Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
Whitehall won't, as you say, but the Scottish government might have done. Perhaps they are all too young to remember IBM Greenock.
Is this like when Hartlepool arrested a monkey thinking he was a french spy?
Hanged, not just arrested ...
It’s a sub- isn’t it? Like the paediatrician in Portsmouth (apocryphal, sadly).
In the Wales case I suspect the reality is somewhat less amusing and more disturbing: that the scouts in question were non-white. So many of the local “concerned citizens” may not feel the embarrassment at their mistake that we would expect.
On 20mph zones, the road between Guildford and Shalford now has one, which feels unnecessary.
One thing self-driving cars will do is remove the need for speed limits at all. If we set the value of a fatality at £10 million, with a strict liability fine for any self-driving car involved, plus some bits around noise pollution etc, then vehicles will move around at the socially optimal pace.
That might 100mph at 3am on a motorway; 10mph through central Edinburgh in August.
Self-driving cars will only work when all cars are self-driving.
A friend's son has just been on a Scouts trip trekking across part of Poland, where they were treated delightfully by the locals. (They do have proper posh south-west London accents.)
Victoria Derbyshire, "Do you think Yvette Cooper is lying?"
Sir Jonathan Porritt, former long term advisor to King Charles, who was one of 500 people arrested on Saturday,
"The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre which is the government's own advisory body advised Yvette Cooper that there is no evidence whatsoever that Palestine Action has advocated violence against people"
"It has used violence against property"
"So when Yvette Cooper implies that Palestine Action has done violence to people, we know the Home Secretary is not revealing the whole truth"
Apart from the above and similar events which may not be public yet - sub judice, charges not brought etc - there could be a dual headed nature to this.
That is, some sort of basically violence-willing inner (or entryist) group, with a penumbra of 'peaceful activists', who may be perhaps be also termed "useful idiots". It's quite possible that public figures could form part of such a penumbra, or otherwise prioritising the cause so much that they are willing to turn a blind eye to the activities of their fellow campaigners. That could be explicit or varied version of vanguardism.
That's consistently been an SWP pattern, for example - where one orientation is to use a fluffy cause to attack the way society is organised. That's one reason I never trust Unite Against Fascism, Stop the War, or Stand Up to Racism without a careful look - they all have such a history.
Another contemporary example is our various (choose your word) "right", where the aim is to present "local families concerned about protecting our girls", but there's a hard line core of Tommy Robinson and similars willing to attack police, counter demonstrators etc, with an overlap formed by eg Homeland Party councillors. We have seen the same "concerned locals" in different places claiming the same thing.
Not commenting on causes there, but on organisation.
I think that this may in part be another Government Comms cockup.
Reflecting a little further, the double headed approach could be deliberate strategy.
And one previous "peaceful" protest group which tipped over into terrorism was SHAC - Stop Huntingdon Life Science, and that was because (imo) at core the philosophy of animal equality to human beings, and the willingness to use violence to campaign for is deeply flawed. The centrist dad approach of being pragmatic in permitting but seeking to minimise animal experimentation is far more rational.
It seems plain enough to me that Palestine Action is a terrorist organisation.
It’s proscription is justified.
It's CND: The Next Generation
Which led to this interesting letter in the Times from the retired base commander at Greenham Common back then.
On the letter itself. It is interesting that it portrays a robust but layered attitude to security. Along other things, the protestors were aware that the actual aircraft and weapons at Greenham would have been defended with deadly force.
What we are seeing is an intersection of legalism and accession to the words of “Human Rights” with a very authoritarian attitude.
To such people the idea of threatening deadly force to protect a military installation would be a “Human Rights” violation. But proscribing an organisation as terrorist is to say that The Forms Must Be Obeyed*. And therefore isn’t a “Human Rights” violation.
At the very beginning of New Labour, they used obscure Royal Parks laws from medieval times to arrest people politely holding up signs saying “Remember Tibet”, on the occasion of the Chinese President visiting.
Later, people wearing T-Shirts saying “Bollocks to Blair” were threatened with arrest.
A range of utterly peaceful protest organisation were heavily infiltrated by the police. At the same time the Death To The West crowd were escalating toward 7/7 unhindered. These infiltrations were carried out illegally and resulted in the police themselves committing various offences. The subsequent court cases are still working through the courts.
An example - Fathers For Justice. Due to the pendulum in family courts swing too far, courts were refusing to enforce judgements on the mothers in such cases, but were enforcing them on the men. The theory being that the women were now Single Mothers and deserved protection. So divorced men saw a situation where they were paying child support etc to the point of literally having no money left - and then being denied the court proscribed visitation to their children.
FFJ was about demanding that court orders be enforced. Their protests consisted of people dressing up in silly costumes and climbing up on things. Not even damage. In the end, a police infiltrator tried to turn the organisation violent - the actual protestors disbanded in horror at the idea.
I think we have a confluence of a kind of morally bankrupt legalism and an ingrained belief that all protest against a “left wing” government is illegitimate.
At the time of the Tibet/Royal Parks thing I coined the term The Lawyers Syllogism
1) the laws says that something is legal 2) therefore it must be done 3) any opposition to doing it is an attack on the law and immoral.
(Apologies to the writers of Yes Minister)
I came up with that, after speaking to some lawyers on the edges of that decision. They offered a justification for the governments actions that was nearly exactly the above.
*in the series Dune, the phrase The Forms Must Be Obeyed is placed at the front of each law. Which laws are a system of deliberate feudalism - the people are literally serfs. For their own good, apparently
Would American servicemen on British soil really have been permitted to shoot dead CND protestors? The political implications of that would have been massive.
The soldiers guarding nuclear weapons in the American military are trained to respond to attacks, of any kind, with serious force.
Back in the day, the Red Army Faction tried an attack on an American nuclear storage facility in Germany. They were a bit startled to find their diversion attack merely alerted the guards. Who responded with belt fed machine guns for suppressive fire, while getting the mortars up and running. And sending in armoured vehicles.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
Whitehall won't, as you say, but the Scottish government might have done. Perhaps they are all too young to remember IBM Greenock.
By coincidence, I passed the deserted site yesterday. It’s supposed to be being developed for housing, but no sign of progress yet, even with a railway station on site waiting to be reopened.
Nicola Sturgeon is being good value at the mo, as her memoirs are being released.
"The former first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, has described Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage as “odious”, suggesting he is “not particularly comfortable, particularly around women.”
"In an interview with ITV News’ Julie Etchingham to mark her forthcoming memoir Frankly’s release, Nicola Sturgeon claimed she heard Nigel Farage boasting that he had been drinking heavily before going on air for the televised ITV 2015 election debate."
They certainly make a pair.
Also:
"JK Rowling has said she will be publishing a review of Nicola Sturgeon’s memoir Frankly after the former first minister named her as a driving force behind “vile” abuse amid the debate on gender reform." Look forward to that.
And, it turns out, Eck hadn't bothered reading the Scottish Government's own Indy white paper before the referendum. "I was sobbing on the floor of my office at home and my heart was racing". (From Press and Journal). Apparently, he went off on a trade visit to China instead. Mind, who can blame him?
Compared to all this, the Boris ministry comes across as a model of organisational efficiency and sobriety.
Anecdata: my mid-70s chauffeur yesterday could read a number plate more than the statutory 20m away. He was wearing anti-glare glasses as recommended by this very pb iirc, and glare might be another problem now with brighter and higher LED lights.
Glare from modern LED lights is a serious problem the government doesn't see to have any wish to tackle. A good chunk of the population have light sensitivity (which can get worse with age) or astigmatism, meaning LEDs can be dazzling to the point of making it impossible to see ahead for seconds at a time.
I mostly stay off the road at night now because of this.
I hate and avoid driving at night because of LED headlights, and also because there seem to be more selfish arseholes who refuse to dip their lights.
Eye tests also need to account for people awaiting optical treatment, such as cataract operations. Mrs. F has been waiting for over a year. It seems unreasonable that she should be prevented from driving for longer than necessary because of NHS delays.
If we are unable to drive we will be housebound unless we pay for taxis. I don’t suppose there will be any help or compensation for those of us who don’t live in cities.
I agree to an extent, which is why I pointed out the importance of a philosophy of alternatives being provided everywhere in the header, but that would make a gradually increasing difference over time.
I think there will need to be some run-in process, but I'm not sure how it would be defined. We can't say "yes, you can continue driving when we know you are medically unfit", which is what this is. If I am diagnosed with a condition - say epilepsy - I have to stop driving immediately.
But I can't see any logical reason why inability to see properly should in principle be any different to epilepsy or another condition. It's about public safety, not about us as individuals (I'm on a 3 year medical license myself).
I think when this legislation starts being developed, we need an extended media campaign to catch as many such cases as possible. And perhaps an implementation date some months after Royal Assent.
On a sort of parallel case, many disabled people are essentially housebound or significantly limited by things outside their immediate control. I ran into a case last week where a lady cannot practically leave her flat without a taxi, because all, even type approved, electric bike batteries have been banned from the lift for "insurance reasons"). And that is her E-Brompton banned from being taken up to her flat, which is her mobility aid.
One thing worth a look is a service called in England "Dial a Bus" which is a door to door bus service for people who have various types of problems eg limited mobility. Cataracts might qualify.
Nicola Sturgeon is being good value at the mo, as her memoirs are being released.
"The former first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, has described Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage as “odious”, suggesting he is “not particularly comfortable, particularly around women.”
"In an interview with ITV News’ Julie Etchingham to mark her forthcoming memoir Frankly’s release, Nicola Sturgeon claimed she heard Nigel Farage boasting that he had been drinking heavily before going on air for the televised ITV 2015 election debate."
They certainly make a pair.
Also:
"JK Rowling has said she will be publishing a review of Nicola Sturgeon’s memoir Frankly after the former first minister named her as a driving force behind “vile” abuse amid the debate on gender reform." Look forward to that.
And, it turns out, Eck hadn't bothered reading the Scottish Government's own Indy white paper before the referendum. "I was sobbing on the floor of my office at home and my heart was racing". (From Press and Journal). Apparently, he went off on a trade visit to China instead. Mind, who can blame him?
Compared to all this, the Boris ministry comes across as a model of organisational efficiency and sobriety.
JK Rowling has said she will be publishing a review of Nicola Sturgeon’s memoir Frankly after the former first minister named her as a driving force behind “vile” abuse amid the debate on gender reform." Look forward to that. Harry Potter and the Trans Loving Campervan Owner?
Afternoon everyone, not read all the comments yet but the drop in legal drink driving limit isn't something I think Scotland would ever reverse, and its in line with many western countries, most of Europe, Australia etc. Culturally there has been a big shift in drinking since covid and its easier to drink at home and leave the car where it is.
Re the overall 70s tests, not sure how many are aware of the matters in the link below, definitely needs more robust and regular health checks, particularly over 80s. If over 70s are driving lorries they need more health checks to keep re applying for their licence than car drivers, don't see why it cant be extended to all drivers
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
Whitehall won't, as you say, but the Scottish government might have done. Perhaps they are all too young to remember IBM Greenock.
I'd think it's more that Scotland is a net generator of power in a number of geographical areas anyway, and that the SG don't have powers over cross-border trade. It would be as if they could only open 8% of the IBM factory and had to leave the rest to elsewhere ...
Nicola Sturgeon is being good value at the mo, as her memoirs are being released.
"The former first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, has described Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage as “odious”, suggesting he is “not particularly comfortable, particularly around women.”
"In an interview with ITV News’ Julie Etchingham to mark her forthcoming memoir Frankly’s release, Nicola Sturgeon claimed she heard Nigel Farage boasting that he had been drinking heavily before going on air for the televised ITV 2015 election debate."
They certainly make a pair.
Also:
"JK Rowling has said she will be publishing a review of Nicola Sturgeon’s memoir Frankly after the former first minister named her as a driving force behind “vile” abuse amid the debate on gender reform." Look forward to that.
And, it turns out, Eck hadn't bothered reading the Scottish Government's own Indy white paper before the referendum. "I was sobbing on the floor of my office at home and my heart was racing". (From Press and Journal). Apparently, he went off on a trade visit to China instead. Mind, who can blame him?
Compared to all this, the Boris ministry comes across as a model of organisational efficiency and sobriety.
JK Rowling has said she will be publishing a review of Nicola Sturgeon’s memoir Frankly after the former first minister named her as a driving force behind “vile” abuse amid the debate on gender reform." Look forward to that. Harry Potter and the Trans Loving Campervan Owner?
Anecdata: my mid-70s chauffeur yesterday could read a number plate more than the statutory 20m away. He was wearing anti-glare glasses as recommended by this very pb iirc, and glare might be another problem now with brighter and higher LED lights.
Glare from modern LED lights is a serious problem the government doesn't see to have any wish to tackle. A good chunk of the population have light sensitivity (which can get worse with age) or astigmatism, meaning LEDs can be dazzling to the point of making it impossible to see ahead for seconds at a time.
I mostly stay off the road at night now because of this.
I hate and avoid driving at night because of LED headlights, and also because there seem to be more selfish arseholes who refuse to dip their lights.
Eye tests also need to account for people awaiting optical treatment, such as cataract operations. Mrs. F has been waiting for over a year. It seems unreasonable that she should be prevented from driving for longer than necessary because of NHS delays.
If we are unable to drive we will be housebound unless we pay for taxis. I don’t suppose there will be any help or compensation for those of us who don’t live in cities.
I agree to an extent, which is why I pointed out the importance of a philosophy of alternatives being provided everywhere in the header, but that would make a gradually increasing difference over time.
I think there will need to be some run-in process, but I'm not sure how it would be defined. We can't say "yes, you can continue driving when we know you are medically unfit", which is what this is. If I am diagnosed with a condition - say epilepsy - I have to stop driving immediately.
But I can't see any logical reason why inability to see properly should in principle be any different to epilepsy or another condition. It's about public safety, not about us as individuals (I'm on a 3 year medical license myself).
I think when this legislation starts being developed, we need an extended media campaign to catch as many such cases as possible. And perhaps an implementation date some months after Royal Assent.
On a sort of parallel case, many disabled people are essentially housebound or significantly limited by things outside their immediate control. I ran into a case last week where a lady cannot practically leave her flat without a taxi, because all, even type approved, electric bike batteries have been banned from the lift for "insurance reasons"). And that is her E-Brompton banned from being taken up to her flat, which is her mobility aid.
One thing worth a look is a service called in England "Dial a Bus" which is a door to door bus service for people who have various types of problems eg limited mobility. Cataracts might qualify.
Not exactly joined-up thinking. It’s what happens when process trumps common sense.
People are being moved on to UC from older benefits, so this is what's meant to happen, isn't it?
Yes. Guido is being Guido, everything he’s written is technically correct buy devoid of important context.
Sadly what passes for journalism these days, and the dead-tree press are no better when writing on certain subjects. Another unwanted American import.
What do you think the reason is? A win-at-all cost mentality?
Good question. There’s several factors at play, from political in general becoming more tribal to media becoming more opinion-based rather than journalism-based, but the biggest factor is probably the need for “engagement” and social media algorithms.
It doesn’t matter if that “engagement” is all negative, those clicks and likes and comments are what makes money these days.
As with most of these things, it’s much worse in the US, where you now have two tribes talking straight past each other, and really need to read the same story from half a dozen different sources to get an idea of what’s really going on.
Why isn't anyone suggesting a crackdown on speeding ?
Or is it some unalienable right to do 85mph on motorways ?
Personally I'd increase the limit to 80mph and enforce it.
Speeding is one thing we seem to be very effective at cracking down on, as my two penalties in the last 2 years for going at 26 and 24 in a new 20 zone attest.
Where are you?
There is a folk legend (I think) that the really enforced limit is the announced limit plus 10% plus 2, i.e. 24, 35, 46 etc. I don't know if that's still the practice, or if you can get fined for driving at 22 in a 20 zone?
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
Afternoon everyone, not read all the comments yet but the drop in legal drink driving limit isn't something I think Scotland would ever reverse, and its in line with many western countries, most of Europe, Australia etc. Culturally there has been a big shift in drinking since covid and its easier to drink at home and leave the car where it is.
Re the overall 70s tests, not sure how many are aware of the matters in the link below, definitely needs more robust and regular health checks, particularly over 80s. If over 70s are driving lorries they need more health checks to keep re applying for their licence than car drivers, don't see why it cant be extended to all drivers
Interestingly, I don't see many PBers complimenting the SNP on anticipating the *still only proposed* drink-driving limit changes more than a decade ago, once given the powers in the Scotland Act 2012 (which is of course a Westminster act, so making one wonder a little why it has taken so long even to propose it for the southron).
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
Whitehall won't, as you say, but the Scottish government might have done. Perhaps they are all too young to remember IBM Greenock.
I'd think it's more that Scotland is a net generator of power in a number of geographical areas anyway, and that the SG don't have powers over cross-border trade. It would be as if they could only open 8% of the IBM factory and had to leave the rest to elsewhere ...
The Scottish government could have opened its own datacentres to host gov.scot, then sell the remaining capacity. This is basically how Amazon cloud started. This would boost Scottish jobs, the Scottish tech centre and the Scottish economy. Because of its natural, geographical advantages, Scottish data centres would be cheaper to cool and easier to power than, say, London. Internet connections might need beefing up, to be fair; I've not checked.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
Anecdata: my mid-70s chauffeur yesterday could read a number plate more than the statutory 20m away. He was wearing anti-glare glasses as recommended by this very pb iirc, and glare might be another problem now with brighter and higher LED lights.
Glare from modern LED lights is a serious problem the government doesn't see to have any wish to tackle. A good chunk of the population have light sensitivity (which can get worse with age) or astigmatism, meaning LEDs can be dazzling to the point of making it impossible to see ahead for seconds at a time.
I mostly stay off the road at night now because of this.
I hate and avoid driving at night because of LED headlights, and also because there seem to be more selfish arseholes who refuse to dip their lights.
Eye tests also need to account for people awaiting optical treatment, such as cataract operations. Mrs. F has been waiting for over a year. It seems unreasonable that she should be prevented from driving for longer than necessary because of NHS delays.
If we are unable to drive we will be housebound unless we pay for taxis. I don’t suppose there will be any help or compensation for those of us who don’t live in cities.
I agree to an extent, which is why I pointed out the importance of a philosophy of alternatives being provided everywhere in the header, but that would make a gradually increasing difference over time.
I think there will need to be some run-in process, but I'm not sure how it would be defined. We can't say "yes, you can continue driving when we know you are medically unfit", which is what this is. If I am diagnosed with a condition - say epilepsy - I have to stop driving immediately.
But I can't see any logical reason why inability to see properly should in principle be any different to epilepsy or another condition. It's about public safety, not about us as individuals (I'm on a 3 year medical license myself).
I think when this legislation starts being developed, we need an extended media campaign to catch as many such cases as possible. And perhaps an implementation date some months after Royal Assent.
On a sort of parallel case, many disabled people are essentially housebound or significantly limited by things outside their immediate control. I ran into a case last week where a lady cannot practically leave her flat without a taxi, because all, even type approved, electric bike batteries have been banned from the lift for "insurance reasons"). And that is her E-Brompton banned from being taken up to her flat, which is her mobility aid.
One thing worth a look is a service called in England "Dial a Bus" which is a door to door bus service for people who have various types of problems eg limited mobility. Cataracts might qualify.
Not exactly joined-up thinking. It’s what happens when process trumps common sense.
As was discussed on here last week, it’s not Brompton e-bikes that are causing the house fires, rather a bunch of cheap Chinese crap that should never have been allowed into the country in the first place.
So those who do the right thing, in this case a long-established British company and their customers, end up punished for the actions of the cowboys.
Afternoon everyone, not read all the comments yet but the drop in legal drink driving limit isn't something I think Scotland would ever reverse, and its in line with many western countries, most of Europe, Australia etc. Culturally there has been a big shift in drinking since covid and its easier to drink at home and leave the car where it is.
Re the overall 70s tests, not sure how many are aware of the matters in the link below, definitely needs more robust and regular health checks, particularly over 80s. If over 70s are driving lorries they need more health checks to keep re applying for their licence than car drivers, don't see why it cant be extended to all drivers
Interestingly, I don't see many PBers complimenting the SNP on anticipating the *still only proposed* drink-driving limit changes more than a decade ago, once given the powers in the Scotland Act 2012 (which is of course a Westminster act, so making one wonder a little why it has taken so long even to propose it for the southron).
Must be something different about doing things differently up north.
One of the advantages of Devo should be learning from respective approaches to things like this. This is one where, yes, Scotland is ahead of the game. So credit.
On topic, speaking to a copper on this topic and they took the view that a zero drink drive limit as the issue is people who go out for one round and without malicious intent end up having a bit more and end up over the limit.
Then again she did say that drink driving is a minor issue and we should be focussing on drug driving which is the elephant in the room.
And will all plods be offering to take a daily breathalyser test to make sure that there is always zero alcohol in their blood before they drive ?
That sort of comment - or at least approach to the actual issue - was prevalent back in 1967 when the legislation on DUI was modernised and the breathalyser was brought in.
What's interesting is the consensus on most of PB - quite a contrast to the equivalent folk, the largely middle-aged, male, fairly well off drivers of the day in 1967 who were in considerable part outraged.
Quite a shift in social attitudes [edited].
If we have a zero drink driving level then we will have people banned for having trivial amounts of alcohol in their blood.
Meanwhile we have a rather more lax attitude to speeding - does anyone ever get banned for doing 85mph on a motorway for example ?
85mph on a 70mph motorway is usually just 3 points via a NIP letter
I would never have a zero tolerance limit of alcohol for driving, a piece of Christmas pudding contaijing brandy shouldn't be enough to out someone over the limit
Know someone who was banned for drink driving a few years back who passed the initial breathalyser then failed the blood test. Cops asked them to take the blood test, which I think he didnt need to do
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
"Static wind turbines in the north of Scotland cost consumers £117 million in the first six months of this year.
The electricity couldn’t be used locally or sent to areas of higher demand, so wind farms were paid to stop their output."
Here's how solar and wind farms work. They generate a lot more power than the National Grid can cope with, while owners refuse to pay for upgraded connectivity and laugh all the way to the bank. Blame can be assigned to decades of government neglect, privatisation, or greedy developers, depending on your politics.
Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.
1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.
2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.
3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
"Static wind turbines in the north of Scotland cost consumers £117 million in the first six months of this year.
The electricity couldn’t be used locally or sent to areas of higher demand, so wind farms were paid to stop their output."
Apparently that's part of it. Cheaper to generate in the Midlands from gas than use the wind power, presumably.
Makes you wonder whether blitzing the Highlands etc with evermore onshore windfarms is such a good idea. Definitely a peasants' revolt generating over it:
"The Convention of Highlands Community Councils represents 53 community councils, encompassing over 72,000 residents within the Highland Council area. This group recently convened to address concerns about the impact of major renewable energy infrastructure and to advocate for greater community involvement in decision-making processes."
Victoria Derbyshire, "Do you think Yvette Cooper is lying?"
Sir Jonathan Porritt, former long term advisor to King Charles, who was one of 500 people arrested on Saturday,
"The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre which is the government's own advisory body advised Yvette Cooper that there is no evidence whatsoever that Palestine Action has advocated violence against people"
"It has used violence against property"
"So when Yvette Cooper implies that Palestine Action has done violence to people, we know the Home Secretary is not revealing the whole truth"
Apart from the above and similar events which may not be public yet - sub judice, charges not brought etc - there could be a dual headed nature to this.
That is, some sort of basically violence-willing inner (or entryist) group, with a penumbra of 'peaceful activists', who may be perhaps be also termed "useful idiots". It's quite possible that public figures could form part of such a penumbra, or otherwise prioritising the cause so much that they are willing to turn a blind eye to the activities of their fellow campaigners. That could be explicit or varied version of vanguardism.
That's consistently been an SWP pattern, for example - where one orientation is to use a fluffy cause to attack the way society is organised. That's one reason I never trust Unite Against Fascism, Stop the War, or Stand Up to Racism without a careful look - they all have such a history.
Another contemporary example is our various (choose your word) "right", where the aim is to present "local families concerned about protecting our girls", but there's a hard line core of Tommy Robinson and similars willing to attack police, counter demonstrators etc, with an overlap formed by eg Homeland Party councillors. We have seen the same "concerned locals" in different places claiming the same thing.
Not commenting on causes there, but on organisation.
I think that this may in part be another Government Comms cockup.
Reflecting a little further, the double headed approach could be deliberate strategy.
And one previous "peaceful" protest group which tipped over into terrorism was SHAC - Stop Huntingdon Life Science, and that was because (imo) at core the philosophy of animal equality to human beings, and the willingness to use violence to campaign for is deeply flawed. The centrist dad approach of being pragmatic in permitting but seeking to minimise animal experimentation is far more rational.
It seems plain enough to me that Palestine Action is a terrorist organisation.
It’s proscription is justified.
It's CND: The Next Generation
Which led to this interesting letter in the Times from the retired base commander at Greenham Common back then.
On the letter itself. It is interesting that it portrays a robust but layered attitude to security. Along other things, the protestors were aware that the actual aircraft and weapons at Greenham would have been defended with deadly force.
What we are seeing is an intersection of legalism and accession to the words of “Human Rights” with a very authoritarian attitude.
To such people the idea of threatening deadly force to protect a military installation would be a “Human Rights” violation. But proscribing an organisation as terrorist is to say that The Forms Must Be Obeyed*. And therefore isn’t a “Human Rights” violation.
At the very beginning of New Labour, they used obscure Royal Parks laws from medieval times to arrest people politely holding up signs saying “Remember Tibet”, on the occasion of the Chinese President visiting.
Later, people wearing T-Shirts saying “Bollocks to Blair” were threatened with arrest.
A range of utterly peaceful protest organisation were heavily infiltrated by the police. At the same time the Death To The West crowd were escalating toward 7/7 unhindered. These infiltrations were carried out illegally and resulted in the police themselves committing various offences. The subsequent court cases are still working through the courts.
An example - Fathers For Justice. Due to the pendulum in family courts swing too far, courts were refusing to enforce judgements on the mothers in such cases, but were enforcing them on the men. The theory being that the women were now Single Mothers and deserved protection. So divorced men saw a situation where they were paying child support etc to the point of literally having no money left - and then being denied the court proscribed visitation to their children.
FFJ was about demanding that court orders be enforced. Their protests consisted of people dressing up in silly costumes and climbing up on things. Not even damage. In the end, a police infiltrator tried to turn the organisation violent - the actual protestors disbanded in horror at the idea.
I think we have a confluence of a kind of morally bankrupt legalism and an ingrained belief that all protest against a “left wing” government is illegitimate.
At the time of the Tibet/Royal Parks thing I coined the term The Lawyers Syllogism
1) the laws says that something is legal 2) therefore it must be done 3) any opposition to doing it is an attack on the law and immoral.
(Apologies to the writers of Yes Minister)
I came up with that, after speaking to some lawyers on the edges of that decision. They offered a justification for the governments actions that was nearly exactly the above.
*in the series Dune, the phrase The Forms Must Be Obeyed is placed at the front of each law. Which laws are a system of deliberate feudalism - the people are literally serfs. For their own good, apparently
Would American servicemen on British soil really have been permitted to shoot dead CND protestors? The political implications of that would have been massive.
But so would they in the USA: the UK being seen to prosecute patriotic US guards.
Churchill abdicated all prosecution of US services' crimes in the UK, even for civil crimes, to the US military system in [edit] WW2.
ISTR that the US forces sometimes chose not to enforce their rights, especially for cases involving UK civilians, but am a bit hazy about this. Certainly didn't happen in a case where the race of the accused did not, erm, help the situation.
'Henry was free to return to duty. The British press had done good work, but the Americans resented it profoundly. They demanded press censorship in rape cases.
The British refused, but the Americans found a solution. From November 1944, the crime statistics they shared with British officials ceased to distinguish between white and black soldiers. Colonel Jock Lawrence, the public relations officer for the ETO, was determined that the British press must be denied further opportunity to depict the USA as “some uncivilised nation”.'
Edit: the relevance is not so much the specific issues of rape or race, but the sort of thing that could happen given the different attitudes and clashes of legal culture.
Anecdata: my mid-70s chauffeur yesterday could read a number plate more than the statutory 20m away. He was wearing anti-glare glasses as recommended by this very pb iirc, and glare might be another problem now with brighter and higher LED lights.
Glare from modern LED lights is a serious problem the government doesn't see to have any wish to tackle. A good chunk of the population have light sensitivity (which can get worse with age) or astigmatism, meaning LEDs can be dazzling to the point of making it impossible to see ahead for seconds at a time.
I mostly stay off the road at night now because of this.
I hate and avoid driving at night because of LED headlights, and also because there seem to be more selfish arseholes who refuse to dip their lights.
Eye tests also need to account for people awaiting optical treatment, such as cataract operations. Mrs. F has been waiting for over a year. It seems unreasonable that she should be prevented from driving for longer than necessary because of NHS delays.
If we are unable to drive we will be housebound unless we pay for taxis. I don’t suppose there will be any help or compensation for those of us who don’t live in cities.
I agree to an extent, which is why I pointed out the importance of a philosophy of alternatives being provided everywhere in the header, but that would make a gradually increasing difference over time.
I think there will need to be some run-in process, but I'm not sure how it would be defined. We can't say "yes, you can continue driving when we know you are medically unfit", which is what this is. If I am diagnosed with a condition - say epilepsy - I have to stop driving immediately.
But I can't see any logical reason why inability to see properly should in principle be any different to epilepsy or another condition. It's about public safety, not about us as individuals (I'm on a 3 year medical license myself).
I think when this legislation starts being developed, we need an extended media campaign to catch as many such cases as possible. And perhaps an implementation date some months after Royal Assent.
On a sort of parallel case, many disabled people are essentially housebound or significantly limited by things outside their immediate control. I ran into a case last week where a lady cannot practically leave her flat without a taxi, because all, even type approved, electric bike batteries have been banned from the lift for "insurance reasons"). And that is her E-Brompton banned from being taken up to her flat, which is her mobility aid.
One thing worth a look is a service called in England "Dial a Bus" which is a door to door bus service for people who have various types of problems eg limited mobility. Cataracts might qualify.
Not exactly joined-up thinking. It’s what happens when process trumps common sense.
As was discussed on here last week, it’s not Brompton e-bikes that are causing the house fires, rather a bunch of cheap Chinese crap that should never have been allowed into the country in the first place.
So those who do the right thing, in this case a long-established British company and their customers, end up punished for the actions of the cowboys.
Why are the Chinese e-bikes allowed through customs? I thought we had control of our borders since Brexit?
Afternoon everyone, not read all the comments yet but the drop in legal drink driving limit isn't something I think Scotland would ever reverse, and its in line with many western countries, most of Europe, Australia etc. Culturally there has been a big shift in drinking since covid and its easier to drink at home and leave the car where it is.
Re the overall 70s tests, not sure how many are aware of the matters in the link below, definitely needs more robust and regular health checks, particularly over 80s. If over 70s are driving lorries they need more health checks to keep re applying for their licence than car drivers, don't see why it cant be extended to all drivers
Interestingly, I don't see many PBers complimenting the SNP on anticipating the *still only proposed* drink-driving limit changes more than a decade ago, once given the powers in the Scotland Act 2012 (which is of course a Westminster act, so making one wonder a little why it has taken so long even to propose it for the southron).
Must be something different about doing things differently up north.
Certainly one of the benefits of devolution is different areas trying things out differently as smallish experiments.
But I suspect there is also a changing of the generational guard thing here- for my parents' generation, driving was new, exciting and freedom, and any constraints (seatbelts, current DD rules) were therefore evil. (It's the one completely-talking-past-each-other argument I remember having with them... I didn't want driving lessons at 17, and this made them cross and baffled.) We saw a bit of it with ULEZ expansion, where antis simply couldn't comprehend why anyone would want to restrict driving, because it was so obviously essential for life.
I'm pretty sure that my generation, and my children's generation, hold on to motoring much more loosely, if at all.
On topic, speaking to a copper on this topic and they took the view that a zero drink drive limit as the issue is people who go out for one round and without malicious intent end up having a bit more and end up over the limit.
Then again she did say that drink driving is a minor issue and we should be focussing on drug driving which is the elephant in the room.
And will all plods be offering to take a daily breathalyser test to make sure that there is always zero alcohol in their blood before they drive ?
I would see no problem with that, other than the cost versus risk equation. If testing all driving cops every day were to cost the equivalent of say 1 copper per force, I would tip towards a random sampling principle.
I have no idea what the actual cost numbers are. There are very roughly 30-35k police vehicles, and each would perhaps be driven by several cops each 24 hour period (?). 100% coverage would be 10s of millions of tests per annum.
If it was a zero drink driving limit then it would be more likely to be one plod per day per force.
Isn’t there a gizmo you can fit to the ignition that will breathalyser somebody before they start the car?
That could be a lot more useful than a suspended sentence.
Last month in Stockholm my taxi driver had to use a breathalyser before he could start the car.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
"Static wind turbines in the north of Scotland cost consumers £117 million in the first six months of this year.
The electricity couldn’t be used locally or sent to areas of higher demand, so wind farms were paid to stop their output."
Here's how solar and wind farms work. They generate a lot more power than the National Grid can cope with, while owners refuse to pay for upgraded connectivity and laugh all the way to the bank. Blame can be assigned to decades of government neglect, privatisation, or greedy developers, depending on your politics.
Meanwhile, Ineos is in the news today having a go at all things Ed Miliband, because UK energy costs are among the highest in the world.
The country’s largest chemical factory in Grangemouth is running at a loss and under threat of closure.
British manufacturers are under intense pressure from high energy and emissions costs, undermining their ability to compete with rivals abroad, according to chemicals giant Ineos.
“Unless there is a significant turnaround in the next couple of years with regards to high energy and carbon costs, UK manufacturing is under threat,” the company said in an email. “The reality even for Ineos is stark.”
The statement follows a report by the Telegraph newspaper that Ineos’ Grangemouth chemical complex, Britain’s biggest, is at risk of closure. The company, which already halted oil refining there earlier this year, confirmed the report and said the Scottish site is “weighed down” by costs for natural gas and carbon that far exceed those of plants overseas.
After Lockdown 3 when I became suicidal, I continued to behave weirdly for a few months (ed driving at 140mph in Dorset on an A road at noon). There was suicidality lurking
In May I got a commission from the Gazette to eat at great places in Eastern England. I persuaded a friend to join me for a seafood feast on the north Norfolk coast. The next day I had to be at a vineyard in Essex for an afternoon tasting
I couldn’t get to sleep after so much seafood and booze so I took about five Xanax. And slept. I woke up feeling fine but then as I drove across Norfolk the Xanax really kicked in and I was basically hallucinating. Double vision. Weird reveries. I tried to fix the double vision by tying a silk scarf over half my face so only one eye was being used
As I was doing this I was weaving in and out of oncoming traffic. I was literally on the wrong side of the road crossing east Anglia. For hours. No idea where I was going. I kind of accepted a very selfish death
Eventually three police cars swept in and pulled me over (I must have been reported by dozens of witnesses). They were quite fierce (don’t blame them) and they breathalysed me of course. But I wasn’t drunk. It was Xanax. I kept saying to them “look it’s a fair cop but it’s not booze it’s Xanax”
They had no idea what Xanax might be. I kept coming up blank on the breathalyser. They breathalysed me FIVE TIMES and in the end gave up and just said “sleep it off in the car, Sir” and they departed
I slept it off in the car and eventually arrived about four hours late for my wine tasting at the vineyard. They were so surprised and pleased to see me even show up they fed me royally and got me drunk all over again. Excellent Pinot noir
Then I had to drive to the barn conversion where they had their accommodation. Again I was very drunk. They told me of a short cut but I didn’t understand it and I ended up driving directly through their vineyard - literally through the vines - and then I drove over a small wall and I found my accommodation and I slept it off. Again
Next morning I woke up up to find my car covered with red grapes and magenta juice. I fled
I spent the next few days in dread of an email saying “you destroyed our entire crop” but instead I got a very polite message saying “we really enjoyed your visit”
And that was it. Nothing ever happened. No punishment no karma no courtroom
But I’ll probably be reincarnated as a whelk, as divine retribution
Good morning
"We can't stop here, this is bat country."
"As your attorney, I advise you to take a hit out of the little brown bottle in my shaving kit."
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
Whitehall won't, as you say, but the Scottish government might have done. Perhaps they are all too young to remember IBM Greenock.
I'd think it's more that Scotland is a net generator of power in a number of geographical areas anyway, and that the SG don't have powers over cross-border trade. It would be as if they could only open 8% of the IBM factory and had to leave the rest to elsewhere ...
The Scottish government could have opened its own datacentres to host gov.scot, then sell the remaining capacity. This is basically how Amazon cloud started. This would boost Scottish jobs, the Scottish tech centre and the Scottish economy. Because of its natural, geographical advantages, Scottish data centres would be cheaper to cool and easier to power than, say, London. Internet connections might need beefing up, to be fair; I've not checked.
Mmm. Well, there's the possible examples of the aluminium smelters at Fort William and (formerly) also Kinlochleven linked to their own private hydropower generation systems, reservoirs, etc.
There was one at Invergordon but this used power from the NoSHEB and CEGB and there were big problems with the contract prices. IANAE but it depended on hydro from one and nuke from another and couldn't be given a discount cos *unfair on other users* - in the end the price was reduced but they had to pay for part of the cost of Hunterston AGCR.
"The problem was to devise a scheme which would enable an aluminium smelter to obtain the lowest cost power from an AGR without making it available to all industrial users, while at the same time having regard to the CEGB's statutory duty not to give 'undue preference' to any customer. It had also to be defensible against any international complaints of subsidy, and any complaints in Parliament that other users were being forced to subsidise the aluminium smelters. The solution was to invite the aluminium company to make a capital contribution equal to that proportion (not confer ownership) of the AGR, but would give the right to obtain that quantity of power at operating cost only."
On topic, speaking to a copper on this topic and they took the view that a zero drink drive limit as the issue is people who go out for one round and without malicious intent end up having a bit more and end up over the limit.
Then again she did say that drink driving is a minor issue and we should be focussing on drug driving which is the elephant in the room.
And will all plods be offering to take a daily breathalyser test to make sure that there is always zero alcohol in their blood before they drive ?
I would see no problem with that, other than the cost versus risk equation. If testing all driving cops every day were to cost the equivalent of say 1 copper per force, I would tip towards a random sampling principle.
I have no idea what the actual cost numbers are. There are very roughly 30-35k police vehicles, and each would perhaps be driven by several cops each 24 hour period (?). 100% coverage would be 10s of millions of tests per annum.
If it was a zero drink driving limit then it would be more likely to be one plod per day per force.
Isn’t there a gizmo you can fit to the ignition that will breathalyser somebody before they start the car?
That could be a lot more useful than a suspended sentence.
Last month in Stockholm my taxi driver had to use a breathalyser before he could start the car.
All new cars built for the EU market since 2022 have to have the ability to fit alcohol interlocks.
On topic, speaking to a copper on this topic and they took the view that a zero drink drive limit as the issue is people who go out for one round and without malicious intent end up having a bit more and end up over the limit.
Then again she did say that drink driving is a minor issue and we should be focussing on drug driving which is the elephant in the room.
And will all plods be offering to take a daily breathalyser test to make sure that there is always zero alcohol in their blood before they drive ?
I would see no problem with that, other than the cost versus risk equation. If testing all driving cops every day were to cost the equivalent of say 1 copper per force, I would tip towards a random sampling principle.
I have no idea what the actual cost numbers are. There are very roughly 30-35k police vehicles, and each would perhaps be driven by several cops each 24 hour period (?). 100% coverage would be 10s of millions of tests per annum.
If it was a zero drink driving limit then it would be more likely to be one plod per day per force.
Isn’t there a gizmo you can fit to the ignition that will breathalyser somebody before they start the car?
That could be a lot more useful than a suspended sentence.
Last month in Stockholm my taxi driver had to use a breathalyser before he could start the car.
Talking about Stockholm - any PB advice about how to while away a couple of days there? In, ahem, November.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
"Static wind turbines in the north of Scotland cost consumers £117 million in the first six months of this year.
The electricity couldn’t be used locally or sent to areas of higher demand, so wind farms were paid to stop their output."
Here's how solar and wind farms work. They generate a lot more power than the National Grid can cope with, while owners refuse to pay for upgraded connectivity and laugh all the way to the bank. Blame can be assigned to decades of government neglect, privatisation, or greedy developers, depending on your politics.
Also, it's a different optimal model.
With fossil fuels and nuclear, cheap baseload plus expensive peaking makes sense. With renewables, you don't have the same option to switch off by disconnecting the gas. That's fine, because the gas is the expensive bit. And if you want enough solar and wind to power the system most of the time, you are going to have excess capacity some of the time. But all the cost is in the setup; the energy input is basically free.
On topic, speaking to a copper on this topic and they took the view that a zero drink drive limit as the issue is people who go out for one round and without malicious intent end up having a bit more and end up over the limit.
Then again she did say that drink driving is a minor issue and we should be focussing on drug driving which is the elephant in the room.
And will all plods be offering to take a daily breathalyser test to make sure that there is always zero alcohol in their blood before they drive ?
I would see no problem with that, other than the cost versus risk equation. If testing all driving cops every day were to cost the equivalent of say 1 copper per force, I would tip towards a random sampling principle.
I have no idea what the actual cost numbers are. There are very roughly 30-35k police vehicles, and each would perhaps be driven by several cops each 24 hour period (?). 100% coverage would be 10s of millions of tests per annum.
If it was a zero drink driving limit then it would be more likely to be one plod per day per force.
Isn’t there a gizmo you can fit to the ignition that will breathalyser somebody before they start the car?
That could be a lot more useful than a suspended sentence.
Last month in Stockholm my taxi driver had to use a breathalyser before he could start the car.
It would be good to collect anecdotes for how things work abroad. Breathalysers on commercial vehicles is a good example.
My personal example can be from UAE, where an eye test is required every five years in order to renew your driver’s licence.
Afternoon everyone, not read all the comments yet but the drop in legal drink driving limit isn't something I think Scotland would ever reverse, and its in line with many western countries, most of Europe, Australia etc. Culturally there has been a big shift in drinking since covid and its easier to drink at home and leave the car where it is.
Re the overall 70s tests, not sure how many are aware of the matters in the link below, definitely needs more robust and regular health checks, particularly over 80s. If over 70s are driving lorries they need more health checks to keep re applying for their licence than car drivers, don't see why it cant be extended to all drivers
Interestingly, I don't see many PBers complimenting the SNP on anticipating the *still only proposed* drink-driving limit changes more than a decade ago, once given the powers in the Scotland Act 2012 (which is of course a Westminster act, so making one wonder a little why it has taken so long even to propose it for the southron).
Must be something different about doing things differently up north.
One of the advantages of Devo should be learning from respective approaches to things like this. This is one where, yes, Scotland is ahead of the game. So credit.
Not so much with trans issues, tho.
THough the rUK had agreed a common policy on trans, and then changed their mind - which some would say was a case of learning from the experiment elsewhere, though not everyone would!
On topic, speaking to a copper on this topic and they took the view that a zero drink drive limit as the issue is people who go out for one round and without malicious intent end up having a bit more and end up over the limit.
Then again she did say that drink driving is a minor issue and we should be focussing on drug driving which is the elephant in the room.
And will all plods be offering to take a daily breathalyser test to make sure that there is always zero alcohol in their blood before they drive ?
I would see no problem with that, other than the cost versus risk equation. If testing all driving cops every day were to cost the equivalent of say 1 copper per force, I would tip towards a random sampling principle.
I have no idea what the actual cost numbers are. There are very roughly 30-35k police vehicles, and each would perhaps be driven by several cops each 24 hour period (?). 100% coverage would be 10s of millions of tests per annum.
If it was a zero drink driving limit then it would be more likely to be one plod per day per force.
Isn’t there a gizmo you can fit to the ignition that will breathalyser somebody before they start the car?
That could be a lot more useful than a suspended sentence.
Last month in Stockholm my taxi driver had to use a breathalyser before he could start the car.
Talking about Stockholm - any PB advice about how to while away a couple of days there? In, ahem, November.
Anecdata: my mid-70s chauffeur yesterday could read a number plate more than the statutory 20m away. He was wearing anti-glare glasses as recommended by this very pb iirc, and glare might be another problem now with brighter and higher LED lights.
Glare from modern LED lights is a serious problem the government doesn't see to have any wish to tackle. A good chunk of the population have light sensitivity (which can get worse with age) or astigmatism, meaning LEDs can be dazzling to the point of making it impossible to see ahead for seconds at a time.
I mostly stay off the road at night now because of this.
I hate and avoid driving at night because of LED headlights, and also because there seem to be more selfish arseholes who refuse to dip their lights.
Eye tests also need to account for people awaiting optical treatment, such as cataract operations. Mrs. F has been waiting for over a year. It seems unreasonable that she should be prevented from driving for longer than necessary because of NHS delays.
If we are unable to drive we will be housebound unless we pay for taxis. I don’t suppose there will be any help or compensation for those of us who don’t live in cities.
I agree to an extent, which is why I pointed out the importance of a philosophy of alternatives being provided everywhere in the header, but that would make a gradually increasing difference over time.
I think there will need to be some run-in process, but I'm not sure how it would be defined. We can't say "yes, you can continue driving when we know you are medically unfit", which is what this is. If I am diagnosed with a condition - say epilepsy - I have to stop driving immediately.
But I can't see any logical reason why inability to see properly should in principle be any different to epilepsy or another condition. It's about public safety, not about us as individuals (I'm on a 3 year medical license myself).
I think when this legislation starts being developed, we need an extended media campaign to catch as many such cases as possible. And perhaps an implementation date some months after Royal Assent.
On a sort of parallel case, many disabled people are essentially housebound or significantly limited by things outside their immediate control. I ran into a case last week where a lady cannot practically leave her flat without a taxi, because all, even type approved, electric bike batteries have been banned from the lift for "insurance reasons"). And that is her E-Brompton banned from being taken up to her flat, which is her mobility aid.
One thing worth a look is a service called in England "Dial a Bus" which is a door to door bus service for people who have various types of problems eg limited mobility. Cataracts might qualify.
My own lad passed his driving test about a year ago, but a few months ago, completely out of the blue, began to have seizures. Thankfully these now seem to be well controlled with medication, but he's not allowed to drive until he's gone a year without a seizure. Not that he's too bothered about it; once he moves to London he'll be able to apply for a "Freedom Pass" which will give him free use of public transport in the city and is arguably of more use than a car there.
Anecdata: my mid-70s chauffeur yesterday could read a number plate more than the statutory 20m away. He was wearing anti-glare glasses as recommended by this very pb iirc, and glare might be another problem now with brighter and higher LED lights.
Glare from modern LED lights is a serious problem the government doesn't see to have any wish to tackle. A good chunk of the population have light sensitivity (which can get worse with age) or astigmatism, meaning LEDs can be dazzling to the point of making it impossible to see ahead for seconds at a time.
I mostly stay off the road at night now because of this.
I hate and avoid driving at night because of LED headlights, and also because there seem to be more selfish arseholes who refuse to dip their lights.
Eye tests also need to account for people awaiting optical treatment, such as cataract operations. Mrs. F has been waiting for over a year. It seems unreasonable that she should be prevented from driving for longer than necessary because of NHS delays.
If we are unable to drive we will be housebound unless we pay for taxis. I don’t suppose there will be any help or compensation for those of us who don’t live in cities.
I agree to an extent, which is why I pointed out the importance of a philosophy of alternatives being provided everywhere in the header, but that would make a gradually increasing difference over time.
I think there will need to be some run-in process, but I'm not sure how it would be defined. We can't say "yes, you can continue driving when we know you are medically unfit", which is what this is. If I am diagnosed with a condition - say epilepsy - I have to stop driving immediately.
But I can't see any logical reason why inability to see properly should in principle be any different to epilepsy or another condition. It's about public safety, not about us as individuals (I'm on a 3 year medical license myself).
I think when this legislation starts being developed, we need an extended media campaign to catch as many such cases as possible. And perhaps an implementation date some months after Royal Assent.
On a sort of parallel case, many disabled people are essentially housebound or significantly limited by things outside their immediate control. I ran into a case last week where a lady cannot practically leave her flat without a taxi, because all, even type approved, electric bike batteries have been banned from the lift for "insurance reasons"). And that is her E-Brompton banned from being taken up to her flat, which is her mobility aid.
One thing worth a look is a service called in England "Dial a Bus" which is a door to door bus service for people who have various types of problems eg limited mobility. Cataracts might qualify.
Not exactly joined-up thinking. It’s what happens when process trumps common sense.
As was discussed on here last week, it’s not Brompton e-bikes that are causing the house fires, rather a bunch of cheap Chinese crap that should never have been allowed into the country in the first place.
So those who do the right thing, in this case a long-established British company and their customers, end up punished for the actions of the cowboys.
Why are the Chinese e-bikes allowed through customs? I thought we had control of our borders since Brexit?
The simple answer is they shouldn’t be! Customs and Trading Standards both need to up their game in that regard.
Police do a good job of spotting illegal unlicenced motorbikes, but the book gets thrown at the end user rather than the supply chain, much of which is likely abroad.
Did we ever get to the bottom of how learner motorcyclists are able to get commercial insurance? That should be an easy loophole for the government to close.
Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.
1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.
2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.
3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.
Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.
The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.
We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
"Static wind turbines in the north of Scotland cost consumers £117 million in the first six months of this year.
The electricity couldn’t be used locally or sent to areas of higher demand, so wind farms were paid to stop their output."
Constraint payments I guess, turbines make money when its not windy enough or too windy to turn. Wind power badly needs means to store excess power when its generated.
Would it be safer to close the House of Commons bars or its car park?
Does anyone drive to work there? London abounds in public transport, and the important people have drivers.
Is a backbench MP an "important person"?
There’s only a handful of MPs who have an official driver, usually from the police as part of a wider security detail.
I can imagine that almost every MP has an assistant, one of whose tasks is MP transport. Whenever I’ve met an MP (in constituency rather than Westminster), they’ve turned up as a passenger in a car.
In London one would suspect that they generally live pretty close to the ‘office’, and either walk or take the Tube to Westminster.
Agree re London but not re constituency drivers. An MP had the right to 3 assistants (don't think it's changed), who you could distribute between constituency and Westminster as you liked. It never occurred to me to use one to drive me around the constituency (suburban Broxtowe, so a car was needed) - I had 1.5 people in Westminster and 3*0.5 in the constituency. Never drove in London (I rented a small flat in Great Peter Street, a few minutes from Parliament) except to commute from and to Broxtowe each week (which was often at unsocial hours due to late votes so I couldn't rely on trains). I'd drive up to Broxtowe Thursday night and come back Monday morning, with surgeries and canvassing Fri-Sun.
It was politically satisfying and made a solidly Tory seat marginally Labour, but was undoubtedly a factor in killing my then marriage, as we basically never had whole days together except during recess. My wife was uncomplaining and I only realise in retrospect how impossible it was.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
"Static wind turbines in the north of Scotland cost consumers £117 million in the first six months of this year.
The electricity couldn’t be used locally or sent to areas of higher demand, so wind farms were paid to stop their output."
Apparently that's part of it. Cheaper to generate in the Midlands from gas than use the wind power, presumably.
Makes you wonder whether blitzing the Highlands etc with evermore onshore windfarms is such a good idea. Definitely a peasants' revolt generating over it:
"The Convention of Highlands Community Councils represents 53 community councils, encompassing over 72,000 residents within the Highland Council area. This group recently convened to address concerns about the impact of major renewable energy infrastructure and to advocate for greater community involvement in decision-making processes."
It's been a growing problem in the Highlands and perhaps one, but not the only, reason Kate Forbes is jacking it in
Lots more wind turbines in the pipeline meaning Scotland will potentially generate a lot more power than it needs in future (when they work)
On topic, speaking to a copper on this topic and they took the view that a zero drink drive limit as the issue is people who go out for one round and without malicious intent end up having a bit more and end up over the limit.
Then again she did say that drink driving is a minor issue and we should be focussing on drug driving which is the elephant in the room.
And will all plods be offering to take a daily breathalyser test to make sure that there is always zero alcohol in their blood before they drive ?
I would see no problem with that, other than the cost versus risk equation. If testing all driving cops every day were to cost the equivalent of say 1 copper per force, I would tip towards a random sampling principle.
I have no idea what the actual cost numbers are. There are very roughly 30-35k police vehicles, and each would perhaps be driven by several cops each 24 hour period (?). 100% coverage would be 10s of millions of tests per annum.
If it was a zero drink driving limit then it would be more likely to be one plod per day per force.
Isn’t there a gizmo you can fit to the ignition that will breathalyser somebody before they start the car?
That could be a lot more useful than a suspended sentence.
Last month in Stockholm my taxi driver had to use a breathalyser before he could start the car.
Surprised this isn't a thing in more new cars yet. I expect in 10 years the vast majority of new cars will have this built in
Afternoon everyone, not read all the comments yet but the drop in legal drink driving limit isn't something I think Scotland would ever reverse, and its in line with many western countries, most of Europe, Australia etc. Culturally there has been a big shift in drinking since covid and its easier to drink at home and leave the car where it is.
Re the overall 70s tests, not sure how many are aware of the matters in the link below, definitely needs more robust and regular health checks, particularly over 80s. If over 70s are driving lorries they need more health checks to keep re applying for their licence than car drivers, don't see why it cant be extended to all drivers
Interestingly, I don't see many PBers complimenting the SNP on anticipating the *still only proposed* drink-driving limit changes more than a decade ago, once given the powers in the Scotland Act 2012 (which is of course a Westminster act, so making one wonder a little why it has taken so long even to propose it for the southron).
Must be something different about doing things differently up north.
I'm happy to do so, and my own view has also adjusted as I have spent time understanding road safety.
At the time I was amused nit-picking style at claims of saving a greater number of road deaths because of reducing DD than seemed to be occurring each year in Scotland. That was lazy thinking, though I'd bring in a squirrel of SNP turbo-nit-picking.
Now I am more into a precautionary approaching. Rather than a Bart-like "a lowish number of deaths related to this happen, so we don't need to worry that there is a very large occurrence of potential causes in existence", I have moved towards the weight being on "how much better can we do" rather than "no need to do much as we are already doing quite well". And I would lean towards reduction of potential causes, which is the application of Health and Safety principles to the road environment.
On DD I give the weight to measures of extent of unimpaired driving, rather than "we have impaired driving everywhere, but it's OK because we only see X collisions and Y deaths".
Also now, it is accurate that the UK is no longer at the top of the safety league in Western Europe, in some things by subcategory, in other things more widely.
On causes of delay, I would point at the attitude of the previous Government, and especially at David Cameron's gutting of the targeted programme to improve safety. Brown-Blair would imo have done it.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
"Static wind turbines in the north of Scotland cost consumers £117 million in the first six months of this year.
The electricity couldn’t be used locally or sent to areas of higher demand, so wind farms were paid to stop their output."
Constraint payments I guess, turbines make money when its not windy enough or too windy to turn. Wind power badly needs means to store excess power when its generated.
Mr Starmer is trying to turn that around with his up to £250 per annum bill reductions proposals for people who are near new power lines. He's not being bold enough to go for regional pricing.
(I'm not sure how this applies or not in Scotland.)
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
"Static wind turbines in the north of Scotland cost consumers £117 million in the first six months of this year.
The electricity couldn’t be used locally or sent to areas of higher demand, so wind farms were paid to stop their output."
Constraint payments I guess, turbines make money when its not windy enough or too windy to turn. Wind power badly needs means to store excess power when its generated.
Mr Starmer is trying to turn that around with his up to £250 per annum bill reductions proposals for people who are near new power lines. He's not being bold enough to go for regional pricing.
(I'm not sure how this applies or not in Scotland.)
In my view Starmer’s biggest failure is being a big f*cking fanny, rather than any of the nefarious comments thrown around by PB Tories.
I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days.
I don't get how the second sentence follows the first here ? 'no level of alcohol' -> 'heavy drinking'. Surely an example to illustrate is 'even after a single pint of shandy' or some such...
On speeding, we recently did a long trip up north and back - M23/M25/M1/A1. We both independently came to the view that compared with, say, 10 years ago and longer, drivers had become somewhat more sensible. Lots were doing 80, but very rare to see 90 or over, even on clear roads, and much less tailgating - both of which seemed much more common in the past. I'm not sure if our experience is supported by any other evidence. On the downside though, still thousands of middle-lane hoggers with the left lane empty.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
"Static wind turbines in the north of Scotland cost consumers £117 million in the first six months of this year.
The electricity couldn’t be used locally or sent to areas of higher demand, so wind farms were paid to stop their output."
Constraint payments I guess, turbines make money when its not windy enough or too windy to turn. Wind power badly needs means to store excess power when its generated.
Mr Starmer is trying to turn that around with his up to £250 per annum bill reductions proposals for people who are near new power lines. He's not being bold enough to go for regional pricing.
(I'm not sure how this applies or not in Scotland.)
£250 for living near pylons applies in Scotland as well, as far as I'm aware
As far as regional pricing goes Miliband binned it to please the majority of the country who don't live near any new power generation, those of us in the countryside where it's being generated have to put up and shut up
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
"Static wind turbines in the north of Scotland cost consumers £117 million in the first six months of this year.
The electricity couldn’t be used locally or sent to areas of higher demand, so wind farms were paid to stop their output."
Here's how solar and wind farms work. They generate a lot more power than the National Grid can cope with, while owners refuse to pay for upgraded connectivity and laugh all the way to the bank. Blame can be assigned to decades of government neglect, privatisation, or greedy developers, depending on your politics.
The government has had at least a decade and a half to plan a grid that could cope. They've also refused to allow regional pricing of electricity, which might have incentivised more development where cheap power is produced.
Crap planning is most if the story.
Put the money we're wasting on carbon capture into the grid.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
On speeding, we recently did a long trip up north and back - M23/M25/M1/A1. We both independently came to the view that compared with, say 10 years ago and longer, drivers had become somewhat more sensible. Lots were doing 80, but very rare to see 90 or over, even on clear roads, and much less tailgating - both of which seemed much more common in the past. I'm not sure if our experience is supported by any other evidence. On the downside though, still thousands of middle-lane hoggers with the left lane empty.
Agree. I think speeds have come down over the last few decades. reasons? Older population on average; greater obsession with child safety; awareness of fuel consumption; awareness of yellow boxes/speed traps; insurance consequences of accidents/conviction.
It may be to do with congestion, but I find it as true on empty motorways (A74(M) in southern Scotland) as crowded ones.
It may or may not be connected with the hard statistical fact that when you are going fastish, going a bit faster saves very little time. (Travelling 300 miles at 60 mph takes about 40 minutes longer than at 70 mph, and the actual gap will be less when accounting for all the bits where your speed is limited for other reasons).
As my late mother said of Concorde: What do they do with the time they saved?
Is anyone going to read Sturgeons book?. She is looking for sympathy and the extracts so far prompt no such empathy for her problems.
It won't outsell Lownie's recent effort on Andrew, brother of Charles, Anne and Edward; judging from the interiews he is giving there is a lot of stuff in it not only about Andrew, and Lownie is more than a populist pot boiler.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
Whitehall won't, as you say, but the Scottish government might have done. Perhaps they are all too young to remember IBM Greenock.
Sounds like Vlad trying to instil the notion that were it not for incompetent minions his war with Ukraine would have been a rip-roaring success years ago.
Anecdata: my mid-70s chauffeur yesterday could read a number plate more than the statutory 20m away. He was wearing anti-glare glasses as recommended by this very pb iirc, and glare might be another problem now with brighter and higher LED lights.
Glare from modern LED lights is a serious problem the government doesn't see to have any wish to tackle. A good chunk of the population have light sensitivity (which can get worse with age) or astigmatism, meaning LEDs can be dazzling to the point of making it impossible to see ahead for seconds at a time.
I mostly stay off the road at night now because of this.
I hate and avoid driving at night because of LED headlights, and also because there seem to be more selfish arseholes who refuse to dip their lights.
Eye tests also need to account for people awaiting optical treatment, such as cataract operations. Mrs. F has been waiting for over a year. It seems unreasonable that she should be prevented from driving for longer than necessary because of NHS delays.
If we are unable to drive we will be housebound unless we pay for taxis. I don’t suppose there will be any help or compensation for those of us who don’t live in cities.
I agree to an extent, which is why I pointed out the importance of a philosophy of alternatives being provided everywhere in the header, but that would make a gradually increasing difference over time.
I think there will need to be some run-in process, but I'm not sure how it would be defined. We can't say "yes, you can continue driving when we know you are medically unfit", which is what this is. If I am diagnosed with a condition - say epilepsy - I have to stop driving immediately.
But I can't see any logical reason why inability to see properly should in principle be any different to epilepsy or another condition. It's about public safety, not about us as individuals (I'm on a 3 year medical license myself).
I think when this legislation starts being developed, we need an extended media campaign to catch as many such cases as possible. And perhaps an implementation date some months after Royal Assent.
On a sort of parallel case, many disabled people are essentially housebound or significantly limited by things outside their immediate control. I ran into a case last week where a lady cannot practically leave her flat without a taxi, because all, even type approved, electric bike batteries have been banned from the lift for "insurance reasons"). And that is her E-Brompton banned from being taken up to her flat, which is her mobility aid.
One thing worth a look is a service called in England "Dial a Bus" which is a door to door bus service for people who have various types of problems eg limited mobility. Cataracts might qualify.
Not exactly joined-up thinking. It’s what happens when process trumps common sense.
I wonder what happens when Trump processes common sense? Presumably it's never actually happened.
Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.
1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.
2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.
3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.
Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.
The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.
We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
Absolutely. And it is the continuing 'over legislating but under-acheiving' that really, really irks lots of voters. Irks them towards Nigel F, btw.
Labour have clearly seen already that they cannot do anything that is going to cost money, so will likely be doing more of this process state whataboutery.
I'd caution them against this continuity-Sunakian approach. Be careful what you tinker with, lest the whole contents of the bath are thrown out with the water, come the counter-revolution.....
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
This is so obvious it drives me crazy. Just slap nodal and 30-minute tariffs on everyone and the market will sort itself out. Instead, we have people in the Highlands desperately putting solar up because they are effectively subsiding London and the SE.
I've little doubt that the private sector will make out like bandits organising this on behalf of the taxpayer, who will foot the bill.
Why does this appear to be so complicated?
Company calls in a receiver who finds a buyer, shareholders are wiped out and bondholders take a massive haircut. Business without the huge debt is perfectly viable and operations continue.
Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.
1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.
2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.
3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.
Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.
The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.
We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
Absolutely. And it is the continuing 'over legislating but under-acheiving' that really, really irks lots of voters. Irks them towards Nigel F, btw.
Labour have clearly seen already that they cannot do anything that is going to cost money, so will likely be doing more of this process state whataboutery.
I'd caution them against this continuity-Sunakian approach. Be careful what you tinker with, lest the whole contents of the bath are thrown out with the water, come the counter-revolution.....
Yet the comments on the articles about this are about more eye tests, more driving tests. People love this stuff.
I've little doubt that the private sector will make out like bandits organising this on behalf of the taxpayer, who will foot the bill.
Why does this appear to be so complicated?
Company calls in a receiver who finds a buyer, shareholders are wiped out and bondholders take a massive haircut. Business without the huge debt is perfectly viable and operations continue.
I think periodic light touch refresher tests rather than once and you're done for the next fifty years. Renewals are shorter if you're older.
Maybe carried out by driving instructors with controls to ensure consistency.
What about the gap to the next refresher test is shorter the more points you've accrued.
We currently have a shortage of driving examiners that has created a grey market in test slots. Airily dumping more work on people who don't exist makes me wonder if pb is not run from the Cabinet Office.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
Whitehall won't, as you say, but the Scottish government might have done. Perhaps they are all too young to remember IBM Greenock.
I'd think it's more that Scotland is a net generator of power in a number of geographical areas anyway, and that the SG don't have powers over cross-border trade. It would be as if they could only open 8% of the IBM factory and had to leave the rest to elsewhere ...
The Scottish government could have opened its own datacentres to host gov.scot, then sell the remaining capacity. This is basically how Amazon cloud started. This would boost Scottish jobs, the Scottish tech centre and the Scottish economy. Because of its natural, geographical advantages, Scottish data centres would be cheaper to cool and easier to power than, say, London. Internet connections might need beefing up, to be fair; I've not checked.
There is also no legal requirement to sell power into the grid. So the Scottish government could promote a combined generation/data centre.
The interesting question is how much storage to make wind a steady source would be required.
More fibre connecting Scotland to the rest of the world shouldn’t a vast deal either. Millions rather than billions - a bunch of existing companies do such services, all quite standard.
I've little doubt that the private sector will make out like bandits organising this on behalf of the taxpayer, who will foot the bill.
Why does this appear to be so complicated?
Company calls in a receiver who finds a buyer, shareholders are wiped out and bondholders take a massive haircut. Business without the huge debt is perfectly viable and operations continue.
It should not be.
Indeed. The company itself is fundamentally sound, it’s all the financial trickery behind the scenes that’s the problem. Get rid of that and there’s no problem.
Oh, and OFWAT needs to be replaced too, TW’s failure is as much a failure of the regulator as of the management.
Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.
1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.
2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.
3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.
Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.
The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.
We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
Absolutely. And it is the continuing 'over legislating but under-acheiving' that really, really irks lots of voters. Irks them towards Nigel F, btw.
Labour have clearly seen already that they cannot do anything that is going to cost money, so will likely be doing more of this process state whataboutery.
I'd caution them against this continuity-Sunakian approach. Be careful what you tinker with, lest the whole contents of the bath are thrown out with the water, come the counter-revolution.....
Whether it makes a difference, we'll have to see. However, over the last 30 years, the only time road deaths came down considerable (by nearly half in just a few years), was in Blair's third term, when they brought through a wide package of regulations.
I think periodic light touch refresher tests rather than once and you're done for the next fifty years. Renewals are shorter if you're older.
Maybe carried out by driving instructors with controls to ensure consistency.
What about the gap to the next refresher test is shorter the more points you've accrued.
We currently have a shortage of driving examiners that has created a grey market in test slots. Airily dumping more work on people who don't exist makes me wonder if pb is not run from the Cabinet Office.
Is that still happening? It’s a five-minute software fix to require the driver number when booking a test, and not allow it to be changed afterwards.
Who benefits from the grey market in test bookings?
This is like the grey market concert tickets. We know it can be done properly, because Glastonbury Festival has done it, but everyone else in the concert industry appears to benefit from the current system.
It's complete nonsense. They did go down the highway and suffered heavy casualties. Where the nonsense came from is harder to determine.
Nonetheless there is an essential truth that Ukraine does not have many cards to play since being cut off from American arms, money, thoughts and prayers. Russia has largely bypassed sanctions. Sure, some brands have been replaced by knock-offs in Moscow supermarkets but that is like customers here switching from Tesco to Aldi. Russia's run out of tanks but has learned from Iran how to make drones. Europe can keep things going for a bit but nothing to scare the Kremlin.
I am in the area just south of Regent Park tube station. Fuck it is proper posh. I've just passed the consulates of China and Poland. Woo. I keep expecting to see Sarah Jessica Parker in a tutu.
Three facts combined by the tech numpty who wrote the OSA, by the look of it, to reach a silly conclusion.
As an aside, the computing power needed for AI is worrying some green campaigners. Some (even on pb) have suggested that devolved governments in colder and wetter parts of the country should look at building data centres there to take advantage of natural cooling.
We can’t do that. It would mean moving jobs and investment from the south to the north, which is not on.
And imagine the political pressure and lobbying for charging electricity according to the distance from the generator. Wouldn't just be the SNP etc.
Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation of why electricity should be cheaper the further away from the source of generation?
Oh, yes. To encourage cheaper electricity in London and the SE without having to renew nasty power stations where the most important folk/voters live.
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
This is so obvious it drives me crazy. Just slap nodal and 30-minute tariffs on everyone and the market will sort itself out. Instead, we have people in the Highlands desperately putting solar up because they are effectively subsiding London and the SE.
Other than 'Ed Miliband is rubbish' (which might be true, but seems overly simplistic) - what are the reasons why nodal (or zonal if nodal is too complicated) pricing wasn't put forward in the latest review? It seems such an obvious "win" to reduce constraint payments and encourage battery farms and privately funded links between nodes / zones etc that I feel that I must be missing something.
I think periodic light touch refresher tests rather than once and you're done for the next fifty years. Renewals are shorter if you're older.
Maybe carried out by driving instructors with controls to ensure consistency.
What about the gap to the next refresher test is shorter the more points you've accrued.
We currently have a shortage of driving examiners that has created a grey market in test slots. Airily dumping more work on people who don't exist makes me wonder if pb is not run from the Cabinet Office.
Is that still happening? It’s a five-minute software fix to require the driver number when booking a test, and not allow it to be changed afterwards.
Who benefits from the grey market in test bookings?
This is like the grey market concert tickets. We know it can be done properly, because Glastonbury Festival has done it, but everyone else in the concert industry appears to benefit from the current system.
There’s a bunch of driving test business that claim, to the government, that their ability to buy blocks of tests and sell them to their students is vital to their business model.
Much as the garment trade types in Leicester used to proclaim that enforcing the minimum wage and the Factory Acts would put them out of business.
Is anyone going to read Sturgeons book?. She is looking for sympathy and the extracts so far prompt no such empathy for her problems.
I’ll read J.K. Rowling’s review of it!
As long as JKR answers the main question, why the campervan?
In my mind that’s an easy one to answer. Mr and Mrs Murrell wanted one, and there was enough plausibility of a use for campaigning in rural areas for them to run it through on expenses.
I am in the area just south of Regent Park tube station. Fuck it is proper posh. I've just passed the consulates of China and Poland. Woo. I keep expecting to see Sarah Jessica Parker in a tutu.
Would it be safer to close the House of Commons bars or its car park?
Does anyone drive to work there? London abounds in public transport, and the important people have drivers.
Is a backbench MP an "important person"?
There’s only a handful of MPs who have an official driver, usually from the police as part of a wider security detail.
I can imagine that almost every MP has an assistant, one of whose tasks is MP transport. Whenever I’ve met an MP (in constituency rather than Westminster), they’ve turned up as a passenger in a car.
In London one would suspect that they generally live pretty close to the ‘office’, and either walk or take the Tube to Westminster.
Agree re London but not re constituency drivers. An MP had the right to 3 assistants (don't think it's changed), who you could distribute between constituency and Westminster as you liked. It never occurred to me to use one to drive me around the constituency (suburban Broxtowe, so a car was needed) - I had 1.5 people in Westminster and 3*0.5 in the constituency. Never drove in London (I rented a small flat in Great Peter Street, a few minutes from Parliament) except to commute from and to Broxtowe each week (which was often at unsocial hours due to late votes so I couldn't rely on trains). I'd drive up to Broxtowe Thursday night and come back Monday morning, with surgeries and canvassing Fri-Sun.
It was politically satisfying and made a solidly Tory seat marginally Labour, but was undoubtedly a factor in killing my then marriage, as we basically never had whole days together except during recess. My wife was uncomplaining and I only realise in retrospect how impossible it was.
I did a "kiss the babies and shake the voters paws" visit with our local MP for a charity for which I'm a trustee recently. I was quite surprised when she drove herself to us (she did have an aide with her).
I am in the area just south of Regent Park tube station. Fuck it is proper posh. I've just passed the consulates of China and Poland. Woo. I keep expecting to see Sarah Jessica Parker in a tutu.
Coming a bit late to the debate but a few observations.
1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.
2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.
3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.
Fair enough but I disagree with pretty much all of this, as I do the suggestion of "no passenger" rules for young new drivers over on the BBC.
The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.
We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
Absolutely. And it is the continuing 'over legislating but under-acheiving' that really, really irks lots of voters. Irks them towards Nigel F, btw.
Labour have clearly seen already that they cannot do anything that is going to cost money, so will likely be doing more of this process state whataboutery.
I'd caution them against this continuity-Sunakian approach. Be careful what you tinker with, lest the whole contents of the bath are thrown out with the water, come the counter-revolution.....
Yet the comments on the articles about this are about more eye tests, more driving tests. People love this stuff.
LOL. Probably the same people that love their roads being faffed around, closed, and altered to create cycle lanes which are barely used. I.E. the policy wonks.
Such ideas wouldn't survive an hour's contact down the local in Normal England.
Comments
Edit: Else they'd have to pay for transmission more than the folk who live in the north/west or downwind from Hinkley Point etc. And we can't have that. Apparently.
https://octopus.energy/blog/zonal-pricing-for-large-businesses/
In the Wales case I suspect the reality is somewhat less amusing and more disturbing: that the scouts in question were non-white. So many of the local “concerned citizens” may not feel the embarrassment at their mistake that we would expect.
Back in the day, the Red Army Faction tried an attack on an American nuclear storage facility in Germany. They were a bit startled to find their diversion attack merely alerted the guards. Who responded with belt fed machine guns for suppressive fire, while getting the mortars up and running. And sending in armoured vehicles.
"The former first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, has described Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage as “odious”, suggesting he is “not particularly comfortable, particularly around women.”
"In an interview with ITV News’ Julie Etchingham to mark her forthcoming memoir Frankly’s release, Nicola Sturgeon claimed she heard Nigel Farage boasting that he had been drinking heavily before going on air for the televised ITV 2015 election debate."
They certainly make a pair.
Also:
"JK Rowling has said she will be publishing a review of Nicola Sturgeon’s memoir Frankly after the former first minister named her as a driving force behind “vile” abuse amid the debate on gender reform." Look forward to that.
And, it turns out, Eck hadn't bothered reading the Scottish Government's own Indy white paper before the referendum. "I was sobbing on the floor of my office at home and my heart was racing". (From Press and Journal). Apparently, he went off on a trade visit to China instead. Mind, who can blame him?
Compared to all this, the Boris ministry comes across as a model of organisational efficiency and sobriety.
I think there will need to be some run-in process, but I'm not sure how it would be defined. We can't say "yes, you can continue driving when we know you are medically unfit", which is what this is. If I am diagnosed with a condition - say epilepsy - I have to stop driving immediately.
But I can't see any logical reason why inability to see properly should in principle be any different to epilepsy or another condition. It's about public safety, not about us as individuals (I'm on a 3 year medical license myself).
I think when this legislation starts being developed, we need an extended media campaign to catch as many such cases as possible. And perhaps an implementation date some months after Royal Assent.
On a sort of parallel case, many disabled people are essentially housebound or significantly limited by things outside their immediate control. I ran into a case last week where a lady cannot practically leave her flat without a taxi, because all, even type approved, electric bike batteries have been banned from the lift for "insurance reasons"). And that is her E-Brompton banned from being taken up to her flat, which is her mobility aid.
One thing worth a look is a service called in England "Dial a Bus" which is a door to door bus service for people who have various types of problems eg limited mobility. Cataracts might qualify.
Re the overall 70s tests, not sure how many are aware of the matters in the link below, definitely needs more robust and regular health checks, particularly over 80s. If over 70s are driving lorries they need more health checks to keep re applying for their licence than car drivers, don't see why it cant be extended to all drivers
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg3895xp7no
It doesn’t matter if that “engagement” is all negative, those clicks and likes and comments are what makes money these days.
As with most of these things, it’s much worse in the US, where you now have two tribes talking straight past each other, and really need to read the same story from half a dozen different sources to get an idea of what’s really going on.
"Static wind turbines in the north of Scotland cost consumers £117 million in the first six months of this year.
The electricity couldn’t be used locally or sent to areas of higher demand, so wind farms were paid to stop their output."
https://www.gov.scot/publications/drink-drive-limit-policy/
Must be something different about doing things differently up north.
So those who do the right thing, in this case a long-established British company and their customers, end up punished for the actions of the cowboys.
Not so much with trans issues, tho.
I would never have a zero tolerance limit of alcohol for driving, a piece of Christmas pudding contaijing brandy shouldn't be enough to out someone over the limit
Know someone who was banned for drink driving a few years back who passed the initial breathalyser then failed the blood test. Cops asked them to take the blood test, which I think he didnt need to do
1. Agree with tightening up the laws on drink driving. I know from my own experience that there is really no level of alcohol I can consume without it affecting my driving. This has always been the way with me even when I was able to drink heavily in my student days. So my rule for my whole driving career has been that I won't drive after drinking any alcohol at all. I think the 0.5 g/l level seems reasonable for legal purposes but think the 0.2 g/l level used in Norway and other Eureopan countries is probably a bit excessive as it does catch out a lot of people with the 'morning after' effect.
2. Whilst I agree with the eye tests, I don't see why they should start at 70. Deterioration in eye function can and does start much earlier for many people. AT 60 my eyesight is no where near as good as it was at 50. Perhaps we should consider an eye test as necessary for veryone renewing their licence every 10 years. As someone pointed out yesterday, setting the starting age at 70 but expecting people with driving jobs to continue until they are 67 (and sure to rise in the future) seems a bit daft to me.
3. What does seem to be missing from these proposals is the need to do far more than just test eyesight for the elderly. I would be interstd to know how many accdents are caused by poor eyesight and how many by other infirmaties. Currently it is pretty much impossible for a concerned relative to get someones driving licence revoked even when it is obvious to family members they are no longer fit to drive. It can be a cause of great animosity within families and as a result often it is just ignored. A test for mental and physical ability to drive safely should become a standard part of a more regular licence renewal for the elderly.
"The Convention of Highlands Community Councils represents 53 community councils, encompassing over 72,000 residents within the Highland Council area. This group recently convened to address concerns about the impact of major renewable energy infrastructure and to advocate for greater community involvement in decision-making processes."
But I suspect there is also a changing of the generational guard thing here- for my parents' generation, driving was new, exciting and freedom, and any constraints (seatbelts, current DD rules) were therefore evil. (It's the one completely-talking-past-each-other argument I remember having with them... I didn't want driving lessons at 17, and this made them cross and baffled.) We saw a bit of it with ULEZ expansion, where antis simply couldn't comprehend why anyone would want to restrict driving, because it was so obviously essential for life.
I'm pretty sure that my generation, and my children's generation, hold on to motoring much more loosely, if at all.
The country’s largest chemical factory in Grangemouth is running at a loss and under threat of closure.
https://x.com/business/status/1955220981586215192
British manufacturers are under intense pressure from high energy and emissions costs, undermining their ability to compete with rivals abroad, according to chemicals giant Ineos.
“Unless there is a significant turnaround in the next couple of years with regards to high energy and carbon costs, UK manufacturing is under threat,” the company said in an email. “The reality even for Ineos is stark.”
The statement follows a report by the Telegraph newspaper that Ineos’ Grangemouth chemical complex, Britain’s biggest, is at risk of closure. The company, which already halted oil refining there earlier this year, confirmed the report and said the Scottish site is “weighed down” by costs for natural gas and carbon that far exceed those of plants overseas.
There was one at Invergordon but this used power from the NoSHEB and CEGB and there were big problems with the contract prices. IANAE but it depended on hydro from one and nuke from another and couldn't be given a discount cos *unfair on other users* - in the end the price was reduced but they had to pay for part of the cost of Hunterston AGCR.
"The problem was to devise a scheme which would enable an aluminium smelter to obtain the lowest
cost power from an AGR without making it available to all industrial users, while at the same time
having regard to the CEGB's statutory duty not to give 'undue preference' to any customer. It had
also to be defensible against any international complaints of subsidy, and any complaints in
Parliament that other users were being forced to subsidise the aluminium smelters. The solution was
to invite the aluminium company to make a capital contribution equal to that proportion (not confer
ownership) of the AGR, but would give the right to obtain that quantity of power at operating cost
only."
https://www.rossandcromartyheritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Invergordon-Smelter-Complete-Document.pdf
By the same token the same arguments would presumably apply to any electricity board supply today unless the law was changed.
With fossil fuels and nuclear, cheap baseload plus expensive peaking makes sense. With renewables, you don't have the same option to switch off by disconnecting the gas. That's fine, because the gas is the expensive bit. And if you want enough solar and wind to power the system most of the time, you are going to have excess capacity some of the time. But all the cost is in the setup; the energy input is basically free.
Not an easy mental space to navigate.
My personal example can be from UAE, where an eye test is required every five years in order to renew your driver’s licence.
Police do a good job of spotting illegal unlicenced motorbikes, but the book gets thrown at the end user rather than the supply chain, much of which is likely abroad.
Did we ever get to the bottom of how learner motorcyclists are able to get commercial insurance? That should be an easy loophole for the government to close.
The last thing we need is more restrictions, process, and regulations regarding how we move around.
We are obsessed with trying to legislate to remove all risk in this country, regardless of the economic or social impact.
It was politically satisfying and made a solidly Tory seat marginally Labour, but was undoubtedly a factor in killing my then marriage, as we basically never had whole days together except during recess. My wife was uncomplaining and I only realise in retrospect how impossible it was.
Lots more wind turbines in the pipeline meaning Scotland will potentially generate a lot more power than it needs in future (when they work)
Whereas these are Scottish.
Maybe carried out by driving instructors with controls to ensure consistency.
At the time I was amused nit-picking style at claims of saving a greater number of road deaths because of reducing DD than seemed to be occurring each year in Scotland. That was lazy thinking, though I'd bring in a squirrel of SNP turbo-nit-picking.
Now I am more into a precautionary approaching. Rather than a Bart-like "a lowish number of deaths related to this happen, so we don't need to worry that there is a very large occurrence of potential causes in existence", I have moved towards the weight being on "how much better can we do" rather than "no need to do much as we are already doing quite well". And I would lean towards reduction of potential causes, which is the application of Health and Safety principles to the road environment.
On DD I give the weight to measures of extent of unimpaired driving, rather than "we have impaired driving everywhere, but it's OK because we only see X collisions and Y deaths".
Also now, it is accurate that the UK is no longer at the top of the safety league in Western Europe, in some things by subcategory, in other things more widely.
On causes of delay, I would point at the attitude of the previous Government, and especially at David Cameron's gutting of the targeted programme to improve safety. Brown-Blair would imo have done it.
(I'm not sure how this applies or not in Scotland.)
On the downside though, still thousands of middle-lane hoggers with the left lane empty.
As far as regional pricing goes Miliband binned it to please the majority of the country who don't live near any new power generation, those of us in the countryside where it's being generated have to put up and shut up
Crap planning is most if the story.
Put the money we're wasting on carbon capture into the grid.
As usual, it’s government in the way that causes the undesirable behaviours.
It may be to do with congestion, but I find it as true on empty motorways (A74(M) in southern Scotland) as crowded ones.
It may or may not be connected with the hard statistical fact that when you are going fastish, going a bit faster saves very little time. (Travelling 300 miles at 60 mph takes about 40 minutes longer than at 70 mph, and the actual gap will be less when accounting for all the bits where your speed is limited for other reasons).
As my late mother said of Concorde: What do they do with the time they saved?
Or something Putin told him in their last phone call.
Genuinely hard to say.
Trump: “The Russians would have been in Kyiv in 4 hours if they went down the highway. But a Russian general made a brilliant decision to go through the farmland.”
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1954947972141318541
Kevin Rowlands book sounds more interesting.
Labour have clearly seen already that they cannot do anything that is going to cost money, so will likely be doing more of this process state whataboutery.
I'd caution them against this continuity-Sunakian approach. Be careful what you tinker with, lest the whole contents of the bath are thrown out with the water, come the counter-revolution.....
FTI Consulting seen as frontrunner to advise on placing the utility into a special administration regime
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/12/thames-water-advisers-appointed-to-plan-for-utilitys-potential-collapse
I've little doubt that the private sector will make out like bandits organising this on behalf of the taxpayer, who will foot the bill.
Any shareholders or bond holders etc etc should simply lose their investment.
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/5447317-is-there-any-reason-to-pardon-ghislaine-maxwell-except-to-buy-her-silence/
Let me précis this:
"No."
Company calls in a receiver who finds a buyer, shareholders are wiped out and bondholders take a massive haircut. Business without the huge debt is perfectly viable and operations continue.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/11/trump-china-tariffs-deadline-extended.html
Trump extends China tariff deadline by 90 days
The interesting question is how much storage to make wind a steady source would be required.
More fibre connecting Scotland to the rest of the world shouldn’t a vast deal either. Millions rather than billions - a bunch of existing companies do such services, all quite standard.
Oh, and OFWAT needs to be replaced too, TW’s failure is as much a failure of the regulator as of the management.
Who benefits from the grey market in test bookings?
This is like the grey market concert tickets. We know it can be done properly, because Glastonbury Festival has done it, but everyone else in the concert industry appears to benefit from the current system.
A must for Whodunnit fans!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBNW6h9uB28
Much as the garment trade types in Leicester used to proclaim that enforcing the minimum wage and the Factory Acts would put them out of business.
Such ideas wouldn't survive an hour's contact down the local in Normal England.