When I say "only the Romans" I mean it in the sense of "solely the Romans", not in the sense of "the mere Romans".
As was pointed out to him by Maharbal, Hannibal knew how to gain a victory but not how to use it. It is all very well bringing off a Lake Trasimene and a Cannae, and despoiling your enemy's home turf for ten years, but it didn't win him the war, did it? IIRC Hannibal never did win a war.
Scipio won a war but so did the Duke of Wellington, twice. As such, he strikes me as a better comparator. He fought decisive campaigns in three widely-separated and different geographies (India, Spain, and the Low Countries) all of which involved managing the niceties of allied armies of variable quality and loyalty as well as his own political leadership. He never lost a battle either, but nobody would seriously rate him above Napoleon simply on the basis that he won the only battle in which he faced him.
Napoleon in contrast defeated every army of every type he faced, until eventually defeated by an overwhelming coalition of all of them. He won battles in the desert, in the mountains, in the plains, in the snow. He won battles on the offensive and defensive, he won when outnumbered and he thrashed veteran enemies with conscripts. He won every battle in Russia and lost only five in total in his career.
The fact that he was a rubbish statesman doesn't undermine him as a general. We have no idea how Scipio would have done if he'd been Emperor as well as C-in-C (we do with Wellington; not very well, it would appear) but if we did, so what? All we know is that as a simple employee, like Wellington, Scipio could afford to focus on the military campaign to the exclusion of other concerns.
I would agree that despite a fairly disastrous conference UKIP have had the best year of the political parties. But it is not much of a field is it?
Labour have drifted downwards in terms of support with only Miliband's conference speech to point to as a success. Even that was perhaps more of a short term triumph than a long term achievement and has fed a perception that economics really is not his strong suit. Ed Miliband has in general got much better at PMQs but is still capable of having a very off week.
The tories have recovered somewhat from the 2012 budget shambles but have been a long way from setting the heather on fire. Given the incoherence of the opposition they really should be doing better at getting their message across but in the health service, education, benefit reform and immigration they seem to be constantly on the back foot and struggling to be heard. Only Osborne, surely the come back politician of the year, has really got his message over clearly and won public support for it. A majority saying that cuts are good for the economy was a good way to sign off the year.
The Lib Dems are showing, despite their success in Eastleigh, no movement at all from what threatens to be close to an extinction event in 2015. Personally I think they are making a mistake with their differentiation policy and would be better off pushing their positive contribution to the Coalition.
Even the SNP government has really struggled this year after a very good 2012 with the "white paper" being a very damp squib and virtually no movement on independence. Been a difficult year for Eck on expenses too.
David , you seem to live in a parallel universe, if you live in Scotland you must be going about with your head stuck up your ****
there's no arguing with fact-based rebuttals like that.
LOL, glad to be of service, hopefully it will make him think twice , extract his head and look around.
No Malcolm, I will continue to have an opinion that is consistently supported by a comfortable majority in polls. You are of course entitled to your opinions too.
On topic. S&P is claiming 'British euroscepticism' is a major factor in EU downgrade!!! (new telegraph headline).
Just about tops off Farage's year, I'd have thought...
Aside from the fact that S&P's record of predicting things seems to be about as good as Stuart Truth, it seems like a good reason for Labour to pull a "referendum now or not at all" gambit, with the aim of forcing Tories to take a vote against a referendum. They can say the uncertainty isn't just hurting investment in Britain, it's also hurting Britain's main export markets...
society as those people know it has been sacrificed for £££££
Patronising twaddle.
Didn't expect you to agree tim
Working class people are, and always have been, more used to mixing and working with people from different backgrounds and different countries than pretty much any other section of society.
UKIP, by contrast, are a party of rich middle aged establishment men, who are scared of a modern world they simply don't understand. For them to profess to be the authority on "the working class" is laughable.
Even Cameron and Osborne understand what life is like for the "working class" more than your average UKIP politician.
"society as those people know it" indeed.
Completely bonkers! In my local branch of UKIP we are all workers, except for retirees like me. Oh I forgot we now have lawyer; came over from the tories 3 months ago.
Indeed. "Hugh" is talking total claptrap. The leadership of UKIP might be, mainly, white middle class middle aged men, but that is true of all four main parties. And a cursory knowledge of politics on the ground shows that UKIP are drawing votes from all sections of society, especially the white working and lower middle classes - remember the Yorkshire adoption couple. Remember how well UKIP do across the north (where Tories flail).
I had suspected "Hugh" was tim in disguise, but tim, for all his faults, would not say anything as blatantly stupid as this. Unless, of course, Hugh is double bluffing....
Not surprised - given that everything they said about Chas and Nige was admitted to be true it was very hard to see how their guilt had been placed beyond reasonable doubt.
It seems plausible that having noticed the bizarre relationship between their employers they figured they could cash in.
Nigella did look rather scrumptious I have to say. She's gone down in my estimation all the same.
I think Nigella came out of this looking very human. She did some coke, had arguments with her husband, looked sad, got divorced, etc. On the Hugh Grant principle of all publicity is good publicity I wouldn't be at all surprised if her next book or show was a huge sellout.
@SeanT, I can see your next telegraph blog being about cyclists.
It's tempting. I find most drivers in London to be very civilised: allowing you room if you are stuck on a sidelane, thanking you for your courtesy with a wave, or a blink of the indicators - possibly the most civilised big city drivers in the world.
London cyclists are the opposite, almost universally rude, belligerent, aggressive, and malignant. And crap at cycling.
@SeanT, I can see your next telegraph blog being about cyclists.
It's tempting. I find most drivers in London to be very civilised: allowing you room if you are stuck on a sidelane, thanking you for your courtesy with a wave, or a blink of the indicators - possibly the most civilised big city drivers in the world.
London cyclists are the opposite, almost universally rude, belligerent, aggressive, and malignant. And crap at cycling.
@SeanT, I can see your next telegraph blog being about cyclists.
It's tempting. I find most drivers in London to be very civilised: allowing you room if you are stuck on a sidelane, thanking you for your courtesy with a wave, or a blink of the indicators - possibly the most civilised big city drivers in the world.
London cyclists are the opposite, almost universally rude, belligerent, aggressive, and malignant. And crap at cycling.
A generalisation, but I agree. I walk, ride and drive, and I see terrible walkers, cyclists and drivers most weeks. London cyclists can be even crazier than Cambridge ones.
It's just that of the three, the cyclists place themselves at most danger. And as for the a******s who don't wear helmets ...
It can now be reported that David Cameron's "unprecedented" public backing for Nigella Lawson during the fraud trial of her former personal assistants came close to collapsing the case because it was considered "an abuse of process". The prime minister had stunned lawyers when he gave a magazine interview in the middle of the jury trial, where he described the TV chef – the key prosecution witness – as a "very funny and warm person" and said he was "a massive fan".
After losing a morning to legal argument over the matter, the judge ruled the case could continue, but told the jury to ignore Cameron's "regrettable" intervention in the Spectator magazine, in which he said he was in "Team Nigella".
@OblitusSumMe Reminds me of the time when some friends were on the underground en route for a train to Scotland, they had ice axes (with covers) attached to their rucksacks, people gave them plenty of space.
@SeanT, I can see your next telegraph blog being about cyclists.
It's tempting. I find most drivers in London to be very civilised: allowing you room if you are stuck on a sidelane, thanking you for your courtesy with a wave, or a blink of the indicators - possibly the most civilised big city drivers in the world.
London cyclists are the opposite, almost universally rude, belligerent, aggressive, and malignant. And crap at cycling.
A generalisation, but I agree. I walk, ride and drive, and I see terrible walkers, cyclists and drivers most weeks. London cyclists can be even crazier than Cambridge ones.
It's just that of the three, the cyclists place themselves at most danger. And as for the a******s who don't wear helmets ...
(Gets off his high horse).
I used to wear no crash helmet AND wear headphones (although was cycling mainly on quiet road, and around the countryside bike routes).. then I saw the story of the young kid who didn't wear a helmet and was in a coma, so started to wear one..
Then, on tv (Might have been Daily Politics) earlier this week, Chris Boardman, champion cyclist, said it was not a big deal not to wear one... Im sure he said it was about the 100th most important thing in terms of safety
"Nor do I love the Labour party. I rather wish it wasn’t needed, and I could get a different past-time and rid myself of the slightly disturbing guilt I feel whenever it becomes clear to others that I will always prefer a lie-in to a leaflet roun"
I'm not so sure. Reading about the trial it was reported the Saatchis very rarely gave dinner parties and when they did they shipped in caterers.
Look at Nigella's shows and its suggested that she entertained all the time and the recipes were tried and tested on appreciative (and well connected, discerning) guests.
I think Nigella came out of this looking very human. She did some coke, had arguments with her husband, looked sad, got divorced, etc. On the Hugh Grant principle of all publicity is good publicity I wouldn't be at all surprised if her next book or show was a huge sellout.
Who cares if she had a snort or two?
But she has already conquered the UK. She can't get much bigger (literally and metaphorically) in Britain. Her aim was the US market, but the big networks and their audiences are considerably more censorious than us. I can see this trial being very difficult for her and her American plans.
A good observation. But she's not fat! I would. ;-)
Bad. The Jury have sided with the sisters over the alleged drug abuse by Nigella. I haven't kept up with it all, but from what I read their testimony sounded more convincing - given free reign to spend because they know something that should not be made public, though I am not implying any kind of blackmail, of course.
How Dave nearly caused the Grillo trial to collapse
"It can now be reported that David Cameron's "unprecedented" public backing for Nigella Lawson during the fraud trial of her former personal assistants came close to collapsing the case because it was considered "an abuse of process". The prime minister had stunned lawyers when he gave a magazine interview in the middle of the jury trial, where he described the TV chef – the key prosecution witness – as a "very funny and warm person" and said he was "a massive fan".
After losing a morning to legal argument over the matter, the judge ruled the case could continue, but told the jury to ignore Cameron's "regrettable" intervention in the Spectator magazine, in which he said he was in "Team Nigella".
@SeanT, I can see your next telegraph blog being about cyclists.
It's tempting. I find most drivers in London to be very civilised: allowing you room if you are stuck on a sidelane, thanking you for your courtesy with a wave, or a blink of the indicators - possibly the most civilised big city drivers in the world.
London cyclists are the opposite, almost universally rude, belligerent, aggressive, and malignant. And crap at cycling.
A generalisation, but I agree. I walk, ride and drive, and I see terrible walkers, cyclists and drivers most weeks. London cyclists can be even crazier than Cambridge ones.
It's just that of the three, the cyclists place themselves at most danger. And as for the a******s who don't wear helmets ...
(Gets off his high horse).
At the risk of jumping into argument without reading the earlier exchanges... I am a London cyclist who resolutely doesn't wear a helmet. Personally I think that they are positively dangerous and should be banned.
Personally I will keep my head down whatever SeanT or anybody else says about yahoo cyclists except to remind people of H.G.Well's "War of the Worlds" wherein an alien species with atrophied mobility rides around laying waste to the countryside. And loses in the end.
@SeanT, I can see your next telegraph blog being about cyclists.
It's tempting. I find most drivers in London to be very civilised: allowing you room if you are stuck on a sidelane, thanking you for your courtesy with a wave, or a blink of the indicators - possibly the most civilised big city drivers in the world.
London cyclists are the opposite, almost universally rude, belligerent, aggressive, and malignant. And crap at cycling.
A generalisation, but I agree. I walk, ride and drive, and I see terrible walkers, cyclists and drivers most weeks. London cyclists can be even crazier than Cambridge ones.
It's just that of the three, the cyclists place themselves at most danger. And as for the a******s who don't wear helmets ...
(Gets off his high horse).
At the risk of jumping into argument without reading the earlier exchanges... I am a London cyclist who resolutely doesn't wear a helmet. Personally I think that they are positively dangerous and should be banned.
@SeanT, I can see your next telegraph blog being about cyclists.
It's tempting. I find most drivers in London to be very civilised: allowing you room if you are stuck on a sidelane, thanking you for your courtesy with a wave, or a blink of the indicators - possibly the most civilised big city drivers in the world.
London cyclists are the opposite, almost universally rude, belligerent, aggressive, and malignant. And crap at cycling.
A generalisation, but I agree. I walk, ride and drive, and I see terrible walkers, cyclists and drivers most weeks. London cyclists can be even crazier than Cambridge ones.
It's just that of the three, the cyclists place themselves at most danger. And as for the a******s who don't wear helmets ...
(Gets off his high horse).
I used to wear no crash helmet AND wear headphones (although was cycling mainly on quiet road, and around the countryside bike routes).. then I saw the story of the young kid who didn't wear a helmet and was in a coma, so started to wear one..
Then, on tv (Might have been Daily Politics) earlier this week, Chris Boardman, champion cyclist, said it was not a big deal not to wear one... Im sure he said it was about the 100th most important thing in terms of safety
I have known two cyclists whose lives were saved by helmets, and a third who was saved from serious injury (*). If we ever have kids, the one thing I would be relentlessly strict about (yes, I know the reality will be different) is them wearing helmets whilst cycling.
There is an argument that drivers drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets, increasing the chances of collision. I was very dubious about this study when I looked into it, and still am.
For one thing, it only accounts for accidents when cars are involved. When an accident occurs for other reasons - I once came off when I skidded at speed on some gravel on a bend in a country lane and got thrown over a hedge. It was totally my own fault, and no-one else was involved. I didn't like the long walk home with a bucked wheel. :-(
A helmet is an insurance policy. You hope to God you don't need it, and at times it can be blooming annoying, but you might be very glad it is there one day.
(*) In a fairly freak accident, he was cycling into work when his front forks split in two, throwing him under a parked car. He had noticed a few specks of rust on a weld, but had thought nothing of it ...
@SeanT, I can see your next telegraph blog being about cyclists.
It's tempting. I find most drivers in London to be very civilised: allowing you room if you are stuck on a sidelane, thanking you for your courtesy with a wave, or a blink of the indicators - possibly the most civilised big city drivers in the world.
London cyclists are the opposite, almost universally rude, belligerent, aggressive, and malignant. And crap at cycling.
A generalisation, but I agree. I walk, ride and drive, and I see terrible walkers, cyclists and drivers most weeks. London cyclists can be even crazier than Cambridge ones.
It's just that of the three, the cyclists place themselves at most danger. And as for the a******s who don't wear helmets ...
(Gets off his high horse).
At the risk of jumping into argument without reading the earlier exchanges... I am a London cyclist who resolutely doesn't wear a helmet. Personally I think that they are positively dangerous and should be banned.
(Exits stage left having exploded a firework)
To expand... I think that helmets suffer the same issue as the internet porn filters - give all the appearance of a solution whilst practically doing nothing. The vast majority of deaths to cyclists are due to going underneath a lorry (often which is turning left). A helmet is of absolutely no help whatsoever in such an incident. There are very few incidents when a helmet stops anything other than scratches and bruising - but the fact of someone wearing them causes drivers to take more risks (drive past you faster / closer) as well. They are therefore positively dangerous as they give a false sense of security.
@SeanT, I can see your next telegraph blog being about cyclists.
It's tempting. I find most drivers in London to be very civilised: allowing you room if you are stuck on a sidelane, thanking you for your courtesy with a wave, or a blink of the indicators - possibly the most civilised big city drivers in the world.
London cyclists are the opposite, almost universally rude, belligerent, aggressive, and malignant. And crap at cycling.
A generalisation, but I agree. I walk, ride and drive, and I see terrible walkers, cyclists and drivers most weeks. London cyclists can be even crazier than Cambridge ones.
It's just that of the three, the cyclists place themselves at most danger. And as for the a******s who don't wear helmets ...
(Gets off his high horse).
I used to wear no crash helmet AND wear headphones (although was cycling mainly on quiet road, and around the countryside bike routes).. then I saw the story of the young kid who didn't wear a helmet and was in a coma, so started to wear one..
Then, on tv (Might have been Daily Politics) earlier this week, Chris Boardman, champion cyclist, said it was not a big deal not to wear one... Im sure he said it was about the 100th most important thing in terms of safety
I have known two cyclists whose lives were saved by helmets, and a third who was saved from serious injury (*). If we ever have kids, the one thing I would be relentlessly strict about (yes, I know the reality will be different) is them wearing helmets whilst cycling.
There is an argument that drivers drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets, increasing the chances of collision. I was very dubious about this study when I looked into it, and still am.
For one thing, it only accounts for accidents when cars are involved. When an accident occurs for other reasons - I once came off when I skidded at speed on some gravel on a bend in a country lane and got thrown over a hedge. It was totally my own fault, and no-one else was involved. I didn't like the long walk home with a bucked wheel. :-(
A helmet is an insurance policy. You hope to God you don't need it, and at times it can be blooming annoying, but you might be very glad it is there one day.
(*) In a fairly freak accident, he was cycling into work when his front forks split in two, throwing him under a parked car. He had noticed a few specks of rust on a weld, but had thought nothing of it ...
Yes I sometimes do and sometimes don't wear one... seems sensible to I would think. but was surprised to hear Boardman say they weren't necessary, and @Lennon too...
@SeanT, I can see your next telegraph blog being about cyclists.
It's tempting. I find most drivers in London to be very civilised: allowing you room if you are stuck on a sidelane, thanking you for your courtesy with a wave, or a blink of the indicators - possibly the most civilised big city drivers in the world.
London cyclists are the opposite, almost universally rude, belligerent, aggressive, and malignant. And crap at cycling.
A generalisation, but I agree. I walk, ride and drive, and I see terrible walkers, cyclists and drivers most weeks. London cyclists can be even crazier than Cambridge ones.
It's just that of the three, the cyclists place themselves at most danger. And as for the a******s who don't wear helmets ...
(Gets off his high horse).
At the risk of jumping into argument without reading the earlier exchanges... I am a London cyclist who resolutely doesn't wear a helmet. Personally I think that they are positively dangerous and should be banned.
(Exits stage left having exploded a firework)
Helmets should be banned ? Are you mental ?
OK - I'm too liberal to actually believe in a ban... But I do think that they are positively dangerous in most circumstances (ie commuter cycling in traffic)
I'm still surprised the Spectator ran that portion of the interview.
There is a strong argument that the circus judge should have ordered the editor of the Spectator to appear before him, to show cause why he shouldn't have been committed for breaching the strict liability rule.
Regarding helmets, I agree with Lennon for adult cyclists who know the rules of the road. It's a very complicated issue, but the statistics seem to support Lennon's view. Now I'm off to cycle home through the countryside, mostly, wearing my da-glo vest.
@SeanT, I can see your next telegraph blog being about cyclists.
It's tempting. I find most drivers in London to be very civilised: allowing you room if you are stuck on a sidelane, thanking you for your courtesy with a wave, or a blink of the indicators - possibly the most civilised big city drivers in the world.
London cyclists are the opposite, almost universally rude, belligerent, aggressive, and malignant. And crap at cycling.
This was not my experience of driving in London, but then I am comparing it to the provinces, and not other big cities.
What I would say is that it is only a minority, a small minority, of drivers or cyclists that I see acting in a dangerous way. The latest research suggests that 1-2% of over-taking manoeuvres are dangerous and too close. This is still far too many, given the number of times in a week that I will be overtaken, but it does mean that 98-99% are done safely, and I have many memories of patient car drivers as well as the impatient ones.
It's just that I fear I will one day be killed by an impatient driver, so I'm finally going to sort out my Will.
To expand... I think that helmets suffer the same issue as the internet porn filters - give all the appearance of a solution whilst practically doing nothing. The vast majority of deaths to cyclists are due to going underneath a lorry (often which is turning left). A helmet is of absolutely no help whatsoever in such an incident. There are very few incidents when a helmet stops anything other than scratches and bruising - but the fact of someone wearing them causes drivers to take more risks (drive past you faster / closer) as well. They are therefore positively dangerous as they give a false sense of security.
I'd appreciate some figures on that, especially ones that detail the respective death and serious injury rates amongst cyclists wearing helmets and not wearing helmets.
I believe in evidence-based policy. ;-)
I read the study about drivers driving closer to cyclists who wear helmets, and thought it was hardly convincing.
When you have seen photos of a friend in a coma whose helmet was cracked by an impact, you realise that there was a life who was saved. Yes, the helmet broke, but it absorbed a heck of a lot of energy.
Even better, he normally never wore a helmet, but that week his gf had been nagging him to wear one ...
Despite the numbers injured, I'm amazed there were no deaths as a result of the Apollo Theatre ceiling collapse. – Pictures released showing the interior; reveal how high up the heavily ornate plaster ceiling was above the poor sods below.
How Dave nearly caused the Grillo trial to collapse
"It can now be reported that David Cameron's "unprecedented" public backing for Nigella Lawson during the fraud trial of her former personal assistants came close to collapsing the case because it was considered "an abuse of process". The prime minister had stunned lawyers when he gave a magazine interview in the middle of the jury trial, where he described the TV chef – the key prosecution witness – as a "very funny and warm person" and said he was "a massive fan".
After losing a morning to legal argument over the matter, the judge ruled the case could continue, but told the jury to ignore Cameron's "regrettable" intervention in the Spectator magazine, in which he said he was in "Team Nigella".
The Guardian will say anything to bad mouth a Tory. Cameron was asked a question unrelated to the trial. Not clear to me exactly when the question was asked but above all the publisher should not have published the comment at the time of the trial. But the LibDem supporting paper that it is/was it's not surprising to see smear politics arising.
It contains both before and after photos and the ominous conclusion:
In many ways the dismantling of the obelisk is a greater affront than the removal of Lenin from the Mausoleum. Whereas the Lenin Mausoleum signified the victory of a new form of religion over the initial liberatory force of the revolution (and would have had Lenin turning in his proverbial grave if only he had one) and presaged a kind of Thermidore; the obelisk signalled and symbolised this very hope of liberation. One of those healthy germs (as Victor Serge would have put it) which the Russian Revolution carried within it. So by dismantling the obelisk rather than the Mausoleum the elite have struck at the very heart of revolutionary memory and the very heart of the idea of liberation as such.
Walking around central london I can categorically say that some cyclists think red traffic lights do not apply to them.
As a pedestrian, you are no longer safe when the green man lights up.
I used to feel that, but then I reflected that as a pedestrian I often cross over on red when there are no cars around, unlike the archetypal Swiss who stands patiently in the rain rather than break the regulations. So now I'm just annoyed by cyclists who jump lights when they can't see for certain that it won't cause a problem. (That's still quite a few, in London anyway.)
"Nor do I love the Labour party. I rather wish it wasn’t needed, and I could get a different past-time and rid myself of the slightly disturbing guilt I feel whenever it becomes clear to others that I will always prefer a lie-in to a leaflet roun"
Entertaining article. That poll that asks if which parties we LIKE has always seemed to me odd for the same reason. Politics is, or should be, a practical necessity for making life better, like the internal combustion engine. Feeling affection towards either seems inappropriate.
society as those people know it has been sacrificed for £££££
Patronising twaddle.
Didn't expect you to agree tim
Working class people are, and always have been, more used to mixing and working with people from different backgrounds and different countries than pretty much any other section of society.
UKIP, by contrast, are a party of rich middle aged establishment men, who are scared of a modern world they simply don't understand. For them to profess to be the authority on "the working class" is laughable.
Even Cameron and Osborne understand what life is like for the "working class" more than your average UKIP politician.
"society as those people know it" indeed.
Completely bonkers! In my local branch of UKIP we are all workers, except for retirees like me. Oh I forgot we now have lawyer; came over from the tories 3 months ago.
UKIP are drawing votes from all sections of society,
Did anyone say they weren't?
The strange thing is that I was talking about the Labour party, the minimum wage and the working class, and you started talking about UKIP politicians....
F1: the BBC are dense. Leaving aside their Judas Iscariot bullshit to get rid of free-to-air coverage of all F1 races for the first time in history, they appear to have negotiated a contract that means an odd number of races entails them getting fewer than half of the races: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25458397
9 out of 19 this year, and 9 out of 19 next. Imbeciles.
"This format of both live and highlights is attracting a wide range of viewers and we hope to see even more people tuning in next year to experience the magic of Formula 1." - Ben Gallop, BBC's head of F1 and Bullshit.
Here are the live races: 30 March: Malaysia - ok 11 May: Spain - ok 8 June: Canada - great 6 July: Britain - great 24 August: Belgium - great 7 September: Italy - great 5 October: Japan - great 12 October: Russia - have to wait and see 23 November: Abu Dhabi - bad
So, not a bad selection. However, we're missing the season opener in Oz, the tedium of Bahrain, an ok Chinese circuit, awful Monaco, the return of Austria (Red Bull Ring, but it's actually the old A1 circuit), Germany, tedious Hungaroring, boring Singapore, terrific Texas and exciting Interlagos.
Walking around central london I can categorically say that some cyclists think red traffic lights do not apply to them.
As a pedestrian, you are no longer safe when the green man lights up.
I used to feel that, but then I reflected that as a pedestrian I often cross over on red when there are no cars around, unlike the archetypal Swiss who stands patiently in the rain rather than break the regulations. So now I'm just annoyed by cyclists who jump lights when they can't see for certain that it won't cause a problem. (That's still quite a few, in London anyway.)
"Nor do I love the Labour party. I rather wish it wasn’t needed, and I could get a different past-time and rid myself of the slightly disturbing guilt I feel whenever it becomes clear to others that I will always prefer a lie-in to a leaflet roun"
Entertaining article. That poll that asks if which parties we LIKE has always seemed to me odd for the same reason. Politics is, or should be, a practical necessity for making life better, like the internal combustion engine. Feeling affection towards either seems inappropriate.
I am a cyclist, a driver and a pedestrian, in London and the suburbs, so don't have an axe to grind against any of the three.. but I don't agree that anyone should go through a red light. Crossing the road as a pedestrian on a red man when there is no traffic is very different to a driver or cyclist dodging a red light on the road
To expand... I think that helmets suffer the same issue as the internet porn filters - give all the appearance of a solution whilst practically doing nothing. The vast majority of deaths to cyclists are due to going underneath a lorry (often which is turning left). A helmet is of absolutely no help whatsoever in such an incident. There are very few incidents when a helmet stops anything other than scratches and bruising - but the fact of someone wearing them causes drivers to take more risks (drive past you faster / closer) as well. They are therefore positively dangerous as they give a false sense of security.
I'd appreciate some figures on that, especially ones that detail the respective death and serious injury rates amongst cyclists wearing helmets and not wearing helmets.
I believe in evidence-based policy. ;-)
I read the study about drivers driving closer to cyclists who wear helmets, and thought it was hardly convincing.
When you have seen photos of a friend in a coma whose helmet was cracked by an impact, you realise that there was a life who was saved. Yes, the helmet broke, but it absorbed a heck of a lot of energy.
Even better, he normally never wore a helmet, but that week his gf had been nagging him to wear one ...
Also - your comment about a friend - appreciate that it brings things home, but as you know the plural of anecdote is not data.
In terms of the 'drivers' attitude to cyclists with and without helmets - again, it is totally anecdotal, but 7 years of daily commuting in London continues to give me the impression that drivers go closer / faster to cyclists wearing helmets than those not.
If cyclists are full road users then I think they should: 1. Pay road tax 2. Wear full crash helmets as per motorcyclists 3. Need cycle approval on the driving licence 4. Lose points / licence for abusing lights / highway code / speed limits etc
To expand... I think that helmets suffer the same issue as the internet porn filters - give all the appearance of a solution whilst practically doing nothing. The vast majority of deaths to cyclists are due to going underneath a lorry (often which is turning left). A helmet is of absolutely no help whatsoever in such an incident. There are very few incidents when a helmet stops anything other than scratches and bruising - but the fact of someone wearing them causes drivers to take more risks (drive past you faster / closer) as well. They are therefore positively dangerous as they give a false sense of security.
I'd appreciate some figures on that, especially ones that detail the respective death and serious injury rates amongst cyclists wearing helmets and not wearing helmets.
I believe in evidence-based policy. ;-)
I read the study about drivers driving closer to cyclists who wear helmets, and thought it was hardly convincing.
When you have seen photos of a friend in a coma whose helmet was cracked by an impact, you realise that there was a life who was saved. Yes, the helmet broke, but it absorbed a heck of a lot of energy.
Even better, he normally never wore a helmet, but that week his gf had been nagging him to wear one ...
Also - your comment about a friend - appreciate that it brings things home, but as you know the plural of anecdote is not data.
In terms of the 'drivers' attitude to cyclists with and without helmets - again, it is totally anecdotal, but 7 years of daily commuting in London continues to give me the impression that drivers go closer / faster to cyclists wearing helmets than those not.
Thanks for that link.
Living near Cambridge, I know lots of cyclists. IME (and again this is anecdotal), the more militant the rider, the worse they ride wrt the laws of the road. Worst of all tend, surprisingly, to be those who have cameras on their helmets. (This is leaving aside the annual scourge of language school students during summer).
I've just remembered that one of Mrs J's colleagues has epilepsy after a bike crash. He thanks the helmet for saving him. So that's another anecdata point. ;-)
I would not want a law stating that helmets have to be worn, but I would like police to stop bad riders (e.g. going through red lights, particularly at pedestrian crossings) and give them the power to confiscate bikes for limited periods.
I can say without fear of contradiction, Luis Suarez will become Liverpool's most important signing since Nigel Clough King Kenny signed for us in 1977.
So that's Suarez gone next summer. Wonder who Liverpool will get to replace him, it would be better for them to go down the one star player route rather than what Spurs did and buy a bunch of middling players who need a lot of time to adapt. I say that as a Spurs fan...
If cyclists are full road users then I think they should: 1. Pay road tax 2. Wear full crash helmets as per motorcyclists 3. Need cycle approval on the driving licence 4. Lose points / licence for abusing lights / highway code / speed limits etc
Cyclists do, of course, already pay the same amount of Vehicle Excise Duty (not "road tax") as cars with <100g/km CO2 emissions. So your first wish has come true!
I'm not quite sure how you'll get 12-year olds to have cycle approval on their driving licence, but I'm sure your plan for that is as well thought-out as the rest of your comment.
If cyclists are full road users then I think they should: 1. Pay road tax 2. Wear full crash helmets as per motorcyclists 3. Need cycle approval on the driving licence 4. Lose points / licence for abusing lights / highway code / speed limits etc
You're aware that different helmets have been designed in different ways for different users... for a reason ?
2Harold Hill is a large scale post war London County Council housing development, built at the end of the World War II, an attempt to move large sections of the population from poor conditions in central districts to the more pleasant surroundings of the suburbs."
Basically, Westminster and Holyrood were meant to agree what would happen post-independence, assuming Yes wins.
"The UK government has said any agreement will not pre-negotiate the terms of independence.
However, First Minister Alex Salmond urged the UK government to enter into "technical" discussions about the aftermath of a "Yes" vote in the referendum."
I can say without fear of contradiction, Luis Suarez will become Liverpool's most important signing since Nigel Clough King Kenny signed for us in 1977.
He is that good and important.
What is amazing is that
(a) had Arsenal bid £50m in the summer we'd have probably got him, and
(b) if he showed the form he has for Liverpool so far in 13/14, people would be saying look how much Wenger has improved him!
My lovely wife gave me a new car DAB stereo for my birthday. And as a result my journeys to work are significantly improved. I'm not generally a fan of commercial radio at all, but Planet Rock is just amazing. And their iPhone app is good too.
I can say without fear of contradiction, Luis Suarez will become Liverpool's most important signing since Nigel Clough King Kenny signed for us in 1977.
He is that good and important.
What is amazing is that
(a) had Arsenal bid £50m in the summer we'd have probably got him, and
(b) if he showed the form he has for Liverpool so far in 13/14, people would be saying look how much Wenger has improved him!
a) We were never selling him (not when Bale was going for 85m)
b) Suarez's form since mid 2012 has been awesome. He's the calendar year's leading premiership goalscorer, despite missing 9 games.
Rodgers' decision to ditch Carroll and make Suarez the focal point of his team, has to be the greatest tactical and strategical decision since Eisenhower developed Operation Overlord.
I was once walking into work and got run into by a man cycling round a bend, on the pavement, whilst talking in a mobile phone, with a young child seated on the back of the bike.
It was, apparently, my fault. Despite the fact the bend was essentially blind.and the fu**er was on the F****ING PAVEMENT.
Basically, Westminster and Holyrood were meant to agree what would happen post-independence, assuming Yes wins.
"The UK government has said any agreement will not pre-negotiate the terms of independence.
However, First Minister Alex Salmond urged the UK government to enter into "technical" discussions about the aftermath of a "Yes" vote in the referendum."
They really should sort what will happen with Westminster 2015, in the event of YES 2014. Potential betting implications !
I can say without fear of contradiction, Luis Suarez will become Liverpool's most important signing since Nigel Clough King Kenny signed for us in 1977.
He is that good and important.
It's rather sad to see Suarez at Liverpool. His huge talent deserves a big club.
If cyclists are full road users then I think they should: 1. Pay road tax 2. Wear full crash helmets as per motorcyclists 3. Need cycle approval on the driving licence 4. Lose points / licence for abusing lights / highway code / speed limits etc
You're aware that different helmets have been designed in different ways for different users... for a reason ?
Yup, and the principal design feature of cycle helmets is being very lightweight and heavily ventilated in order to prevent your head overheatng during intense physical exertion. This necessarily compromises effectiveness vs motorcycle type helmets. Bicycle head injuries are notably more dangerous than full helmet accidents, especially where the head received a side impact such as when you slam your ear into the tarmec at high speed.
What the law says is basically: 'We're OK with bicycle helmets being alot less safe because you need to peddle hard'.
Re the other comments on 12 year olds - well I do think it is kind of nuts that we have an OTT Elf n Safety culture requiring children on donkeys at their nativity play to wear cycle helmets but a 12 year old can legally join the traffic in central London.
I was once walking into work and got run into by a man cycling round a bend, on the pavement, whilst talking in a mobile phone, with a young child seated on the back of the bike.
It was, apparently, my fault. Despite the fact the bend was essentially blind.and the fu**er was on the F****ING PAVEMENT.
(calms down).
Pavements are for people on foot. All other road users should be on the road. But it is not always the case.
Basically, Westminster and Holyrood were meant to agree what would happen post-independence, assuming Yes wins.
"The UK government has said any agreement will not pre-negotiate the terms of independence.
However, First Minister Alex Salmond urged the UK government to enter into "technical" discussions about the aftermath of a "Yes" vote in the referendum."
Well, it takes two to talk, and the BBC piece carefully doesn't say who refused to talk!
If cyclists are full road users then I think they should: 1. Pay road tax 2. Wear full crash helmets as per motorcyclists 3. Need cycle approval on the driving licence 4. Lose points / licence for abusing lights / highway code / speed limits etc
You're aware that different helmets have been designed in different ways for different users... for a reason ?
Yup, and the principal design feature of cycle helmets is being very lightweight and heavily ventilated in order to prevent your head overheatng during intense physical exertion. This necessarily compromises effectiveness vs motorcycle type helmets. Bicycle head injuries are notably more dangerous than full helmet accidents, especially where the head received a side impact such as when you slam your ear into the tarmec at high speed.
What the law says is basically: 'We're OK with bicycle helmets being alot less safe because you need to peddle hard'.
Re the other comments on 12 year olds - well I do think it is kind of nuts that we have an OTT Elf n Safety culture requiring children on donkeys at their nativity play to wear cycle helmets but a 12 year old can legally join the traffic in central London.
A horse riding hat might well be a good compromise
I can say without fear of contradiction, Luis Suarez will become Liverpool's most important signing since Nigel Clough King Kenny signed for us in 1977.
He is that good and important.
What is amazing is that
(a) had Arsenal bid £50m in the summer we'd have probably got him, and
(b) if he showed the form he has for Liverpool so far in 13/14, people would be saying look how much Wenger has improved him!
a) We were never selling him (not when Bale was going for 85m)
b) Suarez's form since mid 2012 has been awesome. He's the calendar year's leading premiership goalscorer, despite missing 9 games.
Rodgers' decision to ditch Carroll and make Suarez the focal point of his team, has to be the greatest tactical and strategical decision since Eisenhower developed Operation Overlord.
I was on him quite big to be top Prem scorer last year... I was also on Chelsea to bt Liverpool at Anfield
He bit someone, got banned for 10 games, but didn't get sent off and scored a late equaliser
Living near Cambridge, I know lots of cyclists. IME (and again this is anecdotal), the more militant the rider, the worse they ride wrt the laws of the road. Worst of all tend, surprisingly, to be those who have cameras on their helmets. (This is leaving aside the annual scourge of language school students during summer).
I've just remembered that one of Mrs J's colleagues has epilepsy after a bike crash. He thanks the helmet for saving him. So that's another anecdata point. ;-)
I would not want a law stating that helmets have to be worn, but I would like police to stop bad riders (e.g. going through red lights, particularly at pedestrian crossings) and give them the power to confiscate bikes for limited periods.
I wouldn't actually disagree with that, but too many non-cyclists tend to equate 'not wearing a helmet' with 'bad cycling' and so default say 'all cyclists should wear helmets' when that is not even remotely the issue at all. (A reckless cyclist does not suddenly become a good cyclist just by being forced to wear a helmet).
I also got really irritated the other day when a policeman (technically a CSO) stopped me to 'advise on what make me a safer cyclist' and his 2 suggestions were a helmet and turning my lights on (it was 11am on a gloriously sunny day so I didn't quite see the point of the latter, and I somewhat forthrightly gave him my views on the former). Meanwhile 3 cyclists sailed straight through a red light that he ignored... and a car stopped in the Cycle box at the front of the lights without sanction. Why?
The BBC have just announced that the Labour peer Baron Janner is helping the police with their inquiries, in relation to child abuse, but hasn't been arrested. He retired as an MP in 97, and isn't a widely known politician, but it's still not a story any political party would want to be associated with, however remotely.
Comments
Apparently the coppers ignored those girls because of 'class', not because they were sh8t scared of being called racists.
When I say "only the Romans" I mean it in the sense of "solely the Romans", not in the sense of "the mere Romans".
As was pointed out to him by Maharbal, Hannibal knew how to gain a victory but not how to use it. It is all very well bringing off a Lake Trasimene and a Cannae, and despoiling your enemy's home turf for ten years, but it didn't win him the war, did it? IIRC Hannibal never did win a war.
Scipio won a war but so did the Duke of Wellington, twice. As such, he strikes me as a better comparator. He fought decisive campaigns in three widely-separated and different geographies (India, Spain, and the Low Countries) all of which involved managing the niceties of allied armies of variable quality and loyalty as well as his own political leadership. He never lost a battle either, but nobody would seriously rate him above Napoleon simply on the basis that he won the only battle in which he faced him.
Napoleon in contrast defeated every army of every type he faced, until eventually defeated by an overwhelming coalition of all of them. He won battles in the desert, in the mountains, in the plains, in the snow. He won battles on the offensive and defensive, he won when outnumbered and he thrashed veteran enemies with conscripts. He won every battle in Russia and lost only five in total in his career.
The fact that he was a rubbish statesman doesn't undermine him as a general. We have no idea how Scipio would have done if he'd been Emperor as well as C-in-C (we do with Wellington; not very well, it would appear) but if we did, so what? All we know is that as a simple employee, like Wellington, Scipio could afford to focus on the military campaign to the exclusion of other concerns.
Nigella verdicts - NOT GUILTY both Grillos
watch @SkyNews now
As is almost always the case with these incidents, it is not the Asian community that are to blame, it is the luvvies that offence on their behalf
Not surprised - given that everything they said about Chas and Nige was admitted to be true it was very hard to see how their guilt had been placed beyond reasonable doubt.
It seems plausible that having noticed the bizarre relationship between their employers they figured they could cash in.
Nigella did look rather scrumptious I have to say. She's gone down in my estimation all the same.
She's gone right up in my estimation - target market
Sure seemed like it !
Who cares if she had a snort or two?
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1344189.ece
Mind you I'm a cyclist!
It's just that of the three, the cyclists place themselves at most danger. And as for the a******s who don't wear helmets ...
(Gets off his high horse).
After losing a morning to legal argument over the matter, the judge ruled the case could continue, but told the jury to ignore Cameron's "regrettable" intervention in the Spectator magazine, in which he said he was in "Team Nigella".
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/20/nigella-lawson-charles-saatchi-grillo-fraud-trial
Then, on tv (Might have been Daily Politics) earlier this week, Chris Boardman, champion cyclist, said it was not a big deal not to wear one... Im sure he said it was about the 100th most important thing in terms of safety
http://hopisen.com/2013/i-dont-love-politics-or-my-party/
"Nor do I love the Labour party. I rather wish it wasn’t needed, and I could get a different past-time and rid myself of the slightly disturbing guilt I feel whenever it becomes clear to others that I will always prefer a lie-in to a leaflet roun"
I'm not so sure. Reading about the trial it was reported the Saatchis very rarely gave dinner parties and when they did they shipped in caterers.
Look at Nigella's shows and its suggested that she entertained all the time and the recipes were tried and tested on appreciative (and well connected, discerning) guests.
"It can now be reported that David Cameron's "unprecedented" public backing for Nigella Lawson during the fraud trial of her former personal assistants came close to collapsing the case because it was considered "an abuse of process". The prime minister had stunned lawyers when he gave a magazine interview in the middle of the jury trial, where he described the TV chef – the key prosecution witness – as a "very funny and warm person" and said he was "a massive fan".
After losing a morning to legal argument over the matter, the judge ruled the case could continue, but told the jury to ignore Cameron's "regrettable" intervention in the Spectator magazine, in which he said he was in "Team Nigella".
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/20/nigella-lawson-charles-saatchi-grillo-fraud-trial?CMP=twt_gu
(Exits stage left having exploded a firework)
As a pedestrian, you are no longer safe when the green man lights up.
I'd say not. Feeds into the 'chillax' narrative however.
Oops. Feel sorry for Associated Press' legal team right now
pic.twitter.com/qeHYdJ2omZ
There is an argument that drivers drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets, increasing the chances of collision. I was very dubious about this study when I looked into it, and still am.
For one thing, it only accounts for accidents when cars are involved. When an accident occurs for other reasons - I once came off when I skidded at speed on some gravel on a bend in a country lane and got thrown over a hedge. It was totally my own fault, and no-one else was involved. I didn't like the long walk home with a bucked wheel. :-(
A helmet is an insurance policy. You hope to God you don't need it, and at times it can be blooming annoying, but you might be very glad it is there one day.
(*) In a fairly freak accident, he was cycling into work when his front forks split in two, throwing him under a parked car. He had noticed a few specks of rust on a weld, but had thought nothing of it ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y
What I would say is that it is only a minority, a small minority, of drivers or cyclists that I see acting in a dangerous way. The latest research suggests that 1-2% of over-taking manoeuvres are dangerous and too close. This is still far too many, given the number of times in a week that I will be overtaken, but it does mean that 98-99% are done safely, and I have many memories of patient car drivers as well as the impatient ones.
It's just that I fear I will one day be killed by an impatient driver, so I'm finally going to sort out my Will.
Never seen her in a bikini - so will take yer word for it. But she is pretty. Least I think so.
I believe in evidence-based policy. ;-)
I read the study about drivers driving closer to cyclists who wear helmets, and thought it was hardly convincing.
When you have seen photos of a friend in a coma whose helmet was cracked by an impact, you realise that there was a life who was saved. Yes, the helmet broke, but it absorbed a heck of a lot of energy.
Even better, he normally never wore a helmet, but that week his gf had been nagging him to wear one ...
So that was one life saved. But it is anecdata.
http://bikenoob.com/2009/07/14/helmets-not-as-safe-as-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/
Luis Suarez signs a new long term contract with Liverpool
I never knew a contract extension could make me climax.
The answer to the English political thinker honoured by the Soviets on the Moscow "Obelisk of Revolutionary Thinkers" is Thomas More.
He appears ninth from the top of the monument.
What may have confused those trying to transcribe the cyrillic is that the cursive form of the capital letter 'Te' was used as the initial for Thomas
(see
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/20-Russian_alphabet-Т_т.svg
).
More is transcribed conventionally as "Мор".
A blog article on the removal of the Obelisk in the middle of the night earlier this year can be found at:
http://afoniya.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/on-the-removal-of-a-moscow-statue/
It contains both before and after photos and the ominous conclusion:
In many ways the dismantling of the obelisk is a greater affront than the removal of Lenin from the Mausoleum. Whereas the Lenin Mausoleum signified the victory of a new form of religion over the initial liberatory force of the revolution (and would have had Lenin turning in his proverbial grave if only he had one) and presaged a kind of Thermidore; the obelisk signalled and symbolised this very hope of liberation. One of those healthy germs (as Victor Serge would have put it) which the Russian Revolution carried within it. So by dismantling the obelisk rather than the Mausoleum the elite have struck at the very heart of revolutionary memory and the very heart of the idea of liberation as such.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25458397
9 out of 19 this year, and 9 out of 19 next. Imbeciles.
"This format of both live and highlights is attracting a wide range of viewers and we hope to see even more people tuning in next year to experience the magic of Formula 1." - Ben Gallop, BBC's head of F1 and Bullshit.
Here are the live races:
30 March: Malaysia - ok
11 May: Spain - ok
8 June: Canada - great
6 July: Britain - great
24 August: Belgium - great
7 September: Italy - great
5 October: Japan - great
12 October: Russia - have to wait and see
23 November: Abu Dhabi - bad
So, not a bad selection. However, we're missing the season opener in Oz, the tedium of Bahrain, an ok Chinese circuit, awful Monaco, the return of Austria (Red Bull Ring, but it's actually the old A1 circuit), Germany, tedious Hungaroring, boring Singapore, terrific Texas and exciting Interlagos.
On the flip side, Bale did of course force his move to them just a year after signing his own contract extension with us...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18613479
BOOM !
Europe is now lagging behind quite chronically.
Well done to John Henry for his stance during the summer.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf.pdf
Also - your comment about a friend - appreciate that it brings things home, but as you know the plural of anecdote is not data.
In terms of the 'drivers' attitude to cyclists with and without helmets - again, it is totally anecdotal, but 7 years of daily commuting in London continues to give me the impression that drivers go closer / faster to cyclists wearing helmets than those not.
You may well be sick of it but why don't you actually go out and study who ukip members are and who votes for them.
Your being sick is merely the outward manifestation of you ignoring reality.
I am sure that ukip are perfectly happy for liebour to ignore a direct electoral threat.
1. Pay road tax
2. Wear full crash helmets as per motorcyclists
3. Need cycle approval on the driving licence
4. Lose points / licence for abusing lights / highway code / speed limits etc
If Bale is worth £85million, then Luis has to be worth close to £200million.
http://www.espn.co.uk/ferrari/motorsport/story/140057.html
http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/suarez-signs-new-contract
Living near Cambridge, I know lots of cyclists. IME (and again this is anecdotal), the more militant the rider, the worse they ride wrt the laws of the road. Worst of all tend, surprisingly, to be those who have cameras on their helmets. (This is leaving aside the annual scourge of language school students during summer).
I've just remembered that one of Mrs J's colleagues has epilepsy after a bike crash. He thanks the helmet for saving him. So that's another anecdata point. ;-)
I would not want a law stating that helmets have to be worn, but I would like police to stop bad riders (e.g. going through red lights, particularly at pedestrian crossings) and give them the power to confiscate bikes for limited periods.
He is that good and important.
I'm not quite sure how you'll get 12-year olds to have cycle approval on their driving licence, but I'm sure your plan for that is as well thought-out as the rest of your comment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25464323
DEs are currently splitting roughly Lab 40, Con 25 Lib 10 UKIP 10.
The Tories have at least twice as much right to claim to speak for the "working classes" as UKIP. Heck, even the Greens are on about 5.
Harold Hill: UKIP has won the Gooshays ward by-election
UKIP 831 39%
LAB 569 27%
CON 280 13%
RA 227 11%
BNP 202 9%
http://ukipessex.org/?p=6542
2Harold Hill is a large scale post war London County Council housing development, built at the end of the World War II, an attempt to move large sections of the population from poor conditions in central districts to the more pleasant surroundings of the suburbs."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Harold_Hill.html
Just saying..........
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25451159
Basically, Westminster and Holyrood were meant to agree what would happen post-independence, assuming Yes wins.
"The UK government has said any agreement will not pre-negotiate the terms of independence.
However, First Minister Alex Salmond urged the UK government to enter into "technical" discussions about the aftermath of a "Yes" vote in the referendum."
(a) had Arsenal bid £50m in the summer we'd have probably got him, and
(b) if he showed the form he has for Liverpool so far in 13/14, people would be saying look how much Wenger has improved him!
b) Suarez's form since mid 2012 has been awesome. He's the calendar year's leading premiership goalscorer, despite missing 9 games.
Rodgers' decision to ditch Carroll and make Suarez the focal point of his team, has to be the greatest tactical and strategical decision since Eisenhower developed Operation Overlord.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet_laws_by_country
I was once walking into work and got run into by a man cycling round a bend, on the pavement, whilst talking in a mobile phone, with a young child seated on the back of the bike.
It was, apparently, my fault. Despite the fact the bend was essentially blind.and the fu**er was on the F****ING PAVEMENT.
(calms down).
What the law says is basically: 'We're OK with bicycle helmets being alot less safe because you need to peddle hard'.
Re the other comments on 12 year olds - well I do think it is kind of nuts that we have an OTT Elf n Safety culture requiring children on donkeys at their nativity play to wear cycle helmets but a 12 year old can legally join the traffic in central London.
He bit someone, got banned for 10 games, but didn't get sent off and scored a late equaliser
Grrreat
I also got really irritated the other day when a policeman (technically a CSO) stopped me to 'advise on what make me a safer cyclist' and his 2 suggestions were a helmet and turning my lights on (it was 11am on a gloriously sunny day so I didn't quite see the point of the latter, and I somewhat forthrightly gave him my views on the former). Meanwhile 3 cyclists sailed straight through a red light that he ignored... and a car stopped in the Cycle box at the front of the lights without sanction. Why?
So that's an away win tomorrow then?