Berry will be automatically replaced by her fellow Green who came *checks notes* fourth in the Mayoral election last week. Another triumph for party lists over democracy.
I don't think party lists are undemocratic; that's just how party lists work. People know if they vote Green on the party list vote that they will get candidates based on what the party agree. Who knows why Berry has quit so suddenly - it could be a medical issue for all the information currently available.
I think closed lists are undemocratic. Why not have an open list system, where voters can choose the order of the candidates?
Agreed. The Danes have a compromise system:
1. Parties can decide whether they want to have open or semi-open lists (see below). People who feel strongly can of course factor in the decision on this in their choice of party.
2. In a semi-open list, the order is decided by how many votes each candidate gets, but voters can also support the party without indicating a personal preference, and such votes are allocated to the candidates at the top of the list. Voters who do this are basically saying "I like party X and I'm happy to delegate to them who they have in Parliament".
Generally, big parties have closed lists, because they want to ensure that their big guns actually get in so they can be Ministers. Small parties have open lists, because they like to show off a range of interesting candidates and don't expect to have to form a government.
If - as Swinney says - Swinney is going to make wholesale changes to the government's program, then I do have to ask where his mandate is?
The Greens will vote for him as FM because they anticipate holding the whip hand. Alba will vote against him as FM because they hope to hold the whip hand. Ultimately though a confidence motion in the government - however little it can actually do with whatever legitimacy - will be won because the Tories and the Greens fear an early election.
I know it was before them becoming your current political football team but I hope you're asking your fellow SLDs what mandate they thought Jack McConnell had when they happily continued in coalition with him after his coronation as SLab leader and election as FM.
I have no problem changing leaders, especially in coalitions. It only becomes problematic when the new leader declares a specific mandate to radically change course - as Truss did, and as Swinney is now doing. This was less of a problem for Yousaf who was continuity Sturgeon.
Are you worrried that Swinney might reverse the GRR and Hate Crime bills, both of which the SLDs unanimously backed?
The GRR was blocked by Westminster.
Yes, but afaik it hasn't been withdrawn from Holyrood.
Berry will be automatically replaced by her fellow Green who came *checks notes* fourth in the Mayoral election last week. Another triumph for party lists over democracy.
I don't think party lists are undemocratic; that's just how party lists work. People know if they vote Green on the party list vote that they will get candidates based on what the party agree. Who knows why Berry has quit so suddenly - it could be a medical issue for all the information currently available.
I think closed lists are undemocratic. Why not have an open list system, where voters can choose the order of the candidates?
I mean, as long as people know that they're voting for the list the party wants - what's the issue? People delegate the list to the party to make, if you're a member of that party maybe you get input (if you are a Green Party member in London you get a vote on the list). That gives people the options to choose the parties that best represent them, and also gives power to party membership, which I think is a good balance within the systems we have.
Because voting for a slate rather than individuals is less democratic influence than voting for an individual.
Why? What definition of democracy is this? When you vote for an MP you're basically voting for whatever a whip tells them to do - so you're basically just voting for the party manifesto. It isn't, in practice, much different.
Voting for a slate means a voter looking at a party manifesto and voting for that party, and then the party choosing who best represents those policies. Voting for an individual means... looking at their party manifesto and their personal history (which will likely be in line with a party manifesto anyway to get to the point of being a candidate) and voting for those who best represent your policy preference. There seems very little difference between these.
Berry will be automatically replaced by her fellow Green who came *checks notes* fourth in the Mayoral election last week. Another triumph for party lists over democracy.
I don't think party lists are undemocratic; that's just how party lists work. People know if they vote Green on the party list vote that they will get candidates based on what the party agree. Who knows why Berry has quit so suddenly - it could be a medical issue for all the information currently available.
I think closed lists are undemocratic. Why not have an open list system, where voters can choose the order of the candidates?
Agreed. The Danes have a compromise system:
1. Parties can decide whether they want to have open or semi-open lists (see below). People who feel strongly can of course factor in the decision on this in their choice of party.
2. In a semi-open list, the order is decided by how many votes each candidate gets, but voters can also support the party without indicating a personal preference, and such votes are allocated to the candidates at the top of the list. Voters who do this are basically saying "I like party X and I'm happy to delegate to them who they have in Parliament".
Generally, big parties have closed lists, because they want to ensure that their big guns actually get in so they can be Ministers. Small parties have open lists, because they like to show off a range of interesting candidates and don't expect to have to form a government.
I mean surely the key thing is whatever the list type don't take the piss by taking part if you've no intention of serving. Berry deserves to be humiliated in Brighton. It's the one seat I'll have my Keir hat on for.
Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.
Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.
On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.
Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
The only ways the IRM could have stayed in control during seven months of immense upheaval and destruction in which ~4% of the population have already been killed or wounded by an enemy that itself has taken only minimal losses are
1. enjoy large-scale popular support, or
2. be literally a terror regime, akin to say Pol Pot's.
They wouldn't have been able to hack it by being like the LibDems. They would be history already.
And it's not 2.
1 doesn't mean everyone supports or even cares about the politics. But the notion that people need their boys out there with weapons is simply beyond dispute in these circumstances. The IRM are their boys, as also are other armed resistance groupings because they aren't the only one.
If - as Swinney says - Swinney is going to make wholesale changes to the government's program, then I do have to ask where his mandate is?
The Greens will vote for him as FM because they anticipate holding the whip hand. Alba will vote against him as FM because they hope to hold the whip hand. Ultimately though a confidence motion in the government - however little it can actually do with whatever legitimacy - will be won because the Tories and the Greens fear an early election.
I know it was before them becoming your current political football team but I hope you're asking your fellow SLDs what mandate they thought Jack McConnell had when they happily continued in coalition with him after his coronation as SLab leader and election as FM.
I have no problem changing leaders, especially in coalitions. It only becomes problematic when the new leader declares a specific mandate to radically change course - as Truss did, and as Swinney is now doing. This was less of a problem for Yousaf who was continuity Sturgeon.
Are you worrried that Swinney might reverse the GRR and Hate Crime bills, both of which the SLDs unanimously backed?
The GRR was blocked by Westminster.
Yes, but afaik it hasn't been withdrawn from Holyrood.
I don't think you can withdraw a bill/act that's been cleared and sent for signing, on the same grounds that you can't post a letter and then take it back. The bill is simply uninstanciated. Happy to be corrected if wrong.
Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.
Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.
On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.
Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
Hamas has, according to reporting, accepted the terms of the ceasefire proposed by the US. It is Israel who have rejected them. You can keep saying both sides are as bad as each other but, materially, Israel is clearly causing more destruction and killing more innocent people than Hamas ever has - and Israel clearly does not care about the hostages.
This is completely untrue and I suspect you know it because it feeds your prejudices. It wasn't the US deal but an Egyptian one no one had agreed, that Hamas then altered themselves so it didn't specify 'Live' hostages. They wanted to send back dead, tortured bodies. Of course Israel rejected it! And Hamas quite obviously put it out as a ploy when no such deal had been negotiated.
You can keep pretending Hamas aren't what they are and be a willing dupe for their murderous antisemitism. But you don't help anyone. Least of all the Palestinian people. Those who like you buy Hamas's lies and become infected their hatred as surely condemn them as Netanyahu does.
Berry will be automatically replaced by her fellow Green who came *checks notes* fourth in the Mayoral election last week. Another triumph for party lists over democracy.
I don't think party lists are undemocratic; that's just how party lists work. People know if they vote Green on the party list vote that they will get candidates based on what the party agree. Who knows why Berry has quit so suddenly - it could be a medical issue for all the information currently available.
I think closed lists are undemocratic. Why not have an open list system, where voters can choose the order of the candidates?
I mean, as long as people know that they're voting for the list the party wants - what's the issue? People delegate the list to the party to make, if you're a member of that party maybe you get input (if you are a Green Party member in London you get a vote on the list). That gives people the options to choose the parties that best represent them, and also gives power to party membership, which I think is a good balance within the systems we have.
The list order is known before you vote,
Groovy Party list
1) Mother Teresa 2) Terry Nutkins 3) A Hitler
If I vote Groovy thinking Tess would be great I'm not looking for her to step aside on day three, find out Tel has cock rot and end up with some painter with big ideas
Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.
Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.
On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.
Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
What I am (grimly) interested in this whole nightmare is this - Is this what Hamas (a) expected and (be) wanted to happen? What were their goals on Oct 7th?
I think (personal speculation) that at least a major faction of Hamas/Iran got spooked by the rapidly increasing rapprochement between the various local states and Israel.
If - as Swinney says - Swinney is going to make wholesale changes to the government's program, then I do have to ask where his mandate is?
The Greens will vote for him as FM because they anticipate holding the whip hand. Alba will vote against him as FM because they hope to hold the whip hand. Ultimately though a confidence motion in the government - however little it can actually do with whatever legitimacy - will be won because the Tories and the Greens fear an early election.
I see what you are getting at, but he will (presumably) get a formal mandate from the entire Parliament, by a vote of MSPs.
Unlike Westminster, so Westminster thinking like this doesn't carry over completely.
And changes will have been forced by events, votes of other parties, etc. Remember Holyrood's *designed* not to allow majority parties anyway.
If a party has a majority at Westminster the new leader of that party automatically becomes PM, it doesn't need a new vote on it. Even in the hung parliaments if 2010-2015 and 2017-2019 Cameron and May never lost LD or DUP support and DUP support just transferred to Boris.
Yousaf however lost the support of the Greens and as the SNP don't have a majority at Holyrood they need a formal vote to ensure Swinney has Green support again as without Green support the SNP lacks the majority to stay in office and pass legislation
Hang on a mo, young HY! You say that "May never lost LD suport"... I don't remember that.
Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.
Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.
On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.
Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
Hamas has, according to reporting, accepted the terms of the ceasefire proposed by the US. It is Israel who have rejected them. You can keep saying both sides are as bad as each other but, materially, Israel is clearly causing more destruction and killing more innocent people than Hamas ever has - and Israel clearly does not care about the hostages.
CNN report that the deal Hamas have accepted / written is not the one proposed by the US. The Hamas deal is a declaration of victory, no wonder they accept it and Israel doesn't.
Yes, both sides are as bad as each other as neither want peace and neither care for the civilians. Saying that Hamas don't care for Gazan lives is hardly shocking - Gazans have been saying it for years.
There can be no peace without changes in leadership. Netanyahu needs to be in jail, the Hamas lot the same. Offer both sides peace and security and I suspect most civilians would take it. But they can't have it because the hardmen refuse any option other than an absolute victory they can never achieve.
If - as Swinney says - Swinney is going to make wholesale changes to the government's program, then I do have to ask where his mandate is?
The Greens will vote for him as FM because they anticipate holding the whip hand. Alba will vote against him as FM because they hope to hold the whip hand. Ultimately though a confidence motion in the government - however little it can actually do with whatever legitimacy - will be won because the Tories and the Greens fear an early election.
I see what you are getting at, but he will (presumably) get a formal mandate from the entire Parliament, by a vote of MSPs.
Unlike Westminster, so Westminster thinking like this doesn't carry over completely.
And changes will have been forced by events, votes of other parties, etc. Remember Holyrood's *designed* not to allow majority parties anyway.
If a party has a majority at Westminster the new leader of that party automatically becomes PM, it doesn't need a new vote on it. Even in the hung parliaments if 2010-2015 and 2017-2019 Cameron and May never lost LD or DUP support and DUP support just transferred to Boris.
Yousaf however lost the support of the Greens and as the SNP don't have a majority at Holyrood they need a formal vote to ensure Swinney has Green support again as without Green support the SNP lacks the majority to stay in office and pass legislation
Hang on a mo, young HY! You say that "May never lost LD suport"... I don't remember that.
She never had LD support to start with!
Strictly correct then - you can't lose what you never had
I read it as Cameron never lost LD support and May never lost DUP support.
Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.
Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.
On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.
Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
Hamas has, according to reporting, accepted the terms of the ceasefire proposed by the US. It is Israel who have rejected them. You can keep saying both sides are as bad as each other but, materially, Israel is clearly causing more destruction and killing more innocent people than Hamas ever has - and Israel clearly does not care about the hostages.
This is completely untrue and I suspect you know it because it feeds your prejudices. It wasn't the US deal but an Egyptian one no one had agreed, that Hamas then altered themselves so it didn't specify 'Live' hostages. They wanted to send back dead, tortured bodies. Of course Israel rejected it! And Hamas quite obviously put it out as a ploy when no such deal had been negotiated.
You can keep pretending Hamas aren't what they are and be a willing dupe for their murderous antisemitism. But you don't help anyone. Least of all the Palestinian people. Those who like you buy Hamas's lies and become infected their hatred as surely condemn them as Netanyahu does.
Both sides are bastards are I have yet to hear a credible argument otherwise. We see in this conflict the inevitable clash caused by Abrahamic supremacist thinking, unmoderated by the compassionate spirit of Jesus of Nazareth.
Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.
Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.
On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.
Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
Hamas has, according to reporting, accepted the terms of the ceasefire proposed by the US. It is Israel who have rejected them. You can keep saying both sides are as bad as each other but, materially, Israel is clearly causing more destruction and killing more innocent people than Hamas ever has - and Israel clearly does not care about the hostages.
CNN report that the deal Hamas have accepted / written is not the one proposed by the US. The Hamas deal is a declaration of victory, no wonder they accept it and Israel doesn't.
Yes, both sides are as bad as each other as neither want peace and neither care for the civilians. Saying that Hamas don't care for Gazan lives is hardly shocking - Gazans have been saying it for years.
There can be no peace without changes in leadership. Netanyahu needs to be in jail, the Hamas lot the same. Offer both sides peace and security and I suspect most civilians would take it. But they can't have it because the hardmen refuse any option other than an absolute victory they can never achieve.
I can see exactly why Israel rejected it. I do not blame them. A deal can be done, hopefully one will be done.
Berry will be automatically replaced by her fellow Green who came *checks notes* fourth in the Mayoral election last week. Another triumph for party lists over democracy.
I don't think party lists are undemocratic; that's just how party lists work. People know if they vote Green on the party list vote that they will get candidates based on what the party agree. Who knows why Berry has quit so suddenly - it could be a medical issue for all the information currently available.
I think closed lists are undemocratic. Why not have an open list system, where voters can choose the order of the candidates?
I mean, as long as people know that they're voting for the list the party wants - what's the issue? People delegate the list to the party to make, if you're a member of that party maybe you get input (if you are a Green Party member in London you get a vote on the list). That gives people the options to choose the parties that best represent them, and also gives power to party membership, which I think is a good balance within the systems we have.
The list order is known before you vote,
Groovy Party list
1) Mother Teresa 2) Terry Nutkins 3) A Hitler
If I vote Groovy thinking Tess would be great I'm not looking for her to step aside on day three, find out Tel has cock rot and end up with some painter with big ideas
I mean, yes you are - that's how lists work.
No, I am not. I am looking for Tess to serve out her term. I am prepared to risk a hand on in case of Act of God etc but I'm not looking for piss takers asking for my vote then swanning off after a weekend. It is disrespectful to the electorate and the process if a candidate is not looking to be elected but giving every indication they are. Gaming of the system needs to be called out.
Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.
Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.
On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.
Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
Hamas has, according to reporting, accepted the terms of the ceasefire proposed by the US. It is Israel who have rejected them. You can keep saying both sides are as bad as each other but, materially, Israel is clearly causing more destruction and killing more innocent people than Hamas ever has - and Israel clearly does not care about the hostages.
CNN report that the deal Hamas have accepted / written is not the one proposed by the US. The Hamas deal is a declaration of victory, no wonder they accept it and Israel doesn't.
Yes, both sides are as bad as each other as neither want peace and neither care for the civilians. Saying that Hamas don't care for Gazan lives is hardly shocking - Gazans have been saying it for years.
There can be no peace without changes in leadership. Netanyahu needs to be in jail, the Hamas lot the same. Offer both sides peace and security and I suspect most civilians would take it. But they can't have it because the hardmen refuse any option other than an absolute victory they can never achieve.
Agree with all of this. But I would say the only thing that will allow an end to endless war is a greater parity of power. That means an end to funding Israel.
Buon giorno. It’s my big day! and you’re all invited
Your finally tying the knot with @Heathener? Have a lovely day and rest of your lives...
That’s @IanB2 in the dress. Do you really think it’s a coincidence we’re both in Italy? We’ve both been cooking this up for months - pretending to be sworn enemies but secretly engaged. I was just waiting for her to transition. I think the dog is a bit jealous and has gone off in a huff. What can you do?
Berry will be automatically replaced by her fellow Green who came *checks notes* fourth in the Mayoral election last week. Another triumph for party lists over democracy.
I don't think party lists are undemocratic; that's just how party lists work. People know if they vote Green on the party list vote that they will get candidates based on what the party agree. Who knows why Berry has quit so suddenly - it could be a medical issue for all the information currently available.
I think closed lists are undemocratic. Why not have an open list system, where voters can choose the order of the candidates?
I mean, as long as people know that they're voting for the list the party wants - what's the issue? People delegate the list to the party to make, if you're a member of that party maybe you get input (if you are a Green Party member in London you get a vote on the list). That gives people the options to choose the parties that best represent them, and also gives power to party membership, which I think is a good balance within the systems we have.
The list order is known before you vote,
Groovy Party list
1) Mother Teresa 2) Terry Nutkins 3) A Hitler
If I vote Groovy thinking Tess would be great I'm not looking for her to step aside on day three, find out Tel has cock rot and end up with some painter with big ideas
I mean, yes you are - that's how lists work.
No, I am not. I am looking for Tess to serve out her term. I am prepared to risk a hand on in case of Act of God etc but I'm not looking for piss takers asking for my vote then swanning off after a weekend. It is disrespectful to the electorate and the process if a candidate is not looking to be elected but giving every indication they are. Gaming of the system needs to be called out.
If you're voting for an open party list, you are saying that the people on that list are fine by you, and that depending on the amount of support they get more and more people on the list will represent you. It's a pretty simple system of up front saying who will replace people / represent you depending on how many votes the party gets.
Buon giorno. It’s my big day! and you’re all invited
Your finally tying the knot with @Heathener? Have a lovely day and rest of your lives...
That’s @IanB2 in the dress. Do you really think it’s a coincidence we’re both in Italy? We’ve both been cooking this up for months - pretending to be sworn enemies but secretly engaged. I was just waiting for her to transition. I think the dog is a bit jealous and has gone off in a huff. What can you do?
They look like awful people, save for pistachio-dress lady, who seems like she might be fun.
Berry will be automatically replaced by her fellow Green who came *checks notes* fourth in the Mayoral election last week. Another triumph for party lists over democracy.
I don't think party lists are undemocratic; that's just how party lists work. People know if they vote Green on the party list vote that they will get candidates based on what the party agree. Who knows why Berry has quit so suddenly - it could be a medical issue for all the information currently available.
I think closed lists are undemocratic. Why not have an open list system, where voters can choose the order of the candidates?
I mean, as long as people know that they're voting for the list the party wants - what's the issue? People delegate the list to the party to make, if you're a member of that party maybe you get input (if you are a Green Party member in London you get a vote on the list). That gives people the options to choose the parties that best represent them, and also gives power to party membership, which I think is a good balance within the systems we have.
Because voting for a slate rather than individuals is less democratic influence than voting for an individual.
Why? What definition of democracy is this? When you vote for an MP you're basically voting for whatever a whip tells them to do - so you're basically just voting for the party manifesto. It isn't, in practice, much different.
Voting for a slate means a voter looking at a party manifesto and voting for that party, and then the party choosing who best represents those policies. Voting for an individual means... looking at their party manifesto and their personal history (which will likely be in line with a party manifesto anyway to get to the point of being a candidate) and voting for those who best represent your policy preference. There seems very little difference between these.
The answer in your own statement! Voting for an individual means you can factor in the personal character (including their degree of independence) in a way you can't on a closed list. Therefore the voter has more influence, not least when an individual being a sh*t reduces their chances of getting elected.
The level of subservience partisans have to follow their "side" and happily giving away influence amazes me.
Conservatives keep backing things that hurt their own side.
Voter ID laws which stop Tory MPs from voting, electoral system changes which encouraged tactical votes for Sadiq Khan and now a postal vote ban which would have meant Ken Livingstone won in 2012
Berry will be automatically replaced by her fellow Green who came *checks notes* fourth in the Mayoral election last week. Another triumph for party lists over democracy.
I don't think party lists are undemocratic; that's just how party lists work. People know if they vote Green on the party list vote that they will get candidates based on what the party agree. Who knows why Berry has quit so suddenly - it could be a medical issue for all the information currently available.
I think closed lists are undemocratic. Why not have an open list system, where voters can choose the order of the candidates?
I mean, as long as people know that they're voting for the list the party wants - what's the issue? People delegate the list to the party to make, if you're a member of that party maybe you get input (if you are a Green Party member in London you get a vote on the list). That gives people the options to choose the parties that best represent them, and also gives power to party membership, which I think is a good balance within the systems we have.
The list order is known before you vote,
Groovy Party list
1) Mother Teresa 2) Terry Nutkins 3) A Hitler
If I vote Groovy thinking Tess would be great I'm not looking for her to step aside on day three, find out Tel has cock rot and end up with some painter with big ideas
I mean, yes you are - that's how lists work.
No, I am not. I am looking for Tess to serve out her term. I am prepared to risk a hand on in case of Act of God etc but I'm not looking for piss takers asking for my vote then swanning off after a weekend. It is disrespectful to the electorate and the process if a candidate is not looking to be elected but giving every indication they are. Gaming of the system needs to be called out.
If you're voting for an open party list, you are saying that the people on that list are fine by you, and that depending on the amount of support they get more and more people on the list will represent you. It's a pretty simple system of up front saying who will replace people / represent you depending on how many votes the party gets.
And i would expect them to all to be serious about representing me. Berry wasn't for Londoners. She took the piss and will hopefully now lose in Brighton.
Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.
Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.
On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.
Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
Hamas has, according to reporting, accepted the terms of the ceasefire proposed by the US. It is Israel who have rejected them. You can keep saying both sides are as bad as each other but, materially, Israel is clearly causing more destruction and killing more innocent people than Hamas ever has - and Israel clearly does not care about the hostages.
CNN report that the deal Hamas have accepted / written is not the one proposed by the US. The Hamas deal is a declaration of victory, no wonder they accept it and Israel doesn't.
Yes, both sides are as bad as each other as neither want peace and neither care for the civilians. Saying that Hamas don't care for Gazan lives is hardly shocking - Gazans have been saying it for years.
There can be no peace without changes in leadership. Netanyahu needs to be in jail, the Hamas lot the same. Offer both sides peace and security and I suspect most civilians would take it. But they can't have it because the hardmen refuse any option other than an absolute victory they can never achieve.
Agree with all of this. But I would say the only thing that will allow an end to endless war is a greater parity of power. That means an end to funding Israel.
That will never happen
Israel will keep taking the aid and just pay lip service to its "allies" even to the point of blatant discourtesy.
The West will keep funding Israel as it opposes Iranian proxies.
Western Aid should come with strings. He who pays the piper, same with Ukraine which all the uber hawks here seem to have forgotten about.
From previous post that got caught in another: Councillors for Woking's more Muslim areas have tended to move with the political weather in a way that's different to the cliche of a heavily loyal Labour/Left-wing vote. Maybury was even Tory for a long time. Canalside, including parts of that went Lab to Lib Dem. You'd expect lots of voters to go tactically that way anyhow.
Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.
Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.
On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.
Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
The only ways the IRM could have stayed in control during seven months of immense upheaval and destruction in which ~4% of the population have already been killed or wounded by an enemy that itself has taken only minimal losses are
1. enjoy large-scale popular support, or
2. be literally a terror regime, akin to say Pol Pot's.
They wouldn't have been able to hack it by being like the LibDems. They would be history already.
And it's not 2.
1 doesn't mean everyone supports or even cares about the politics. But the notion that people need their boys out there with weapons is simply beyond dispute in these circumstances. The IRM are their boys, as also are other armed resistance groupings because they aren't the only one.
They are quite literally a terror regime. They established themselves by driving out or killing all opposition in Gaza.
If - as Swinney says - Swinney is going to make wholesale changes to the government's program, then I do have to ask where his mandate is?
The Greens will vote for him as FM because they anticipate holding the whip hand. Alba will vote against him as FM because they hope to hold the whip hand. Ultimately though a confidence motion in the government - however little it can actually do with whatever legitimacy - will be won because the Tories and the Greens fear an early election.
I see what you are getting at, but he will (presumably) get a formal mandate from the entire Parliament, by a vote of MSPs.
Unlike Westminster, so Westminster thinking like this doesn't carry over completely.
And changes will have been forced by events, votes of other parties, etc. Remember Holyrood's *designed* not to allow majority parties anyway.
If a party has a majority at Westminster the new leader of that party automatically becomes PM, it doesn't need a new vote on it. Even in the hung parliaments if 2010-2015 and 2017-2019 Cameron and May never lost LD or DUP support and DUP support just transferred to Boris.
Yousaf however lost the support of the Greens and as the SNP don't have a majority at Holyrood they need a formal vote to ensure Swinney has Green support again as without Green support the SNP lacks the majority to stay in office and pass legislation
Hang on a mo, young HY! You say that "May never lost LD suport"... I don't remember that.
She never had LD support to start with!
Strictly correct then - you can't lose what you never had
I read it as Cameron never lost LD support and May never lost DUP support.
Berry will be automatically replaced by her fellow Green who came *checks notes* fourth in the Mayoral election last week. Another triumph for party lists over democracy.
I don't think party lists are undemocratic; that's just how party lists work. People know if they vote Green on the party list vote that they will get candidates based on what the party agree. Who knows why Berry has quit so suddenly - it could be a medical issue for all the information currently available.
I think closed lists are undemocratic. Why not have an open list system, where voters can choose the order of the candidates?
I mean, as long as people know that they're voting for the list the party wants - what's the issue? People delegate the list to the party to make, if you're a member of that party maybe you get input (if you are a Green Party member in London you get a vote on the list). That gives people the options to choose the parties that best represent them, and also gives power to party membership, which I think is a good balance within the systems we have.
Because voting for a slate rather than individuals is less democratic influence than voting for an individual.
Why? What definition of democracy is this? When you vote for an MP you're basically voting for whatever a whip tells them to do - so you're basically just voting for the party manifesto. It isn't, in practice, much different.
Voting for a slate means a voter looking at a party manifesto and voting for that party, and then the party choosing who best represents those policies. Voting for an individual means... looking at their party manifesto and their personal history (which will likely be in line with a party manifesto anyway to get to the point of being a candidate) and voting for those who best represent your policy preference. There seems very little difference between these.
The answer in your own statement! Voting for an individual means you can factor in the personal character (including their degree of independence) in a way you can't on a closed list. Therefore the voter has more influence, not least when an individual being a sh*t reduces their chances of getting elected.
The level of subservience partisans have to follow their "side" and happily giving away influence amazes me.
But under a system of whipping, does the individual actually matter? Not that I've ever noticed. I don't like representative democracy - I prefer direct democracy models - but if you're already up for representative methods I see very little difference in using party lists to electing individuals.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
Buon giorno. It’s my big day! and you’re all invited
Your finally tying the knot with @Heathener? Have a lovely day and rest of your lives...
That’s @IanB2 in the dress. Do you really think it’s a coincidence we’re both in Italy? We’ve both been cooking this up for months - pretending to be sworn enemies but secretly engaged. I was just waiting for her to transition. I think the dog is a bit jealous and has gone off in a huff. What can you do?
Really, you should have had the surgery; it would have been cheaper, for a smaller job
Buon giorno. It’s my big day! and you’re all invited
Your finally tying the knot with @Heathener? Have a lovely day and rest of your lives...
That’s @IanB2 in the dress. Do you really think it’s a coincidence we’re both in Italy? We’ve both been cooking this up for months - pretending to be sworn enemies but secretly engaged. I was just waiting for her to transition. I think the dog is a bit jealous and has gone off in a huff. What can you do?
Dug fearful of what’s on the wedding breakfast menu presumably.
Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.
Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.
On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.
Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
Hamas has, according to reporting, accepted the terms of the ceasefire proposed by the US. It is Israel who have rejected them. You can keep saying both sides are as bad as each other but, materially, Israel is clearly causing more destruction and killing more innocent people than Hamas ever has - and Israel clearly does not care about the hostages.
This is completely untrue and I suspect you know it because it feeds your prejudices. It wasn't the US deal but an Egyptian one no one had agreed, that Hamas then altered themselves so it didn't specify 'Live' hostages. They wanted to send back dead, tortured bodies. Of course Israel rejected it! And Hamas quite obviously put it out as a ploy when no such deal had been negotiated.
You can keep pretending Hamas aren't what they are and be a willing dupe for their murderous antisemitism. But you don't help anyone. Least of all the Palestinian people. Those who like you buy Hamas's lies and become infected their hatred as surely condemn them as Netanyahu does.
Both sides are bastards are I have yet to hear a credible argument otherwise. We see in this conflict the inevitable clash caused by Abrahamic supremacist thinking, unmoderated by the compassionate spirit of Jesus of Nazareth.
I agree - in the case of Netanyahu/Ben Gvirites and Hamas and Hezbolah.
There is, however, a fundamental problem from some who equate the former with Israel and don't realise what has caused Netanyahu to hold power for so long.
Namely a wider belief that has little to do with supremacist thinking - is critical of West Bank settlements etc and wants two states, but looks at 75 years of rejectionism from the Arab/Palestinian side, the collapse of Oslo, second Intifada, and rise of Hamas and sees another side which does not want peace and will wipe us out given half a chance. Or at least there are enough people who do think that way to make that what will happen.
"If they lay down their weapons, they'll have a state. If we lay down ours, they'll wipe us out."
So goes the thinking - and October 7 has hardly done much to change that wider view.
Hence why even while Netanyahu is wildly unpopular as he's seen as failing at his one job and keeping the compact he had with voters outside the extremes - which was to keep Israelis safe - and there's huge doubts over the prosecution of the war. There's much less doubt that Hamas and Hezbollah too, have to be fought against.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
For anyone asking, blocking off the right turn is fine because there is a traffic island 50m further down the road which can be gone around and back easily.
Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.
Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.
On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.
Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
Hamas has, according to reporting, accepted the terms of the ceasefire proposed by the US. It is Israel who have rejected them. You can keep saying both sides are as bad as each other but, materially, Israel is clearly causing more destruction and killing more innocent people than Hamas ever has - and Israel clearly does not care about the hostages.
CNN report that the deal Hamas have accepted / written is not the one proposed by the US. The Hamas deal is a declaration of victory, no wonder they accept it and Israel doesn't.
Yes, both sides are as bad as each other as neither want peace and neither care for the civilians. Saying that Hamas don't care for Gazan lives is hardly shocking - Gazans have been saying it for years.
There can be no peace without changes in leadership. Netanyahu needs to be in jail, the Hamas lot the same. Offer both sides peace and security and I suspect most civilians would take it. But they can't have it because the hardmen refuse any option other than an absolute victory they can never achieve.
The document in the form approved by the IRM is supposed to have come from Qatar and Egypt.
The Qatari state organ Al Jazeera is emphasising the Qatari role as you might expect.
They are also mentioning that CIA director Bill Burns has been in Doha, the implication being that the terms proposed by Qatar's diplomatic geniuses have been deemed acceptable by the imperial palace in Washington.
Part of the Qatari state's slant has been that Qatar's main achievement in preparing this lovely deal was to maintain peace at a regional level. That can be read as "Qatar saves the world", and as "We're so hard we could take Israel on any day of the week but actually we love peace." But it can also be read as saying fuck the Palestinians - we're all right, Jack.
Egypt may have played more of a role than is being admitted. It's possible they got stitched up and the Israeli tanks taking over the Gaza side of the Rafah crossing came as a surprise. OTOH perhaps they've agreed wih their Israeli pals not to accept large numbers of refugees, and essentially to sit there whistling with their fingers stuck up their arses while genocide happens next door. Fifty years of history since Camp David suggests this shouldn't be put past them. (A similar point could be made about Mahmoud Abbas.) One feature of the region's history has been Arab powers shitting all over the Palestinians.
For those who wish to understand what the Israeli aggressor is actually doing, eyes should be on all of the Gaza crossings but especially the southern two - Rafah and Kerem Shalom.
As for the US itself, it's coming across as Israel's bitch by saying Israel must have time to peruse the proposal. Never mind that during this time, the Israeli army has been air-dropping leaflets over Eastern Rafah ordering the population to GTFO, continuing its bombing of Rafah, and taking over the Rafah crossing with its armour. (But everyone in the ME knows the USA is Israel's bitch anyway.)
Buon giorno. It’s my big day! and you’re all invited
Your finally tying the knot with @Heathener? Have a lovely day and rest of your lives...
That’s @IanB2 in the dress. Do you really think it’s a coincidence we’re both in Italy? We’ve both been cooking this up for months - pretending to be sworn enemies but secretly engaged. I was just waiting for her to transition. I think the dog is a bit jealous and has gone off in a huff. What can you do?
Really, you should have had the surgery; it would have been cheaper, for a smaller job
Trump wants to go to jail. He thinks that politically it is how he wins. Absurdly he has failed so far, but with jail the only legal sanction remaining its no strikes and you're out time.
How does jail work when the convict has a secret service detail? You could argue that as the convict would be in the protection of the authorities then they are not needed. How do you apply legal sanction fairly and equally - as demanded by the constitution - when you can't apply it equally because of who the convict is?
*the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein has entered the chat*.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Ok picture quiz. It’s more cheerful than discussing genocide at least. Senza googlissimo!!!
Does anyone know what this mad contraption is? A glass of virtual primitivo for the first correct answer!
its called a sky. It is made of an atmosphere of gases that protect the earth from minor bits of stone that are floating about, retains and averages the heat across the planet and gives us something to breathe. Pretty useful thing really, surprised you haven't heard of it.
Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.
Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.
On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.
Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
The only ways the IRM could have stayed in control during seven months of immense upheaval and destruction in which ~4% of the population have already been killed or wounded by an enemy that itself has taken only minimal losses are
1. enjoy large-scale popular support, or
2. be literally a terror regime, akin to say Pol Pot's.
They wouldn't have been able to hack it by being like the LibDems. They would be history already.
And it's not 2.
1 doesn't mean everyone supports or even cares about the politics. But the notion that people need their boys out there with weapons is simply beyond dispute in these circumstances. The IRM are their boys, as also are other armed resistance groupings because they aren't the only one.
They are quite literally a terror regime. They established themselves by driving out or killing all opposition in Gaza.
Friend of mine (yeah I know) works in security for HMG. Said all Western powers were active and hard working in Gaza after Israel withdrew and then, after Hamas took over, they saw all their erstwhile interlocutors being dragged behind vehicles having been tortured and mutilated.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
Al-Mawasi "humanitarian" zone where people are being chased to from East Rafah measures 14km by 1km. If all the 1.4m people currently in Rafah are forced there, that would mean they had on average 10 sq m each.
Then you can be sure the story will be that "Hamas are operating" in Al-Mawasi and therefore some more "self-defence" is justified - or in the lingo it's legal 💪, it's moral 💪, and you can't physically stop it 💪.
On one side we have an Israeli government that cares not for human lives in Gaza. On the other side we have a Hamas terror regime that cares not for humanitarian lives in Gaza.
Both sides could stop this if they wanted to stop. Neither do.
Hamas has, according to reporting, accepted the terms of the ceasefire proposed by the US. It is Israel who have rejected them. You can keep saying both sides are as bad as each other but, materially, Israel is clearly causing more destruction and killing more innocent people than Hamas ever has - and Israel clearly does not care about the hostages.
CNN report that the deal Hamas have accepted / written is not the one proposed by the US. The Hamas deal is a declaration of victory, no wonder they accept it and Israel doesn't.
Yes, both sides are as bad as each other as neither want peace and neither care for the civilians. Saying that Hamas don't care for Gazan lives is hardly shocking - Gazans have been saying it for years.
There can be no peace without changes in leadership. Netanyahu needs to be in jail, the Hamas lot the same. Offer both sides peace and security and I suspect most civilians would take it. But they can't have it because the hardmen refuse any option other than an absolute victory they can never achieve.
Agree with all of this. But I would say the only thing that will allow an end to endless war is a greater parity of power. That means an end to funding Israel.
I disagree on that last point. What is needed is parity of funding. The arab world is no longer poor as it was decades ago. Saudi and Qatar want to spend their money to improve their image. We have greenwashing and sportwashing - time for peacewashing.
There can be no peace deal - whatever the borders agreed - without an end to the threats against Israel from everyone else. It needs a big player to do that, and frankly that can only be the Saudis.
A viable Palestine, funded and secured by Saudi Arabia. An end to the camps, where 4th generation "refugees" are finally settled in new communities. And an end to the Iran-backed terrorism. Ah, Iran.
That is the problem here. Iran. What do we do about them?
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Ok picture quiz. It’s more cheerful than discussing genocide at least. Senza googlissimo!!!
Does anyone know what this mad contraption is? A glass of virtual primitivo for the first correct answer!
Not sure, but are you by any chance near Syracuse?
Not Sicily but quite close. Once you guess the region you might guess the contraption. Anyone who has been here will know them
Is it Sardinia and some fishing contraption?
Close enough for me to get that wine. I’m in the frankly enchanting town of vieste, at the end of the Gargano peninsula - the spur of the heel of the Italian boot - Puglia!
It’s gorgeous and there’s about three people here
And yes that thing - you can just see it in that photo - is indeed a fishing contraption. A trabucco. A method of fishing so ancient they are now historically preserved
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Buon giorno. It’s my big day! and you’re all invited
Your finally tying the knot with @Heathener? Have a lovely day and rest of your lives...
That’s @IanB2 in the dress. Do you really think it’s a coincidence we’re both in Italy? We’ve both been cooking this up for months - pretending to be sworn enemies but secretly engaged. I was just waiting for her to transition. I think the dog is a bit jealous and has gone off in a huff. What can you do?
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
London and other cities should be making it safer for people to cycle, use buses and to reduce the use of cars. You do not need to own a car in London.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Nor partake of refreshments "en route". It's not the Alpe d'Huez ffs, it's central London traffic.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
If - as Swinney says - Swinney is going to make wholesale changes to the government's program, then I do have to ask where his mandate is?
The Greens will vote for him as FM because they anticipate holding the whip hand. Alba will vote against him as FM because they hope to hold the whip hand. Ultimately though a confidence motion in the government - however little it can actually do with whatever legitimacy - will be won because the Tories and the Greens fear an early election.
I know it was before them becoming your current political football team but I hope you're asking your fellow SLDs what mandate they thought Jack McConnell had when they happily continued in coalition with him after his coronation as SLab leader and election as FM.
I have no problem changing leaders, especially in coalitions. It only becomes problematic when the new leader declares a specific mandate to radically change course - as Truss did, and as Swinney is now doing. This was less of a problem for Yousaf who was continuity Sturgeon.
No she didn't. The CT hike was not in the 2019 manifesto, nor was the health and social care levy. It's Sunak and Hunts swollen state and higher taxes that nobody voted for.
Sorry, you are absolutely right. "Lets tank the economy and create a pensions crisis" was in the manifesto, right next to "we will put your mortgage up".
Truss, No mandate, No clue how markets work, No judgement.
None of this pathetic post is remotely accurate, and I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't treat PB as an audience of the sorts of muppets you can practice your election slogans on.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
People clearly have a problem with basic english. Since when is a car that large a 'mini'. It is fucking huge. And no it is not loved in the same way - at least not by any of the proper mini owners I know. It is about as popular as the telly tubby daleks were. Indeed it might have shared the same designer.
If - as Swinney says - Swinney is going to make wholesale changes to the government's program, then I do have to ask where his mandate is?
The Greens will vote for him as FM because they anticipate holding the whip hand. Alba will vote against him as FM because they hope to hold the whip hand. Ultimately though a confidence motion in the government - however little it can actually do with whatever legitimacy - will be won because the Tories and the Greens fear an early election.
I know it was before them becoming your current political football team but I hope you're asking your fellow SLDs what mandate they thought Jack McConnell had when they happily continued in coalition with him after his coronation as SLab leader and election as FM.
I have no problem changing leaders, especially in coalitions. It only becomes problematic when the new leader declares a specific mandate to radically change course - as Truss did, and as Swinney is now doing. This was less of a problem for Yousaf who was continuity Sturgeon.
Are you worrried that Swinney might reverse the GRR and Hate Crime bills, both of which the SLDs unanimously backed?
London and other cities should be making it safer for people to cycle, use buses and to reduce the use of cars. You do not need to own a car in London.
True. But cyclists are sometimes their (our) own worst enemies. I cycle around 40 miles a week in London and apart from the junction of Birdcage Walk and Spur Road, which is a bonkers cycle red light to have, I stop at every red light and usually at that one also.
In another, and happier world, I would be a traffic policeman whose sole job would be to stop cyclists going through red lights.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
I don't see that. That sign is not "stop cycling", it is "this is the end of this bit of cycle infra" *, which here will apply to the (probably not enforceable due to the Govt's 2016 legal cockup) mandatory cycle lane, or possibly to a shared footway section.
So he continues on the carriageway, exactly where he is supposed to be, with no reduction in width, and is expected to be treated like any other road user in an active lane. That is, no one is supposed to pull out 5-10m in front of an approaching vehicle.
* It's a stupid and dangerous place to stop a cycle lane, since junctions are exactly where protection - even a line of paint - is most needed, which would perhaps have reminded the careless driver *again* to have looked properly. It's classic UK fail-to-think.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
People clearly have a problem with basic english. Since when is a car that large a 'mini'. It is fucking huge. And no it is not loved in the same way - at least not by any of the proper mini owners I know. It is about as popular as the telly tubby daleks were. Indeed it might have shared the same designer.
This is the same madness that believes a Jaffa Cake is a cake.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
Is a cyclist fully in control of his bike if he only has one hand on the handlebars?
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
London and other cities should be making it safer for people to cycle, use buses and to reduce the use of cars. You do not need to own a car in London.
There are large parts of Greater London, where you do need to own a car.
A lot of people who live 100 yards from a Zone 2 station might not think so, but it’s true.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
As the owner (well technically the wife is the owner) of a classic Mini Clubman Estate from 1972, I would suggest that the the BMW MINI is indeed a mini. Accepted as such by Mini owner clubs all over the land, and loved by many in the same way that the classic mini is. Of course you don't get the same charming issues (unreliability, literally zero safety features, tendency to rust in a timescale of minutes not years) but they definitely count as Minis.
People clearly have a problem with basic english. Since when is a car that large a 'mini'. It is fucking huge. And no it is not loved in the same way - at least not by any of the proper mini owners I know. It is about as popular as the telly tubby daleks were. Indeed it might have shared the same designer.
Well we go to the Legendary Grand Tour each year in Devon and if we didn't have Binis (BMW MINIs) it would be a poor show indeed. Of course not everyone who loves the classic mini will love the MINI's, I get that, but a lot of people do love them.
When I was a young man, I ended up sprawled on top of a Mini on Tottenham Court Road. The Mini braked, I cycled into it and flew over my handlebars onto the Mini roof, giving the car occupants quite a shock. It was completely my fault. I was utterly inebriated.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
Berry will be automatically replaced by her fellow Green who came *checks notes* fourth in the Mayoral election last week. Another triumph for party lists over democracy.
I don't think party lists are undemocratic; that's just how party lists work. People know if they vote Green on the party list vote that they will get candidates based on what the party agree. Who knows why Berry has quit so suddenly - it could be a medical issue for all the information currently available.
From the Standard Commenting on Tuesday, she said: “Zoë has shown how much of a difference she will make in City Hall, listening to Londoners and bringing their voices into the political debate.
“That’s why she needs to be in this job as soon as possible. She is already a brilliant councillor and will be a brilliant assembly member for Londoners.”
Berry is off to fight Brighton Pavillion, she'd run on the basis she'd serve unless and until she was elected at a GE.
Berry stepped down as a councillor in Camden some months ago on the grounds that she's spending so much time in Brighton. She shouldn't have been on the Green's Assembly list. They just kept her there because she has some name recognition. They are spitting in the face of democracy with this stunt. If it was so important for Garbett to get elected, they could've put Garbett first on the list. They chose to put her fourth.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
Except they are not Minis at all. They are fucking maxis and all they have done is nicked the name for their own car.
BMC's plan was always to grow the original 10' 1/4" ADO15 design into bigger cars, they just never had the money to do it!
The trend in recent years is to turn ALL cars into SUVs. See Toyota and what they have done to the Aygo for an example. So MINI's are bigger than Mini's? So what. The last Mini was made in 2000. Modern cars have much more exacting safety standards you could not make the Mini nowadays.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
I don't see that. That sign is not "stop cycling", it is "this is the end of this bit of cycle infra" *, which here will apply to the (probably not enforceable due to the Govt's 2016 legal cockup) mandatory cycle lane, or possibly to a shared footway section.
So he continues on the carriageway, exactly where he is supposed to be, with no reduction in width, and is expected to be treated like any other road user in an active lane. That is, no one is supposed to pull out 5-10m in front of an approaching vehicle.
* It's a stupid and dangerous place to stop a cycle lane, since junctions are exactly where protection - even a line of paint - is most needed, which would perhaps have reminded the careless driver *again* to have looked properly. It's classic UK fail-to-think.
It means that the driver didn't 'pull across his lane'. At that point it was just a single carriageway and the cyclist should have been more aware of other traffic risks as he was undertaking.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
OTOH what about people put off going for walks and taking exercise, which is v. needful as you say, by some cyclists being utter shits? It's a real problem along the Union Canal towpath in Edinburgh, for instance.
Berlin has defined cycleways on a lot of footways, and Germans being Germans the boundaries are pretty well observed. Cyclists ping their bells if some gormless mook (me) wanders onto the cycleway. If you're British it takes some mental exertion to accept that the cyclists aren't doing this aggressively.
In that circumstance most people I know say "Good Afternoon, can I squeeze past" or similar.
I have a bell (why take it off?) and if appropriate a buzzer loud enough to penetrate any metal boxes containing sleepers.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
Rule 76 Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road.
Take great care when deciding whether it is safe to pass stationary or slow-moving lorries and other long vehicles, especially at the approach to junctions, as their drivers may not be able to see you. Remember that they may have to move over to the right before turning left, and that their rear wheels may then come very close to the kerb while turning (see Rule 67).
They were checking their water bottle rather than whether they could proceed safely.
Berry will be automatically replaced by her fellow Green who came *checks notes* fourth in the Mayoral election last week. Another triumph for party lists over democracy.
I don't think party lists are undemocratic; that's just how party lists work. People know if they vote Green on the party list vote that they will get candidates based on what the party agree. Who knows why Berry has quit so suddenly - it could be a medical issue for all the information currently available.
From the Standard Commenting on Tuesday, she said: “Zoë has shown how much of a difference she will make in City Hall, listening to Londoners and bringing their voices into the political debate.
“That’s why she needs to be in this job as soon as possible. She is already a brilliant councillor and will be a brilliant assembly member for Londoners.”
Berry is off to fight Brighton Pavillion, she'd run on the basis she'd serve unless and until she was elected at a GE.
Berry stepped down as a councillor in Camden some months ago on the grounds that she's spending so much time in Brighton. She shouldn't have been on the Green's Assembly list. They just kept her there because she has some name recognition. They are spitting in the face of democracy with this stunt. If it was so important for Garbett to get elected, they could've put Garbett first on the list. They chose to put her fourth.
Labour in Brighton Pavilion have of course noticed, have a good genuinely local candidate, and are preparing to fill their boots
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Nah thats rubbish. Whether there is a cycle lane or not the cyclist is a legitimate road user who is not doing anything illegal or dangerous and wasn't even travelling particularly fast. It was incumbent on the car driver to make sure it was safe to pull across.
He was drinking and then trying to find the holder with one hand, and cycling with his other. Two hands on the handlebar, paying attention to traffic conditions he stops five yards before the car.
This is the argument the driver that hit my partner made. "Cyclist should have anticipated that I was going to swerve into her path. Why didn't she brake before I hit her?"
That driver is now uninsurable.
Sure and I'm sure it was right on that occasion. In what driving world is it ok to drink while on the road, and then scrabble around trying to find your drinks holder all while undertaking in busy traffic.
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
The cyclist was doing about 15mph and had about a second to react. No chance.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the whole point. It isn’t just about reacting, it is being aware of what is going on, especially with other road users who cannot see you.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
The BMW Minis are screwed together and engineered 1000x better than the Austin/BL/Rover Minis ever were so it's a Reverse-Ratner if anything. They also don't rust in real time.
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
The F56 range (and basically everything from 2013 to 2016) run the risk of wire loom failure because they wrapped the loom in plastic so when water got it it had nowhere to go.
That’s the reason I now drive a very boring Seat rather than the JCW mini I owned for 5 years
If - as Swinney says - Swinney is going to make wholesale changes to the government's program, then I do have to ask where his mandate is?
The Greens will vote for him as FM because they anticipate holding the whip hand. Alba will vote against him as FM because they hope to hold the whip hand. Ultimately though a confidence motion in the government - however little it can actually do with whatever legitimacy - will be won because the Tories and the Greens fear an early election.
I know it was before them becoming your current political football team but I hope you're asking your fellow SLDs what mandate they thought Jack McConnell had when they happily continued in coalition with him after his coronation as SLab leader and election as FM.
I have no problem changing leaders, especially in coalitions. It only becomes problematic when the new leader declares a specific mandate to radically change course - as Truss did, and as Swinney is now doing. This was less of a problem for Yousaf who was continuity Sturgeon.
No she didn't. The CT hike was not in the 2019 manifesto, nor was the health and social care levy. It's Sunak and Hunts swollen state and higher taxes that nobody voted for.
Sorry, you are absolutely right. "Lets tank the economy and create a pensions crisis" was in the manifesto, right next to "we will put your mortgage up".
Truss, No mandate, No clue how markets work, No judgement.
None of this pathetic post is remotely accurate, and I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't treat PB as an audience of the sorts of muppets you can practice your election slogans on.
All this talk of Truss reminds me of my Pulitzer-worthy snap of her at an event back in 2019
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
It's a BMW Mini, not a Mini Remember to identify Ratnered brands.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
The cycle lane ends before the collision, so it’s hard not to blame the cyclist for being negligent.
Eh? What do you expect the cyclist to do - get off and walk?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
Arguably with no cycle lane from the that point the cyclist should join the stream of traffic - and certainly not undertake on the inside.
Why not? Highway Code is clear that you may pass on the inside. It only advises you to be cautious if doing so with a larger vehicle:
Rule 76 Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road.
Take great care when deciding whether it is safe to pass stationary or slow-moving lorries and other long vehicles, especially at the approach to junctions, as their drivers may not be able to see you. Remember that they may have to move over to the right before turning left, and that their rear wheels may then come very close to the kerb while turning (see Rule 67).
They were checking their water bottle rather than whether they could proceed safely.
The whole collision would have been prevented by a 5mph speed limit.
Update on the Regents Park cycling collision story I commented on at the weekend.
I hadn't noticed the excellent name of the Police Sergeant involved, who is presumably ex-Rainbow.
"Police Detective Sergeant Ropafadzo Bungo"
I also had not noticed witness statements that they considered the cyclist not to have been at fault. But I stand by my comments that certain things are readily available to be done on the Outer Circle to improve safety.
I’ve heard a story that Regents Park are thinking of installing rumble strip sections. Which apparently will barely inconvenience most users, but will be extremely annoying to people on a rigid frame, low profile tires and high speed.
The instinctive reaction to anyone trying to keep fit is to attack them. "Lycra-clad cyclists". "Garmin watch runners". A form of deeply held self-loathing.
The NHS is collapsing under the population's weight. Child obesity is through the roof. It's entirely in the Boomer cohort's self-interest for us to all get healthier, whether through exercise, diet or cleaner air, lest you die choking in a corridor of some rotting hospital. Yet...
The absolute worst example of this was The Drake's prohibition of Parkrun during COVID. A volunteer run, entirely inclusive way to get a bit fitter and meet people of all ages and abilities. A way to prepare your heart and lungs for COVID. Astonishing short-sightedness.
I don't know why anyone younger than 50 and in decent shape should pay the tax that supports those who think like this. We should all move to a country that values personal responsibility and celebrates earning money through work and reducing, wherever possible, your reliance on the state.
(Sorry for the rant. I think my inner Thatcherite even made an appearance)
There are two other, opposing, knee jerk reactions. One is cyclists good, evil motorists bad. The second is its opposite. As a mere pedestrian, I find cyclists harder to deal with as they are less predictable: have they seen me? Will they let me cross?. On the other hand, I'd also say driving standards are slipping. On the third hand, the recent well-intentioned changes to the Highway Code with its hierarchy of risk does not seem to have helped much.
There is a humdinger of a spat on X atm about a cyclist twatting himself into a mini.
My view: cyclist at fault, but anything which damages a mini is a good thing.
I'd have thought driver legally at fault - crossing traffic to make a turn, cyclist has right of way (assuming the cyclist is permitted to be overtaking on the inside, which I think he is).
Having said that, I'm pretty fucking cautious if I'm going up the inside of traffic as you're pretty invisible to any cars making a turn and if the traffic is queued you might have pedestrians zipping through, too. I'd not be flying up the inside like that. So I've got plenty of sympathy with the driver - should have been more cautious and gone more slowly, but even if he had been he'd have had a fair chance of netting a cyclist going at that speed.
Slower cyclist and slower car would have made braking (car) and braking/swerving to avoid (bike) possible.
Yep my thought was it is clearly the driver at fault. It may be an understandable error on his part but an error none the less. And the cyclist doesn't appear to me to be going particuarly fast or behaving incautiously.
I would also say the signs on the road are confusing. Initially he is in a cycle lane. That then ends but then just before he hits the car there is a cycle lane symbol on the road again although partially eroded.
When do you think the cyclist saw the car? Was there time to steer out of danger? It looks as if he is fiddling with his bottle-like object rather than looking ahead until the last minute (note the late and quickly-corrected turn of his front wheel the wrong way). One other question is whether the blue car has flashed the Mini, thus lulling its driver into a false sense of security.
The turning BMW Mini cannot be seen on the video until 1-1.5s before the collision, when the cyclist doing 15mph is approximately 6-10m away.
AFAICS there was nothing the cyclist (who had both hands back on his bars I think in the vid) could have done, unless we rely on things such as "the colliding cyclist was further forward so should have anticipated the lunge by the careless driver".
Comments
1. Parties can decide whether they want to have open or semi-open lists (see below). People who feel strongly can of course factor in the decision on this in their choice of party.
2. In a semi-open list, the order is decided by how many votes each candidate gets, but voters can also support the party without indicating a personal preference, and such votes are allocated to the candidates at the top of the list. Voters who do this are basically saying "I like party X and I'm happy to delegate to them who they have in Parliament".
Generally, big parties have closed lists, because they want to ensure that their big guns actually get in so they can be Ministers. Small parties have open lists, because they like to show off a range of interesting candidates and don't expect to have to form a government.
Voting for a slate means a voter looking at a party manifesto and voting for that party, and then the party choosing who best represents those policies. Voting for an individual means... looking at their party manifesto and their personal history (which will likely be in line with a party manifesto anyway to get to the point of being a candidate) and voting for those who best represent your policy preference. There seems very little difference between these.
Berry deserves to be humiliated in Brighton. It's the one seat I'll have my Keir hat on for.
1. enjoy large-scale popular support, or
2. be literally a terror regime, akin to say Pol Pot's.
They wouldn't have been able to hack it by being like the LibDems. They would be history already.
And it's not 2.
1 doesn't mean everyone supports or even cares about the politics. But the notion that people need their boys out there with weapons is simply beyond dispute in these circumstances. The IRM are their boys, as also are other armed resistance groupings because they aren't the only one.
You can keep pretending Hamas aren't what they are and be a willing dupe for their murderous antisemitism. But you don't help anyone. Least of all the Palestinian people. Those who like you buy Hamas's lies and become infected their hatred as surely condemn them as Netanyahu does.
She never had LD support to start with!
Yes, both sides are as bad as each other as neither want peace and neither care for the civilians. Saying that Hamas don't care for Gazan lives is hardly shocking - Gazans have been saying it for years.
There can be no peace without changes in leadership. Netanyahu needs to be in jail, the Hamas lot the same. Offer both sides peace and security and I suspect most civilians would take it. But they can't have it because the hardmen refuse any option other than an absolute victory they can never achieve.
I read it as Cameron never lost LD support and May never lost DUP support.
The level of subservience partisans have to follow their "side" and happily giving away influence amazes me.
Conservatives keep backing things that hurt their own side.
Voter ID laws which stop Tory MPs from voting, electoral system changes which encouraged tactical votes for Sadiq Khan and now a postal vote ban which would have meant Ken Livingstone won in 2012
Israel will keep taking the aid and just pay lip service to its "allies" even to the point of blatant discourtesy.
The West will keep funding Israel as it opposes Iranian proxies.
Western Aid should come with strings. He who pays the piper, same with Ukraine which all the uber hawks here seem to have forgotten about.
I'm not convinced of the utility of such a question, especially when there are hordes of Usonians weighing in who know nothing of our traffic law, and whose own roads are a killing zone.
It is a dangerous bend outside the Craven House Hotel near Hampstead Court, with the turner crossing the other lane in a gap left by a vehicle which stopped and waved him across.
Having said that, the driver stopping to let the right turner cross the traffic without leaving enough space for the right turner to get a clear view of the active lane, which includes the cycle lane to the left of the short queue, is creating a risk.
The right turner can see the cyclist in advance from a long-way back since he gets a clear view of the approaching cyclist 5 or 6 seconds when he is approaching the right-turn through large gaps in the traffic queue. When he turns across he does not pause to see if there is a cycle coming down the cycle lane which continues right up to the junction.
The cyclist has been taking a drink and is putting his bottle back into its holder and is looking down for the second before he rides into the BMW Mini which has just pulled across his lane. He swerves but cannot stop.
The cyclist is doing 15mph (6s on video for 40m distance measured on Google), and the BMW Mini appears and pulls across his lane when is about 1.5 car lengths from the collision point).
So the collision is caused by the BMW Mini driver driving across the active traffic lane without pausing to look around the car which has not left him a sufficient sightline, and failing to notice the approaching cyclist who he can clearly see.
The cyclist has nowhere to go because the BMW Mini does not stop and blocks the whole lane, and has only 1-1.5s to react with nowhere to go, water bottle or not. An even slower cycling speed might have made a stop possible, yet 15mph is itself very slow.
Having said that I probably blame the Local Highways Authority for creating a dangerous junction which had solid-bordered-hatchings until a few years ago, so a right turn would have been an offence. It needs a central median to make the manoeuvre impossible.
Suspect a careless driving ticket for the driver of the BMW Mini for approaching without looking, and pulling out without looking, if this is reported by the cammer. Possible civil claim via the cyclist's insurance company.
Pic below. The BMW Mini approaches from the top and turns right, and the cyclist past a gappy queue of traffic from the bottom. The hatchings have been removed.
There is, however, a fundamental problem from some who equate the former with Israel and don't realise what has caused Netanyahu to hold power for so long.
Namely a wider belief that has little to do with supremacist thinking - is critical of West Bank settlements etc and wants two states, but looks at 75 years of rejectionism from the Arab/Palestinian side, the collapse of Oslo, second Intifada, and rise of Hamas and sees another side which does not want peace and will wipe us out given half a chance. Or at least there are enough people who do think that way to make that what will happen.
"If they lay down their weapons, they'll have a state. If we lay down ours, they'll wipe us out."
So goes the thinking - and October 7 has hardly done much to change that wider view.
Hence why even while Netanyahu is wildly unpopular as he's seen as failing at his one job and keeping the compact he had with voters outside the extremes - which was to keep Israelis safe - and there's huge doubts over the prosecution of the war. There's much less doubt that Hamas and Hezbollah too, have to be fought against.
The Qatari state organ Al Jazeera is emphasising the Qatari role as you might expect.
They are also mentioning that CIA director Bill Burns has been in Doha, the implication being that the terms proposed by Qatar's diplomatic geniuses have been deemed acceptable by the imperial palace in Washington.
Part of the Qatari state's slant has been that Qatar's main achievement in preparing this lovely deal was to maintain peace at a regional level. That can be read as "Qatar saves the world", and as "We're so hard we could take Israel on any day of the week but actually we love peace." But it can also be read as saying fuck the Palestinians - we're all right, Jack.
Egypt may have played more of a role than is being admitted. It's possible they got stitched up and the Israeli tanks taking over the Gaza side of the Rafah crossing came as a surprise. OTOH perhaps they've agreed wih their Israeli pals not to accept large numbers of refugees, and essentially to sit there whistling with their fingers stuck up their arses while genocide happens next door. Fifty years of history since Camp David suggests this shouldn't be put past them. (A similar point could be made about Mahmoud Abbas.) One feature of the region's history has been Arab powers shitting all over the Palestinians.
For those who wish to understand what the Israeli aggressor is actually doing, eyes should be on all of the Gaza crossings but especially the southern two - Rafah and Kerem Shalom.
As for the US itself, it's coming across as Israel's bitch by saying Israel must have time to peruse the proposal. Never mind that during this time, the Israeli army has been air-dropping leaflets over Eastern Rafah ordering the population to GTFO, continuing its bombing of Rafah, and taking over the Rafah crossing with its armour. (But everyone in the ME knows the USA is Israel's bitch anyway.)
Does anyone know what this mad contraption is? A glass of virtual primitivo for the first correct answer!
BMW have been quite good custodians of the Mini brand on the whole. It could have been a lot worse. Imagine what GM would have done, they'd have just slapped the Mini badge on a fucking Daewoo or something.
its called a sky. It is made of an atmosphere of gases that protect the earth from minor bits of stone that are floating about, retains and averages the heat across the planet and gives us something to breathe. Pretty useful thing really, surprised you haven't heard of it.
Cheers!
That's like saying IT'S A FUCKING E39 M5 NOT A "CAR"! etc
There can be no peace deal - whatever the borders agreed - without an end to the threats against Israel from everyone else. It needs a big player to do that, and frankly that can only be the Saudis.
A viable Palestine, funded and secured by Saudi Arabia. An end to the camps, where 4th generation "refugees" are finally settled in new communities. And an end to the Iran-backed terrorism. Ah, Iran.
That is the problem here. Iran. What do we do about them?
This entire debate suggests we need mandatory driving theory re-tests every 10 years or so.
They do list an NPR/Marist which was 50-48 to Biden (two candidates only) but that was 22 to 25 April.
Presumably the 52-47 is a newer poll?
Always a concern when sites miss out certain polls - you wonder if it's an accident or are they doing deliberate cherry picking?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
It’s gorgeous and there’s about three people here
And yes that thing - you can just see it in that photo - is indeed a fishing contraption. A trabucco. A method of fishing so ancient they are now historically preserved
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabucco
London and other cities should be making it safer for people to cycle, use buses and to reduce the use of cars. You do not need to own a car in London.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68968256
Not sure this really counts as news, since every day he's not dead, it's pretty well true.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code
In another, and happier world, I would be a traffic policeman whose sole job would be to stop cyclists going through red lights.
So he continues on the carriageway, exactly where he is supposed to be, with no reduction in width, and is expected to be treated like any other road user in an active lane. That is, no one is supposed to pull out 5-10m in front of an approaching vehicle.
* It's a stupid and dangerous place to stop a cycle lane, since junctions are exactly where protection - even a line of paint - is most needed, which would perhaps have reminded the careless driver *again* to have looked properly. It's classic UK fail-to-think.
That driver is now uninsurable.
A lot of people who live 100 yards from a Zone 2 station might not think so, but it’s true.
It was completely my fault. I was utterly inebriated.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code
When I used to ride a motorbike I filtered past thousands (upon thousands) of cars, all told, but I bloody well paid attention as I did so.
I have a bell (why take it off?) and if appropriate a buzzer loud enough to penetrate any metal boxes containing sleepers.
Rule 76
Going straight ahead. If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise (see Rule H3). Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road.
Take great care when deciding whether it is safe to pass stationary or slow-moving lorries and other long vehicles, especially at the approach to junctions, as their drivers may not be able to see you. Remember that they may have to move over to the right before turning left, and that their rear wheels may then come very close to the kerb while turning (see Rule 67).
They were checking their water bottle rather than whether they could proceed safely.
The cyclist was not at fault.
That’s the reason I now drive a very boring Seat rather than the JCW mini I owned for 5 years
@TheDrake
AFAICS there was nothing the cyclist (who had both hands back on his bars I think in the vid) could have done, unless we rely on things such as "the colliding cyclist was further forward so should have anticipated the lunge by the careless driver".