No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Come on, the cyclist had right of way. Are you seriously claiming, that if it was the other way round - if the cyclist had come out of the side road without checking properly and got flattened by a car coming along the priority road, you blame the driver?
That said, it was impressively fast for a lady in her 70s! Speed limits don't apply to bikes, but if she was doing well over the (motorised vehicle) speed limit then I'd have some sympathy that cyclist had some fault. But if that's a 30 then it's unlikely.
That's a downhill, and she was doing ~19mph (ie not fast) as measured from the video and physical features locatable from Google Maps. There was quite a lot of interest at the time; quite a few people were surprised that the grossly neglectful driver received a very rare appropriate punishment. You get to 30mph+ at that location just by freewheeling, from comments by people who are from the area.
My view is that he probably pled the prospect of Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving (in this case broken bones and a bleed on the brain) down to the same for Careless by offering a guilty plea in the hope that he would avoid prison, which is mandatory for CSIDD with a minimum of 26 weeks; that's perhaps what a lawyer would suggest, and is a standard tactic. CSIDD is more difficult to prove, due to case law.
The camera makes it look as though she was cycling uphill not downhill. It is it Brookside Avenue and Wildcroft Avenue in Coventry. This link is the driver's eye view.
A junction with clear views, and the driver's error was in not pausing when he was unsighted for 1-2 seconds by preceding vehicles, but driving straight into space he could not see to be safe before he made his decision to proceed. That in my book is "far below the standard to be expected of a competent and careful driver", and therefore Dangerous not Careless.
There was the usual concern in debates at the time to find a way ... any way ... to blame the cyclist to avoid looking the behaviour of the driver in the eye, "Going too fast", "Should have slowed down" .. Yada Yada Yada. Some demanding there was no fault and it was an "accident".
One interesting one is that an activist called Alan Myles (from Edinburgh) dubbed a car into the video instead of the cyclist, and suddenly some people thought it was a different collision, and I don't think anyone was rabbiting on about how the car should have slowed down.
Of course had it been a cyclist cycling too fast who killed or seriously injured a pedestrian they could have been done for neither death or serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling as no laws exist for those unlike for driving. Hence IDS' bill is so vital to ensure cyclists who kill or seriously injure are held accountable as much as drivers are
Not so, they just use old legislation from Victorian times,
It's about a factor of 50-100 difference between bad events due to cars and cycles. Mass and velocity will do that.
(And yes, if there's a gap in the law, by all means close it. Just be aware that didn't see it as that much of a priority.)
There's also a factor of 50-100 difference between mileage travelled by cycles and mileage travelled by cars, so on a per mile basis cars and cycles are roughly as dangerous as each other.
You can't compare on a per mileage basis when on average one goes a lot further than the other. A per trip is a better comparison. To see how logical that is compare safety of driving to travelling to the moon on an Apollo mission. On a per mileage basis the moon trip is much safer, but nobody in their right mind believes that to be true.
Of course you can compare a per mile basis because that's a like-for-like comparison, comparing longer trips to short ones is not a like-for-like comparison.
Your Apollo mission comparison is faulty since there is no alternative method to get to the moon, you can't drive there. The valid comparison is with flights and the excellent safety record of planes is made by comparing planes to automobiles and other transport on a per mile basis.
The death rate per mile flying to the moon is less than driving per mile so according to you it is safer. That is clearly nonsense.
You just can't compare the per mile death rate for journeys that are not comparable in distance, which you have just said and with which I agree. Bike journeys on average are much much shorter than car journeys.
No astronauts ever died travelling to the moon, so its moot whether you compare per distance or per trip, the solution is zero death rate.
So maybe you should compare like-for-like.
Longer trips of course have a greater risk of having incidents, but per mile there is no significant difference between the risk of cycles and the risk of bikes. The reason cars on aggregate have a higher incident rate is because there are more cars on the road, travelling further, so more opportunities for incidents to happen.
Comparing total cycle incidents to total car incidents without controlling for total mileage of each is an utterly invalid comparison. It'd be like a car brand, lets say BMW, comparing total incidents involving BMWs and total incidents involving non-BMWs. Without controlling for mileage, of course BMWs would come across as safer than non-BMWs so could they legitimately say that driving a BMW is safer than everyone else?
But that would just be because there are more non-BMWs on the road than there are BMWs. Every single brand could make that dodgy comparison and then we'd just be left with every single brand being safer than everyone else which is clearly nonsense.
Control for mileage and you can get a legitimate comparison.
You should probably control for road type too: motorway driving is incredibly safe for pedestrians on a per mile basis, but bicycles are (understandably) not allowed there.
The nature of most cycling (urban areas, densely populated, "London, Cambridge, Bristol, Edinburgh, Oxford") means that you are in close proximity to lots of pedestrians during short journeys in city centres. You would need to do a complex bit of modelling where you select only the kind of car journey that matches that profile.
It's a silly argument anyway; the laws of physics are enough.
Not just in close proximity to pedestrians but often on the pavement too, which cars aren't as often. Plus cycles lack a lot of safety features that cars - cars have gotten safer for pedestrians being designed with crash tests in mind to crumple if they impact a pedestrian to minimise the risk, which cycles don't, plus cars nowadays have automatic brakes etc which correct me if I'm wrong but cycles don't either.
Either way though, the figures speak for themselves, on a per mileage basis there's no real difference between cars and cycles.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Ladies & Gentlemen: car brain in action.
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.
Agreed. The cyclist was doing nothing wrong at all. The fault lies entirely with the car driver. And given that the cyclist suffered serious injuries including a bleed on the brain I do actually think a custodial sentence was justified. We jail people for unintentional manslaughter all the time (indeed we curently have justified calls for that to be applied to those responsible for Grenfell) and given it looks to me like the only reason the cyclist wasn't killed was because she was wearing the correct protective headgear, it seems right and proper that a similar standard should be applied here.
The cyclist was clearly cycling too fast and not looking properly, the fault was not 100% with the car driver.
Just because the cyclist suffered serious injuries does not mean a custodial sentence was justified at all. Indeed even drivers who killed someone have not gone to jail if not driving dangerously or not at fault before as jail should be based on intent and danger to the public NOT outcome.
We rarely jail people for unintentional corporate manslaughter either, normally at most it is a significant fine.
What exactly is 'too fast' and where are the rules governing that. The cyclist does not appear to have been exceeding the speed limit so where does it say that they have to travel slower than other riad users?
You seem to like making up non existent rules just becuase they suit your argument.
Even if not too fast the cyclist was clearly not looking properly enough either
1) How do you know? 2) If the cyclist had decided not to look where she was going but insteaf at the car which was about to hit her, what could she have done differently? Evasive action is almost impossible. 3) It really, really isn't the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid any road user who might try to drive into her.
She should certainly have slowed down approaching the junction rather than continue at full pelt as she did
A car driver wouldn't do so. Why should a cyclist?
A car driver should do so too
Nobody at all, car or cyclist, goes along a main road on which they have priority slowing down at all the side roads just in case some madman careers out of it and crashes into them. Yes, slow down at busy junctions like signal controlled crossroads where priority changes or is ambiguous. But the behaviour you're suggesting just doesn't happen, and nor need it.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Ladies & Gentlemen: car brain in action.
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.
Agreed. The cyclist was doing nothing wrong at all. The fault lies entirely with the car driver. And given that the cyclist suffered serious injuries including a bleed on the brain I do actually think a custodial sentence was justified. We jail people for unintentional manslaughter all the time (indeed we curently have justified calls for that to be applied to those responsible for Grenfell) and given it looks to me like the only reason the cyclist wasn't killed was because she was wearing the correct protective headgear, it seems right and proper that a similar standard should be applied here.
The cyclist was clearly cycling too fast and not looking properly, the fault was not 100% with the car driver.
Just because the cyclist suffered serious injuries does not mean a custodial sentence was justified at all. Indeed even drivers who killed someone have not gone to jail if not driving dangerously or not at fault before as jail should be based on intent and danger to the public NOT outcome.
We rarely jail people for unintentional corporate manslaughter either, normally at most it is a significant fine.
What exactly is 'too fast' and where are the rules governing that. The cyclist does not appear to have been exceeding the speed limit so where does it say that they have to travel slower than other riad users?
You seem to like making up non existent rules just becuase they suit your argument.
Even if not too fast the cyclist was clearly not looking properly enough either
1) How do you know? 2) If the cyclist had decided not to look where she was going but insteaf at the car which was about to hit her, what could she have done differently? Evasive action is almost impossible. 3) It really, really isn't the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid any road user who might try to drive into her.
She should certainly have slowed down approaching the junction rather than continue at full pelt as she did
A car driver wouldn't do so. Why should a cyclist?
A car driver should do so too
Nobody at all, car or cyclist, goes along a main road on which they have priority slowing down at all the side roads just in case some madman careers out of it and crashes into them. Yes, slow down at busy junctions like signal controlled crossroads where priority changes or is ambiguous. But the behaviour you're suggesting just doesn't happen, and nor need it.
True. But the prudent will cover the brake with their foot as they approach such a side road.
In that time I've walked just under seventeen million steps
I wonder how many people have walked more than me
The Amazon minions? I did a summer job in a massive distribution centre (not Amazon) where you had to walk giant aisles often for 12+ hrs a day at a rapid rate pulling stuff into your cart. It was relentless as they tagged how long each order was taking and you had to keep up at a set number of picks / hour. So I imagine the full timers doing that are walking insane number of steps.
I did finish the summer extremely fit after doing 7 days a week, averaging 60+ hrs a week.
In that time I've walked just under seventeen million steps
I wonder how many people have walked more than me
Posties with longer service?
In the last two years?
The pedometer downloaded to my iPhone indicates I have managed just over 11 million steps in just over two years. Given I’m 61 and in a sedentary job I don’t think that’s too bad. Mostly achieved walking round London. I generally only take the tube if it’d take me more than half an hour to walk.
That's quite an impressive total, and hardly sedentary!
I've just checked my Garmin, and in the last year I've done 5,658,076 steps, with all the running and walking I do.
A million steps is roughly 500 miles (vague average, with 0.8m stride...). That means you have done 5,500 miles in two years, or about 7=8 miles a day (if my tired brain's done the maths correctly...)
6,015,086
17 million (/2) is quite something, BL. If you are anything like Edinburgh posties, your calves have together more girth than your torso.
I can't easily get at the step count, but in 2021, when I ran every day, I did a total of 5,388 km in logged activities (so not general walking).
The most I've done in a day (since 2016) is 59,054; I'll have done more on a hike, but I haven't been doing those recently. The most in a month during the same period is 985,260.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Tradition is surely a consensus, no more, no less? As most Italians do think "proper" Carbonara is spaghetti with eggs semi-cooked by the residual heat and dish as typically Roman as saltimbocca and artichokes, I would be happy to go with that as the authentic recipe.
I actually prefer my eggs to be fully cooked so my Carbonara isn't the genuine version I guess....
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Come on, the cyclist had right of way. Are you seriously claiming, that if it was the other way round - if the cyclist had come out of the side road without checking properly and got flattened by a car coming along the priority road, you blame the driver?
That said, it was impressively fast for a lady in her 70s! Speed limits don't apply to bikes, but if she was doing well over the (motorised vehicle) speed limit then I'd have some sympathy that cyclist had some fault. But if that's a 30 then it's unlikely.
That's a downhill, and she was doing ~19mph (ie not fast) as measured from the video and physical features locatable from Google Maps. There was quite a lot of interest at the time; quite a few people were surprised that the grossly neglectful driver received a very rare appropriate punishment. You get to 30mph+ at that location just by freewheeling, from comments by people who are from the area.
My view is that he probably pled the prospect of Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving (in this case broken bones and a bleed on the brain) down to the same for Careless by offering a guilty plea in the hope that he would avoid prison, which is mandatory for CSIDD with a minimum of 26 weeks; that's perhaps what a lawyer would suggest, and is a standard tactic. CSIDD is more difficult to prove, due to case law.
The camera makes it look as though she was cycling uphill not downhill. It is it Brookside Avenue and Wildcroft Avenue in Coventry. This link is the driver's eye view.
A junction with clear views, and the driver's error was in not pausing when he was unsighted for 1-2 seconds by preceding vehicles, but driving straight into space he could not see to be safe before he made his decision to proceed. That in my book is "far below the standard to be expected of a competent and careful driver", and therefore Dangerous not Careless.
There was the usual concern in debates at the time to find a way ... any way ... to blame the cyclist to avoid looking the behaviour of the driver in the eye, "Going too fast", "Should have slowed down" .. Yada Yada Yada. Some demanding there was no fault and it was an "accident".
One interesting one is that an activist called Alan Myles (from Edinburgh) dubbed a car into the video instead of the cyclist, and suddenly some people thought it was a different collision, and I don't think anyone was rabbiting on about how the car should have slowed down.
Of course had it been a cyclist cycling too fast who killed or seriously injured a pedestrian they could have been done for neither death or serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling as no laws exist for those unlike for driving. Hence IDS' bill is so vital to ensure cyclists who kill or seriously injure are held accountable as much as drivers are
Not so, they just use old legislation from Victorian times,
It's about a factor of 50-100 difference between bad events due to cars and cycles. Mass and velocity will do that.
(And yes, if there's a gap in the law, by all means close it. Just be aware that didn't see it as that much of a priority.)
There's also a factor of 50-100 difference between mileage travelled by cycles and mileage travelled by cars, so on a per mile basis cars and cycles are roughly as dangerous as each other.
You can't compare on a per mileage basis when on average one goes a lot further than the other. A per trip is a better comparison. To see how logical that is compare safety of driving to travelling to the moon on an Apollo mission. On a per mileage basis the moon trip is much safer, but nobody in their right mind believes that to be true.
Of course you can compare a per mile basis because that's a like-for-like comparison, comparing longer trips to short ones is not a like-for-like comparison.
Your Apollo mission comparison is faulty since there is no alternative method to get to the moon, you can't drive there. The valid comparison is with flights and the excellent safety record of planes is made by comparing planes to automobiles and other transport on a per mile basis.
The death rate per mile flying to the moon is less than driving per mile so according to you it is safer. That is clearly nonsense.
You just can't compare the per mile death rate for journeys that are not comparable in distance, which you have just said and with which I agree. Bike journeys on average are much much shorter than car journeys.
No astronauts ever died travelling to the moon, so its moot whether you compare per distance or per trip, the solution is zero death rate.
So maybe you should compare like-for-like.
Longer trips of course have a greater risk of having incidents, but per mile there is no significant difference between the risk of cycles and the risk of bikes. The reason cars on aggregate have a higher incident rate is because there are more cars on the road, travelling further, so more opportunities for incidents to happen.
Comparing total cycle incidents to total car incidents without controlling for total mileage of each is an utterly invalid comparison. It'd be like a car brand, lets say BMW, comparing total incidents involving BMWs and total incidents involving non-BMWs. Without controlling for mileage, of course BMWs would come across as safer than non-BMWs so could they legitimately say that driving a BMW is safer than everyone else?
But that would just be because there are more non-BMWs on the road than there are BMWs. Every single brand could make that dodgy comparison and then we'd just be left with every single brand being safer than everyone else which is clearly nonsense.
Control for mileage and you can get a legitimate comparison.
You should probably control for road type too: motorway driving is incredibly safe for pedestrians on a per mile basis, but bicycles are (understandably) not allowed there.
The nature of most cycling (urban areas, densely populated, "London, Cambridge, Bristol, Edinburgh, Oxford") means that you are in close proximity to lots of pedestrians during short journeys in city centres. You would need to do a complex bit of modelling where you select only the kind of car journey that matches that profile.
It's a silly argument anyway; the laws of physics are enough.
Not just in close proximity to pedestrians but often on the pavement too, which cars aren't as often. Plus cycles lack a lot of safety features that cars - cars have gotten safer for pedestrians being designed with crash tests in mind to crumple if they impact a pedestrian to minimise the risk, which cycles don't, plus cars nowadays have automatic brakes etc which correct me if I'm wrong but cycles don't either.
Either way though, the figures speak for themselves, on a per mileage basis there's no real difference between cars and cycles.
Which makes it all the more telling that 98.9% of pedestrians killed on pavements are hit by drivers.
Those who will there will always remember the Great PB Carbonara War, which came so horribly soon after the PB Cat Battles that the wounded from one conflict were bayoneted in the next
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Come on, the cyclist had right of way. Are you seriously claiming, that if it was the other way round - if the cyclist had come out of the side road without checking properly and got flattened by a car coming along the priority road, you blame the driver?
That said, it was impressively fast for a lady in her 70s! Speed limits don't apply to bikes, but if she was doing well over the (motorised vehicle) speed limit then I'd have some sympathy that cyclist had some fault. But if that's a 30 then it's unlikely.
That's a downhill, and she was doing ~19mph (ie not fast) as measured from the video and physical features locatable from Google Maps. There was quite a lot of interest at the time; quite a few people were surprised that the grossly neglectful driver received a very rare appropriate punishment. You get to 30mph+ at that location just by freewheeling, from comments by people who are from the area.
My view is that he probably pled the prospect of Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving (in this case broken bones and a bleed on the brain) down to the same for Careless by offering a guilty plea in the hope that he would avoid prison, which is mandatory for CSIDD with a minimum of 26 weeks; that's perhaps what a lawyer would suggest, and is a standard tactic. CSIDD is more difficult to prove, due to case law.
The camera makes it look as though she was cycling uphill not downhill. It is it Brookside Avenue and Wildcroft Avenue in Coventry. This link is the driver's eye view.
A junction with clear views, and the driver's error was in not pausing when he was unsighted for 1-2 seconds by preceding vehicles, but driving straight into space he could not see to be safe before he made his decision to proceed. That in my book is "far below the standard to be expected of a competent and careful driver", and therefore Dangerous not Careless.
There was the usual concern in debates at the time to find a way ... any way ... to blame the cyclist to avoid looking the behaviour of the driver in the eye, "Going too fast", "Should have slowed down" .. Yada Yada Yada. Some demanding there was no fault and it was an "accident".
One interesting one is that an activist called Alan Myles (from Edinburgh) dubbed a car into the video instead of the cyclist, and suddenly some people thought it was a different collision, and I don't think anyone was rabbiting on about how the car should have slowed down.
Of course had it been a cyclist cycling too fast who killed or seriously injured a pedestrian they could have been done for neither death or serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling as no laws exist for those unlike for driving. Hence IDS' bill is so vital to ensure cyclists who kill or seriously injure are held accountable as much as drivers are
Not so, they just use old legislation from Victorian times,
It's about a factor of 50-100 difference between bad events due to cars and cycles. Mass and velocity will do that.
(And yes, if there's a gap in the law, by all means close it. Just be aware that didn't see it as that much of a priority.)
There's also a factor of 50-100 difference between mileage travelled by cycles and mileage travelled by cars, so on a per mile basis cars and cycles are roughly as dangerous as each other.
You can't compare on a per mileage basis when on average one goes a lot further than the other. A per trip is a better comparison. To see how logical that is compare safety of driving to travelling to the moon on an Apollo mission. On a per mileage basis the moon trip is much safer, but nobody in their right mind believes that to be true.
Of course you can compare a per mile basis because that's a like-for-like comparison, comparing longer trips to short ones is not a like-for-like comparison.
Your Apollo mission comparison is faulty since there is no alternative method to get to the moon, you can't drive there. The valid comparison is with flights and the excellent safety record of planes is made by comparing planes to automobiles and other transport on a per mile basis.
The death rate per mile flying to the moon is less than driving per mile so according to you it is safer. That is clearly nonsense.
You just can't compare the per mile death rate for journeys that are not comparable in distance, which you have just said and with which I agree. Bike journeys on average are much much shorter than car journeys.
No astronauts ever died travelling to the moon, so its moot whether you compare per distance or per trip, the solution is zero death rate.
So maybe you should compare like-for-like.
Longer trips of course have a greater risk of having incidents, but per mile there is no significant difference between the risk of cycles and the risk of bikes. The reason cars on aggregate have a higher incident rate is because there are more cars on the road, travelling further, so more opportunities for incidents to happen.
Comparing total cycle incidents to total car incidents without controlling for total mileage of each is an utterly invalid comparison. It'd be like a car brand, lets say BMW, comparing total incidents involving BMWs and total incidents involving non-BMWs. Without controlling for mileage, of course BMWs would come across as safer than non-BMWs so could they legitimately say that driving a BMW is safer than everyone else?
But that would just be because there are more non-BMWs on the road than there are BMWs. Every single brand could make that dodgy comparison and then we'd just be left with every single brand being safer than everyone else which is clearly nonsense.
Control for mileage and you can get a legitimate comparison.
You should probably control for road type too: motorway driving is incredibly safe for pedestrians on a per mile basis, but bicycles are (understandably) not allowed there.
The nature of most cycling (urban areas, densely populated, "London, Cambridge, Bristol, Edinburgh, Oxford") means that you are in close proximity to lots of pedestrians during short journeys in city centres. You would need to do a complex bit of modelling where you select only the kind of car journey that matches that profile.
It's a silly argument anyway; the laws of physics are enough.
Not just in close proximity to pedestrians but often on the pavement too, which cars aren't as often. Plus cycles lack a lot of safety features that cars - cars have gotten safer for pedestrians being designed with crash tests in mind to crumple if they impact a pedestrian to minimise the risk, which cycles don't, plus cars nowadays have automatic brakes etc which correct me if I'm wrong but cycles don't either.
Either way though, the figures speak for themselves, on a per mileage basis there's no real difference between cars and cycles.
Which makes it all the more telling that 98.9% of pedestrians killed on pavements are hit by drivers.
Which when about 98.9% of non-motorway mileage is by cars, what is it telling us?
Those who will there will always remember the Great PB Carbonara War, which came so horribly soon after the PB Cat Battles that the wounded from one conflict were bayoneted in the next
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Tradition is surely a consensus, no more, no less? As most Italians do think "proper" Carbonara is spaghetti with eggs semi-cooked by the residual heat and dish as typically Roman as saltimbocca and artichokes, I would be happy to go with that as the authentic recipe.
I actually prefer my eggs to be fully cooked so my Carbonara isn't the genuine version I guess....
Pasta Salmonella.
Beetlejuice is whimsical bollox with really lame 1980s SFX btw. Rewatching it as prep for the sequel, but it's work.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Tradition is surely a consensus, no more, no less? As most Italians do think "proper" Carbonara is spaghetti with eggs semi-cooked by the residual heat and dish as typically Roman as saltimbocca and artichokes, I would be happy to go with that as the authentic recipe.
I actually prefer my eggs to be fully cooked so my Carbonara isn't the genuine version I guess....
And now we can move onto the traditional "sticky toffee pudding" invented in the 1970s along with the microwave oven as the go-to dessert in every British restaurant.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Tradition is surely a consensus, no more, no less? As most Italians do think "proper" Carbonara is spaghetti with eggs semi-cooked by the residual heat and dish as typically Roman as saltimbocca and artichokes, I would be happy to go with that as the authentic recipe.
I actually prefer my eggs to be fully cooked so my Carbonara isn't the genuine version I guess....
And now we can move onto the traditional "sticky toffee pudding" invented in the 1970s along with the microwave oven as the go-to dessert in every British restaurant.
And the question of whether Brown Windsor Soup ever really existed.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Tradition is surely a consensus, no more, no less? As most Italians do think "proper" Carbonara is spaghetti with eggs semi-cooked by the residual heat and dish as typically Roman as saltimbocca and artichokes, I would be happy to go with that as the authentic recipe.
I actually prefer my eggs to be fully cooked so my Carbonara isn't the genuine version I guess....
The point is you’re free to enjoy it however you want. I like carbonara the “traditional” way: it works. But I will defend to the death your right to cook it differently and still call it carbonara.
That’s the joy of the open-source Anglo Saxon approach to stuff.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Ladies & Gentlemen: car brain in action.
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.
Agreed. The cyclist was doing nothing wrong at all. The fault lies entirely with the car driver. And given that the cyclist suffered serious injuries including a bleed on the brain I do actually think a custodial sentence was justified. We jail people for unintentional manslaughter all the time (indeed we curently have justified calls for that to be applied to those responsible for Grenfell) and given it looks to me like the only reason the cyclist wasn't killed was because she was wearing the correct protective headgear, it seems right and proper that a similar standard should be applied here.
The cyclist was clearly cycling too fast and not looking properly, the fault was not 100% with the car driver.
Just because the cyclist suffered serious injuries does not mean a custodial sentence was justified at all. Indeed even drivers who killed someone have not gone to jail if not driving dangerously or not at fault before as jail should be based on intent and danger to the public NOT outcome.
We rarely jail people for unintentional corporate manslaughter either, normally at most it is a significant fine.
What exactly is 'too fast' and where are the rules governing that. The cyclist does not appear to have been exceeding the speed limit so where does it say that they have to travel slower than other riad users?
You seem to like making up non existent rules just becuase they suit your argument.
Even if not too fast the cyclist was clearly not looking properly enough either
1) How do you know? 2) If the cyclist had decided not to look where she was going but insteaf at the car which was about to hit her, what could she have done differently? Evasive action is almost impossible. 3) It really, really isn't the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid any road user who might try to drive into her.
She should certainly have slowed down approaching the junction rather than continue at full pelt as she did
A car driver wouldn't do so. Why should a cyclist?
A car driver should do so too
Nobody at all, car or cyclist, goes along a main road on which they have priority slowing down at all the side roads just in case some madman careers out of it and crashes into them. Yes, slow down at busy junctions like signal controlled crossroads where priority changes or is ambiguous. But the behaviour you're suggesting just doesn't happen, and nor need it.
True. But the prudent will cover the brake with their foot as they approach such a side road.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Tradition is surely a consensus, no more, no less? As most Italians do think "proper" Carbonara is spaghetti with eggs semi-cooked by the residual heat and dish as typically Roman as saltimbocca and artichokes, I would be happy to go with that as the authentic recipe.
I actually prefer my eggs to be fully cooked so my Carbonara isn't the genuine version I guess....
Re culinary tradition, I was told two days ago that the great traditional dish of lake skardar - cold marinated carp with hot boiled potatoes (absolutely delicious) was actually invented about 20 years ago
They had the marinated carp (often horrible, it was just a way of preserving it for peasants) and some bright spark thought of mixing with the usual Montenegrin spuds n spinach n garlic
Result: a noble national dish
I was going to decry this but then I remembered that half of Italy’s iconic foods were invented in the last few decades. Tiramisu. Ciabatta etc
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Tradition is surely a consensus, no more, no less? As most Italians do think "proper" Carbonara is spaghetti with eggs semi-cooked by the residual heat and dish as typically Roman as saltimbocca and artichokes, I would be happy to go with that as the authentic recipe.
I actually prefer my eggs to be fully cooked so my Carbonara isn't the genuine version I guess....
And now we can move onto the traditional "sticky toffee pudding" invented in the 1970s along with the microwave oven as the go-to dessert in every British restaurant.
The best pudding is fig tarte tatin, with a bit of crème fraîche. Sadly very rarely seen in actual French restaurants. I bet it’s a recent invention. Let me have a look..,
Quite venerable actually (the Apple version). End of the 19th century in a restaurant in the Sologne.
Which is a useful prompt to recommend you all read Le Grand Meulnes.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Tradition is surely a consensus, no more, no less? As most Italians do think "proper" Carbonara is spaghetti with eggs semi-cooked by the residual heat and dish as typically Roman as saltimbocca and artichokes, I would be happy to go with that as the authentic recipe.
I actually prefer my eggs to be fully cooked so my Carbonara isn't the genuine version I guess....
The point is you’re free to enjoy it however you want. I like carbonara the “traditional” way: it works. But I will defend to the death your right to cook it differently and still call it carbonara.
That’s the joy of the open-source Anglo Saxon approach to stuff.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Tradition is surely a consensus, no more, no less? As most Italians do think "proper" Carbonara is spaghetti with eggs semi-cooked by the residual heat and dish as typically Roman as saltimbocca and artichokes, I would be happy to go with that as the authentic recipe.
I actually prefer my eggs to be fully cooked so my Carbonara isn't the genuine version I guess....
And now we can move onto the traditional "sticky toffee pudding" invented in the 1970s along with the microwave oven as the go-to dessert in every British restaurant.
The best pudding is fig tarte tatin, with a bit of crème fraîche. Sadly very rarely seen in actual French restaurants. I bet it’s a recent invention. Let me have a look..,
Quite venerable actually (the Apple version). End of the 19th century in a restaurant in the Sologne.
Which is a useful prompt to recommend you all read Le Grand Meulnes.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Why is it being invented in 1944 a reason to make it badly using cream?
Appealing to “tradition”.
As I’ve said several times, I like it the “traditional” way with egg because it tastes nice and intense, but tutting at the unwashed masses who like it with a bit of cream (not just here but throughout Europe) is misplaced snobbery of the bucket variety.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Why is it being invented in 1944 a reason to make it badly using cream?
At some point the world will have to realise that the 2nd world war was quite a while ago. 2045 maybe? I was born 40 years after it ended but it still sits as a sort of event in the life of people my age, even though it wasn't.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Tradition is surely a consensus, no more, no less? As most Italians do think "proper" Carbonara is spaghetti with eggs semi-cooked by the residual heat and dish as typically Roman as saltimbocca and artichokes, I would be happy to go with that as the authentic recipe.
I actually prefer my eggs to be fully cooked so my Carbonara isn't the genuine version I guess....
And now we can move onto the traditional "sticky toffee pudding" invented in the 1970s along with the microwave oven as the go-to dessert in every British restaurant.
And the question of whether Brown Windsor Soup ever really existed.
I can imagine a goodly number of PB contributors regularly enjoying Brown Windsor Soup.
I admit that before I visited the town museum here yesterday, I didn't know that the Japanese had ever invaded Alaska. But they did, occupying three of the Alaskan islands, assumed to be for use as airbases in order to bomb Alaska and western Canada.
Naturally, the North Americans didn't fancy the Blitz experience, and so the US and Canadians planned an invasion to retake the islands, landing at different points so that the defending Japanese would be surrounded. The only flaw in the plan was that in the meantime the Japanese had clearly decided the occupation/bombing plan was unfeasible and had gone home, leaving the Americans and Canadians to meet each other mid-island, with tragic consequences
I think referred to the Aleutian Islands Campaign.
Even that has some even-more-obscure nooks and crannies.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Why is it being invented in 1944 a reason to make it badly using cream?
At some point the world will have to realise that the 2nd world war was quite a while ago. 2045 maybe? I was born 40 years after it ended but it still sits as a sort of event in the life of people my age, even though it wasn't.
I sometimes wonder how much the Napoleonic wars loomed over us in the run up to WW1. We all think of them as history, but I assume some WW1 generals had grandfathers who had fought at Waterloo. Our reference point (we all have it, I think) of “the post war era” does feel like it’s on the way out, as the global consensus breaks down.
Why has such a bitter and angry tone emerged in recent years in the debate between cyclists and motorists?
Jeremy Vine and his GoPro?
The idiocy of that most motorists also ride a bike, and most cyclists also drive cars. It’s confected.
The ones that are arsey to other road users will be arsey whether in their car or on their bike. The ones that are considerate to other road users will be considerate whether in their car or on their bike. Some folk are just arseholes. Some folk are nicer.
"Sorry but… what sort of animal puts cream in carbonara?" A cow, possibly. Or amost any other female mammal. (I'm not sure about odd cases like platypuses.)
On steps per day: Recently I saw a cartoon showing a centipede saying: "I've just gotten out of bed, and already I've taken 1,000 steps." (Or something like that.)
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Why is it being invented in 1944 a reason to make it badly using cream?
At some point the world will have to realise that the 2nd world war was quite a while ago. 2045 maybe? I was born 40 years after it ended but it still sits as a sort of event in the life of people my age, even though it wasn't.
I sometimes wonder how much the Napoleonic wars loomed over us in the run up to WW1. We all think of them as history, but I assume some WW1 generals had grandfathers who had fought at Waterloo. Our reference point (we all have it, I think) of “the post war era” does feel like it’s on the way out, as the global consensus breaks down.
We actually have 4 quite big markers in the sand during the last couple of decades that act to divide history. Their significance will be judged later.
1. The fall of the Berlin Wall, 1989 2. 9/11, 2001 3. The great financial crisis, 2007-9 4. Covid-19, 2020-2021
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Why is it being invented in 1944 a reason to make it badly using cream?
At some point the world will have to realise that the 2nd world war was quite a while ago. 2045 maybe? I was born 40 years after it ended but it still sits as a sort of event in the life of people my age, even though it wasn't.
I sometimes wonder how much the Napoleonic wars loomed over us in the run up to WW1. We all think of them as history, but I assume some WW1 generals had grandfathers who had fought at Waterloo. Our reference point (we all have it, I think) of “the post war era” does feel like it’s on the way out, as the global consensus breaks down.
Someone who saw Abraham Lincon assassinated was interviewed on TV
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Ladies & Gentlemen: car brain in action.
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.
Agreed. The cyclist was doing nothing wrong at all. The fault lies entirely with the car driver. And given that the cyclist suffered serious injuries including a bleed on the brain I do actually think a custodial sentence was justified. We jail people for unintentional manslaughter all the time (indeed we curently have justified calls for that to be applied to those responsible for Grenfell) and given it looks to me like the only reason the cyclist wasn't killed was because she was wearing the correct protective headgear, it seems right and proper that a similar standard should be applied here.
The cyclist was clearly cycling too fast and not looking properly, the fault was not 100% with the car driver.
Just because the cyclist suffered serious injuries does not mean a custodial sentence was justified at all. Indeed even drivers who killed someone have not gone to jail if not driving dangerously or not at fault before as jail should be based on intent and danger to the public NOT outcome.
We rarely jail people for unintentional corporate manslaughter either, normally at most it is a significant fine.
What exactly is 'too fast' and where are the rules governing that. The cyclist does not appear to have been exceeding the speed limit so where does it say that they have to travel slower than other riad users?
You seem to like making up non existent rules just becuase they suit your argument.
Even if not too fast the cyclist was clearly not looking properly enough either
1) How do you know? 2) If the cyclist had decided not to look where she was going but insteaf at the car which was about to hit her, what could she have done differently? Evasive action is almost impossible. 3) It really, really isn't the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid any road user who might try to drive into her.
She should certainly have slowed down approaching the junction rather than continue at full pelt as she did
A car driver wouldn't do so. Why should a cyclist?
Because they might die.
The cyclist is in the right, but that's not much consolation if dead.
Yes I cycle a lot to get from a to b and b to c every day, I would definitely slow down approaching any kind of junction unless I was 100% sure there wasn't some careless driver around who might kill me.
I might have some sympathy for the driver here, we all make mistakes. Usually we get away with them and hopefully learn from them.
But if @HYUFD thinks that the cyclist is to blame here then I'm afraid that makes @HYUFD a dangerous driver, and I'm alarmed to learn he has a licence.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Why is it being invented in 1944 a reason to make it badly using cream?
At some point the world will have to realise that the 2nd world war was quite a while ago. 2045 maybe? I was born 40 years after it ended but it still sits as a sort of event in the life of people my age, even though it wasn't.
I sometimes wonder how much the Napoleonic wars loomed over us in the run up to WW1. We all think of them as history, but I assume some WW1 generals had grandfathers who had fought at Waterloo. Our reference point (we all have it, I think) of “the post war era” does feel like it’s on the way out, as the global consensus breaks down.
We actually have 4 quite big markers in the sand during the last couple of decades that act to divide history. Their significance will be judged later.
1. The fall of the Berlin Wall, 1989 2. 9/11, 2001 3. The great financial crisis, 2007-9 4. Covid-19, 2020-2021
I feel like you do that those 4 things happened in the last couple of decades, but it ain't so.
Good to see him supporting restaurant and cafe owners in his constituency of Clacton...by eating in Mayfair
I'll bet that every restaurant in Clacton is shit, but I don't know for sure.
Clacton is the sort of place where, if it was in Bulgaria or Greece, it would have a local family-run restaurant with amazing food.
There's a lot of good food in England, but the difference in the distribution is interesting.
I bet there’s at least one good Indian. And probably a Thai. The saviour of many a gastronomically bereft British town
Unfashionable view but I think most Indian and Thai (as well as Chinese) restaurants are poor in this country. They wouldn't pass muster in Delhi, Bangkok or Beijing. You're better off in a gastropub or bistro kind of place where the staff are likely to have had training.
My experience in Delhi and Beijing (I’ve not been to Thailand) is that the food there - like for like - really isn’t dissimilar to what you find in Britain. I’ve had some shit stuff in both, and some very good stuff. Just like here. .
If I take Edinburgh, which is a reasonably sophisticated city, I would say there are probably two or three actually good Indian restaurants (Dishoom is one I eat at and the only restaurant my Indian colleagues will go to), seven or eight acceptable ones, the rest are poor. There are three or four acceptable but no really good Thai restaurants. The better Chinese restaurants tend to be hole in the wall places exclusively serving Chinese students. If you head out to the suburbs you will struggle to find even acceptable ethnic food. By contrast there are a good two dozen Scottish/French fine dining places of the same standard as Dishoom.
My benchmark for acceptable is what I cook every day without trying very hard. I'm looking for something more refined when I eat out.
Mother India is very good and the Tuk Tuk Indian Street food is also extremely tasty and excellent value. Tattu is possibly the best Chinese restaurant I have been to in this country. Simply superb.
Dishoon is excellent but the refusal to allow bookings is an irritant. I have gone to the door a lot more often than I have gone in.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Why is it being invented in 1944 a reason to make it badly using cream?
At some point the world will have to realise that the 2nd world war was quite a while ago. 2045 maybe? I was born 40 years after it ended but it still sits as a sort of event in the life of people my age, even though it wasn't.
I sometimes wonder how much the Napoleonic wars loomed over us in the run up to WW1. We all think of them as history, but I assume some WW1 generals had grandfathers who had fought at Waterloo. Our reference point (we all have it, I think) of “the post war era” does feel like it’s on the way out, as the global consensus breaks down.
We actually have 4 quite big markers in the sand during the last couple of decades that act to divide history. Their significance will be judged later.
1. The fall of the Berlin Wall, 1989 2. 9/11, 2001 3. The great financial crisis, 2007-9 4. Covid-19, 2020-2021
I feel like you do that those 4 things happened in the last couple of decades, but it ain't so.
That’s an editorial glitch of me starting with 3, then adding 1989
Good to see him supporting restaurant and cafe owners in his constituency of Clacton...by eating in Mayfair
I'll bet that every restaurant in Clacton is shit, but I don't know for sure.
Clacton is the sort of place where, if it was in Bulgaria or Greece, it would have a local family-run restaurant with amazing food.
There's a lot of good food in England, but the difference in the distribution is interesting.
I bet there’s at least one good Indian. And probably a Thai. The saviour of many a gastronomically bereft British town
Unfashionable view but I think most Indian and Thai (as well as Chinese) restaurants are poor in this country. They wouldn't pass muster in Delhi, Bangkok or Beijing. You're better off in a gastropub or bistro kind of place where the staff are likely to have had training.
My experience in Delhi and Beijing (I’ve not been to Thailand) is that the food there - like for like - really isn’t dissimilar to what you find in Britain. I’ve had some shit stuff in both, and some very good stuff. Just like here. .
If I take Edinburgh, which is a reasonably sophisticated city, I would say there are probably two or three actually good Indian restaurants (Dishoom is one I eat at and the only restaurant my Indian colleagues will go to), seven or eight acceptable ones, the rest are poor. There are three or four acceptable but no really good Thai restaurants. The better Chinese restaurants tend to be hole in the wall places exclusively serving Chinese students. If you head out to the suburbs you will struggle to find even acceptable ethnic food. By contrast there are a good two dozen Scottish/French fine dining places of the same standard as Dishoom.
My benchmark for acceptable is what I cook every day without trying very hard. I'm looking for something more refined when I eat out.
Mother India is very good and the Tuk Tuk Indian Street food is also extremely tasty and excellent value. Tattu is possibly the best Chinese restaurant I have been to in this country. Simply superb.
Dishoon is excellent but the refusal to allow bookings is an irritant. I have gone to the door a lot more often than I have gone in.
Dishoom is over-rated!
Jackfruit biryani? FFS!
The soft shell crab that I had at at Dishoom was excellent
Even they can't dress up a jackfruit to be worth what they have to charge for it
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Come on, the cyclist had right of way. Are you seriously claiming, that if it was the other way round - if the cyclist had come out of the side road without checking properly and got flattened by a car coming along the priority road, you blame the driver?
That said, it was impressively fast for a lady in her 70s! Speed limits don't apply to bikes, but if she was doing well over the (motorised vehicle) speed limit then I'd have some sympathy that cyclist had some fault. But if that's a 30 then it's unlikely.
That's a downhill, and she was doing ~19mph (ie not fast) as measured from the video and physical features locatable from Google Maps. There was quite a lot of interest at the time; quite a few people were surprised that the grossly neglectful driver received a very rare appropriate punishment. You get to 30mph+ at that location just by freewheeling, from comments by people who are from the area.
My view is that he probably pled the prospect of Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving (in this case broken bones and a bleed on the brain) down to the same for Careless by offering a guilty plea in the hope that he would avoid prison, which is mandatory for CSIDD with a minimum of 26 weeks; that's perhaps what a lawyer would suggest, and is a standard tactic. CSIDD is more difficult to prove, due to case law.
The camera makes it look as though she was cycling uphill not downhill. It is it Brookside Avenue and Wildcroft Avenue in Coventry. This link is the driver's eye view.
A junction with clear views, and the driver's error was in not pausing when he was unsighted for 1-2 seconds by preceding vehicles, but driving straight into space he could not see to be safe before he made his decision to proceed. That in my book is "far below the standard to be expected of a competent and careful driver", and therefore Dangerous not Careless.
There was the usual concern in debates at the time to find a way ... any way ... to blame the cyclist to avoid looking the behaviour of the driver in the eye, "Going too fast", "Should have slowed down" .. Yada Yada Yada. Some demanding there was no fault and it was an "accident".
One interesting one is that an activist called Alan Myles (from Edinburgh) dubbed a car into the video instead of the cyclist, and suddenly some people thought it was a different collision, and I don't think anyone was rabbiting on about how the car should have slowed down.
Of course had it been a cyclist cycling too fast who killed or seriously injured a pedestrian they could have been done for neither death or serious injury by dangerous cycling or death or serious injury by careless cycling as no laws exist for those unlike for driving. Hence IDS' bill is so vital to ensure cyclists who kill or seriously injure are held accountable as much as drivers are
Not so, they just use old legislation from Victorian times,
It's about a factor of 50-100 difference between bad events due to cars and cycles. Mass and velocity will do that.
(And yes, if there's a gap in the law, by all means close it. Just be aware that didn't see it as that much of a priority.)
There's also a factor of 50-100 difference between mileage travelled by cycles and mileage travelled by cars, so on a per mile basis cars and cycles are roughly as dangerous as each other.
You can't compare on a per mileage basis when on average one goes a lot further than the other. A per trip is a better comparison. To see how logical that is compare safety of driving to travelling to the moon on an Apollo mission. On a per mileage basis the moon trip is much safer, but nobody in their right mind believes that to be true.
Of course you can compare a per mile basis because that's a like-for-like comparison, comparing longer trips to short ones is not a like-for-like comparison.
Your Apollo mission comparison is faulty since there is no alternative method to get to the moon, you can't drive there. The valid comparison is with flights and the excellent safety record of planes is made by comparing planes to automobiles and other transport on a per mile basis.
The death rate per mile flying to the moon is less than driving per mile so according to you it is safer. That is clearly nonsense.
You just can't compare the per mile death rate for journeys that are not comparable in distance, which you have just said and with which I agree. Bike journeys on average are much much shorter than car journeys.
No astronauts ever died travelling to the moon, so its moot whether you compare per distance or per trip, the solution is zero death rate.
So maybe you should compare like-for-like.
Longer trips of course have a greater risk of having incidents, but per mile there is no significant difference between the risk of cycles and the risk of bikes. The reason cars on aggregate have a higher incident rate is because there are more cars on the road, travelling further, so more opportunities for incidents to happen.
Comparing total cycle incidents to total car incidents without controlling for total mileage of each is an utterly invalid comparison. It'd be like a car brand, lets say BMW, comparing total incidents involving BMWs and total incidents involving non-BMWs. Without controlling for mileage, of course BMWs would come across as safer than non-BMWs so could they legitimately say that driving a BMW is safer than everyone else?
But that would just be because there are more non-BMWs on the road than there are BMWs. Every single brand could make that dodgy comparison and then we'd just be left with every single brand being safer than everyone else which is clearly nonsense.
Control for mileage and you can get a legitimate comparison.
You should probably control for road type too: motorway driving is incredibly safe for pedestrians on a per mile basis, but bicycles are (understandably) not allowed there.
The nature of most cycling (urban areas, densely populated, "London, Cambridge, Bristol, Edinburgh, Oxford") means that you are in close proximity to lots of pedestrians during short journeys in city centres. You would need to do a complex bit of modelling where you select only the kind of car journey that matches that profile.
It's a silly argument anyway; the laws of physics are enough.
Not just in close proximity to pedestrians but often on the pavement too, which cars aren't as often. Plus cycles lack a lot of safety features that cars - cars have gotten safer for pedestrians being designed with crash tests in mind to crumple if they impact a pedestrian to minimise the risk, which cycles don't, plus cars nowadays have automatic brakes etc which correct me if I'm wrong but cycles don't either.
Either way though, the figures speak for themselves, on a per mileage basis there's no real difference between cars and cycles.
Which makes it all the more telling that 98.9% of pedestrians killed on pavements are hit by drivers.
Which when about 98.9% of non-motorway mileage is by cars, what is it telling us?
In these assumed circumstances, that if you want to reduce the cost to society and the NHS etc of dealing with pedestrian KSIs then the thing to be addressed is the number who are KSI'd by cars (in this case), since costs to society and the NHS are actual numbers rather than rates.
Which is why the data collected / analysed has to vary depending on the question being asked, and here the rate of accidents by mode is not what we need to know to inform our policy decisions to meet our policy objective.
I wonder how much a problem for the Republicans that essentially all remaining sensible key people in that party are voting Harris?
The GOP appeals to a different demographic now. It seems to me that the US is becoming more like Latin America. Due to more Hispanics? Dunno. But Trump is much more like a Latin politician than a traditional WASP in his demeanour, and appeal.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Why not call pasta with Dairylea and Pepperami carbonara?
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
You clearly feel strongly about this.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
Former Harris staffers said they were well acquainted with her preferred writing tool: Pilot Precise V7 Roller Ball pens. The pens are "seared into everyone's brain,” a former aide said
I wonder how much a problem for the Republicans that essentially all remaining sensible key people in that party are voting Harris?
The GOP appeals to a different demographic now. It seems to me that the US is becoming more like Latin America. Due to more Hispanics? Dunno. But Trump is much more like a Latin politician than a traditional WASP in his demeanour, and appeal.
"It's not your father's GOP" is certainly true in spades.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Why is it being invented in 1944 a reason to make it badly using cream?
At some point the world will have to realise that the 2nd world war was quite a while ago. 2045 maybe? I was born 40 years after it ended but it still sits as a sort of event in the life of people my age, even though it wasn't.
I sometimes wonder how much the Napoleonic wars loomed over us in the run up to WW1. We all think of them as history, but I assume some WW1 generals had grandfathers who had fought at Waterloo. Our reference point (we all have it, I think) of “the post war era” does feel like it’s on the way out, as the global consensus breaks down.
Not many from Waterloo. Say you are 20 in 1815, have children when you are 30 in 1825, they have children 1855, those children are 60 in 1915. But there's a lot of wars which loom more closely - Crimea and South Africa and Khartoum and China and the Indian mutiny.
Striking how Sinner was able to get over the line at the crucial time. If Draper is to win a slam he needs to get that ability. Is it mental? Draper has the game, the serve, the power.
Former Harris staffers said they were well acquainted with her preferred writing tool: Pilot Precise V7 Roller Ball pens. The pens are "seared into everyone's brain,” a former aide said
I wonder how much a problem for the Republicans that essentially all remaining sensible key people in that party are voting Harris?
The GOP appeals to a different demographic now. It seems to me that the US is becoming more like Latin America. Due to more Hispanics? Dunno. But Trump is much more like a Latin politician than a traditional WASP in his demeanour, and appeal.
Yes, this is also what I thought of the two, affluent and educated, but also clearly very bourgeois and insulated, Americans who I met. They were very nice and charming, but they also reminded me of the kind of the kind of slick, affluent Latin Americans who have supported their various iterations of military junta.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Although modern carbonara is a bit mestizo. They made it with powdered egg originally. They now use fresh eggs, the bastards.
Maybe more important for authenticity than the ingredients is where the name carbonara comes from. I suspect that wasn't invented for the American army.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Why is it being invented in 1944 a reason to make it badly using cream?
Most 1944 cuisine consisted of using powdered egg as a poor substitute for cream which was unavailable except on the black market, so even if the recipe says egg it may have aspired to double cream.
The most confident prediction I would have for the next general election this far out is that the vast majority of seats won by the LDs from the Tories are going to stay with the LDs.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Why not call pasta with Dairylea and Pepperami carbonara?
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
You clearly feel strongly about this.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
You only describe horrible things replacing better things
If there were superior things coming in, I wouldn't care so much about the names
But no "carbonara" is anywhere near as good as proper carbonara
If there's a good cream dish, I'm sure it should have its own name
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Tradition is surely a consensus, no more, no less? As most Italians do think "proper" Carbonara is spaghetti with eggs semi-cooked by the residual heat and dish as typically Roman as saltimbocca and artichokes, I would be happy to go with that as the authentic recipe.
I actually prefer my eggs to be fully cooked so my Carbonara isn't the genuine version I guess....
And now we can move onto the traditional "sticky toffee pudding" invented in the 1970s along with the microwave oven as the go-to dessert in every British restaurant.
And the question of whether Brown Windsor Soup ever really existed.
I can imagine a goodly number of PB contributors regularly enjoying Brown Windsor Soup.
Several enjoy bathing in a brown-nosing Windsors’ soup.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Why not call pasta with Dairylea and Pepperami carbonara?
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
You clearly feel strongly about this.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
You only describe horrible things replacing better things
If there were superior things coming in, I wouldn't care so much about the names
But no "carbonara" is anywhere near as good as proper carbonara
If there's a good cream dish, I'm sure it should have its own name
This is a political site, so there needs to be a policy answer. Appellation contrôlée / DOC rules perhaps?
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
Why is it being invented in 1944 a reason to make it badly using cream?
At some point the world will have to realise that the 2nd world war was quite a while ago. 2045 maybe? I was born 40 years after it ended but it still sits as a sort of event in the life of people my age, even though it wasn't.
I sometimes wonder how much the Napoleonic wars loomed over us in the run up to WW1. We all think of them as history, but I assume some WW1 generals had grandfathers who had fought at Waterloo. Our reference point (we all have it, I think) of “the post war era” does feel like it’s on the way out, as the global consensus breaks down.
Not many from Waterloo. Say you are 20 in 1815, have children when you are 30 in 1825, they have children 1855, those children are 60 in 1915. But there's a lot of wars which loom more closely - Crimea and South Africa and Khartoum and China and the Indian mutiny.
The classic Napoleonic one is that Jackie Fisher, the Admiral of the Fleet in WW1 who oversaw the early use of submarines and aircraft carriers, was introduced into the Royal Navy as a naval cadet by the last of Nelson's Captains to be in the service, in 1854. That was Admiral Sir William Parker, who had also been present at the Glorious First of June in 1794 as a Captain's Servant.
We sometimes forget that Victorians could have children quite late. I read about one yesterday who was widowed twice and had his final child in his 70s with his third wife. Either dutiful or frisky.
My son and his friend have got into French chansons. It’s weird, they’re downstairs in the kitchen at the moment cooking pear upside down cake (with no eggs, like bastardised carbonara) while listening to Edith Piaf on Spotify.
Former Harris staffers said they were well acquainted with her preferred writing tool: Pilot Precise V7 Roller Ball pens. The pens are "seared into everyone's brain,” a former aide said
Cheap date. Probably has a secret locker full of Montblancs.
As it would be highly illegal for the council not to provide education in that case, I sense bullshit but admit I didn't penetrate past the paywall.
'The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Why not call pasta with Dairylea and Pepperami carbonara?
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
You clearly feel strongly about this.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
You only describe horrible things replacing better things
If there were superior things coming in, I wouldn't care so much about the names
But no "carbonara" is anywhere near as good as proper carbonara
If there's a good cream dish, I'm sure it should have its own name
This is a political site, so there needs to be a policy answer. Appellation contrôlée / DOC rules perhaps?
Not clear if PDOs are a long-term net positive or negative food culture wise, whatever their economic and trade advantages.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Why not call pasta with Dairylea and Pepperami carbonara?
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
You clearly feel strongly about this.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
You only describe horrible things replacing better things
If there were superior things coming in, I wouldn't care so much about the names
But no "carbonara" is anywhere near as good as proper carbonara
If there's a good cream dish, I'm sure it should have its own name
I love proper carbonara: pancetta, eggs, parmesan. Definitely no cream - save that for an age-old traditional Italian dessert like tiramisu.
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Ladies & Gentlemen: car brain in action.
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.
Agreed. The cyclist was doing nothing wrong at all. The fault lies entirely with the car driver. And given that the cyclist suffered serious injuries including a bleed on the brain I do actually think a custodial sentence was justified. We jail people for unintentional manslaughter all the time (indeed we curently have justified calls for that to be applied to those responsible for Grenfell) and given it looks to me like the only reason the cyclist wasn't killed was because she was wearing the correct protective headgear, it seems right and proper that a similar standard should be applied here.
The cyclist was clearly cycling too fast and not looking properly, the fault was not 100% with the car driver.
Just because the cyclist suffered serious injuries does not mean a custodial sentence was justified at all. Indeed even drivers who killed someone have not gone to jail if not driving dangerously or not at fault before as jail should be based on intent and danger to the public NOT outcome.
We rarely jail people for unintentional corporate manslaughter either, normally at most it is a significant fine.
What exactly is 'too fast' and where are the rules governing that. The cyclist does not appear to have been exceeding the speed limit so where does it say that they have to travel slower than other riad users?
You seem to like making up non existent rules just becuase they suit your argument.
Even if not too fast the cyclist was clearly not looking properly enough either
1) How do you know? 2) If the cyclist had decided not to look where she was going but insteaf at the car which was about to hit her, what could she have done differently? Evasive action is almost impossible. 3) It really, really isn't the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid any road user who might try to drive into her.
She should certainly have slowed down approaching the junction rather than continue at full pelt as she did
A car driver wouldn't do so. Why should a cyclist?
Because they might die.
The cyclist is in the right, but that's not much consolation if dead.
Yes I cycle a lot to get from a to b and b to c every day, I would definitely slow down approaching any kind of junction unless I was 100% sure there wasn't some careless driver around who might kill me.
I might have some sympathy for the driver here, we all make mistakes. Usually we get away with them and hopefully learn from them.
But if @HYUFD thinks that the cyclist is to blame here then I'm afraid that makes @HYUFD a dangerous driver, and I'm alarmed to learn he has a licence.
One of the lessons here is sightlines. Predictability is so much easier if everyone can see everyone in advance. It designs out much of the risk of blind corners, and the need to remember to anticipate all the areas that you cannot see are clear.
If you read the Dutch CROW Manual going back a long, long way, minimums are specified depending on the design speed of the elements different networks intersecting, form of the junctions concerned etc.
We have certain rules, but we are nothing like systematic about it, much is optional, and our road designers normally have little or no CPD required by employers, whilst Highways Authorities (I have FOId several on their policy pm various occasions) will say "we have no policy, as our engineers will take all the guidelines into account".
There are any number of design elements we pay zero attention to making safe and fail safe (as opposed to fail dangerous) in this country.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Why not call pasta with Dairylea and Pepperami carbonara?
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
You clearly feel strongly about this.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
You only describe horrible things replacing better things
If there were superior things coming in, I wouldn't care so much about the names
But no "carbonara" is anywhere near as good as proper carbonara
If there's a good cream dish, I'm sure it should have its own name
This is a political site, so there needs to be a policy answer. Appellation contrôlée / DOC rules perhaps?
Not clear if PDOs are a long-term net positive or negative food culture wise, whatever their economic and trade advantages.
They’ve been pretty useless for English wine so far but that’s because they are a. too broad, b. not rooted in meaningful geographic areas (Sussex doesn’t make sense, for example). But they could definitely play a useful role in future. We need a PDO for North Downs (or “Kent downs”), Surrey hills, Weald, South Downs, Thames Valley, Wye valley and a few other coherent bio geographical regions.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Why not call pasta with Dairylea and Pepperami carbonara?
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
You clearly feel strongly about this.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
You only describe horrible things replacing better things
If there were superior things coming in, I wouldn't care so much about the names
But no "carbonara" is anywhere near as good as proper carbonara
If there's a good cream dish, I'm sure it should have its own name
I love proper carbonara: pancetta, eggs, parmesan. Definitely no cream - save that for an age-old traditional Italian dessert like tiramisu.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Why not call pasta with Dairylea and Pepperami carbonara?
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
You clearly feel strongly about this.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
You only describe horrible things replacing better things
If there were superior things coming in, I wouldn't care so much about the names
But no "carbonara" is anywhere near as good as proper carbonara
If there's a good cream dish, I'm sure it should have its own name
I love proper carbonara: pancetta, eggs, parmesan. Definitely no cream - save that for an age-old traditional Italian dessert like tiramisu.
The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s current private school by the Government’s VAT raid. The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”. The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.”
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Why not call pasta with Dairylea and Pepperami carbonara?
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
You clearly feel strongly about this.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
You only describe horrible things replacing better things
If there were superior things coming in, I wouldn't care so much about the names
But no "carbonara" is anywhere near as good as proper carbonara
If there's a good cream dish, I'm sure it should have its own name
I love proper carbonara: pancetta, eggs, parmesan. Definitely no cream - save that for an age-old traditional Italian dessert like tiramisu.
Guanciale and pecorino, not pancetta and parmesan
Delia says pancetta* and parmesan, so pancetta and parmesan it is.
(*Actually Delia says bacon and parmesan in her Complete Cookery Course but that was printed in 1981 when pancetta didn't exist.)
Former Harris staffers said they were well acquainted with her preferred writing tool: Pilot Precise V7 Roller Ball pens. The pens are "seared into everyone's brain,” a former aide said
Cheap date. Probably has a secret locker full of Montblancs.
Aren't Montblancs a bit ... well ... the sort of thing JD Vance might have? Kind of like a Hugo Boss suit or a Tesla Cybertruck, worn or used by aspirational klutzes with no self-confidence.
I remember far too many of them belonging to salesmen or consultants in shiny suits.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Why not call pasta with Dairylea and Pepperami carbonara?
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
You clearly feel strongly about this.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
You only describe horrible things replacing better things
If there were superior things coming in, I wouldn't care so much about the names
But no "carbonara" is anywhere near as good as proper carbonara
If there's a good cream dish, I'm sure it should have its own name
I love proper carbonara: pancetta, eggs, parmesan. Definitely no cream - save that for an age-old traditional Italian dessert like tiramisu.
Guanciale and pecorino, not pancetta and parmesan
Delia says pancetta* and parmesan, so pancetta and parmesan it is.
(*Actually Delia says bacon and parmesan in her Complete Cookery COurse but that was printed in 1981 when pancetta didn't exist.)
Delia isn't cream wrong, but she's wrong
Guaciale releases far more fat, and pecorino has a different flavour to parmesan
i recommend Netflix TV series The Turning Point, on the War on Terror since 9/11
Our abandonment of Afhganistan was utterly shameful
Lessons
1. America should have eliminated, one way or another, everyone in Guantanamo right from the off. China would have done exactly that. Stop pretending we are "better than China", it is western exceptionalism and it cripples us
2. We need to wise up re Islamism. Good fences make good neighbours. We need fences
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Why not call pasta with Dairylea and Pepperami carbonara?
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
You clearly feel strongly about this.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
You only describe horrible things replacing better things
If there were superior things coming in, I wouldn't care so much about the names
But no "carbonara" is anywhere near as good as proper carbonara
If there's a good cream dish, I'm sure it should have its own name
I love proper carbonara: pancetta, eggs, parmesan. Definitely no cream - save that for an age-old traditional Italian dessert like tiramisu.
Guanciale and pecorino, not pancetta and parmesan
Delia says pancetta* and parmesan, so pancetta and parmesan it is.
(*Actually Delia says bacon and parmesan in her Complete Cookery COurse but that was printed in 1981 when pancetta didn't exist.)
Delia isn't cream wrong, but she's wrong
Guaciale releases far more fat, and pecorino has a different flavour to parmesan
Guaciale is an even more recent invention for Carbonara. Originally it was with bacon.
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Why not call pasta with Dairylea and Pepperami carbonara?
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
You clearly feel strongly about this.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
You only describe horrible things replacing better things
If there were superior things coming in, I wouldn't care so much about the names
But no "carbonara" is anywhere near as good as proper carbonara
If there's a good cream dish, I'm sure it should have its own name
I love proper carbonara: pancetta, eggs, parmesan. Definitely no cream - save that for an age-old traditional Italian dessert like tiramisu.
Guanciale and pecorino, not pancetta and parmesan
Delia says pancetta* and parmesan, so pancetta and parmesan it is.
(*Actually Delia says bacon and parmesan in her Complete Cookery COurse but that was printed in 1981 when pancetta didn't exist.)
Delia isn't cream wrong, but she's wrong
Guaciale releases far more fat, and pecorino has a different flavour to parmesan
Guaciale is an even more recent invention for Carbonara. Originally it was with bacon.
This was the fun chap we were talking about in a previous thread.
The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s current private school by the Government’s VAT raid. The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”. The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.”
Here's where they pretend they didn't mean to say it:
"A spokesman for Buckinghamshire council said they wanted to “apologise for the choice of language” and insisted it does not reflect any formal policy.
Anita Cranmer, the council’s cabinet member for education and children’s services, said: “We believe this wording was taken from an individual correspondence rather than being a formal policy and we apologise for the choice of language; we are happy to confirm this direct with the family and will not be seeking personal financial information from them or any other Buckinghamshire family.
“The intention was to seek confirmation in this case as to whether the family was relinquishing the child’s current school place and would definitely be seeking an ‘in year’ school place even though their preferred school is full, or whether they would be staying at their current school which is often the case when families aren’t able to get a place at a preferred school.”
If it weren't for me and a few others, carbonara would just be creamy pasta
Thank god for tradition
Oh mate.
You definitely didn’t read the thread a few days ago.
Carbonara was invented in 1944 for American GIs who wanted breakfast pasta.
Banging on about the traditional Carbonara recipe is the gastronomic equivalent of pronouncing bucket bouquet.
I wrote the thread years ago!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Gastronomic racism, essentially. Condemning the mongrel.
The foodie far right.
Why not call pasta with Dairylea and Pepperami carbonara?
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
You clearly feel strongly about this.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
You only describe horrible things replacing better things
If there were superior things coming in, I wouldn't care so much about the names
But no "carbonara" is anywhere near as good as proper carbonara
If there's a good cream dish, I'm sure it should have its own name
I love proper carbonara: pancetta, eggs, parmesan. Definitely no cream - save that for an age-old traditional Italian dessert like tiramisu.
Guanciale and pecorino, not pancetta and parmesan
Delia says pancetta* and parmesan, so pancetta and parmesan it is.
(*Actually Delia says bacon and parmesan in her Complete Cookery COurse but that was printed in 1981 when pancetta didn't exist.)
Delia isn't cream wrong, but she's wrong
Guaciale releases far more fat, and pecorino has a different flavour to parmesan
Guaciale is an even more recent invention for Carbonara. Originally it was with bacon.
Guaciale was invented to make the best carbonara, which takes slightly longer to cook
Cream was mixed into other ingredients to make a quick carbonara substitute
Your cream, bacon, (mushroom?) and cheese with pasta will never be carbonara to anyone that knows carbonara
No wonder when we are jailing people for tweets made rather than giving them community orders and fines. Prison should be mainly for those who have killed with intent, killed while dangerous driving, committed violent crimes or serious sexual offences of assault or rape or stolen large amounts of property ie those we need to protect society from and who need a long period of rehabilitation before they are released.
The number of people jailed for tweets is very small and is not why the prison population is at a record high.
We are also jailing some people for careless driving who stopped at the scene, weren't drunk or on drugs or speeding and sometimes didn't kill as well. Another offence which should have a community order or suspended sentence only as the maximum not an immediate jail term
I'm interested in your logic. Surely, morally, imprisonment can't exclusively require intent? The outcome, there, ^ was catastrophic and avoidable. The road rules are there for a reason and have to be enforced, right?
If that happened to you, or a loved one, surely you would expect your society/government to exact some form of visible punishment?
BTW, credit to the family who (presumably?) allowed that video to be released.
Imprisonment should largely require intent yes or extreme gross negligence at most. The outcome there was a cyclist riding very fast was hit by a driver who failed to see them but was not drunk, had no drugs in their system, was not speeding and stopped at the scene.
If that happened to me or a loved one I would expect a community order or a suspended sentence as the maximum, prison should be confined to those who are genuinely dangerous or pose a serious threat to society as I said
Have you watched the video and read the article?
Do you think the cyclist did something wrong?
Aren't people who disregard the road rules a serious threat to society?
Yes I have watched the video and read the article and the cyclist was riding very fast clearly without looking properly as well.
The driver should also have stopped for longer and looked more closely but the cyclist was not without fault either.
So no, a driver who was not speeding very fast and not on drugs or drunk and not doing an illegal manoeuvre on a motorway say is not a serious threat to society no and should not be in prison. At most a community order and driving ban for a few years would suffice
Zero blame can be afforded to the cyclist in that collision. They were going at below the speed limit (which doesn't apply to them) and had no time to react to the late maneuver from the driver. I hope they've rinsed the driver's insurance for damages.
It's pure bigotry from you, I'm afraid. If you think that's "very fast", it looks like Epping will be getting blanket 10mph speed limits in the near future.
Oddly enough, I also agree that it should be a shorter sentence, or none at all. But it should be a much, much longer driving ban.
Wrong, blame can be apportioned to that cyclist who was clearly going very fast along the road without looking properly too and if they had hit a pedestrian crossing the road rather than a car would have caused that pedestrian serious injury.
I agree though driving ban at most not prison for the driver
Ladies & Gentlemen: car brain in action.
A cyclist follows the rules of the road to the letter yet is blamed for an crash that they could neither predict nor control caused by a car driver who utterly failed to yield the right of way as they were required to by both the rules of the road & their duty of care to other road users.
One can reasonably argue about whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case. Arguing that the cyclist bore any responsibility for this crash is simply car-centric, driver responsibility minimising thinking that should not stand.
Agreed. The cyclist was doing nothing wrong at all. The fault lies entirely with the car driver. And given that the cyclist suffered serious injuries including a bleed on the brain I do actually think a custodial sentence was justified. We jail people for unintentional manslaughter all the time (indeed we curently have justified calls for that to be applied to those responsible for Grenfell) and given it looks to me like the only reason the cyclist wasn't killed was because she was wearing the correct protective headgear, it seems right and proper that a similar standard should be applied here.
The cyclist was clearly cycling too fast and not looking properly, the fault was not 100% with the car driver.
Just because the cyclist suffered serious injuries does not mean a custodial sentence was justified at all. Indeed even drivers who killed someone have not gone to jail if not driving dangerously or not at fault before as jail should be based on intent and danger to the public NOT outcome.
We rarely jail people for unintentional corporate manslaughter either, normally at most it is a significant fine.
What exactly is 'too fast' and where are the rules governing that. The cyclist does not appear to have been exceeding the speed limit so where does it say that they have to travel slower than other riad users?
You seem to like making up non existent rules just becuase they suit your argument.
Even if not too fast the cyclist was clearly not looking properly enough either
1) How do you know? 2) If the cyclist had decided not to look where she was going but insteaf at the car which was about to hit her, what could she have done differently? Evasive action is almost impossible. 3) It really, really isn't the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid any road user who might try to drive into her.
She should certainly have slowed down approaching the junction rather than continue at full pelt as she did
A car driver wouldn't do so. Why should a cyclist?
Because they might die.
The cyclist is in the right, but that's not much consolation if dead.
Yes I cycle a lot to get from a to b and b to c every day, I would definitely slow down approaching any kind of junction unless I was 100% sure there wasn't some careless driver around who might kill me.
I might have some sympathy for the driver here, we all make mistakes. Usually we get away with them and hopefully learn from them.
But if @HYUFD thinks that the cyclist is to blame here then I'm afraid that makes @HYUFD a dangerous driver, and I'm alarmed to learn he has a licence.
One of the lessons here is sightlines. Predictability is so much easier if everyone can see everyone in advance. It designs out much of the risk of blind corners, and the need to remember to anticipate all the areas that you cannot see are clear.
If you read the Dutch CROW Manual going back a long, long way, minimums are specified depending on the design speed of the elements different networks intersecting, form of the junctions concerned etc.
We have certain rules, but we are nothing like systematic about it, much is optional, and our road designers normally have little or no CPD required by employers, whilst Highways Authorities (I have FOId several on their policy pm various occasions) will say "we have no policy, as our engineers will take all the guidelines into account".
There are any number of design elements we pay zero attention to making safe and fail safe (as opposed to fail dangerous) in this country.
But going back to that example in Coventry - that cyclist will have been able to see the car as she approached the junction. She didn't take evasive action because the car was stationary and she reasonably assumed that the car was going to wait for her to pass until pulling into the road.
As it would be highly illegal for the council not to provide education in that case, I sense bullshit but admit I didn't penetrate past the paywall.
'The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
If I understand this correctly the schools the parent applied for were oversubscribed and her child didn't meet the criteria for admission. The local authority then suggested a way they could jump the queue by claiming poverty on the school fees, which was also illegal. Presumably the parent could have got their child into a school that wasn't their preference and that is frequent outcome when parents apply normally. In general however you wouldn't move unless it's to a preferred choice, hence the normal recommendation to stay put if you don't get your preference.
A bit different from what was implied by the summary.
There's some promising news from Ukraine. In recent days it is reported that they have stabilised the frontline near Pokrovsk, regained some of Niu-York, and continue to advance in Kursk. Meanwhile Russian soldiers are now apparently looting property from their own citizens in Belgorod Oblast (and making some advances in Vuhledar).
The main contrary indicator is that Russian artillery losses appear to have dropped by about a third, back to the level of around for months ago.
Comments
Either way though, the figures speak for themselves, on a per mileage basis there's no real difference between cars and cycles.
I really do, not just saying this.
I did finish the summer extremely fit after doing 7 days a week, averaging 60+ hrs a week.
The most I've done in a day (since 2016) is 59,054; I'll have done more on a hike, but I haven't been doing those recently. The most in a month during the same period is 985,260.
So yes, BL's total is superb.
I actually prefer my eggs to be fully cooked so my Carbonara isn't the genuine version I guess....
Beetlejuice is whimsical bollox with really lame 1980s SFX btw. Rewatching it as prep for the sequel, but it's work.
That’s the joy of the open-source Anglo Saxon approach to stuff.
They had the marinated carp (often horrible, it was just a way of preserving it for peasants) and some bright spark thought of mixing with the usual Montenegrin spuds n spinach n garlic
Result: a noble national dish
I was going to decry this but then I remembered that half of Italy’s iconic foods were invented in the last few decades. Tiramisu. Ciabatta etc
Quite venerable actually (the Apple version). End of the 19th century in a restaurant in the Sologne.
Which is a useful prompt to recommend you all read Le Grand Meulnes.
Currywurst!
Chicken tikka masala!
I know when carbonara was invented
It's old enough to he be traditional now
And cream never goes in it
Call your creamy pasta something else, or put it in quotation marks when you call it carbonara
You make creambaconcheddara
And it's shit compared to carbonara
Buckinghamshire council asks mother for evidence of her financial situation in order for her daughter to be considered for state school"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/06/parents-asked-prove-afford-private-fees-buckinghamshire/
As I’ve said several times, I like it the “traditional” way with egg because it tastes nice and intense, but tutting at the unwashed masses who like it with a bit of cream (not just here but throughout Europe) is misplaced snobbery of the bucket variety.
Two years is 730 days. I assume you work five days a week and have two weeks holiday, so that's 5x50x2= 500 days.
8,500 miles/500 days = 17 miles a day. Is that close?
The foodie far right.
Even that has some even-more-obscure nooks and crannies.
eg The Battle of the Komandorski Islands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WOPbwg6hFQ
But I have no car
Last year did about 9m steps
I think I do closer to 2,500 steps per mile, so about 80% of your distances
1. The fall of the Berlin Wall, 1989
2. 9/11, 2001
3. The great financial crisis, 2007-9
4. Covid-19, 2020-2021
https://youtu.be/q4CCFObSEAU?si=Qa8YjAdra88RkzEb
I might have some sympathy for the driver here, we all make mistakes. Usually we get away with them and hopefully learn from them.
But if @HYUFD thinks that the cyclist is to blame here then I'm afraid that makes @HYUFD a dangerous driver, and I'm alarmed to learn he has a licence.
Ffs why not pasta, cheese whizz and bacon bits?
In fact, fuck it. Make it all with green vegetables, soy, and almond milk
I hope you enjoy it
Jackfruit biryani? FFS!
Even they can't dress up a jackfruit to be worth what they have to charge for it
Which is why the data collected / analysed has to vary depending on the question being asked, and here the rate of accidents by mode is not what we need to know to inform our policy decisions to meet our policy objective.
I'm off to have a carbonara, and a piece of pineapple pizza, for supper.
Without wanting to come over all barty bobs I think you could foresee someone doing pasta with cheese whizz and bacon bits and calling it carbonara. Like you get (delicious) tinned cassoulet in French supermarkets with chopped frankfurters.
Or “cheddar” as sold in French supermarkets, which is plastic melty cheese for your burger in a nice plastic wrapper.
https://x.com/dsamuelsohn/status/1415322973821624327
Former Harris staffers said they were well acquainted with her preferred writing tool: Pilot Precise V7 Roller Ball pens. The pens are "seared into everyone's brain,” a former aide said
They were very nice and charming, but they also reminded me of the kind of the kind of slick, affluent Latin Americans who have supported their various iterations of military junta.
BNO News Live
@BNODesk
BREAKING: Missouri reports human case of H5 bird flu with no known link to animals
https://x.com/BNODesk/status/1832148899135680614
If there were superior things coming in, I wouldn't care so much about the names
But no "carbonara" is anywhere near as good as proper carbonara
If there's a good cream dish, I'm sure it should have its own name
We sometimes forget that Victorians could have children quite late. I read about one yesterday who was widowed twice and had his final child in his 70s with his third wife. Either dutiful or frisky.
Probably has a secret locker full of Montblancs.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.” '
I hasten to add I have a pay wall buster extension in Firefox, would not want anyone thinking I shell out to read Das Torygraaf
I'm listening to Love is Blue by Paul Mauriat (what a classic)
This is of no relevance.
If you read the Dutch CROW Manual going back a long, long way, minimums are specified depending on the design speed of the elements different networks intersecting, form of the junctions concerned etc.
We have certain rules, but we are nothing like systematic about it, much is optional, and our road designers normally have little or no CPD required by employers, whilst Highways Authorities (I have FOId several on their policy pm various occasions) will say "we have no policy, as our engineers will take all the guidelines into account".
There are any number of design elements we pay zero attention to making safe and fail safe (as opposed to fail dangerous) in this country.
https://archive.ph/XASmv
The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s current private school by the Government’s VAT raid.
The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.
The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.”
(*Actually Delia says bacon and parmesan in her Complete Cookery Course but that was printed in 1981 when pancetta didn't exist.)
I remember far too many of them belonging to salesmen or consultants in shiny suits.
Guaciale releases far more fat, and pecorino has a different flavour to parmesan
Our abandonment of Afhganistan was utterly shameful
Lessons
1. America should have eliminated, one way or another, everyone in Guantanamo right from the off. China would have done exactly that. Stop pretending we are "better than China", it is western exceptionalism and it cripples us
2. We need to wise up re Islamism. Good fences make good neighbours. We need fences
https://www.ft.com/content/6ac009d5-dbfd-4a86-839e-28bb44b2b64c
"A spokesman for Buckinghamshire council said they wanted to “apologise for the choice of language” and insisted it does not reflect any formal policy.
Anita Cranmer, the council’s cabinet member for education and children’s services, said: “We believe this wording was taken from an individual correspondence rather than being a formal policy and we apologise for the choice of language; we are happy to confirm this direct with the family and will not be seeking personal financial information from them or any other Buckinghamshire family.
“The intention was to seek confirmation in this case as to whether the family was relinquishing the child’s current school place and would definitely be seeking an ‘in year’ school place even though their preferred school is full, or whether they would be staying at their current school which is often the case when families aren’t able to get a place at a preferred school.”
Cream was mixed into other ingredients to make a quick carbonara substitute
Your cream, bacon, (mushroom?) and cheese with pasta will never be carbonara to anyone that knows carbonara
A bit different from what was implied by the summary.
The main contrary indicator is that Russian artillery losses appear to have dropped by about a third, back to the level of around for months ago.