R' plates and were, until recently, limited to a max speed of 45mph. Since 2016, that's now been replaced with the requirement to be accompanied by someone over the age of 21 when driving at night.
For all that, I don't see any noticeable difference in the stats - road traffic accident & fatality rates are both very similar to those in Scotland and Wales, with all three being higher than in England. Presumably that's a result of increased rural vs urban driving, more than anything else...
So Autumn could only be another cut to NI with a months notice and even that wouldn’t be seen until the end of November at the earliest unless the autumn statement was done in early September before the conferences
"My parents sent me to a private school, I had no choice in that. They sent me there and it's the cross I have to bear" - Jamie Laing
Parlez-vous Christian Horner? "Hans Solo" = one of his alleged WhatsApp code words for self-pleasure.