The latest ONS weekly death stats are out (https://tinyurl.com/4u4mjfyt). I've been tracking these figures the last year and I think we might be starting to get a clue as to how much life (i.e. years) has been lost on average due to COVID. The last seven weeks have seen COVID deaths hover around 100 a week. So let's assume these are all deaths with COVID rather than from COVID. Furthermore, let's also assume that deaths aren't being affected by changes to behaviour (i.e. flu doesn't tend to be a big issue at this time of the year).
Here are the total number of deaths for Weeks 20 to 26 (roughly 15-21 May to 26 June - 2 July, with one bank holiday tucked in the middle so no need to worry about that):
As you can see, the trend for deaths was going up pre-COVID. The 64,427 deaths in the last seven weeks is nearly 2,000 deaths below the five year average for 2015-2019. This is not the biggest of samples, but I think it's reasonable to assume that we are starting to see the wake from the 138,000 COVID deaths recorded in this dataset.
If we assume that the missing deaths continue at around 2,000 every seven weeks, it would take around 9 and a half years to get through them. Obviously, some very unlucky people will have lost a lot more than 9.5 years of life. But equally, it is incredibly unlikely that the distribution of these missing deaths will be almost flat. Chances are it will peak around the average with a long-ish tail in the positive direction.
It has been suggested that the average life lost to COVID is around 10 years. I think that it may be closer to three years. This isn't to suggest that COVID hasn't been and isn't still awful. It is and it is right that action was taken to protect the NHS. But it's interesting to consider nonetheless.
We'll have to watch the numbers over the coming months to see if this changes. The winter may prove challenging because in the year to 14 May 2021, non-COVID deaths were 46,000 below the five year average. Obviously some of that will be due to people dying from/with COVID instead, but a fair amount will be due to less flu going around. That's a lot of low hanging fruit for the grim reaper to pick off this winter (assuming we're back to normal, of course).
But surely a lot of that reduction in flu will be because many of those flu victims the reaper had earmarked for winter 2020/21 he actually claimed 6-9 months earlier from covid? If that were the case, winter 2021/22 shouldn't look any worse than normal.
Well, we just don't know what the split is in terms of already dead/avoid flu is, but just to demonstrate the difference between now and the winter, here are the number of deaths in the seven weeks up to the end of February:
The 2021 figure was 17,000 below the five year average. Some of that will be the wake of COVID. But most will be due to the low hanging fruit avoiding flu etc.
Surely the low hanging fruit had already been felled by Covid. Can't be felled twice.
That would assume that the low hanging fruit was more likely to have been exposed to COVID. That's possibly part of the equation, but I doubt it skews the data all that much.
The reality is that we wouldn't have gone from -17,000 in the seven weeks to the end of Feb to -2,000 in the seven weeks to the start of July if most of the -17,000 was due to people being dead from COVID.
Completely disagreed.
Yes the low hanging fruit were more likely to be exposed and vulnerable to COVID, Malmesbury's data confirmed that in February.
In July flu is relatively rarely a factor in death unlike February so that those who'd die normally from flu were already dead from COVID won't be as big a factor in July as it was in February.
I really hope you're right, because that would suggest the average life lost due to COVID is even shorter. But I suspect the winter deaths will be up a lot in 2021-22 (excluding COVID, of course).
~120k excess deaths have occurred. Primarily in over 80s vulnerable to the flu.
They can't die twice.
Just wanted to post this. Its from the England data on the corona dashboard. Its shows the ages of those who have died, and it heavily skewed by age (naturally). Over 50 % are over 80, but many thousands who have died have been considerably younger than 80.
Of course.
But that's more than 60k over 80s dead now than would be normally the case.
That means that there will be more than 60k fewer over 80s next winter vulnerable to the flu. As they're sadly already dead.
But you are assuming that many (most?) of them were going to be the ones that would have died in the 2021-22 winter. That's a big assumption.
Not really. If even only a sixth of those excess deaths are those who would have died in 2021-22 then that would mean 20,000 fewer deaths next winter.
A sixth would be a lot, in my opinion.
Why? The virus particularly targets the vulnerable who have complications, just like the flu.
What proportion would you estimate?
Because I don't think all that many people were exposed to COVID pre-vaccines. I suspect there is some skew towards the more vulnerable, but not that much.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Burnham wriggling on R4 - if mask wearing is so important why not mandate it on Manchester trams? Passes the buck to the government.
Why not indeed? They surely have the right to make it a condition of travel (with suitable exemptions). I don't see any incompatibility between the withdrawal of the legal regulatory framework by the government and the need for the suppliers of services to give proper consideration to the risks to their staff and the fellow users of their services.
We have had posters here proudly announce that they are going to tell anyone who asks them to mask up to "f**k off". Presumably to the front line transport/waiting/shp staff who are making such requests. It's probably just the beer talking, but no need for such rudeness.
I'm teetotal. And yes I will tell anyone who insists I wear a mask to fuck off.
I will be telling any patient or relative who abuses our reception or nursing staff to go away. They will need to apologise and comply if they want to be seen.
Would that be legal?
Hasn't it long been the case that non-critical care can be withheld from patients committing verbal or physical abuse?
Not sure whether it (withholding care) ever happens much in practice.
For abuse absolutely. But he said "they will need to apologise and comply [with mask wearing?] if they want to be seen".
Is that legal?
Ah, yes - sorry. Missed that.
I assume any organisation can impose whatever measures it wishes on it's premises. For the NHS (and other public sector) it could presumably be overruled by staff higher in NHS, Javid etc. In practice a patient could presumably claim an exemption and likely not be challenged on it?
Yes I'm not sure that the NHS could discriminate against someone who is not breaking the law. @Foxy might easily be talking bollocks here but perhaps he can enlighten us.
Telling an NHS receptionist to F off could very well be, albeit in a minor and very limited way, breaking the law. It would be unlikely to be in the public interest to prosecute but a receptionist would have a complaint. From the CPS website -
“ These offences contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 relate to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or display of visible representations, which:
- Are likely to cause fear of, or to provoke, immediate violence: section 4; - Intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress: section 4A; or - Are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (threatening or abusive words or behaviour only): section 5.
2. It is a defence to section 4A and section 5 for the accused to demonstrate that their conduct was reasonable, which must be interpreted in accordance with the freedom of expression and other freedoms. If these freedoms are engaged, a justification for interference (by prosecution) with them must be convincingly established. A prosecution may only proceed if necessary and proportionate.”
So abuse aside which I believe falls into a separate category, if someone rocks up to an NHS facility without a mask, is it legal for the NHS to say go away?
Does your second point, including "the freedom of expression and other freedoms" speak to that?
It is unlikely that not wearing a mask would fall under freedom of expression even in the states. As for mask wearing, sure, you can kick someone out of a hospital for smoking and short term the risk to public health of being exposed to second hand smoke from one cigarette is far less.
Interesting. Thanks.
Is the withholding treatment element relevant. Bloke comes in ( @Carnyx is making a similar point) with a broken leg - or worse - and no mask, and refuses to put one on.
Reports on Afghanistan and the Taliban advance often seem to focus on the failings on the government side, but why have they been so stubbornly successful? Are they just very well organised? Are they really popular among the people? Because the former can be countered a lot more than if the latter.
They are fanatical nutjobs, have lots of guns and would shoot their granny if required.
My wife once did a fantastic job of nursing our car most of the way to our destination after the clutch failed. You wouldn't be able to do that with an automatic.
Automatic BMWs (and presumably others but I've only ever experienced it in a Beemer) lock into 2nd or 3rd gear depending on what exactly the failure is. Obviously if its the torque convertor that's failed you are fucked but that's much rarer than an individual clutch pack failing.
Porsche PDKs fail into just even or odd gears depending on what lets go.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
My understanding, and this is based largely on what I learned at my speed awareness course so perhaps it is all lies perpetuated by the road safety industry, is that at 20mph you will almost never kill the person you hit, at 40mph you will almost always kill them, and at 30mph it's a throw of the dice. So anywhere you have a decent chance of a kid running out in front of you, 20 seems reasonable. As for parents' responsibility, you can teach your kids about road safety till you're blue in the face, but the way kids' brains work, they can easily walk into the road without looking, run after a ball or whatever, unless you're physically holding onto them. And at the end of the day, I think a kid has more right to walk down their street without living in fear than some random person has to drive down their street at potentially life-threatening speeds. This is what I mean by a change of mindset, drivers need to understand that they do not sit at the top of a hierarchy of people using the space. I say all of this as a driver, but also a parent, a resident and (occasional) cyclist.
We didn't do the control experiment (ie have them be hit by a car at 20mph and then 40mph) but when a mate of mine was hit by a car doing 30mph the medics said that at 40mph they would have been dead.
I say that because, 25mph is third gear and 35mph is fourth gear (at least, they are in my car).
What the fuck are you driving? An Austin A40?
Would you be triggered if I said I drove a 2007 Nissan Micra.
Pretty much the most perfectly boring car in the world. Ideal for me.
Sometimes when I look at my workshop full of partially dismantled Porsches and see the DHL guy staggering up the drive with yet another vast shipment of German unobtanium parts I wish I had a 2007 Micra.
You can put an SR20 engine from a Silvia/240SX into a Micra. Something to think about.
I can feel my spine disintegrating just thinking about that.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
My understanding, and this is based largely on what I learned at my speed awareness course so perhaps it is all lies perpetuated by the road safety industry, is that at 20mph you will almost never kill the person you hit, at 40mph you will almost always kill them, and at 30mph it's a throw of the dice. So anywhere you have a decent chance of a kid running out in front of you, 20 seems reasonable. As for parents' responsibility, you can teach your kids about road safety till you're blue in the face, but the way kids' brains work, they can easily walk into the road without looking, run after a ball or whatever, unless you're physically holding onto them. And at the end of the day, I think a kid has more right to walk down their street without living in fear than some random person has to drive down their street at potentially life-threatening speeds. This is what I mean by a change of mindset, drivers need to understand that they do not sit at the top of a hierarchy of people using the space. I say all of this as a driver, but also a parent, a resident and (occasional) cyclist.
We didn't do the control experiment (ie have them be hit by a car at 20mph and then 40mph) but when a mate of mine was hit by a car doing 30mph the medics said that at 40mph they would have been dead.
That is quite correct.
There was that old road safety ad - 30mph 90% chance of living; 40mph 90% chance of dying, wasn't there? Somewhat rounded for effect, I'm sure, but presumably with some data behind it.
The latest ONS weekly death stats are out (https://tinyurl.com/4u4mjfyt). I've been tracking these figures the last year and I think we might be starting to get a clue as to how much life (i.e. years) has been lost on average due to COVID. The last seven weeks have seen COVID deaths hover around 100 a week. So let's assume these are all deaths with COVID rather than from COVID. Furthermore, let's also assume that deaths aren't being affected by changes to behaviour (i.e. flu doesn't tend to be a big issue at this time of the year).
Here are the total number of deaths for Weeks 20 to 26 (roughly 15-21 May to 26 June - 2 July, with one bank holiday tucked in the middle so no need to worry about that):
As you can see, the trend for deaths was going up pre-COVID. The 64,427 deaths in the last seven weeks is nearly 2,000 deaths below the five year average for 2015-2019. This is not the biggest of samples, but I think it's reasonable to assume that we are starting to see the wake from the 138,000 COVID deaths recorded in this dataset.
If we assume that the missing deaths continue at around 2,000 every seven weeks, it would take around 9 and a half years to get through them. Obviously, some very unlucky people will have lost a lot more than 9.5 years of life. But equally, it is incredibly unlikely that the distribution of these missing deaths will be almost flat. Chances are it will peak around the average with a long-ish tail in the positive direction.
It has been suggested that the average life lost to COVID is around 10 years. I think that it may be closer to three years. This isn't to suggest that COVID hasn't been and isn't still awful. It is and it is right that action was taken to protect the NHS. But it's interesting to consider nonetheless.
We'll have to watch the numbers over the coming months to see if this changes. The winter may prove challenging because in the year to 14 May 2021, non-COVID deaths were 46,000 below the five year average. Obviously some of that will be due to people dying from/with COVID instead, but a fair amount will be due to less flu going around. That's a lot of low hanging fruit for the grim reaper to pick off this winter (assuming we're back to normal, of course).
But surely a lot of that reduction in flu will be because many of those flu victims the reaper had earmarked for winter 2020/21 he actually claimed 6-9 months earlier from covid? If that were the case, winter 2021/22 shouldn't look any worse than normal.
Well, we just don't know what the split is in terms of already dead/avoid flu is, but just to demonstrate the difference between now and the winter, here are the number of deaths in the seven weeks up to the end of February:
The 2021 figure was 17,000 below the five year average. Some of that will be the wake of COVID. But most will be due to the low hanging fruit avoiding flu etc.
Surely the low hanging fruit had already been felled by Covid. Can't be felled twice.
That would assume that the low hanging fruit was more likely to have been exposed to COVID. That's possibly part of the equation, but I doubt it skews the data all that much.
The reality is that we wouldn't have gone from -17,000 in the seven weeks to the end of Feb to -2,000 in the seven weeks to the start of July if most of the -17,000 was due to people being dead from COVID.
Completely disagreed.
Yes the low hanging fruit were more likely to be exposed and vulnerable to COVID, Malmesbury's data confirmed that in February.
In July flu is relatively rarely a factor in death unlike February so that those who'd die normally from flu were already dead from COVID won't be as big a factor in July as it was in February.
I really hope you're right, because that would suggest the average life lost due to COVID is even shorter. But I suspect the winter deaths will be up a lot in 2021-22 (excluding COVID, of course).
~120k excess deaths have occurred. Primarily in over 80s vulnerable to the flu.
They can't die twice.
Just wanted to post this. Its from the England data on the corona dashboard. Its shows the ages of those who have died, and it heavily skewed by age (naturally). Over 50 % are over 80, but many thousands who have died have been considerably younger than 80.
Of course.
But that's more than 60k over 80s dead now than would be normally the case.
That means that there will be more than 60k fewer over 80s next winter vulnerable to the flu. As they're sadly already dead.
But you are assuming that many (most?) of them were going to be the ones that would have died in the 2021-22 winter. That's a big assumption.
Not really. If even only a sixth of those excess deaths are those who would have died in 2021-22 then that would mean 20,000 fewer deaths next winter.
A sixth would be a lot, in my opinion.
Why? The virus particularly targets the vulnerable who have complications, just like the flu.
What proportion would you estimate?
Because I don't think all that many people were exposed to COVID pre-vaccines. I suspect there is some skew towards the more vulnerable, but not that much.
But its not true. Lots were exposed, hence why people died. Remember Malmesbury's data, over 80s at the peak were most likely to test positive not least likely to.
There is clearly a non-zero amount of people in the 120k excess deaths who would have died next winter. What proportion would you estimate that to be?
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
My wife once did a fantastic job of nursing our car most of the way to our destination after the clutch failed. You wouldn't be able to do that with an automatic.
I drove one of the many Mk.2 Golf GTIs I destroyed (this is different from the one I rolled and smashed my mate's teeth out) from RAF Valley in Big G country to my parents' house in the Yorkshire Dales with no clutch at all. I set off at 23:00h to minimise occluding traffic and changed gear just 22 times on the entire journey.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
My understanding, and this is based largely on what I learned at my speed awareness course so perhaps it is all lies perpetuated by the road safety industry, is that at 20mph you will almost never kill the person you hit, at 40mph you will almost always kill them, and at 30mph it's a throw of the dice. So anywhere you have a decent chance of a kid running out in front of you, 20 seems reasonable. As for parents' responsibility, you can teach your kids about road safety till you're blue in the face, but the way kids' brains work, they can easily walk into the road without looking, run after a ball or whatever, unless you're physically holding onto them. And at the end of the day, I think a kid has more right to walk down their street without living in fear than some random person has to drive down their street at potentially life-threatening speeds. This is what I mean by a change of mindset, drivers need to understand that they do not sit at the top of a hierarchy of people using the space. I say all of this as a driver, but also a parent, a resident and (occasional) cyclist.
We didn't do the control experiment (ie have them be hit by a car at 20mph and then 40mph) but when a mate of mine was hit by a car doing 30mph the medics said that at 40mph they would have been dead.
That is quite correct.
There was that old road safety ad - 30mph 90% chance of living; 40mph 90% chance of dying, wasn't there? Somewhat rounded for effect, I'm sure, but presumably with some data behind it.
My wife once did a fantastic job of nursing our car most of the way to our destination after the clutch failed. You wouldn't be able to do that with an automatic.
I drove one of the many Mk.2 Golf GTIs I destroyed (this is different from the one I rolled and smashed my mate's teeth out) from RAF Valley in Big G country to my parents' house in the Yorkshire Dales with no clutch at all. I set off at 23:00h to minimise occluding traffic and changed gear just 22 times on the entire journey.
Polite question
Did you keep to 50 through Colwyn Bay on the A55 ????
I say that because, 25mph is third gear and 35mph is fourth gear (at least, they are in my car).
What the fuck are you driving? An Austin A40?
Would you be triggered if I said I drove a 2007 Nissan Micra.
Pretty much the most perfectly boring car in the world. Ideal for me.
Sometimes when I look at my workshop full of partially dismantled Porsches and see the DHL guy staggering up the drive with yet another vast shipment of German unobtanium parts I wish I had a 2007 Micra.
You can put an SR20 engine from a Silvia/240SX into a Micra. Something to think about.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
Autos are safer because you spend far less time with one hand off the wheel.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
I have paddles on my automatic. They're a right nuisance, to be honest. If I accidentally grip my steering when in the wrong way the car changes gear and takes itself out of automatic mode, and I'm never entirely sure how to get it back into automatic mode again, nor, if I'm honest, how to use the paddles. I could look it up, I suppose. But I could use a gearstick without thinking.
I suppose an automatic frees one hand up to, I don't know, wave my thanks to a kind driver allowing me to get past some parked cars on my side of the road
From a driver's point of view, cars reached perfection about ten years ago. Every subsequent innovation has been neutral at best. I find electric handbrakes irritating - this simply wasn't a problem that needed to be solved. And as for push-button ignition - yes, very clever, you've got a button, and the car knows whether the fob is in it or not, but you've actually made the whole process harder.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
Autos are safer because you spend far less time with one hand off the wheel.
What a weird comment, it takes seconds to change gears manually.
People choosing to take a hand off probably while cruising is probably much longer than people taking one off to change gears.
My wife once did a fantastic job of nursing our car most of the way to our destination after the clutch failed. You wouldn't be able to do that with an automatic.
I drove one of the many Mk.2 Golf GTIs I destroyed (this is different from the one I rolled and smashed my mate's teeth out) from RAF Valley in Big G country to my parents' house in the Yorkshire Dales with no clutch at all. I set off at 23:00h to minimise occluding traffic and changed gear just 22 times on the entire journey.
Polite question
Did you keep to 50 through Colwyn Bay on the A55 ????
As far as I can remember, yes but this was in 1992 and I have been knocked unconscious at least 10 times since then in various other escapades.
My wife once did a fantastic job of nursing our car most of the way to our destination after the clutch failed. You wouldn't be able to do that with an automatic.
I drove one of the many Mk.2 Golf GTIs I destroyed (this is different from the one I rolled and smashed my mate's teeth out) from RAF Valley in Big G country to my parents' house in the Yorkshire Dales with no clutch at all. I set off at 23:00h to minimise occluding traffic and changed gear just 22 times on the entire journey.
Polite question
Did you keep to 50 through Colwyn Bay on the A55 ????
As far as I can remember, yes but this was in 1992 and I have been knocked unconscious at least 10 times since then in various other escapades.
Reports on Afghanistan and the Taliban advance often seem to focus on the failings on the government side, but why have they been so stubbornly successful? Are they just very well organised? Are they really popular among the people? Because the former can be countered a lot more than if the latter.
They are fanatical nutjobs, have lots of guns and would shoot their granny if required.
TBH, I don't think that's entirely fair Malc. Don't think they'd shoot their Granny. Try reading something by Khaled Hosseini.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
Autos are safer because you spend far less time with one hand off the wheel.
Not buying that argument. With autos, you are less engaged with operating the vehicle according to road conditions and therefore less attentive. So, arguably, less safe.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
Autos are safer because you spend far less time with one hand off the wheel.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
Autos are safer because you spend far less time with one hand off the wheel.
What a weird comment, it takes seconds to change gears manually.
People choosing to take a hand off probably while cruising is probably much longer than people taking one off to change gears.
Not my opinion, but that of the RAC.
Not as safe: With a manual, you need to take one hand off the steering wheel to change gears. Automatic cars are safer as you can keep both hands on the wheel and concentrate more on the road ahead.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
Autos are safer because you spend far less time with one hand off the wheel.
Not buying that argument. With autos, you are less engaged with operating the vehicle according to road conditions and therefore less attentive. So, arguably, less safe.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
Counterintuitively, there is evidence that introduction of 20mph zones increases the number of accidents. As you would expect, the tone of this varies from source to source. The Daily Mail and Express are fairly unequivocal, as is 'Car Throttle', which doesn't sound a disinterested source. The Guardian is more non-commital, merely quoting a DfT report that says there is no evidence that 20mph zones reduced accidents. Other speed reduction advocacy groups, as you would expect, claim the opposite. The picture is at best muddy.
Why should a reduction in speeds increase accidents? Law of unintended consequences. Basically, traffic is a complex system and simple inputs do not necessarily have simple outputs. People will make different route choices and drive with different amounts of care in different circumstances.
Cyclists in rush hour are often cycling around 20mph so are regularly overtaking cars on the inside (and sometimes you get overtaken on both inside and outside at the same time by different cyclists). Unless the street layout and furniture is very well designed with cyclists in mind I am not surprised at all that the 20mph zones increase accidents.
I've always thought we need our speed limits to be:
25mph 35mph 50mph
I say that because, 25mph is third gear and 35mph is fourth gear (at least, they are in my car).
Some cars really struggle to drive smoothly at 30mph. Happily we no longer own a car with a gearbox so such struggles are behind us.
I have a 'self-charging hybrid' Toyota. Really its a petrol car, but it is electric drive and thus very smooth at all speeds.
Point of order, its a gearbox. A "planetary drive", so when the car runs on battery (briefly, its 1.5kWh) it powers the motor which turns the planetary gears.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
I have paddles on my automatic. They're a right nuisance, to be honest. If I accidentally grip my steering when in the wrong way the car changes gear and takes itself out of automatic mode, and I'm never entirely sure how to get it back into automatic mode again, nor, if I'm honest, how to use the paddles. I could look it up, I suppose. But I could use a gearstick without thinking.
I suppose an automatic frees one hand up to, I don't know, wave my thanks to a kind driver allowing me to get past some parked cars on my side of the road
From a driver's point of view, cars reached perfection about ten years ago. Every subsequent innovation has been neutral at best. I find electric handbrakes irritating - this simply wasn't a problem that needed to be solved. And as for push-button ignition - yes, very clever, you've got a button, and the car knows whether the fob is in it or not, but you've actually made the whole process harder.
Completely agree with your last para and, yes, electric handbrakes ... horrible things to use. Push-button ignition is more retro styling than anything and I'm always forgetting where I put the damned fob so it does make the whole thing more of a faff. Some recent innovations are quite useful, blind spot detection being one, but I can't stand the lane departure warning thingy; that's just annoying.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
I have paddles on my automatic. They're a right nuisance, to be honest. If I accidentally grip my steering when in the wrong way the car changes gear and takes itself out of automatic mode, and I'm never entirely sure how to get it back into automatic mode again, nor, if I'm honest, how to use the paddles. I could look it up, I suppose. But I could use a gearstick without thinking.
I suppose an automatic frees one hand up to, I don't know, wave my thanks to a kind driver allowing me to get past some parked cars on my side of the road
From a driver's point of view, cars reached perfection about ten years ago. Every subsequent innovation has been neutral at best. I find electric handbrakes irritating - this simply wasn't a problem that needed to be solved. And as for push-button ignition - yes, very clever, you've got a button, and the car knows whether the fob is in it or not, but you've actually made the whole process harder.
Completely agree with your last para and, yes, electric handbrakes ... horrible things to use. Push-button ignition is more retro styling than anything and I'm always forgetting where I put the damned fob so it does make the whole thing more of a faff. Some recent innovations are quite useful, blind spot detection being one, but I can't stand the lane departure warning thingy; that's just annoying.
Lane Assist and Adaptive Cruise Control on my Q7 are awesome for long journeys on long roads.
My wife once did a fantastic job of nursing our car most of the way to our destination after the clutch failed. You wouldn't be able to do that with an automatic.
I drove one of the many Mk.2 Golf GTIs I destroyed (this is different from the one I rolled and smashed my mate's teeth out) from RAF Valley in Big G country to my parents' house in the Yorkshire Dales with no clutch at all. I set off at 23:00h to minimise occluding traffic and changed gear just 22 times on the entire journey.
Polite question
Did you keep to 50 through Colwyn Bay on the A55 ????
Interesting fact - the A55 through Conwy is legally a motorway.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
I have paddles on my automatic. They're a right nuisance, to be honest. If I accidentally grip my steering when in the wrong way the car changes gear and takes itself out of automatic mode, and I'm never entirely sure how to get it back into automatic mode again, nor, if I'm honest, how to use the paddles. I could look it up, I suppose. But I could use a gearstick without thinking.
I suppose an automatic frees one hand up to, I don't know, wave my thanks to a kind driver allowing me to get past some parked cars on my side of the road
From a driver's point of view, cars reached perfection about ten years ago. Every subsequent innovation has been neutral at best. I find electric handbrakes irritating - this simply wasn't a problem that needed to be solved. And as for push-button ignition - yes, very clever, you've got a button, and the car knows whether the fob is in it or not, but you've actually made the whole process harder.
Completely agree with your last para and, yes, electric handbrakes ... horrible things to use. Push-button ignition is more retro styling than anything and I'm always forgetting where I put the damned fob so it does make the whole thing more of a faff. Some recent innovations are quite useful, blind spot detection being one, but I can't stand the lane departure warning thingy; that's just annoying.
Lane Assist and Adaptive Cruise Control on my Q7 are awesome for long journeys on long roads.
ACC yes. I'm not sure what to make of auto drive systems though. We're on our second Hyundai Ioniq (Hybrid then EV) which have it, as did my Volvo. I was never entirely comfortable with the car doing the steering. Don't miss it on my Outlander.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
Autos are safer because you spend far less time with one hand off the wheel.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
Autos are safer because you spend far less time with one hand off the wheel.
What a weird comment, it takes seconds to change gears manually.
People choosing to take a hand off probably while cruising is probably much longer than people taking one off to change gears.
Not my opinion, but that of the RAC.
Not as safe: With a manual, you need to take one hand off the steering wheel to change gears. Automatic cars are safer as you can keep both hands on the wheel and concentrate more on the road ahead.
Tut, tut ... from the same RAC article (which sadly you forced me to skim read) ... "Greater control: A manual gearbox gives you more control over the car as you alone choose which gear to use. This can be particularly beneficial in wintry conditions."
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
I have paddles on my automatic. They're a right nuisance, to be honest. If I accidentally grip my steering when in the wrong way the car changes gear and takes itself out of automatic mode, and I'm never entirely sure how to get it back into automatic mode again, nor, if I'm honest, how to use the paddles. I could look it up, I suppose. But I could use a gearstick without thinking.
I suppose an automatic frees one hand up to, I don't know, wave my thanks to a kind driver allowing me to get past some parked cars on my side of the road
From a driver's point of view, cars reached perfection about ten years ago. Every subsequent innovation has been neutral at best. I find electric handbrakes irritating - this simply wasn't a problem that needed to be solved. And as for push-button ignition - yes, very clever, you've got a button, and the car knows whether the fob is in it or not, but you've actually made the whole process harder.
Completely agree with your last para and, yes, electric handbrakes ... horrible things to use. Push-button ignition is more retro styling than anything and I'm always forgetting where I put the damned fob so it does make the whole thing more of a faff. Some recent innovations are quite useful, blind spot detection being one, but I can't stand the lane departure warning thingy; that's just annoying.
I took delivery of my Toyota Corolla hybrid last week. I've gradually worked out what all the buttons and levers do and what each warning sound means. But the strangest thing to deal with is the redundancy of the left leg and arm.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
Autos are safer because you spend far less time with one hand off the wheel.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
You can still use the paddles on an automatic should you so wish. The simple truth is that modern automatics are better to drive, and more fun, and safer, and more efficient.
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Paddles? That's just automatic by another name. It's not a simple truth that automatics are better to drive and more fun; that's an opinion. Not sure they are safer either (why would that be?). More efficient? I might concede that overall but it does depend on driving style.
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
Autos are safer because you spend far less time with one hand off the wheel.
What a weird comment, it takes seconds to change gears manually.
People choosing to take a hand off probably while cruising is probably much longer than people taking one off to change gears.
Not my opinion, but that of the RAC.
Not as safe: With a manual, you need to take one hand off the steering wheel to change gears. Automatic cars are safer as you can keep both hands on the wheel and concentrate more on the road ahead.
Tut, tut ... from the same RAC article (which sadly you forced me to skim read) ... "Greater control: A manual gearbox gives you more control over the car as you alone choose which gear to use. This can be particularly beneficial in wintry conditions."
So, not conclusive by any stretch.
Again, though, you can stick a good auto into manual mode in snow if you so wish, best of both worlds.
My wife once did a fantastic job of nursing our car most of the way to our destination after the clutch failed. You wouldn't be able to do that with an automatic.
I drove one of the many Mk.2 Golf GTIs I destroyed (this is different from the one I rolled and smashed my mate's teeth out) from RAF Valley in Big G country to my parents' house in the Yorkshire Dales with no clutch at all. I set off at 23:00h to minimise occluding traffic and changed gear just 22 times on the entire journey.
Polite question
Did you keep to 50 through Colwyn Bay on the A55 ????
Interesting fact - the A55 through Conwy is legally a motorway.
If we're in the part of the internet in which technicalities about motorways are considered interesting - and I very much hope we are - may I present to you the shortest motorway in England, just over a quarter of a mile long and not signposted as such in any way: the A635(M), Central Manchester, forming the last little section of the Mancunian Way. https://pathetic.org.uk/secretive/a635m/
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
Counterintuitively, there is evidence that introduction of 20mph zones increases the number of accidents. As you would expect, the tone of this varies from source to source. The Daily Mail and Express are fairly unequivocal, as is 'Car Throttle', which doesn't sound a disinterested source. The Guardian is more non-commital, merely quoting a DfT report that says there is no evidence that 20mph zones reduced accidents. Other speed reduction advocacy groups, as you would expect, claim the opposite. The picture is at best muddy.
Why should a reduction in speeds increase accidents? Law of unintended consequences. Basically, traffic is a complex system and simple inputs do not necessarily have simple outputs. People will make different route choices and drive with different amounts of care in different circumstances.
Cyclists in rush hour are often cycling around 20mph so are regularly overtaking cars on the inside (and sometimes you get overtaken on both inside and outside at the same time by different cyclists). Unless the street layout and furniture is very well designed with cyclists in mind I am not surprised at all that the 20mph zones increase accidents.
OK. Trying a serious response.
That Mail piece notes that the "increase in road accidents" is only a couple of %, and makes it reasonably clear that the underlying issue is people choosing to break speed limits.
But clearly good infrastructure design is required, and in this country we are at least 20-25 years behind best practice.
Cyclists in rush hour are often cycling around 20mph so are regularly overtaking cars on the inside (and sometimes you get overtaken on both inside and outside at the same time by different cyclists)
Not something I used to do in London for fear of drips opening doors at random and injuring me. See SMIDSY accidents. 100kg of a person on a bike at x mph is so much safer to other human beings than someone driving around in 1.5 tonnes of Motor Vehicle.
The penny is gradually dropping that if you change the mode of transport you use you can get places more smoothly and quickly. And then cars can be more reserved to those people who actually need them.
Ultimately we need the 3 modes (motor vehicles, bike and similar, pedestrian) unravelled and segregated, and then to regulate motor vehicles where this cannot be done so that everybody else can live with them.
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
In my mind, the middle-class distrust of the police started with speed cameras.
There is something in that. I am currently due a 3 hour "education" course at substantial financial cost for the heinous crime of driving at 35mph on a major trunk road that now has a 30mph limit.
In a city I have known all my life it is now deemed criminal to drive at more than 20mph in large parts of it. Traffic is no different to how it has been for the last decades but I could now lose my license for being caught driving at 25mph a few times. It's a money making exercise, pure and simple and will be enforced to keep the coffers filled - get burgled on the other hand and you may as well safe your breath calling the police.
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, which is why so many people campaign for lower speed limits where they live (while simultaneously bemoaning speed limits elsewhere, naturally).
So are we now saying after 30 years that 30mph is unsafe for cyclists and children? If a cyclist ior a child is killed at 20mph do we then drop it to 10mph? A
t what point does the responsibility rest with parents to ensure children don't run out into the road or cyclists follow the same rules of the road as drivers instead of weaving in and out, ignoring traffic lights and one way systems and mounting the pavement whenever they feel like it?
I was knocked off my bicycle when following all the rules of the road.
Take your victim-blaming elsewhere.
There are diminishing returns when reducing speed limits. It's perfectly possible to support reducing them to 20mph and oppose reducing them further.
Any limit is necessarily arbitrary. Would you get rid of them all?
And car drivers get injured whilst obeying the rules of the road and pedestrians get injured by cyclists.
It's like the zero covid zealots, perhaps we should ban cars altogether in case an innocent cyclist should ever get injured.
If a 30mph limit been fine for last 25 years why not now?
Brave Sir Boris ran away. Bravely ran away away. When footballer players took the knee, He bravely chose to turn and flee. Yes, brave Sir Boris turned about And gallantly he chickened out. Swiftly taking to his feet, He beat a very brave retreat. Bravest of the brave, Sir Boris! https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1414916497143705605
Mr. L, aye. The police will kneel for BLM. And ignore a mob of thugs who intimidated a teacher into hiding. And their leader is keener on anti-white discrimination than rooting out the bad eggs in her own force.
I should be the sort of person who's right behind the police. But what happened in Rotherham and many other places, and the examples mentioned above, don't exactly encourage that.
What is this anti white discrimination of which you speak?
Positive discrimination for ethnic applicants. Not everyone thinks this is the way to address balance issues.
It proved to be a roaring success in the Chicago Fire Dept. Not.
They literally set a different passing grade for promotion for different ethnicities.
There were absolutely no instances of lying about ethnic background or antagonism or even violence. Absolutely not. No sir....
I have suddenly realised that it may be useful to flaunt my BAME credentials.
I am 1/8 Indian, which would would have been “enough” under various abhorrent laws formerly deployed in the southern US.
More than enough under those horrific laws - “one drop” was enough. In Virginia there was a “Racial Integrity Act 1924” that made exemption for the descendants of Pocahontas
Alabama only voted to remove its miscegenation statute in 2000, by 60:40.
I am a great admirer of Southern music, food, charm, and chutzpah and saddened it is stained with this shite.
I love Southern music (anyone who hasn't already should check out the Allman Bros Band's Brothers and Sisters, to my mind a pinnacle of the genre). But Southern food, I am a sceptic. The food at Dollywood was the worst I have ever seen - and I am someone who grew up in Scotland so am something of a connoisseur of bad food.
Was thinking of New Orleans for food, which admittedly is a very specific Southern-ness.
Yes and Dollywood is hardly haute cuisine. It is a theme park.
It's because we enjoy the driving experience and driving a manual is more engaging than driving an automatic.
If you view the car simply as a means to get from A to B and you don't get any pleasure from driving itself, then I can imagine that having to change gears according to the situation on the road is something of an inconvenience.
There's also less that can go wrong with manual transmission than automatic, which is a factor if you can only afford older cars.
My wife once did a fantastic job of nursing our car most of the way to our destination after the clutch failed. You wouldn't be able to do that with an automatic.
That is why we have breakdown services , I just press a button and someone in Germany sends a man with a truck to take me there.
In one column masks reduce the transmission of covid.
On the other column, they steam up your glasses, you get a bit hot, some feel a bit constrained and you look silly.
No brainier.
Absolutely. Post-vaccines the latter is more important.
If you're an anti-vaxxer relying upon others wearing masks, perhaps buy an FFP3 mask instead?
Covid seems to be spreading pretty fast despite vaccines.
Just been whattsapped by our management.
My hospital has gone to OPEL level 4. 90 people in ED, 40 awaiting beds and some waiting 4 hours in ambulances last night unable to offload. Ambulances being diverted now (though nearest places are 30+ miles away).
Looks like the shit hitting the fan again. Happy Freedom Day.
I spent 12 hours on a trolley in Blue Majors on Sunday waiting for an MRI. Can't fault the staff in anyway, absolutely all of them looked knackered but were superb. Apart from the lack of vegan food!
Comments
Manuals are rightly dying out, and will soon be stone dead. EVs have no gearbox anyway.
Porsche PDKs fail into just even or odd gears depending on what lets go.
How much lower can labour go
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1414899177709096961?s=19
There is clearly a non-zero amount of people in the 120k excess deaths who would have died next winter. What proportion would you estimate that to be?
Manuals are rightly dying out ... what an odd comment. Why rightly? There's nothing quite like driving a manual on a long and winding country road; car and driver in perfect harmony! Driving automatics is soul-destroying ... why bother; you might as well take the bus.
I drove one of the many Mk.2 Golf GTIs I destroyed (this is different from the one I rolled and smashed my mate's teeth out) from RAF Valley in Big G country to my parents' house in the Yorkshire Dales with no clutch at all. I set off at 23:00h to minimise occluding traffic and changed gear just 22 times on the entire journey.
And at 20 the chance of living is considerably higher still. Plus the chance of stopping of course.
Did you keep to 50 through Colwyn Bay on the A55 ????
https://www.fastcar.co.uk/car-review/nissan-micra-350s-review/
I suppose an automatic frees one hand up to, I don't know, wave my thanks to a kind driver allowing me to get past some parked cars on my side of the road
From a driver's point of view, cars reached perfection about ten years ago. Every subsequent innovation has been neutral at best. I find electric handbrakes irritating - this simply wasn't a problem that needed to be solved. And as for push-button ignition - yes, very clever, you've got a button, and the car knows whether the fob is in it or not, but you've actually made the whole process harder.
People choosing to take a hand off probably while cruising is probably much longer than people taking one off to change gears.
I was being a bit mischievous!!!!
Whither the Scots Lib Dems?
The non-SNP, non-Tory option for country dwellers doesn’t seem to be paying dividends.
Not as safe: With a manual, you need to take one hand off the steering wheel to change gears. Automatic cars are safer as you can keep both hands on the wheel and concentrate more on the road ahead.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/know-how/automatic-vs-manual-cars-which-is-better/
If some people prefer manuals, because they are traditionalists who like changing gear in classic cars on country roads, then fine.
But that's not a great scientific argument for a manual over say the Audi Tiptronic box, which is absolutely superb technology.
So, not conclusive by any stretch.
https://pathetic.org.uk/secretive/a635m/
That Mail piece notes that the "increase in road accidents" is only a couple of %, and makes it reasonably clear that the underlying issue is people choosing to break speed limits.
ROSPA demonstrate that people in cars who choose to break speed limits have more accidents.
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/drivers/inappropriate-speed.pdf
But clearly good infrastructure design is required, and in this country we are at least 20-25 years behind best practice.
Cyclists in rush hour are often cycling around 20mph so are regularly overtaking cars on the inside (and sometimes you get overtaken on both inside and outside at the same time by different cyclists)
Not something I used to do in London for fear of drips opening doors at random and injuring me. See SMIDSY accidents. 100kg of a person on a bike at x mph is so much safer to other human beings than someone driving around in 1.5 tonnes of Motor Vehicle.
The penny is gradually dropping that if you change the mode of transport you use you can get places more smoothly and quickly. And then cars can be more reserved to those people who actually need them.
Ultimately we need the 3 modes (motor vehicles, bike and similar, pedestrian) unravelled and segregated, and then to regulate motor vehicles where this cannot be done so that everybody else can live with them.
But at least this is a small - if untidy - start.
It's like the zero covid zealots, perhaps we should ban cars altogether in case an innocent cyclist should ever get injured.
If a 30mph limit been fine for last 25 years why not now?
Bravely ran away away.
When footballer players took the knee,
He bravely chose to turn and flee.
Yes, brave Sir Boris turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Boris! https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1414916497143705605
https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1414924630159151119
https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1414923990183907329
@twistedfirestopper3