A principled stance by Turner calling the by election to back jury trials and he may think he has more chance of holding his Hull seat now as a high profile independent than as a Labour candidate at the next general election, where Reform are forecast to win the 72% Leave Hull East constituency.
Currently EC has Reform winning 45% in the seat with Labour on 19%, the Greens 11%, the Tories 9% and LDs 7%.
So even if there is a by election and Reform win it Starmer won't face too much of a threat as Labour are likely to beat the Greens and LDs still. Even the university is in Hull North not East, so there won't even be much of a student/academic vote for the Greens and LDs to squeeze. If Turner splits the Labour vote further that can be explained as unique circumstances https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Hull East
Lord Mandelson has said he never saw girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties, and declined to apologise to the late paedophile's victims for maintaining his friendship with the American because he was not "knowledgeable of what he was doing".
He is like Boris, cant help himself in lying. The whole reason he got the sack was because it was revealed Petie was still very much friends with Jeff after he had be done.
He's definitely losing it if those are his words in his own defence and he thinks those are persuasive.
He's dodgy as fuck. His only saving grace here is he is almost certainly not as involved as a former prince.
Its a strange decision to do an interview. What does he gain from it, he isnt coming back a 4th time to politics. He is yestersay news. He could easily disappear into the backgroumd with his network of wealthy mates.
The man has no humility. Like Cummings he keeps popping up because of his unwavering self- belief and arrogance.
And, at some level, he's been a player all his life and he's addicted to the game.
It happened to Maggie, it happened to Blair.
Blair has found himself a sugar daddy in the Oracle billionaire, which probably helps.
He seems to be more interested in wealth than directly influencing politics thesedays, have to love that super rich lifestyle, but obviously still wants to keep a finger or two in the political pie.
I suppose they all must earn a living post politics - or at least find things to occupy themselves, since they don't need cash - but some are grubbier than others.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
To be honest I only made the comment because of the twaddle hyufd was saying yesterday. It was just the irony of it that:
a) I never had to stop once at a roundabout and the instructor specifically mentioned it at the first roundabout (not that I was going to stop) b) Almost the entire lesson was on taking bends which we had hyufd's expert opinion on yesterday.
Not that I am an expert but I think you should be looking to what is coming around the roundabout and to what is entering the roundabout to your right. So generally to your right. But obviously you need to be aware of the car in front and all around you.
But no they haven't mentioned any of this stuff because it really isn't covered in the advanced test. I think they assume you handle this stuff ok and are teaching you the advanced stuff. If I did it wrong they will tell me and nothing has been said. I'm struggling enough with all the new stuff to be honest.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
The problem comes when car 2 sees a massive gap at the same time car 1 drops the knitting, which results in a rear-end collision. But yes, there is an obvious compromise: include the car in front in your scan.
There's a busy roundabout near us, where the road from Mid-Essex to Suffolk crosses the A120, what was in Roman times Stane Street, and is still a busy route from the Northern Home Counties to the coast. The 'traditional' A120 goes into Braintree, where, close to the roundabout, there's a big Tesco. One arm of the A120 is dualled; nothing else is. All the routes to the roundabout can be busy. To be fair to the Dept. of Transport, all round visibility is good. It's very rare, though, that one can get across the roundabout without stopping; there's an exception in that westbound traffic on the A120 is provided with a filter so that one can, or ought to be able to, ignore traffic coming Southbound from Suffolk because that's all filtered into the fast lane and traffic can sort itself out afterwards. Unless drivers ignore the road markings it all works well. That's the only part where one doesn't, normally, have to stop. However, the roads are clearly marked with lanes and it's very rare that there are accidents there. Near misses, of course, now and again, but the lane markings are so clear that if one slows down and looks around as one approaches it's fine.
A principled stance by Turner calling the by election to back jury trials and he may think he has more chance of holding his Hull seat now as a high profile independent than as a Labour candidate at the next general election, where Reform are forecast to win the 72% Leave Hull East constituency.
Currently EC has Reform winning 45% in the seat with Labour on 19%, the Greens 11%, the Tories 9% and LDs 7%.
So even if there is a by election and Reform win it Starmer won't face too much of a threat as Labour are likely to beat the Greens and LDs still. Even the university is in Hull North not East, so there won't even be much of a student/academic vote for the Greens and LDs to squeeze. If Turner splits the Labour vote further that can be explained as unique circumstances https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Hull East
Hmm. Reform will obviously walk it. And I think Labour will crash down to at least third place. Greens and LibDems will attempt the Plaid trick in Caerphilly 0f being the stop-Reform option, though with less success. Either way a disaster for Starmer.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
Lord Mandelson has said he never saw girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties, and declined to apologise to the late paedophile's victims for maintaining his friendship with the American because he was not "knowledgeable of what he was doing".
He is like Boris, cant help himself in lying. The whole reason he got the sack was because it was revealed Petie was still very much friends with Jeff after he had be done.
He's definitely losing it if those are his words in his own defence and he thinks those are persuasive.
He's dodgy as fuck. His only saving grace here is he is almost certainly not as involved as a former prince.
Its a strange decision to do an interview. What does he gain from it, he isnt coming back a 4th time to politics. He is yestersay news. He could easily disappear into the backgroumd with his network of wealthy mates.
The man has no humility. Like Cummings he keeps popping up because of his unwavering self- belief and arrogance.
And, at some level, he's been a player all his life and he's addicted to the game.
It happened to Maggie, it happened to Blair.
Blair has found himself a sugar daddy in the Oracle billionaire, which probably helps.
He seems to be more interested in wealth than directly influencing politics thesedays, have to love that super rich lifestyle, but obviously still wants to keep a finger or two in the political pie.
I suppose they all must earn a living post politics - or at least find things to occupy themselves, since they don't need cash - but some are grubbier than others.
I think you're wrong about Blair. No doubt, he is interested in pulling in a bit of cash, but the Tony Blair Institute is a serious player in influencing policy. Probably the most consequential think-tank based in the UK.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
She says: “Law enforcement professionals, real ones, not the fake made up ICE, probably Trump’s new army to attack citizens of the United States...no law enforcement professional wears a mask. None.” She goes on to say, “Law enforcement professionals do not shoot at moving vehicles...Law enforcement professionals do not stand in front of moving vehicles invoking action that is illegal.”
It would seem all too likely we are going to see armed stand offs between local law enforcement and ICE agents in the following days.
It's worth noting that the ICE man who killed the mum was a 9 year veteran, not one of the new batch.
That hints at a deeper problem than ICE being Trump's newly recruited goon army.
So how many people has this 'deeper problem' ICE killed in that nine years ?
The more fundamental issue is do people want laws to be upheld and regulations enforced strongly, weakly or not at all.
We saw a similar issue under the Biden administration with its attempt to recruit a 'goon army' of IRS employees.
Likewise Musk and his 'goon army' of DOGE activists.
The process of change between weak enforcement and strong enforcement is always going to have difficulties.
I think it's clear that ICE officers are undertrained, and that their routinely being masked up with no identification or (aiui) requirement to wear bodycams is a real problem.
This would be straightforward to fix, but the Trump Administration refuse to do the obvious, I surmise because they wish to create a climate of fear - of which they are proud.
Their methods are not constitutional, and often not lawful, and are a further real problem, as are for example their detention of people in deliberately cruel and inhumane conditions, for example denial of showers, denial of medicine and eg sanitary pads for women, one meal a day, no water to drink, large groups in large rooms with a single exposed toilet in the middle of the room, no beds so sleeping on the floor, or too crowded to lie down, and the rest. But that is how the USA works.
Shuttered my personal Twitter account. Too many worms eating into my brain. Will just use my YouTube Twitter profile.
Did have a brief look over at BlueSky. What a waste of time that place is...
At the end of the day, a platform is as interesting as the people you follow. Because BlueSky largely doesn't employ an algorithm, you have to find those people yourself according to your interests and your assessment of their worth. If you don't put that small amount of effort in it won't be interesting. There are starter packs of recommended commentators that help.
In my case I follow enough interesting commentators to make it worthwhile, mostly on history, art and international relations, rather than politics.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
The problem comes when car 2 sees a massive gap at the same time car 1 drops the knitting, which results in a rear-end collision. But yes, there is an obvious compromise: include the car in front in your scan.
About 30 years ago coming off the A4 to Hanger Lane before there was a slip road it was nightmare. From memory you had a slip lane but the cars hammered around the roundabout so you really had to keep an eye to your right. I thought the lorry in front of me had gone and you can't hang about so off I went, straight into the back of him.
I sat there for a second or so when two pedestrians started shouting at me. I wound down the passenger window to hear them say 'Your car is on fire'. It wasn't. It was steam from the radiator. That shock me out of the shock of it. The lorry driver gave me a cup of coffee from his flask and drove me to work.
PS They built the bloody slip road about 2 weeks later. Aggghhh.
A principled stance by Turner calling the by election to back jury trials and he may think he has more chance of holding his Hull seat now as a high profile independent than as a Labour candidate at the next general election, where Reform are forecast to win the 72% Leave Hull East constituency.
Currently EC has Reform winning 45% in the seat with Labour on 19%, the Greens 11%, the Tories 9% and LDs 7%.
So even if there is a by election and Reform win it Starmer won't face too much of a threat as Labour are likely to beat the Greens and LDs still. Even the university is in Hull North not East, so there won't even be much of a student/academic vote for the Greens and LDs to squeeze. If Turner splits the Labour vote further that can be explained as unique circumstances https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Hull East
Hmm. Reform will obviously walk it. And I think Labour will crash down to at least third place. Greens and LibDems will attempt the Plaid trick in Caerphilly 0f being the stop-Reform option, though with less success. Either way a disaster for Starmer.
The Greens and LDs might try but the demographics of Hull East are different to Caerphilly.
Caerphilly was suburban Cardiff in much of the seat, 52% middle class ABC1 and was only 56% Leave and had 44% of voters as graduates and with a good education.
By contrast Hull East is overwhelmingly white working class, 63% C2DE with only 35% of the seat graduates and with a good education and which was 72% Leave.
I would expect Reform to win Hull East by a landslide but with Labour or an Independent Turner still second
Lord Mandelson has said he never saw girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties, and declined to apologise to the late paedophile's victims for maintaining his friendship with the American because he was not "knowledgeable of what he was doing".
He is like Boris, cant help himself in lying. The whole reason he got the sack was because it was revealed Petie was still very much friends with Jeff after he had be done.
He's definitely losing it if those are his words in his own defence and he thinks those are persuasive.
He's dodgy as fuck. His only saving grace here is he is almost certainly not as involved as a former prince.
Its a strange decision to do an interview. What does he gain from it, he isnt coming back a 4th time to politics. He is yestersay news. He could easily disappear into the backgroumd with his network of wealthy mates.
The man has no humility. Like Cummings he keeps popping up because of his unwavering self- belief and arrogance.
And, at some level, he's been a player all his life and he's addicted to the game.
It happened to Maggie, it happened to Blair.
Blair has found himself a sugar daddy in the Oracle billionaire, which probably helps.
He seems to be more interested in wealth than directly influencing politics thesedays, have to love that super rich lifestyle, but obviously still wants to keep a finger or two in the political pie.
I suppose they all must earn a living post politics - or at least find things to occupy themselves, since they don't need cash - but some are grubbier than others.
I think you're wrong about Blair. No doubt, he is interested in pulling in a bit of cash, but the Tony Blair Institute is a serious player in influencing policy. Probably the most consequential think-tank based in the UK.
Well, I don't know how to judge the influence of such things. Think tanks might produce interesting things every now and again, but 90% of the time seem to just put out whatever their funders want or their preferred ideology demands. No doubt some useful stuff emerges from time to time, but they seem a fundamentally flawed idea to me, since most of the time you can predict exactly what they would say on any given issue, so I expect it is in the research aspect that useful things emerge for outside analysis rather than any commentary they provide themselves.
Shuttered my personal Twitter account. Too many worms eating into my brain. Will just use my YouTube Twitter profile.
Did have a brief look over at BlueSky. What a waste of time that place is...
At the end of the day, a platform is as interesting as the people you follow. Because BlueSky largely doesn't employ an algorithm, you have to find those people yourself according to your interests and your assessment of their worth. If you don't put that small amount of effort in it won't be interesting. There are starter packs of recommended commentators that help.
In my case I follow enough interesting commentators to make it worthwhile, mostly on history, art and international relations, rather than politics.
A lot of BlueSky posts (including many linked from pb) can only be read if you have already created and logged into an account, so of course it looks bad from the outside. Tbh I'm not sure they thought through what would happen after the original migrants from TwiX joined in month one.
I just got back from a couple of months in the US, mostly LA, mainly business but also seeing old friends (and making a few new ones). Obviously the affluent parts of LA are about as typical of the US as Kensington is of the UK, but my observations may nevertheless be of some interest:
- Obviously there’s real hatred of the Trump administration in California, but there is no corresponding enthusiasm for the Democrats as a party or for individual Democrats, which augurs well for 2026, but very poorly for 2028 (though of course very early days) - As ever the truly goldfish-like attention span of the American voter is evidence the moment you start talking to anybody – they’ll mention the latest outage, but then two weeks later that’s completely forgotten and there’s another one everybody talks about - Food prices are just as outrageous as ever, but what is more noticeable this time is the increase in items, like electronics, which were previously a reasonable deal in America. Presumably that’s the tariffs, since most such is made in China, as well as the generalised rise in prices. - The US radical right’s propaganda about the immigration situation here has had considerable influence, even amongst the left, with many believing the bizarre Musk-Trump-Leon parody of the situation in Islamic Caliphate of Al-Britain - There seems no awareness of the massive fiscal cliff that the US is facing at some point in the medium term, with the government running a huge, unsustainable budget deficit, or concern that somebody will have to pay for closing it eventually - The ICE raids in LA caused a brief stir but seem to have faded from public consciousness, and were very localised. But it certainly had a chilling effect amongst my Latino friends, though none were directly affected - On the other hand the Pacific Pallisades fires from a year ago are still very much in the public consciousness. Most people know at least somebody who was affected in some way - Nobody mentioned Ukraine spontaneously, though when I brought it up, there was considerable support for the country’s heroic struggle. But no real interest or enthusiasm, and Putin’s frequent nuclear bluster has clearly had at least some effect
That all sounds rather negative so let me say that the natural friendliness and hospitality of my American friends and of most strangers in the street has survived even Trump. Being English still makes one slightly exotic, and politeness and courtesy are still almost invariably answered with the same. So those who discount America as a travel destination are certainly missing out.
This is a very interesting post. It chimed with my recent experience in LA and San Francisco (and Houston for that matter), apart from the buying MAGA propaganda about Sharia Britain. I didn’t pick up any of that.
It really feels like another world. A pleasant world, that speaks our language and watches the same Netflix dramas, yet simultaneously extra terrestrial.
Yes they obsess over the latest Trump outrage as you say, but nobody seems to think or talk about the big picture, or the global implications of anything that happens in America. It’s all deeply insular. It’s left to Europeans to obsess over the deep meaning of things like tariff wars or Greenland threats.
Lord Mandelson has said he never saw girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties, and declined to apologise to the late paedophile's victims for maintaining his friendship with the American because he was not "knowledgeable of what he was doing".
He is like Boris, cant help himself in lying. The whole reason he got the sack was because it was revealed Petie was still very much friends with Jeff after he had be done.
He's definitely losing it if those are his words in his own defence and he thinks those are persuasive.
He's dodgy as fuck. His only saving grace here is he is almost certainly not as involved as a former prince.
Its a strange decision to do an interview. What does he gain from it, he isnt coming back a 4th time to politics. He is yestersay news. He could easily disappear into the backgroumd with his network of wealthy mates.
The man has no humility. Like Cummings he keeps popping up because of his unwavering self- belief and arrogance.
And, at some level, he's been a player all his life and he's addicted to the game.
It happened to Maggie, it happened to Blair.
Blair has found himself a sugar daddy in the Oracle billionaire, which probably helps.
He seems to be more interested in wealth than directly influencing politics thesedays, have to love that super rich lifestyle, but obviously still wants to keep a finger or two in the political pie.
I suppose they all must earn a living post politics - or at least find things to occupy themselves, since they don't need cash - but some are grubbier than others.
I think you're wrong about Blair. No doubt, he is interested in pulling in a bit of cash, but the Tony Blair Institute is a serious player in influencing policy. Probably the most consequential think-tank based in the UK.
Well, I don't know how to judge the influence of such things. Think tanks might produce interesting things every now and again, but 90% of the time seem to just put out whatever their funders want or their preferred ideology demands. No doubt some useful stuff emerges from time to time, but they seem a fundamentally flawed idea to me.
It's the difference between Thatch/Blair, who still wanted to be (Wo)Men Of Affairs, and Major/May who were happy to toddle off to the cricket.
A principled stance by Turner calling the by election to back jury trials and he may think he has more chance of holding his Hull seat now as a high profile independent than as a Labour candidate at the next general election, where Reform are forecast to win the 72% Leave Hull East constituency.
Currently EC has Reform winning 45% in the seat with Labour on 19%, the Greens 11%, the Tories 9% and LDs 7%.
So even if there is a by election and Reform win it Starmer won't face too much of a threat as Labour are likely to beat the Greens and LDs still. Even the university is in Hull North not East, so there won't even be much of a student/academic vote for the Greens and LDs to squeeze. If Turner splits the Labour vote further that can be explained as unique circumstances https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Hull East
Hmm. Reform will obviously walk it. And I think Labour will crash down to at least third place. Greens and LibDems will attempt the Plaid trick in Caerphilly 0f being the stop-Reform option, though with less success. Either way a disaster for Starmer.
The Greens and LDs might try but the demographics of Hull East are different to Caerphilly.
Caerphilly was suburban Cardiff in much of the seat and was only 56% Leave and had 44% of voters as graduates and with a good education.
By contrast Hull East is overwhelmingly white working class with only 35% of the seat graduates and with a good education and which was 72% Leave.
I would expect Reform to win Hull East by a landslide but with Labour or an Independent Turner still second
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
Evolution tends to resolve the problem of motorbikes entering roundabouts at 70 mph.
She says: “Law enforcement professionals, real ones, not the fake made up ICE, probably Trump’s new army to attack citizens of the United States...no law enforcement professional wears a mask. None.” She goes on to say, “Law enforcement professionals do not shoot at moving vehicles...Law enforcement professionals do not stand in front of moving vehicles invoking action that is illegal.”
It would seem all too likely we are going to see armed stand offs between local law enforcement and ICE agents in the following days.
It's worth noting that the ICE man who killed the mum was a 9 year veteran, not one of the new batch.
That hints at a deeper problem than ICE being Trump's newly recruited goon army.
So how many people has this 'deeper problem' ICE killed in that nine years ?
The more fundamental issue is do people want laws to be upheld and regulations enforced strongly, weakly or not at all.
We saw a similar issue under the Biden administration with its attempt to recruit a 'goon army' of IRS employees.
Likewise Musk and his 'goon army' of DOGE activists.
The process of change between weak enforcement and strong enforcement is always going to have difficulties.
Their methods are not constitutional, and often not lawful,
Just wait until the Supreme Court weighs in, I expect we will find that remarkably it is.
Shuttered my personal Twitter account. Too many worms eating into my brain. Will just use my YouTube Twitter profile.
Did have a brief look over at BlueSky. What a waste of time that place is...
At the end of the day, a platform is as interesting as the people you follow. Because BlueSky largely doesn't employ an algorithm, you have to find those people yourself according to your interests and your assessment of their worth. If you don't put that small amount of effort in it won't be interesting. There are starter packs of recommended commentators that help.
In my case I follow enough interesting commentators to make it worthwhile, mostly on history, art and international relations, rather than politics.
A lot of BlueSky posts (including many linked from pb) can only be read if you have already created and logged into an account, so of course it looks bad from the outside. Tbh I'm not sure they thought through what would happen after the original migrants from TwiX joined in month one.
That seems to be a setting made by the poster. ie the default is everyone can see the post but the poster can set it to logged in users only.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Lord Mandelson has said he never saw girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties, and declined to apologise to the late paedophile's victims for maintaining his friendship with the American because he was not "knowledgeable of what he was doing".
He is like Boris, cant help himself in lying. The whole reason he got the sack was because it was revealed Petie was still very much friends with Jeff after he had be done.
He's definitely losing it if those are his words in his own defence and he thinks those are persuasive.
He's dodgy as fuck. His only saving grace here is he is almost certainly not as involved as a former prince.
Its a strange decision to do an interview. What does he gain from it, he isnt coming back a 4th time to politics. He is yestersay news. He could easily disappear into the backgroumd with his network of wealthy mates.
The man has no humility. Like Cummings he keeps popping up because of his unwavering self- belief and arrogance.
And, at some level, he's been a player all his life and he's addicted to the game.
It happened to Maggie, it happened to Blair.
Blair has found himself a sugar daddy in the Oracle billionaire, which probably helps.
He seems to be more interested in wealth than directly influencing politics thesedays, have to love that super rich lifestyle, but obviously still wants to keep a finger or two in the political pie.
I suppose they all must earn a living post politics - or at least find things to occupy themselves, since they don't need cash - but some are grubbier than others.
I think you're wrong about Blair. No doubt, he is interested in pulling in a bit of cash, but the Tony Blair Institute is a serious player in influencing policy. Probably the most consequential think-tank based in the UK.
Well, I don't know how to judge the influence of such things. Think tanks might produce interesting things every now and again, but 90% of the time seem to just put out whatever their funders want or their preferred ideology demands. No doubt some useful stuff emerges from time to time, but they seem a fundamentally flawed idea to me.
It's the difference between Thatch/Blair, who still wanted to be (Wo)Men Of Affairs, and Major/May who were happy to toddle off to the cricket.
I don't begrudge people wanting to still be involved, especially where people were pretty young for their time at the top, but they have to be discerning about how they are involved or else it just looks like wanting to enjoy the lifestyle and influence without any responsibilities. They may be wealthy but dwarfed by the wallets of the superrich they hobnobbed with when powerful, and lacking elected office have less reason to have that lifestyle, no power to balance out the lack of megawealth, so we invent jobs for former heads of state and government so they can justify still being invited to the counsels of the mighty.
It might be interesting if we had a semi-formal council of former PMs which the current PM could thrash out some ideas with, though of course a current one could hardly trust former opponents with sound counsel.
Lord Mandelson has said he never saw girls at Jeffrey Epstein's properties, and declined to apologise to the late paedophile's victims for maintaining his friendship with the American because he was not "knowledgeable of what he was doing".
He is like Boris, cant help himself in lying. The whole reason he got the sack was because it was revealed Petie was still very much friends with Jeff after he had be done.
He's definitely losing it if those are his words in his own defence and he thinks those are persuasive.
He's dodgy as fuck. His only saving grace here is he is almost certainly not as involved as a former prince.
Its a strange decision to do an interview. What does he gain from it, he isnt coming back a 4th time to politics. He is yestersay news. He could easily disappear into the backgroumd with his network of wealthy mates.
The man has no humility. Like Cummings he keeps popping up because of his unwavering self- belief and arrogance.
And, at some level, he's been a player all his life and he's addicted to the game.
It happened to Maggie, it happened to Blair.
Blair has found himself a sugar daddy in the Oracle billionaire, which probably helps.
He seems to be more interested in wealth than directly influencing politics thesedays, have to love that super rich lifestyle, but obviously still wants to keep a finger or two in the political pie.
I suppose they all must earn a living post politics - or at least find things to occupy themselves, since they don't need cash - but some are grubbier than others.
I think you're wrong about Blair. No doubt, he is interested in pulling in a bit of cash, but the Tony Blair Institute is a serious player in influencing policy. Probably the most consequential think-tank based in the UK.
Well, I don't know how to judge the influence of such things. Think tanks might produce interesting things every now and again, but 90% of the time seem to just put out whatever their funders want or their preferred ideology demands. No doubt some useful stuff emerges from time to time, but they seem a fundamentally flawed idea to me.
It's the difference between Thatch/Blair, who still wanted to be (Wo)Men Of Affairs, and Major/May who were happy to toddle off to the cricket.
I don't begrudge people wanting to still be involved, especially where people were pretty young for their time at the top, but they have to be discerning about how they are involved or else it just looks like wanting to enjoy the lifestyle and influence without any responsibilities. They may be wealthy but dwarfed by the wallets of the superrich they hobnobbed with when powerful, and lacking elected office have less reason to have that lifestyle, no power to balance out the lack of megawealth, so we invent jobs for former heads of state and government so they can justify still being invited to the counsels of the mighty.
It might be interesting if we had a semi-formal council of former PMs which the current PM could thrash out some ideas with, though of course a current one could hardly trust former opponents with sound counsel.
That feels like some that that could easily be built into the functions of the Privy Council without the burden of a new group. Tho, given the body language of some of the ex-pms to each other at the Queen funeral, it might not be worth that much.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Doesn't seem to have been a huge amount of news from Iran overnight. Of course getting 'news' out is becoming more and more difficult. However the President was supposed to address the nation.
As for the media coverage, here is Simon (GB News) Schama:
'Yes, and I still don't understand (or maybe I do) the grudging embarrassment, of the main media, the shifty, pursed lip minimisation; the milquetoast euphemisms - when even without internet; with no press on ground and with outcome uncertain it is blindingly obvious this is one of the great historical moments of this century; grounded as it is in an idea we are supposed to cherish and unapologetically shout from the rooftops - FREEDOM - mass bravery in facing down murderous theocratic tyranny.'
Now Simon is known for a bit of hyperbole....
Should the news report what is going on, or should the news cheerlead from the sides? I think we do better if the news reports what is going on, and we do the cheerleading separately.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
What utter crap. A motorbike entering a roundabout (assuming a normal one and not with a slip lane) at 70 mph is entirely responsible for the consequences. No if no buts.
Although I maintain you don't have to stop at a roundabout, you also don't approach give way lines at 70 mph obviously because you are unable to give way if necessary. Especially on 2 wheels.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
Can I redirect you to the Instagram account and YouTube channel of a Geordie ex-claims handler who calls himself bigjobber. He's very informative, and I would suggest purveys better blame analysis, road safety and road craft advice than HYUFD.
Since we are on driving, Ashley Neal did a video this morning about good driving, "Nice Driving 42", which is obviously THE ANSWER.
There are some good examples, such as if you meet a car turning off a main road into a side road where you are, it is better for you to reverse even if you have priority, as the alternative is for the other person to reverse out onto a busy road - which is a higher risk.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Doesn't seem to have been a huge amount of news from Iran overnight. Of course getting 'news' out is becoming more and more difficult. However the President was supposed to address the nation.
As for the media coverage, here is Simon (GB News) Schama:
'Yes, and I still don't understand (or maybe I do) the grudging embarrassment, of the main media, the shifty, pursed lip minimisation; the milquetoast euphemisms - when even without internet; with no press on ground and with outcome uncertain it is blindingly obvious this is one of the great historical moments of this century; grounded as it is in an idea we are supposed to cherish and unapologetically shout from the rooftops - FREEDOM - mass bravery in facing down murderous theocratic tyranny.'
Now Simon is known for a bit of hyperbole....
Should the news report what is going on, or should the news cheerlead from the sides? I think we do better if the news reports what is going on, and we do the cheerleading separately.
It is impossible to entirely separate news from commentary or interpretation, but at least some effort of detachment should be made, otherwise the former will invariably and inevitably overwhelm the latter.
When I passed my driving test, I never actually stopped at any give-way lines.
Of course, what the examiner praised as making good progress – the best he'd seen, apparently – was actually me completely misjudging braking distances so crawling forwards rather that stop 10 yards short, which gave me time to scan and go.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
What utter crap. A motorbike entering a roundabout (assuming a normal one and not with a slip lane) at 70 mph is entirely responsible for the consequences. No if no buts.
Although I maintain you don't have to stop at a roundabout, you also don't approach give way lines at 70 mph obviously because you are unable to give way if necessary. Especially on 2 wheels.
No it is you sprouting crap with complete ignorance of how the law is now applied or works in this scenario.
In a national speed limit road of 60mph, a motorcyclist killed doing 70mph would lead to the driver being prosecuted for death by careless driving if they collided with them at a roundabout, no ifs no buts.
As I said at most the driver could use it as a mitigating factor but the driver would be charged on the grounds they did not look properly for motorcyclists before crossing the roundabout
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios.
Indeed drivers have even been charged with killing motorcylists doing 100mph
A principled stance by Turner calling the by election to back jury trials and he may think he has more chance of holding his Hull seat now as a high profile independent than as a Labour candidate at the next general election, where Reform are forecast to win the 72% Leave Hull East constituency.
Currently EC has Reform winning 45% in the seat with Labour on 19%, the Greens 11%, the Tories 9% and LDs 7%.
So even if there is a by election and Reform win it Starmer won't face too much of a threat as Labour are likely to beat the Greens and LDs still. Even the university is in Hull North not East, so there won't even be much of a student/academic vote for the Greens and LDs to squeeze. If Turner splits the Labour vote further that can be explained as unique circumstances https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Hull East
Hmm. Reform will obviously walk it. And I think Labour will crash down to at least third place. Greens and LibDems will attempt the Plaid trick in Caerphilly 0f being the stop-Reform option, though with less success. Either way a disaster for Starmer.
The Greens and LDs might try but the demographics of Hull East are different to Caerphilly.
Caerphilly was suburban Cardiff in much of the seat and was only 56% Leave and had 44% of voters as graduates and with a good education.
By contrast Hull East is overwhelmingly white working class with only 35% of the seat graduates and with a good education and which was 72% Leave.
I would expect Reform to win Hull East by a landslide but with Labour or an Independent Turner still second
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios.
Indeed drivers have even been charged with killing motorcylists doing 100mph
'A motorist accused of causing the death of a motorcyclist by careless driving claimed to police that the biker came at her 'like a bat out of hell.' Derby Crown Court heard during the beginning of a trial which started on April 26 how Professor Pamela Ince, 62, of Smalldale, Bradwell, allegedly committed the offence during a collision at the junction of the B6049 Main Road and Gore Lane at Bradwell as she was heading home...
See also this case 'Expert analysis of CCTV footage from a resident’s home estimated that Mr Young had been speeding at about 56mph in the 30mph zone, according to Miss Knight, though the defence team claims Mr Young had been going faster at between 62mph and 66mph.
However, Miss Knight argued that Mr Young’s speed did not cause the fatal incident because his side of the road had not been impeded until Prof Ince allegedly drove into his lane.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios.
Indeed drivers have even been charged with killing motorcylists doing 100mph
If it advances this scintillating discussion by any significant degree, there is a roundabout on Ilchester Road in Yeovil that I have been through multiple times without ever dipping below 100mph on various motorcycles.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios
It isn't. You are talking utter nonsense hyufd. You have no expertise in this area do you?
How are you responsible for hitting something that it would have been impossible to see when you enter the roundabout. According to your logic you can never cross a give way line because you can't know if something is coming along the road at supersonic speed out of your vision.
On most roundabouts you would never see someone travelling at 70 mph from the lane to the right. It would be completely impossible because your view of the road to the right of you will be blocked by the curvature of the road or trees and houses after anything from 10 - 50 metres. You can usually only see the first few cars in the road to the right on most roundabouts.
Summary trials in the sheriff court in Scotland normally carry a maximum sentence of 2 years (breaches of bail or multiple complaints can complicate this a bit). Sheriff and jury trials normally carry a maximum penalty of 5 years. More serious charges are brought in the HC before a jury. Forum is always a matter for the Crown and the accused has no input. I think, after fairly recent reforms, Scotland has this about right.
As an outsider I would say that the current right to a jury is probably too extensive in England. I am also a bit confused that forum has anything to do with the accused rather than the Crown. In short it think that there is room for some reform and some limitations on jury trials but they should certainly be retained for the more serious cases.
I had my first trial fixed on Friday and it is in early 2027. It relates to events in 2024. That is not good enough either for the complainer or the accused. My understanding is that in England it’s even worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Ultimately it seems to come down to money. If you want a more efficient (but debatably more accurate) system, you need find the funds.
I think its fair to examine how the money is being spent. So, for example, a HC jury trial will normally cost around £15k a day. And that, of course, is the direct cost to the state. The cost of the jurors missing work and the economy losing productivity is not included. Given the average trial will take a week that is quite a serious investment by the State. Is that proportionate when the trial is about, say, 1 drug dealer hitting another over the head with a hammer? You can argue individual cases either way but I think that is a legitimate topic for debate.
Personally, I consider the jury trial a Rolls Royce service. Sometimes a Ford Escort would do. Jury trials also inevitably take longer than trials before a judge or judges who don't need the explanations of procedure and rules explained to them. This is a guess but I would estimate a jury trial takes roughly 2x as long as a trial before a Judge. That also increases the cost, it limits the capacity of the system and that, in turn, causes delays.
The way to square the circle is perhaps to create more incentives for not opting for a jury trial ?
We already make all manner of trade offs in terms of sentencing policy in pursuit of societal goals. This would just be another one.
Whatever it is that we're doing at the moment clearly isn't working very well at all in terms of either justice or efficiency.
Stands on principles are all very well (and I agree with those saying the right to a jury trial is important), but defending the current status quo is defending the indefensible.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
What utter crap. A motorbike entering a roundabout (assuming a normal one and not with a slip lane) at 70 mph is entirely responsible for the consequences. No if no buts.
Although I maintain you don't have to stop at a roundabout, you also don't approach give way lines at 70 mph obviously because you are unable to give way if necessary. Especially on 2 wheels.
No it is you sprouting crap with complete ignorance of how the law is now applied or works in this scenario.
In a national speed limit road of 60mph, a motorcyclist killed doing 70mph would lead to the driver being prosecuted for death by careless driving if they collided with them at a roundabout, no ifs no buts.
As I said at most the driver could use it as a mitigating factor but the driver would be charged on the grounds they did not look properly for motorcyclists before crossing the roundabout
A principled stance by Turner calling the by election to back jury trials and he may think he has more chance of holding his Hull seat now as a high profile independent than as a Labour candidate at the next general election, where Reform are forecast to win the 72% Leave Hull East constituency.
Currently EC has Reform winning 45% in the seat with Labour on 19%, the Greens 11%, the Tories 9% and LDs 7%.
So even if there is a by election and Reform win it Starmer won't face too much of a threat as Labour are likely to beat the Greens and LDs still. Even the university is in Hull North not East, so there won't even be much of a student/academic vote for the Greens and LDs to squeeze. If Turner splits the Labour vote further that can be explained as unique circumstances https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Hull East
Hmm. Reform will obviously walk it. And I think Labour will crash down to at least third place. Greens and LibDems will attempt the Plaid trick in Caerphilly 0f being the stop-Reform option, though with less success. Either way a disaster for Starmer.
The LDs are active and energetic in Hull. If the sitting MP didn’t stand, I’d put money on their coming at least second in any by-election, and they could, in those circumstances, gather up the anti-Reform vote and win. But they won’t stand a chance if the sitting MP contests the seat again as an Indy.
Summary trials in the sheriff court in Scotland normally carry a maximum sentence of 2 years (breaches of bail or multiple complaints can complicate this a bit). Sheriff and jury trials normally carry a maximum penalty of 5 years. More serious charges are brought in the HC before a jury. Forum is always a matter for the Crown and the accused has no input. I think, after fairly recent reforms, Scotland has this about right.
As an outsider I would say that the current right to a jury is probably too extensive in England. I am also a bit confused that forum has anything to do with the accused rather than the Crown. In short it think that there is room for some reform and some limitations on jury trials but they should certainly be retained for the more serious cases.
I had my first trial fixed on Friday and it is in early 2027. It relates to events in 2024. That is not good enough either for the complainer or the accused. My understanding is that in England it’s even worse. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Ultimately it seems to come down to money. If you want a more efficient (but debatably more accurate) system, you need find the funds.
I think its fair to examine how the money is being spent. So, for example, a HC jury trial will normally cost around £15k a day. And that, of course, is the direct cost to the state. The cost of the jurors missing work and the economy losing productivity is not included. Given the average trial will take a week that is quite a serious investment by the State. Is that proportionate when the trial is about, say, 1 drug dealer hitting another over the head with a hammer? You can argue individual cases either way but I think that is a legitimate topic for debate.
Personally, I consider the jury trial a Rolls Royce service. Sometimes a Ford Escort would do. Jury trials also inevitably take longer than trials before a judge or judges who don't need the explanations of procedure and rules explained to them. This is a guess but I would estimate a jury trial takes roughly 2x as long as a trial before a Judge. That also increases the cost, it limits the capacity of the system and that, in turn, causes delays.
The way to square the circle is perhaps to create more incentives for not opting for a jury trial ?
We already make all manner of trade offs in terms of sentencing policy in pursuit of societal goals. This would just be another one.
Whatever it is that we're doing at the moment clearly isn't working very well at all in terms of either justice or efficiency.
Stands on principles are all very well (and I agree with those saying the right to a jury trial is important), but defending the current status quo is defending the indefensible.
Within reason that is a sensible idea.
We have that for eg motoring offences already in that the rejection of a penalty points offer and going to court increases the potential penalty / fine, which incentivises the points and saves court time. So normally they get the ones who think they are clever, or "Steptoes" (facing a "totter" ban).
We have similar in not requesting a Crown Court Jury trial instead of a Magistrates Court trial give potentially higher penalties.
So that could perhaps be pushed a little further in a slightly more lenient "time to be served in prison before consideration for release on licence" (subject to a public safety test), perhaps by 10%, if found guilty - perhaps , as happens with a guilty plea.
If it advances this scintillating discussion by any significant degree, there is a roundabout on Ilchester Road in Yeovil that I have been through multiple times without ever dipping below 100mph on various motorcycles.
Better now watch out for the more argumentative PBers lying in wait for you, in order to prove a point.
Is Turner the Taverne de nos jours? There are worse role models...
Anyway, surprised to see an interview with the mighty Kemi Badenoch hasn't had the Conservatives on here up and about praising their leader to the skies.
FPT..
Saw some snippets of Kemi Badenoch on Kuenssberg this morning - okay. She did get into trouble on Greenland trying to sit on the fence of disagreeing with Trump's comments but not too much and that was her uncomfortable moment.
On the social media ban for under 16s, the Australian experience politically was interesting - the legislation was pushed through quickly (with only 24 hours for public submissions) and initially it seemed the Coalition would support the Labor plans but it soon became clear within the Coalition there were dissenters and all it did was publicly to expose divisions within the Liberal and National parties.
I'm not sure how this will look for Conservatives who are opposed to any further extension in the size and scope of the State - Reform will have similar issues I would suspect. It seems an odd hill to fight on especially as it could expose divisions in her own ranks.
I also see we have the tired old refrain of "saving the High Street" and "kick starting Britain" getting yet another airing from the Conservatives and their friends in the Express. The "problem" in the High Street is as much to do with landlords chasing ever higher rents as much as it is business rates but at its core is the fundamental change in the way retail now operates. I'm in my favourite coffee shop and in the time I take to order and get my flat white (sad, aren't I?), three bicycle riders have been in with their bags to collect coffees and pastries.
Perhaps this is less about banning 15 year olds from TikTok than banning 45 year olds from Deliveroo.
Another great point Carr made: banning social media for the under 16s isn't enough.
If you're going to do that you need to replace it with real-life social experiences for them instead.
Sure but if you have young teenagers - people who almost by definition of their stage of development lack an adult level of self-control in the face of anything addictive - almost universally using something for which there is huge evidence is very bad for them, then what do you do? Surely banning that thing (social media) is a good place to start? Frankly they'd be better off watching Netflix or sport before you get onto the more positive experiences we should be promoting more of (playing sports, arts etc).
I'm not Conservative but I welcome Badenoch's intervention. Hopefully the political consensus grows as we get more data from Australia.
But social media use is falling amongst every age demographic apart from the old. What is the plan to deal with naive and credulous over 60's who believe without question any AI slop?
I think that is a worry. People of my age see the guy scrambling into the boot of a car moments before the tiger is about to consume him and think, "blimey, that was close!" Or the car door opening and the bike rider falling under the semi truck before crawling out unscathed, " blimey, another close one!"
But I have seen them with my own in eyes. They must be true.
Back in the day, amateur filmmakers often produced short films where adult after adult climbed out of a minicar, giving the impression that they'd all packed inside it at once. We saw that 'with our own eyes' too, but I never met anyone who believed it.
The 'How likely is that?' question will eventually become close to the surface for AI.
"Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said if her party was in government, smartphones would also be banned in schools."
Looks like she is finally getting the gist of opposition after the success of the stamp duty announcement. Leading the news and all that.
Anyone seriously against the proposal, which has been introduced by a Labour govt in Australia, and is supported by NASUWT here in UK? A bit of a move towards Tory patrician instincts and away from purist libertarianism. May be a useful wedge with Reform if they don't follow suit.
Concern for Tories must be that the best you can say about polling is that their vote has stabilised - but still struggling to make even 20%.
It would help a lot with the very specific effects of social media on teenage networks. And it will be popular with voters, because nobody who votes will be inconvenienced at all.
But it's also something of a distraction. The problems caused by SM don't stop at 16. To deal with the poisons, the algorithms and the bots with human names are much more important.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios.
Indeed drivers have even been charged with killing motorcylists doing 100mph
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios.
Indeed drivers have even been charged with killing motorcylists doing 100mph
'A motorist accused of causing the death of a motorcyclist by careless driving claimed to police that the biker came at her 'like a bat out of hell.' Derby Crown Court heard during the beginning of a trial which started on April 26 how Professor Pamela Ince, 62, of Smalldale, Bradwell, allegedly committed the offence during a collision at the junction of the B6049 Main Road and Gore Lane at Bradwell as she was heading home...
See also this case 'Expert analysis of CCTV footage from a resident’s home estimated that Mr Young had been speeding at about 56mph in the 30mph zone, according to Miss Knight, though the defence team claims Mr Young had been going faster at between 62mph and 66mph.
However, Miss Knight argued that Mr Young’s speed did not cause the fatal incident because his side of the road had not been impeded until Prof Ince allegedly drove into his lane.
If it advances this scintillating discussion by any significant degree, there is a roundabout on Ilchester Road in Yeovil that I have been through multiple times without ever dipping below 100mph on various motorcycles.
Better now watch out for the more argumentative PBers lying in wait for you, in order to prove a point.
If it advances this scintillating discussion by any significant degree, there is a roundabout on Ilchester Road in Yeovil that I have been through multiple times without ever dipping below 100mph on various motorcycles.
Better now watch out for the more argumentative PBers lying in wait for you, in order to prove a point.
Well at least you know it won't be HY who knocks you off your bike. He will be waiting at the give way line for ever just in case you appear.
It has just dawned on me that yesterday we were banned by hyufd from doing U turns and 3 point turns and had to wait until we got to a roundabout if we want to turn around. And today @hyufd has banned us from entering a roundabout in case @Dura_Ace is coming down the road at 100mph.
On the likely charging, in real life, of a car entering a roundabout and colliding with a speeding motorcyclist, I'm with HYUFD on this one - unless the motorcycle couldn't possibly have been observed, and the burden of that proof is likely with you, you will be in hot water for not observing and giving way to the left properly.
That may not sound entirely fair, but those are the facts as I understand them.
"Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said if her party was in government, smartphones would also be banned in schools."
Looks like she is finally getting the gist of opposition after the success of the stamp duty announcement. Leading the news and all that.
Anyone seriously against the proposal, which has been introduced by a Labour govt in Australia, and is supported by NASUWT here in UK? A bit of a move towards Tory patrician instincts and away from purist libertarianism. May be a useful wedge with Reform if they don't follow suit.
Concern for Tories must be that the best you can say about polling is that their vote has stabilised - but still struggling to make even 20%.
It would help a lot with the very specific effects of social media on teenage networks. And it will be popular with voters, because nobody who votes will be inconvenienced at all.
But it's also something of a distraction. The problems caused by SM don't stop at 16. To deal with the poisons, the algorithms and the bots with human names are much more important.
That, and Elon's pervbot system.
IIRC the banning SM is the biggie, since 90%+ of schools already take in phones during the day.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios
It isn't. You are talking utter nonsense hyufd. You have no expertise in this area do you?
How are you responsible for hitting something that it would have been impossible to see when you enter the roundabout. According to your logic you can never cross a give way line because you can't know if something is coming along the road at supersonic speed out of your vision.
On most roundabouts you would never see someone travelling at 70 mph from the lane to the right. It would be completely impossible because your view of the road to the right of you will be blocked by the curvature of the road or trees and houses after anything from 10 - 50 metres. You can usually only see the first few cars in the road to the right on most roundabouts.
Are you a lawyer? No. Do you know the law in this area? Clearly not.
There are plenty of roundabouts with straight line roads coming towards them and if a motorcyclist was doing 70mph and you killed them the obligation would have been on you to triple check for them before moving
People wanging around roundabouts at high speeds is a right PITA. There should be speed bumps on roundabouts to slow the buggers down.
And as for those who are still indicating right as they are exiting (or don't indicate right and then turn in front of you) - first against the wall.
Dutch roundabouts are quite interesting, with their row of raised rocks dividing the lanes within a dual carriageway roundabout to stop vehicles changing lanes at inopportune spots
On the likely charging, in real life, of a car entering a roundabout and colliding with a speeding motorcyclist, I'm with HYUFD on this one - unless the motorcycle couldn't possibly have been observed, and the burden of that proof is likely with you, you will be in hot water for not observing and giving way to the left properly.
That may not sound entirely fair, but those are the facts as I understand them.
Exit, pursued by a bear.
Yes, I agree. It may not be entirely fair, which is why KJH is pontificating so much on this but on the facts and how the CPS would apply the law to them after a speeding motorcyclist was killed by a driver, the driver would likely be charged regardless unless the motorcyclist was massively over the limit
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios
It isn't. You are talking utter nonsense hyufd. You have no expertise in this area do you?
How are you responsible for hitting something that it would have been impossible to see when you enter the roundabout. According to your logic you can never cross a give way line because you can't know if something is coming along the road at supersonic speed out of your vision.
On most roundabouts you would never see someone travelling at 70 mph from the lane to the right. It would be completely impossible because your view of the road to the right of you will be blocked by the curvature of the road or trees and houses after anything from 10 - 50 metres. You can usually only see the first few cars in the road to the right on most roundabouts.
Are you a lawyer? No. Do you know the law in this area? Clearly not.
There are plenty of roundabouts with straight line roads coming towards them and if a motorcyclist was doing 70mph and you killed them the obligation would have been on you to triple check for them before moving
If it advances this scintillating discussion by any significant degree, there is a roundabout on Ilchester Road in Yeovil that I have been through multiple times without ever dipping below 100mph on various motorcycles.
Sixty years ago I used to live quite near a roundabout which drivers often drove straight over without going round. It was in a bit of a dip in the road.
On the likely charging, in real life, of a car entering a roundabout and colliding with a speeding motorcyclist, I'm with HYUFD on this one - unless the motorcycle couldn't possibly have been observed, and the burden of that proof is likely with you, you will be in hot water for not observing and giving way to the left properly.
That may not sound entirely fair, but those are the facts as I understand them.
Exit, pursued by a bear.
Pedantry: You give way to the right not the left. Worth mentioning as otherwise you will have a hell of a mess.
I agree with your point. The point being made that on most roundabouts a bike going at 70 mph would not be seen. The limit point on most roundabouts to the lane to the right of you is generally 10 - 40 metres because the lane is generally at 90 degrees to you or often much less so you can't observe more than that because of houses etc. A 70 mph bike would be out of vision when you pull ontot he roundabout.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios.
Indeed drivers have even been charged with killing motorcylists doing 100mph
'A motorist accused of causing the death of a motorcyclist by careless driving claimed to police that the biker came at her 'like a bat out of hell.' Derby Crown Court heard during the beginning of a trial which started on April 26 how Professor Pamela Ince, 62, of Smalldale, Bradwell, allegedly committed the offence during a collision at the junction of the B6049 Main Road and Gore Lane at Bradwell as she was heading home...
See also this case 'Expert analysis of CCTV footage from a resident’s home estimated that Mr Young had been speeding at about 56mph in the 30mph zone, according to Miss Knight, though the defence team claims Mr Young had been going faster at between 62mph and 66mph.
However, Miss Knight argued that Mr Young’s speed did not cause the fatal incident because his side of the road had not been impeded until Prof Ince allegedly drove into his lane.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios
It isn't. You are talking utter nonsense hyufd. You have no expertise in this area do you?
How are you responsible for hitting something that it would have been impossible to see when you enter the roundabout. According to your logic you can never cross a give way line because you can't know if something is coming along the road at supersonic speed out of your vision.
On most roundabouts you would never see someone travelling at 70 mph from the lane to the right. It would be completely impossible because your view of the road to the right of you will be blocked by the curvature of the road or trees and houses after anything from 10 - 50 metres. You can usually only see the first few cars in the road to the right on most roundabouts.
Are you a lawyer? No. Do you know the law in this area? Clearly not.
There are plenty of roundabouts with straight line roads coming towards them and if a motorcyclist was doing 70mph and you killed them the obligation would have been on you to triple check for them before moving
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios
It isn't. You are talking utter nonsense hyufd. You have no expertise in this area do you?
How are you responsible for hitting something that it would have been impossible to see when you enter the roundabout. According to your logic you can never cross a give way line because you can't know if something is coming along the road at supersonic speed out of your vision.
On most roundabouts you would never see someone travelling at 70 mph from the lane to the right. It would be completely impossible because your view of the road to the right of you will be blocked by the curvature of the road or trees and houses after anything from 10 - 50 metres. You can usually only see the first few cars in the road to the right on most roundabouts.
Are you a lawyer? No. Do you know the law in this area? Clearly not.
There are plenty of roundabouts with straight line roads coming towards them and if a motorcyclist was doing 70mph and you killed them the obligation would have been on you to triple check for them before moving
On the likely charging, in real life, of a car entering a roundabout and colliding with a speeding motorcyclist, I'm with HYUFD on this one - unless the motorcycle couldn't possibly have been observed, and the burden of that proof is likely with you, you will be in hot water for not observing and giving way to the left properly.
That may not sound entirely fair, but those are the facts as I understand them.
Exit, pursued by a bear.
Pedantry: You give way to the right not the left. Worth mentioning as otherwise you will have a hell of a mess.
I agree with your point. The point being made that on most roundabouts a bike going at 70 mph would not be seen. The limit point on most roundabouts to the lane to the right of you is generally 10 - 40 metres because the lane is generally at 90 degrees to you or often much less so you can't observe more than that because of houses etc. A 70 mph bike would be out of vision when you pull ontot he roundabout.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios
It isn't. You are talking utter nonsense hyufd. You have no expertise in this area do you?
How are you responsible for hitting something that it would have been impossible to see when you enter the roundabout. According to your logic you can never cross a give way line because you can't know if something is coming along the road at supersonic speed out of your vision.
On most roundabouts you would never see someone travelling at 70 mph from the lane to the right. It would be completely impossible because your view of the road to the right of you will be blocked by the curvature of the road or trees and houses after anything from 10 - 50 metres. You can usually only see the first few cars in the road to the right on most roundabouts.
Are you a lawyer? No. Do you know the law in this area? Clearly not.
There are plenty of roundabouts with straight line roads coming towards them and if a motorcyclist was doing 70mph and you killed them the obligation would have been on you to triple check for them before moving
But nor are you, Hyufd!
I have legal qualifications, does KJH?
Well actually I do, smartarse.
I have professional qualification in Company law and Common Law
Admittedly not a lot of use here, but you shouldn't be such a smartarse should you and I am guessing your qualifications are not in the laws applicable to driving.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios
It isn't. You are talking utter nonsense hyufd. You have no expertise in this area do you?
How are you responsible for hitting something that it would have been impossible to see when you enter the roundabout. According to your logic you can never cross a give way line because you can't know if something is coming along the road at supersonic speed out of your vision.
On most roundabouts you would never see someone travelling at 70 mph from the lane to the right. It would be completely impossible because your view of the road to the right of you will be blocked by the curvature of the road or trees and houses after anything from 10 - 50 metres. You can usually only see the first few cars in the road to the right on most roundabouts.
Are you a lawyer? No. Do you know the law in this area? Clearly not.
There are plenty of roundabouts with straight line roads coming towards them and if a motorcyclist was doing 70mph and you killed them the obligation would have been on you to triple check for them before moving
But nor are you, Hyufd!
I have legal qualifications, does KJH?
Well actually I do, smartarse.
I have professional qualification in Company law and Common Law
Admittedly not a lot of use here, but you shouldn't be such a smartarse should you and I am guessing your qualifications are not in the lasw applicable to driving.
So not specifically on criminal law then and clearly you don't pay much attention to the cases in this area either and what the CPS are willing to charge
And if the government has any sense* they'll poach the policy.
Of course, the kids will just find a way to dodge the age verification process.
* I realise there is little evidence that this is the case.
Andy Burnham being quoted as backing the proposal.
Win, win now for KB. Either Labour are obdurate and won't do anything, which provides a useful wedge, or they do adopt proposal in which case it is a "win" for her, which follows other Labour u-turns.
Whether it resonates with voters remains to be seen.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios
It isn't. You are talking utter nonsense hyufd. You have no expertise in this area do you?
How are you responsible for hitting something that it would have been impossible to see when you enter the roundabout. According to your logic you can never cross a give way line because you can't know if something is coming along the road at supersonic speed out of your vision.
On most roundabouts you would never see someone travelling at 70 mph from the lane to the right. It would be completely impossible because your view of the road to the right of you will be blocked by the curvature of the road or trees and houses after anything from 10 - 50 metres. You can usually only see the first few cars in the road to the right on most roundabouts.
Are you a lawyer? No. Do you know the law in this area? Clearly not.
There are plenty of roundabouts with straight line roads coming towards them and if a motorcyclist was doing 70mph and you killed them the obligation would have been on you to triple check for them before moving
But nor are you, Hyufd!
I have legal qualifications, does KJH?
Well actually I do, smartarse.
I have professional qualification in Company law and Common Law
Admittedly not a lot of use here, but you shouldn't be such a smartarse should you and I am guessing your qualifications are not in the laws applicable to driving.
PS and Taxation.
"Let me put it this way, KJH. The HYUFD series is the most reliable computer ever made. No HYUFD computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error!"
And if the government has any sense* they'll poach the policy.
Of course, the kids will just find a way to dodge the age verification process.
* I realise there is little evidence that this is the case.
Andy Burnham being quoted as backing the proposal.
Win, win now for KB. Either Labour are obdurate and won't do anything, which provides a useful wedge, or they do adopt proposal in which case it is a "win" for her, which follows other Labour u-turns.
Whether it resonates with voters remains to be seen.
On the likely charging, in real life, of a car entering a roundabout and colliding with a speeding motorcyclist, I'm with HYUFD on this one - unless the motorcycle couldn't possibly have been observed, and the burden of that proof is likely with you, you will be in hot water for not observing and giving way to the left properly.
That may not sound entirely fair, but those are the facts as I understand them.
Exit, pursued by a bear.
As a motorcyclist, I agree completely. It's up to drivers to ensure they are not placing their vehicle in a position as to cause a collision. Speed of the approaching bike is only a factor if it makes that impossible.
I see numerous videos of riders getting hit by cars because they're filtering at 40mph and a car that could not possibly see them in time changes lane. In that scenario, for example, the driver would not be at fault.
Crime is a perfect example of where Truss was right in that the Treasury have broken the country.
We can't afford to fix law and order, so we have to put up with the cost of crime. Instead of paying to lock up thugs and shoplifters - and thus make our economy work harder - we pay to let them run rampant - and thus make our economy slow down even more.
We're spending the same money we could spend fixing the problem on mopping up the mess created by not fixing the problem.
The treasury imposes this stupidity on us on every topic at all levels of government. Until we recognise that cuts cost more money than spending to fix the problem, our decline will continue.
However as we don't want to be taxed more, we don't want to work harder to stimulate growth, we want to deport growth generating people from our country and we don't want service cuts what else can we do?
maybe do some governing , cut the waste out , stop spending fortunes on illegal immigrants, make cuts in government spending of 10% minimum , it should be very simple and invest in something that actually helps the country rather than beggars it
PS: It has been proven time and time again just increasing taxes does not help or cause growth , it makes matters worse and causes a downward spiral.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios
It isn't. You are talking utter nonsense hyufd. You have no expertise in this area do you?
How are you responsible for hitting something that it would have been impossible to see when you enter the roundabout. According to your logic you can never cross a give way line because you can't know if something is coming along the road at supersonic speed out of your vision.
On most roundabouts you would never see someone travelling at 70 mph from the lane to the right. It would be completely impossible because your view of the road to the right of you will be blocked by the curvature of the road or trees and houses after anything from 10 - 50 metres. You can usually only see the first few cars in the road to the right on most roundabouts.
Are you a lawyer? No. Do you know the law in this area? Clearly not.
There are plenty of roundabouts with straight line roads coming towards them and if a motorcyclist was doing 70mph and you killed them the obligation would have been on you to triple check for them before moving
But nor are you, Hyufd!
I have legal qualifications, does KJH?
Well actually I do, smartarse.
I have professional qualification in Company law and Common Law
Admittedly not a lot of use here, but you shouldn't be such a smartarse should you and I am guessing your qualifications are not in the lasw applicable to driving.
So not specifically on criminal law then and clearly you don't pay much attention to the cases in this area either and what the CPS are willing to charge
Oh for goodness sake you just can't be wrong can you even when it punches you in the face.
The fact that police and ex police traffic drivers confirm you are wrong doesn't help does it.
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios
It isn't. You are talking utter nonsense hyufd. You have no expertise in this area do you?
How are you responsible for hitting something that it would have been impossible to see when you enter the roundabout. According to your logic you can never cross a give way line because you can't know if something is coming along the road at supersonic speed out of your vision.
On most roundabouts you would never see someone travelling at 70 mph from the lane to the right. It would be completely impossible because your view of the road to the right of you will be blocked by the curvature of the road or trees and houses after anything from 10 - 50 metres. You can usually only see the first few cars in the road to the right on most roundabouts.
Are you a lawyer? No. Do you know the law in this area? Clearly not.
There are plenty of roundabouts with straight line roads coming towards them and if a motorcyclist was doing 70mph and you killed them the obligation would have been on you to triple check for them before moving
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios
It isn't. You are talking utter nonsense hyufd. You have no expertise in this area do you?
How are you responsible for hitting something that it would have been impossible to see when you enter the roundabout. According to your logic you can never cross a give way line because you can't know if something is coming along the road at supersonic speed out of your vision.
On most roundabouts you would never see someone travelling at 70 mph from the lane to the right. It would be completely impossible because your view of the road to the right of you will be blocked by the curvature of the road or trees and houses after anything from 10 - 50 metres. You can usually only see the first few cars in the road to the right on most roundabouts.
Are you a lawyer? No. Do you know the law in this area? Clearly not.
There are plenty of roundabouts with straight line roads coming towards them and if a motorcyclist was doing 70mph and you killed them the obligation would have been on you to triple check for them before moving
But nor are you, Hyufd!
I have legal qualifications, does KJH?
Well actually I do, smartarse.
I have professional qualification in Company law and Common Law
Admittedly not a lot of use here, but you shouldn't be such a smartarse should you and I am guessing your qualifications are not in the lasw applicable to driving.
So not specifically on criminal law then and clearly you don't pay much attention to the cases in this area either and what the CPS are willing to charge
Oh for goodness sake you just can't be wrong can you even when it punches you in the face can you.
The fact that police and ex police traffic drivers confirm you are wrong doesn't help does it.
I am definitely off now. Bye.
I am not wrong, my point that if you as a driver killed a motorcyclist doing 70mph at a roundabout you would likely be charged by the CPS is and remains correct.
Show me one police or ex police traffic driver who disputes that? ProRata and PoodleinaSlipstream both agree with me too it seems
Apparently he has some legal qualifications but that doesn't stop him talking codswallop
Time to watch football maybe
KJH started it, I was happy to only talk about the Hull East by election (which was my first post on this thread as per the header) and Kemi's social media ban until he started the roundabout talk again
Following yesterdays discussion I thought I would mention I have just returned from my latest advanced driving lesson. Knackered. Head hurts and sweating. But really good. Concentrating on bends today and getting an automatic to change down in advance. Also expected to change from Eco and Sport for different roads. I normally keep it in Eco all the time so that was new. Sadly the new stuff meant I wasn't so good at the stuff I had previously cracked. Stressful.
And I didn't stop at a single roundabout (light traffic) and was told I shouldn't unless I needed to give way. You need to be looking in advance.
I have heard a lot of people (including driving instructors) saying you shouldn't look ahead at a roundabout unless you are the first car. Because if you are car 2 or later you can't go until the one in front goes anyway. I still maintain you should scan ahead so you are ready to make a decision as soon as the road is clear. Have they said anything about this? (And yes I am getting too many Big Jobber vids on my FB feed)
Should we be having this discussion without HYUFD's informed opinion?
If a motorcycle approaches that roundabout though at 60 to 70mph and you missed it and hit and injured or killed that motorcyclist you would likely be prosecuted and charged with death or injury by careless driving, so your decision if you don't look properly to your right and ahead before moving round a roundabout
If a motorcyclist approaches the roundabout at that speed he, or his cadaver, should be charged with reckless driving.
He won't be if killed or seriously injured, your defence lawyer might try and use his speed as a mitigating factor but unless the motorcylist was doing 90mph or more you would still almost certainly be charged with causing death or serious injury by careless driving
Then the law is an ass.
Fairly sure the motorcyclist joining a roundabout at 60mph would be the one driving without due care or attention. That surely isn't legal driving?
Regardless, if the motorcyclist was killed it would be you in the dock, the most you could do is use the motorcyclist's 60mph as a mitigating factor.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
You are just making stuff up.
No it is the law, which you are clearly completely ignorant of in these scenarios
It isn't. You are talking utter nonsense hyufd. You have no expertise in this area do you?
How are you responsible for hitting something that it would have been impossible to see when you enter the roundabout. According to your logic you can never cross a give way line because you can't know if something is coming along the road at supersonic speed out of your vision.
On most roundabouts you would never see someone travelling at 70 mph from the lane to the right. It would be completely impossible because your view of the road to the right of you will be blocked by the curvature of the road or trees and houses after anything from 10 - 50 metres. You can usually only see the first few cars in the road to the right on most roundabouts.
Are you a lawyer? No. Do you know the law in this area? Clearly not.
There are plenty of roundabouts with straight line roads coming towards them and if a motorcyclist was doing 70mph and you killed them the obligation would have been on you to triple check for them before moving
But nor are you, Hyufd!
I have legal qualifications, does KJH?
Well actually I do, smartarse.
I have professional qualification in Company law and Common Law
Admittedly not a lot of use here, but you shouldn't be such a smartarse should you and I am guessing your qualifications are not in the laws applicable to driving.
PS and Taxation.
FFS the trans crap is more interesting than this crap on fecking highway code
"Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said if her party was in government, smartphones would also be banned in schools."
Looks like she is finally getting the gist of opposition after the success of the stamp duty announcement. Leading the news and all that.
Anyone seriously against the proposal, which has been introduced by a Labour govt in Australia, and is supported by NASUWT here in UK? A bit of a move towards Tory patrician instincts and away from purist libertarianism. May be a useful wedge with Reform if they don't follow suit.
Concern for Tories must be that the best you can say about polling is that their vote has stabilised - but still struggling to make even 20%.
It would help a lot with the very specific effects of social media on teenage networks. And it will be popular with voters, because nobody who votes will be inconvenienced at all.
But it's also something of a distraction. The problems caused by SM don't stop at 16. To deal with the poisons, the algorithms and the bots with human names are much more important.
That, and Elon's pervbot system.
On the algorithms - I would recommend that if a site does other than order posting in time sequence, they are legally publishers. So discussion boards of the type of PB are not liable.
This would in turn kill the bots
Text-to-video generators are everywhere now. Open source ones exist. You can run them yourself, either on a hired, cloud hardware. Or increasingly on your home computer. Given the usual rate of progress (ha!) such generators will be available on phones within a couple of years
There’s at least one app I’ve seen in testing which runs the backend in the cloud - you pay for that, but it does all the tech stuff for you.
You are approaching a roundabout exactly on the Ukraine/Republic of China border. The dashed stop line is exactly on the border. The local speed limit is 50kph
As your wheels touch the line, you perceive a Russian BDRM, driven by a fat, angry ICE agent, entering the roundabout from the right at 70kph+. At the same moment a plane crashes into the centre of the roundabout.
Comments
Currently EC has Reform winning 45% in the seat with Labour on 19%, the Greens 11%, the Tories 9% and LDs 7%.
So even if there is a by election and Reform win it Starmer won't face too much of a threat as Labour are likely to beat the Greens and LDs still. Even the university is in Hull North not East, so there won't even be much of a student/academic vote for the Greens and LDs to squeeze. If Turner splits the Labour vote further that can be explained as unique circumstances
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Hull East
He seems to be more interested in wealth than directly influencing politics thesedays, have to love that super rich lifestyle, but obviously still wants to keep a finger or two in the political pie.
I suppose they all must earn a living post politics - or at least find things to occupy themselves, since they don't need cash - but some are grubbier than others.
a) I never had to stop once at a roundabout and the instructor specifically mentioned it at the first roundabout (not that I was going to stop)
b) Almost the entire lesson was on taking bends which we had hyufd's expert opinion on yesterday.
Not that I am an expert but I think you should be looking to what is coming around the roundabout and to what is entering the roundabout to your right. So generally to your right. But obviously you need to be aware of the car in front and all around you.
But no they haven't mentioned any of this stuff because it really isn't covered in the advanced test. I think they assume you handle this stuff ok and are teaching you the advanced stuff. If I did it wrong they will tell me and nothing has been said. I'm struggling enough with all the new stuff to be honest.
All the routes to the roundabout can be busy. To be fair to the Dept. of Transport, all round visibility is good. It's very rare, though, that one can get across the roundabout without stopping; there's an exception in that westbound traffic on the A120 is provided with a filter so that one can, or ought to be able to, ignore traffic coming Southbound from Suffolk because that's all filtered into the fast lane and traffic can sort itself out afterwards. Unless drivers ignore the road markings it all works well.
That's the only part where one doesn't, normally, have to stop. However, the roads are clearly marked with lanes and it's very rare that there are accidents there. Near misses, of course, now and again, but the lane markings are so clear that if one slows down and looks around as one approaches it's fine.
Heidi Alexander is a very good communicator. Labour should use her more.
This would be straightforward to fix, but the Trump Administration refuse to do the obvious, I surmise because they wish to create a climate of fear - of which they are proud.
Their methods are not constitutional, and often not lawful, and are a further real problem, as are for example their detention of people in deliberately cruel and inhumane conditions, for example denial of showers, denial of medicine and eg sanitary pads for women, one meal a day, no water to drink, large groups in large rooms with a single exposed toilet in the middle of the room, no beds so sleeping on the floor, or too crowded to lie down, and the rest. But that is how the USA works.
eg a report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLHeTLZR1jU
For deaths these are the number of deaths in custody over the years since ICE was founded in 2003. 32 in 2025:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jan/04/ice-2025-deaths-timeline
In my case I follow enough interesting commentators to make it worthwhile, mostly on history, art and international relations, rather than politics.
I sat there for a second or so when two pedestrians started shouting at me. I wound down the passenger window to hear them say 'Your car is on fire'. It wasn't. It was steam from the radiator. That shock me out of the shock of it. The lorry driver gave me a cup of coffee from his flask and drove me to work.
PS They built the bloody slip road about 2 weeks later. Aggghhh.
Caerphilly was suburban Cardiff in much of the seat, 52% middle class ABC1 and was only 56% Leave and had 44% of voters as graduates and with a good education.
By contrast Hull East is overwhelmingly white working class, 63% C2DE with only 35% of the seat graduates and with a good education and which was 72% Leave.
I would expect Reform to win Hull East by a landslide but with Labour or an Independent Turner still second
It really feels like another world. A pleasant world, that speaks our language and watches the same Netflix dramas, yet simultaneously extra terrestrial.
Yes they obsess over the latest Trump outrage as you say, but nobody seems to think or talk about the big picture, or the global implications of anything that happens in America. It’s all deeply insular. It’s left to Europeans to obsess over the deep meaning of things like tariff wars or Greenland threats.
It might be interesting if we had a semi-formal council of former PMs which the current PM could thrash out some ideas with, though of course a current one could hardly trust former opponents with sound counsel.
Although I maintain you don't have to stop at a roundabout, you also don't approach give way lines at 70 mph obviously because you are unable to give way if necessary. Especially on 2 wheels.
Luvvly bubbly. Sound as a pound👍
https://youtube.com/@itsbigjobber?si=pUUdfJsxcBIIrVjb
There are some good examples, such as if you meet a car turning off a main road into a side road where you are, it is better for you to reverse even if you have priority, as the alternative is for the other person to reverse out onto a busy road - which is a higher risk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRDvzw6YwLo
Of course, what the examiner praised as making good progress – the best he'd seen, apparently – was actually me completely misjudging braking distances so crawling forwards rather that stop 10 yards short, which gave me time to scan and go.
As I said unless a motorcyclist was doing over 90mph the CPS will almost certainly prosecute the driver for killing or seriously injuring them by saying they still should have looked ahead and to their right and checked their mirrors properly for motorcyclists before crossing the motorcyclists's path
In a national speed limit road of 60mph, a motorcyclist killed doing 70mph would lead to the driver being prosecuted for death by careless driving if they collided with them at a roundabout, no ifs no buts.
As I said at most the driver could use it as a mitigating factor but the driver would be charged on the grounds they did not look properly for motorcyclists before crossing the roundabout
Indeed drivers have even been charged with killing motorcylists doing 100mph
'A VAN driver caused the death of a Kidderminster motorcyclist said to be speeding at up to 100mph along a dual carriageway in Stourport, a court was told.'
https://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/11876236.van-driver-caused-death-of-speeding-motorcyclist-in-stourport-court-heard-trial-day-one/
How on earth could their principles be for hire, if they didn't have any ?
'A motorist accused of causing the death of a motorcyclist by careless driving claimed to police that the biker came at her 'like a bat out of hell.'
Derby Crown Court heard during the beginning of a trial which started on April 26 how Professor Pamela Ince, 62, of Smalldale, Bradwell, allegedly committed the offence during a collision at the junction of the B6049 Main Road and Gore Lane at Bradwell as she was heading home...
See also this case 'Expert analysis of CCTV footage from a resident’s home estimated that Mr Young had been speeding at about 56mph in the 30mph zone, according to Miss Knight, though the defence team claims Mr Young had been going faster at between 62mph and 66mph.
However, Miss Knight argued that Mr Young’s speed did not cause the fatal incident because his side of the road had not been impeded until Prof Ince allegedly drove into his lane.
Miss Knight said: “Pamela Ince said she was driving slowly and she had the top down on the car.'
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/driver-accused-of-causing-bikers-death-in-crash-tragedy-55133
But, as Brenda would say, 'not another one'!
How are you responsible for hitting something that it would have been impossible to see when you enter the roundabout. According to your logic you can never cross a give way line because you can't know if something is coming along the road at supersonic speed out of your vision.
On most roundabouts you would never see someone travelling at 70 mph from the lane to the right. It would be completely impossible because your view of the road to the right of you will be blocked by the curvature of the road or trees and houses after anything from 10 - 50 metres. You can usually only see the first few cars in the road to the right on most roundabouts.
We already make all manner of trade offs in terms of sentencing policy in pursuit of societal goals. This would just be another one.
Whatever it is that we're doing at the moment clearly isn't working very well at all in terms of either justice or efficiency.
Stands on principles are all very well (and I agree with those saying the right to a jury trial is important), but defending the current status quo is defending the indefensible.
We have that for eg motoring offences already in that the rejection of a penalty points offer and going to court increases the potential penalty / fine, which incentivises the points and saves court time. So normally they get the ones who think they are clever, or "Steptoes" (facing a "totter" ban).
We have similar in not requesting a Crown Court Jury trial instead of a Magistrates Court trial give potentially higher penalties.
So that could perhaps be pushed a little further in a slightly more lenient "time to be served in prison before consideration for release on licence" (subject to a public safety test), perhaps by 10%, if found guilty - perhaps , as happens with a guilty plea.
The 'How likely is that?' question will eventually become close to the surface for AI.
But it's also something of a distraction. The problems caused by SM don't stop at 16. To deal with the poisons, the algorithms and the bots with human names are much more important.
That, and Elon's pervbot system.
However, this is going to practically require something very similar to the OSA to work. Which means it’s presumably off the table for Reform.
I notice Andy Burnham has also got behind this policy so presumably that’s one of the first things he will campaign on.
Burnham will presumably inherit very low immigration so his work will be on stopping the boats.
I think Burnham may end up being coronated.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-62579193
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-62589253
It has just dawned on me that yesterday we were banned by hyufd from doing U turns and 3 point turns and had to wait until we got to a roundabout if we want to turn around. And today @hyufd has banned us from entering a roundabout in case @Dura_Ace is coming down the road at 100mph.
How does one get about in car one wonders?
That may not sound entirely fair, but those are the facts as I understand them.
Exit, pursued by a bear.
I have 3 "Free Box" voucher codes, worth £36 (two persons, 3 meals).
As per usual you sign up to a sub, which can be cancelled.
I've now settled down to one box per month, providing a nice alternative 4 days per month.
PM me if interested.
And as for those who are still indicating right as they are exiting (or don't indicate right and then turn in front of you) - first against the wall.
There are plenty of roundabouts with straight line roads coming towards them and if a motorcyclist was doing 70mph and you killed them the obligation would have been on you to triple check for them before moving
I agree with your point. The point being made that on most roundabouts a bike going at 70 mph would not be seen. The limit point on most roundabouts to the lane to the right of you is generally 10 - 40 metres because the lane is generally at 90 degrees to you or often much less so you can't observe more than that because of houses etc. A 70 mph bike would be out of vision when you pull ontot he roundabout.
And if the government has any sense* they'll poach the policy.
Of course, the kids will just find a way to dodge the age verification process.
* I realise there is little evidence that this is the case.
I have professional qualification in Company law and Common Law
Admittedly not a lot of use here, but you shouldn't be such a smartarse should you and I am guessing your qualifications are not in the laws applicable to driving.
PS and Taxation.
Win, win now for KB. Either Labour are obdurate and won't do anything, which provides a useful wedge, or they do adopt proposal in which case it is a "win" for her, which follows other Labour u-turns.
Whether it resonates with voters remains to be seen.
In fact, two bowls.
I see numerous videos of riders getting hit by cars because they're filtering at 40mph and a car that could not possibly see them in time changes lane. In that scenario, for example, the driver would not be at fault.
A full on brawl broke out at an AHL intermission youth game
https://x.com/BR_OpenIce/status/2010184469588902258?s=20
You don't get that at half time when the tiny tots come on for the small sided games in the footy.
PS: It has been proven time and time again just increasing taxes does not help or cause growth , it makes matters worse and causes a downward spiral.
The fact that police and ex police traffic drivers confirm you are wrong doesn't help does it.
I am definitely off now. Bye.
Not @HYUFD and roundabouts again please
Apparently he has some legal qualifications but that doesn't stop him talking codswallop
Time to watch football maybe
Show me one police or ex police traffic driver who disputes that? ProRata and PoodleinaSlipstream both agree with me too it seems
What have you done to deserve such a treat.
This would in turn kill the bots
Text-to-video generators are everywhere now. Open source ones exist. You can run them yourself, either on a hired, cloud hardware. Or increasingly on your home computer. Given the usual rate of progress (ha!) such generators will be available on phones within a couple of years
There’s at least one app I’ve seen in testing which runs the backend in the cloud - you pay for that, but it does all the tech stuff for you.
You are approaching a roundabout exactly on the Ukraine/Republic of China border. The dashed stop line is exactly on the border. The local speed limit is 50kph
As your wheels touch the line, you perceive a Russian BDRM, driven by a fat, angry ICE agent, entering the roundabout from the right at 70kph+. At the same moment a plane crashes into the centre of the roundabout.
What is the correct course of action?