These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
I'm interested in the vehemence of @Taz ' reaction, and what other people have to say.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
The companies using them have been rolling them out in pilot projects - the purpose of which is to test their use, identify, and resolve any problems arising. The campaign group have made a number of general points, but do they have any specific examples of incidents that have proved to be problematic?
In the absence of specific identified problems it would appear that the companies have behaved in a reasonable and responsible way and have been able to deal with any issues that have arisen. We shouldn't then punish them by forcing them to jump through extra hurdles.
I note, for example, that the robots run at 4mph - no more than a brisk walking pace. The main problem in sharing space (whether on a pavement or a road) is when people/vehicles move at very different speeds (e.g. a cyclist at ~10mph and a car at ~30mph). By choosing to run their robots at walking pace such problems are minimised. This isn't a limitation of the technology - Ukraine operates ground robots that are very nippy, in excess of 60 kph, for example.
There are some on the page, and I know of a couple of others. But absence of identified evidence of an issue is not evidence of absence, especially if there is a decision not to look for evidence. And then too easily it can be too late.
I've replied to them and asked some questions, pointing out that this is probably a sticky wicket and they will need to make a carefully argued case.
I think a key one is that in UK culture is that there is a presumed entitlement to do whatever we want, even in breach of considerations of others or law, if we feel we need to do so for our own convenience. There's a low level lawlessness that ignores the interests of our neighbours. There are historical reasons for that .. common law is one, Thatcherite individualism is another, penny pinching on maintenance, lack of investment are others.
We see that in pavement parking ("I need to; I'll only be 5 minutes" never mind that that is a major mechanism smashing pavements and creating trip hazards which our Council Tax pays to repair ... eventually), blocking accesses, draping charging cables across pavements, cycling inconsiderately on shared pavements, littering, honking or revving engines at pedestrians on zebras, and many more.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
I'm interested in the vehemence of @Taz ' reaction, and what other people have to say.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
Delivery robots aren't using the pavements to travel to meet their friends but to deliver things to people. They move very slowly and cautiously and pose far less of a risk than people on e-scooters.
But if left to their own devices they'll start to take liberties. Let's take steps now to discourage that.
Left to their own devices. They probably would.
Exactly. You can't leave devices to their own devices.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
I'm interested in the vehemence of @Taz ' reaction, and what other people have to say.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
Delivery robots aren't using the pavements to travel to meet their friends but to deliver things to people. They move very slowly and cautiously and pose far less of a risk than people on e-scooters.
But if left to their own devices they'll start to take liberties. Let's take steps now to discourage that.
Left to their own devices. They probably would.
Exactly. You can't leave devices to their own devices.
What kind of devices do they need? Apple Watches to make sure they get enough steps in?
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
I'm interested in the vehemence of @Taz ' reaction, and what other people have to say.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
Delivery robots aren't using the pavements to travel to meet their friends but to deliver things to people. They move very slowly and cautiously and pose far less of a risk than people on e-scooters.
Precisely. And you know what the sequence was that led to e-scooters being where they are now - letting it rip without much consideration in advance.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
I'm interested in the vehemence of @Taz ' reaction, and what other people have to say.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
Delivery robots aren't using the pavements to travel to meet their friends but to deliver things to people. They move very slowly and cautiously and pose far less of a risk than people on e-scooters.
But if left to their own devices they'll start to take liberties. Let's take steps now to discourage that.
Left to their own devices. They probably would.
Exactly. You can't leave devices to their own devices.
What kind of devices do they need? Apple Watches to make sure they get enough steps in?
Hang on, it's we who are taking steps. Pls refer to my original post. It's very clear.
BBC 6 o'clock R4 News going big on the DOJ and Vance's critique of two tier Britain.
Perhaps Starmer should sue Trump and Vance for defamation.
I always thought the BBC missed a trick for not counter sueing Trump for damages.
If you look at his case being reputational damage and the cost to his brand, the BBC just needed to point out that, it's brand value is far higher and as he has said far worse with less evidence about it so they should get a payout of a lot more than he is worth.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
I'm interested in the vehemence of @Taz ' reaction, and what other people have to say.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
The companies using them have been rolling them out in pilot projects - the purpose of which is to test their use, identify, and resolve any problems arising. The campaign group have made a number of general points, but do they have any specific examples of incidents that have proved to be problematic?
In the absence of specific identified problems it would appear that the companies have behaved in a reasonable and responsible way and have been able to deal with any issues that have arisen. We shouldn't then punish them by forcing them to jump through extra hurdles.
I note, for example, that the robots run at 4mph - no more than a brisk walking pace. The main problem in sharing space (whether on a pavement or a road) is when people/vehicles move at very different speeds (e.g. a cyclist at ~10mph and a car at ~30mph). By choosing to run their robots at walking pace such problems are minimised. This isn't a limitation of the technology - Ukraine operates ground robots that are very nippy, in excess of 60 kph, for example.
There are some on the page, and I know of a couple of others. But absence of identified evidence of an issue is not evidence of absence, especially if there is a decision not to look for evidence. And then too easily it can be too late.
I've replied to them and asked some questions, pointing out that this is probably a sticky wicket and they will need to make a carefully argued case.
I think a key one is that in UK culture is that there is a presumed entitlement to do whatever we want, even in breach of considerations of others or law, if we feel we need to do so for our own convenience. There's a low level lawlessness that ignores the interests of our neighbours. There are historical reasons for that .. common law is one, Thatcherite individualism is another, penny pinching on maintenance, lack of investment are others.
We see that in pavement parking ("I need to; I'll only be 5 minutes" never mind that that is a major mechanism smashing pavements and creating trip hazards which our Council Tax pays to repair ... eventually), blocking accesses, draping charging cables across pavements, cycling inconsiderately on shared pavements, littering, honking or revving engines at pedestrians on zebras, and many more.
On the website they list one incident in Britain. They say: "A delivery robot crashed into a dog in Bristol." and link to a BBC article. The BBC article is headlined, "Delivery robots spark concern after dog incident" and the article begins, "New delivery robots have sparked safety concerns after a councillor's dog was almost run over." A later paragraph starts, "A council meeting was told a councillor's small dog narrowly avoided being hit by the robot."
You'll forgive me if I conclude that the credibility of the campaign group on this matter is low.
So Burnham's big idea is to reduce business rates on pubs.
15 years to think about the world and all he can manage is to imitate Farage.
His big idea is to resolve social care but how is a good question?
Like all aspiring tin-pot dictators over all the years his main idea is that he should be a tin-pot dictator. A manufactured mandate and a childish manifesto. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, you're obviously not a fan of Burnham but it will be interesting to see if and how Badenoch answers the same question about social care.
It's not as though the Conservatives came up with anything coherent during their years and years leading the Government.
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and Starmer - someone will have to find out if that would be the largest number of former Prime Ministers still alive at any point.
Three Labour "elder statesmen" and six Conservative "elder statespersons" (yes, I know). I imagine Starmer will find a role of some sort - the question is or are the terms on which he leaves. All political careers end in failure of course but it's the coming to terms with the sense of not having accomplished all you wanted which seems to be the one thing the ex-PMs share.
I imagine there'll be a memoir or a self-justification (depending on your perspective).
I suspect there won't be a by-election - the Greens would fancy their chances in the constituency. As to whether Starmer will continue as an MP after the next election, I suspect not but then I suspect Rishi will also be on his way to pastures different.
The line-up at the Cenotaph in November will be extending into the far distance.
Who would have though that Cameron would have been succeeded by six PMs in just ten years?
Just spoke to a business event in the Midlands. Show of hands on whether Starmer should stay or go — 80-20 stay. Has been similar at several recent events. Really interesting to see such a chasm between political/media bubble view, and out and about. Main reasons given “stability …. May not like some of the decisions but we are used to them now … fear of similar chaos as under the Tories … feeling that any PM with a decent majority has “the right and the duty” to serve a full term … May not be the most charismatic but “can the others really do much better in the circs?” … sense that media make everything seem worse than it is … worry that “country first, party second” exposed as hollow.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
I'm interested in the vehemence of @Taz ' reaction, and what other people have to say.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
Delivery robots aren't using the pavements to travel to meet their friends but to deliver things to people. They move very slowly and cautiously and pose far less of a risk than people on e-scooters.
But if left to their own devices they'll start to take liberties. Let's take steps now to discourage that.
So Burnham's big idea is to reduce business rates on pubs.
15 years to think about the world and all he can manage is to imitate Farage.
His big idea is to resolve social care but how is a good question?
Like all aspiring tin-pot dictators over all the years his main idea is that he should be a tin-pot dictator. A manufactured mandate and a childish manifesto. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, you're obviously not a fan of Burnham but it will be interesting to see if and how Badenoch answers the same question about social care.
It's not as though the Conservatives came up with anything coherent during their years and years leading the Government.
Well I was slightly trying to echo the introduction to the film A Bridge Too Far. However I'm certainly no fan of Burnham.
It is very damning indeed that the Tories fell so far short. We had at least since covid a completely incompetent government with a Tory tag.
In my view Cameron messed up in having an awful chancellor - Osborne. And then everything spiralled into a mess. Boris had a chance to change it, but proved to be indaequate.
If, and I hope they will, the Tories manage to properly resurface, then there's work to be done.
Test cricket is so much better than the next best type of sport it's almost embarrassing [in my view]. (Which is probably Wimbledon tennis, followed by World Cup association football imo).
Test cricket is so much better than the next best type of sport it's almost embarrassing [in my view]. (Which is probably Wimbledon tennis, followed by World Cup association football imo).
I don't get how anybody can love a certain sport whilst being indifferent to or disliking all or most other sports.
So more wickets have now fallen at Lords today than yesterday. Extraordinary.
They seriously need to relay the square. Challenging with the schedules but this can’t go on. It’s compelling viewing but a test match needs better batting conditions than this.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
I'm interested in the vehemence of @Taz ' reaction, and what other people have to say.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
The companies using them have been rolling them out in pilot projects - the purpose of which is to test their use, identify, and resolve any problems arising. The campaign group have made a number of general points, but do they have any specific examples of incidents that have proved to be problematic?
In the absence of specific identified problems it would appear that the companies have behaved in a reasonable and responsible way and have been able to deal with any issues that have arisen. We shouldn't then punish them by forcing them to jump through extra hurdles.
I note, for example, that the robots run at 4mph - no more than a brisk walking pace. The main problem in sharing space (whether on a pavement or a road) is when people/vehicles move at very different speeds (e.g. a cyclist at ~10mph and a car at ~30mph). By choosing to run their robots at walking pace such problems are minimised. This isn't a limitation of the technology - Ukraine operates ground robots that are very nippy, in excess of 60 kph, for example.
There are some on the page, and I know of a couple of others. But absence of identified evidence of an issue is not evidence of absence, especially if there is a decision not to look for evidence. And then too easily it can be too late.
I've replied to them and asked some questions, pointing out that this is probably a sticky wicket and they will need to make a carefully argued case.
I think a key one is that in UK culture is that there is a presumed entitlement to do whatever we want, even in breach of considerations of others or law, if we feel we need to do so for our own convenience. There's a low level lawlessness that ignores the interests of our neighbours. There are historical reasons for that .. common law is one, Thatcherite individualism is another, penny pinching on maintenance, lack of investment are others.
We see that in pavement parking ("I need to; I'll only be 5 minutes" never mind that that is a major mechanism smashing pavements and creating trip hazards which our Council Tax pays to repair ... eventually), blocking accesses, draping charging cables across pavements, cycling inconsiderately on shared pavements, littering, honking or revving engines at pedestrians on zebras, and many more.
On the website they list one incident in Britain. They say: "A delivery robot crashed into a dog in Bristol." and link to a BBC article. The BBC article is headlined, "Delivery robots spark concern after dog incident" and the article begins, "New delivery robots have sparked safety concerns after a councillor's dog was almost run over." A later paragraph starts, "A council meeting was told a councillor's small dog narrowly avoided being hit by the robot."
You'll forgive me if I conclude that the credibility of the campaign group on this matter is low.
As I say, I'm interested in responses.
Some were saying similar things about e-scooters and unregulated Chinese lithium batteries not so long ago.
BBC 6 o'clock R4 News going big on the DOJ and Vance's critique of two tier Britain.
Maybe he should deport his wife's family if he's so anti-immigrant? Or did he forget about that?
Vance’s wife was born in the US; she’s only a second-generation immigrant. It’s Trump whose wife is an immigrant (as was his first wife, Donald Jr, Eric and Ivanka’s mum), like his mother.
My 25 year old daughter is FINALLY getting into Buffy and was staying with us this week. Rewatched "Hush" and the first four episodes (from my complete DVD collection) since Wednesday. Seems remarkably poignant now.
Hush was brilliant. Like most American series it lost it towards the end but the first 2.5-3 series were truly superb.
BBC 6 o'clock R4 News going big on the DOJ and Vance's critique of two tier Britain.
Maybe he should deport his wife's family if he's so anti-immigrant? Or did he forget about that?
Vance’s wife was born in the US; she’s only a second-generation immigrant. It’s Trump whose wife is an immigrant (as was his first wife, Donald Jr, Eric and Ivanka’s mum), like his mother.
(Donald Trump’s mum wasn’t even a native English speaker. Her first language was Scots Gaelic.)
My 25 year old daughter is FINALLY getting into Buffy and was staying with us this week. Rewatched "Hush" and the first four episodes (from my complete DVD collection) since Wednesday. Seems remarkably poignant now.
Hush was brilliant. Like most American series it lost it towards the end but the first 2.5-3 series were truly superb.
Breaking: Keir Starmer accuses JD Vance of interfering in British democracy and attempting to stir up unrest on British streets
This is the strongest condemnation yet by Starmer of the Trump administration
Number 10 says:
“In recent days we have seen people trying to interfere in our democracy and seeking to stir up division on our streets.
“The Nowak family are grieving after Henry’s horrific murder. They have said they do not want his death to be used to create further division, hatred or tension. We should be respecting their wishes.
“Our politics should bring people together even in the most terrible of circumstances. That is who we are as a country.”
Test cricket is so much better than the next best type of sport it's almost embarrassing [in my view]. (Which is probably Wimbledon tennis, followed by World Cup association football imo).
I don't get how anybody can love a certain sport whilst being indifferent to or disliking all or most other sports.
Test cricket is so much better than the next best type of sport it's almost embarrassing [in my view]. (Which is probably Wimbledon tennis, followed by World Cup association football imo).
My interest in sports other than first class cricket has really waned since I discovered that the County Championship matches were streamed on youtube. I could spend time watching other sports, but ultimately I conclude that the time I have available for watching sports would be more enjoyably deployed watching first class cricket rather than association football, rugby, tennis, etc.
I'll make a few exceptions - if Cork are in the GAA finals I'll watch that. I'll watch the England v Ireland rugby if I can watch it with my mother-in-law, a few other things. But first-class cricket is just so very much my sport.
Test cricket is so much better than the next best type of sport it's almost embarrassing [in my view]. (Which is probably Wimbledon tennis, followed by World Cup association football imo).
I don't get how anybody can love a certain sport whilst being indifferent to or disliking all or most other sports.
I've never seen a delivery robot. Are they a wealthy, safe area thingy? If pavements are for pedestrians then why does every driver seem to think they are obliged to half park on them?
The sense of empty headed assumed entitlement is incredibly strong with very large numbers of drivers. A weird psychology contributes - for some just touching "MY CAR" is as if you had punched them on the nose, as does many years of non-enforcement of the rules of the road, and the rules of the pavement, and politicians entirely failing to deal with problems such as the police / local council enforcement grey boundary.
I very rarely start a conversation, but the worst tirade of abuse I have ever had was from someone who had just completely blocked safe wheelchair or mobility aid access from the road to an entire bloody 600 bed district hospital - they all had to go 100m back down the pavement and wheel themselves up the main drive in with 3-4000 vehicle movements per day because he had blocked the hospital end drop kerb. He had utterly zero awareness of what he had done, for the benefit of saving himself a 20m walk to the free parking space.
So more wickets have now fallen at Lords today than yesterday. Extraordinary.
They seriously need to relay the square. Challenging with the schedules but this can’t go on. It’s compelling viewing but a test match needs better batting conditions than this.
Given the weather forecast for the match a better surface would likely have led to a rain-affected draw. And the bowling from both sides has been a lot better than the batting.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
I'm interested in the vehemence of @Taz ' reaction, and what other people have to say.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
The companies using them have been rolling them out in pilot projects - the purpose of which is to test their use, identify, and resolve any problems arising. The campaign group have made a number of general points, but do they have any specific examples of incidents that have proved to be problematic?
In the absence of specific identified problems it would appear that the companies have behaved in a reasonable and responsible way and have been able to deal with any issues that have arisen. We shouldn't then punish them by forcing them to jump through extra hurdles.
I note, for example, that the robots run at 4mph - no more than a brisk walking pace. The main problem in sharing space (whether on a pavement or a road) is when people/vehicles move at very different speeds (e.g. a cyclist at ~10mph and a car at ~30mph). By choosing to run their robots at walking pace such problems are minimised. This isn't a limitation of the technology - Ukraine operates ground robots that are very nippy, in excess of 60 kph, for example.
There are some on the page, and I know of a couple of others. But absence of identified evidence of an issue is not evidence of absence, especially if there is a decision not to look for evidence. And then too easily it can be too late.
I've replied to them and asked some questions, pointing out that this is probably a sticky wicket and they will need to make a carefully argued case.
I think a key one is that in UK culture is that there is a presumed entitlement to do whatever we want, even in breach of considerations of others or law, if we feel we need to do so for our own convenience. There's a low level lawlessness that ignores the interests of our neighbours. There are historical reasons for that .. common law is one, Thatcherite individualism is another, penny pinching on maintenance, lack of investment are others.
We see that in pavement parking ("I need to; I'll only be 5 minutes" never mind that that is a major mechanism smashing pavements and creating trip hazards which our Council Tax pays to repair ... eventually), blocking accesses, draping charging cables across pavements, cycling inconsiderately on shared pavements, littering, honking or revving engines at pedestrians on zebras, and many more.
On the website they list one incident in Britain. They say: "A delivery robot crashed into a dog in Bristol." and link to a BBC article. The BBC article is headlined, "Delivery robots spark concern after dog incident" and the article begins, "New delivery robots have sparked safety concerns after a councillor's dog was almost run over." A later paragraph starts, "A council meeting was told a councillor's small dog narrowly avoided being hit by the robot."
You'll forgive me if I conclude that the credibility of the campaign group on this matter is low.
In case of any doubt, my dog despite being exceptionally well-travelled has never been to Bristol.
Edit/ oops, correction. The only Bristol he has been to was in Virginia.
Test cricket is so much better than the next best type of sport it's almost embarrassing [in my view]. (Which is probably Wimbledon tennis, followed by World Cup association football imo).
My interest in sports other than first class cricket has really waned since I discovered that the County Championship matches were streamed on youtube. I could spend time watching other sports, but ultimately I conclude that the time I have available for watching sports would be more enjoyably deployed watching first class cricket rather than association football, rugby, tennis, etc.
I'll make a few exceptions - if Cork are in the GAA finals I'll watch that. I'll watch the England v Ireland rugby if I can watch it with my mother-in-law, a few other things. But first-class cricket is just so very much my sport.
If I didn't have to work, I'd get into the county game more. I had a day at the Oval in 2022, which was brilliant. Just a shame they don't play more in the summer.
BBC 6 o'clock R4 News going big on the DOJ and Vance's critique of two tier Britain.
Maybe he should deport his wife's family if he's so anti-immigrant? Or did he forget about that?
Vance’s wife was born in the US; she’s only a second-generation immigrant. It’s Trump whose wife is an immigrant (as was his first wife, Donald Jr, Eric and Ivanka’s mum), like his mother.
(Donald Trump’s mum wasn’t even a native English speaker. Her first language was Scots Gaelic.)
She was roughly the same age as my gran, another Gaelic speaking Leòdhasach, who said it was belted out of her early on at school. She was a Tory unionist so not sentimental about it as a nationalist cause, but it still made her angry.
So more wickets have now fallen at Lords today than yesterday. Extraordinary.
They seriously need to relay the square. Challenging with the schedules but this can’t go on. It’s compelling viewing but a test match needs better batting conditions than this.
Given the weather forecast for the match a better surface would likely have led to a rain-affected draw. And the bowling from both sides has been a lot better than the batting.
The bowling has been good, no question but some of the wickets were unplayable because of the pitch. No batsman in the world keeps out the one that Bethell got, for instance.
Fair point about the weather, but tests are great when they breathe over 4-5 days with ebbs and flows.
Test cricket is so much better than the next best type of sport it's almost embarrassing [in my view]. (Which is probably Wimbledon tennis, followed by World Cup association football imo).
My interest in sports other than first class cricket has really waned since I discovered that the County Championship matches were streamed on youtube. I could spend time watching other sports, but ultimately I conclude that the time I have available for watching sports would be more enjoyably deployed watching first class cricket rather than association football, rugby, tennis, etc.
I'll make a few exceptions - if Cork are in the GAA finals I'll watch that. I'll watch the England v Ireland rugby if I can watch it with my mother-in-law, a few other things. But first-class cricket is just so very much my sport.
If I didn't have to work, I'd get into the county game more. I had a day at the Oval in 2022, which was brilliant. Just a shame they don't play more in the summer.
One retirement dream for me is a membership at Hampshire, mainly for the four day games.
In appeals court fight over the White House ballroom, DOJ says the federal government could quickly bulldoze the statute of liberty and no one would have standing to sue over the changes once the demolition is done. https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/2062898294083260732
Another quick story, I met him at the @RDAnational national championships several times. When I asked him what was his favourite part of Buffy filming he said it was snogging Buffys mum. I wonderful chap - missing him. https://x.com/ElectronDev/status/2062960280187928835
Heh. Trump is about to TACO on the BBC case ... maybe.
The Beeboids have just asked under discovery for financial documents to prove that he suffered the serious damage he claims, including I think his tax returns. And he says no.
For all of those of you just clocking in, Anthony Head, the guest star of the Doctor Who episode "School Reunion" and other roles, died today at the age of 72, less than a year after his wife died unexpectedly.
For all of those of you just clocking in, Anthony Head, the guest star of the Doctor Who episode "School Reunion" and other roles, died today at the age of 72, less than a year after his wife died unexpectedly.
Test cricket is so much better than the next best type of sport it's almost embarrassing [in my view]. (Which is probably Wimbledon tennis, followed by World Cup association football imo).
I don't get how anybody can love a certain sport whilst being indifferent to or disliking all or most other sports.
Sports are different.
They are. So are genres of music. I used to know somebody who only liked reggae. Any other sort of music to this chap wasn't worth listening to.
It's an interesting way to go. One way it makes sense is bandwidth and time management. If you get into too many things you can get overwhelmed and lose focus.
Me, I'm quite a sports nut and I often wish I wasn't. I end up either following so much of it that other things suffer or I drop an event, eg the Giro just gone, and feel bad about that.
I have my faves, tennis golf flat racing football F1 test cricket, but I like lots of others. I can get into almost any sport if I invest time in it. It's actually easier to list those I can't. Basketball, T20, the 50 km walk, show jumping, fishing. Esp fishing. That doesn't work at all as a spectator sport imo.
Comments
I've replied to them and asked some questions, pointing out that this is probably a sticky wicket and they will need to make a carefully argued case.
I think a key one is that in UK culture is that there is a presumed entitlement to do whatever we want, even in breach of considerations of others or law, if we feel we need to do so for our own convenience. There's a low level lawlessness that ignores the interests of our neighbours. There are historical reasons for that .. common law is one, Thatcherite individualism is another, penny pinching on maintenance, lack of investment are others.
We see that in pavement parking ("I need to; I'll only be 5 minutes" never mind that that is a major mechanism smashing pavements and creating trip hazards which our Council Tax pays to repair ... eventually), blocking accesses, draping charging cables across pavements, cycling inconsiderately on shared pavements, littering, honking or revving engines at pedestrians on zebras, and many more.
Andy Burnham very far from my thoughts. My very first girlfriend, however, is not.
If you look at his case being reputational damage and the cost to his brand, the BBC just needed to point out that, it's brand value is far higher and as he has said far worse with less evidence about it so they should get a payout of a lot more than he is worth.
Peter.
You'll forgive me if I conclude that the credibility of the campaign group on this matter is low.
It's not as though the Conservatives came up with anything coherent during their years and years leading the Government.
Who would have though that Cameron would have been succeeded by six PMs in just ten years?
Play closed
https://x.com/campbellclaret/status/2062930285612638435
Just spoke to a business event in the Midlands. Show of hands on whether Starmer should stay or go — 80-20 stay. Has been similar at several recent events. Really interesting to see such a chasm between political/media bubble view, and out and about. Main reasons given “stability …. May not like some of the decisions but we are used to them now … fear of similar chaos as under the Tories … feeling that any PM with a decent majority has “the right and the duty” to serve a full term … May not be the most charismatic but “can the others really do much better in the circs?” … sense that media make everything seem worse than it is … worry that “country first, party second” exposed as hollow.
Creative insults.
Show the star spangled absolute cock trumpets up.
It is very damning indeed that the Tories fell so far short. We had at least since covid a completely incompetent government with a Tory tag.
In my view Cameron messed up in having an awful chancellor - Osborne. And then everything spiralled into a mess. Boris had a chance to change it, but proved to be indaequate.
If, and I hope they will, the Tories manage to properly resurface, then there's work to be done.
Not really an important point for him to be making either way, but the burden of responsibility is rather different.
If it was the second, who was the last PM who could have got away with "naff off, that's a silly question to be asking me"?
Thatch, I tentatively reckon.
Thanks for enlightening me
Could be explosive.
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99l93md0gko
Some were saying similar things about e-scooters and unregulated Chinese lithium batteries not so long ago.
Breaking: Keir Starmer accuses JD Vance of interfering in British democracy and attempting to stir up unrest on British streets
This is the strongest condemnation yet by Starmer of the Trump administration
Number 10 says:
“In recent days we have seen people trying to interfere in our democracy and seeking to stir up division on our streets.
“The Nowak family are grieving after Henry’s horrific murder. They have said they do not want his death to be used to create further division, hatred or tension. We should be respecting their wishes.
“Our politics should bring people together even in the most terrible of circumstances. That is who we are as a country.”
I'll make a few exceptions - if Cork are in the GAA finals I'll watch that. I'll watch the England v Ireland rugby if I can watch it with my mother-in-law, a few other things. But first-class cricket is just so very much my sport.
I very rarely start a conversation, but the worst tirade of abuse I have ever had was from someone who had just completely blocked safe wheelchair or mobility aid access from the road to an entire bloody 600 bed district hospital - they all had to go 100m back down the pavement and wheel themselves up the main drive in with 3-4000 vehicle movements per day because he had blocked the hospital end drop kerb. He had utterly zero awareness of what he had done, for the benefit of saving himself a 20m walk to the free parking space.
Edit/ oops, correction. The only Bristol he has been to was in Virginia.
https://www.gambling.com/uk/news/aberdeen-south-by-election-odds-betting-tips
https://bsky.app/profile/paulmotty.bsky.social/post/3mnkd4cwi3c2j
Fair point about the weather, but tests are great when they breathe over 4-5 days with ebbs and flows.
https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/2062898294083260732
https://x.com/ElectronDev/status/2062960280187928835
The Beeboids have just asked under discovery for financial documents to prove that he suffered the serious damage he claims, including I think his tax returns. And he says no.
Fun, fun, fun in the sun, sun, sun incoming.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jun/05/donald-trump-lawyers-refuse-reveal-financial-information-bbc-defamation-case
"World War III is here
The Arab Spring was the spark that lit the fuse of a global conflict Europe cannot escape
By Hannah Lucinda Smith"
https://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2026/06/world-war-iii-is-here
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/jun/05/anthony-head-death-buffy-the-vampire-slayer
It's an interesting way to go. One way it makes sense is bandwidth and time management. If you get into too many things you can get overwhelmed and lose focus.
Me, I'm quite a sports nut and I often wish I wasn't. I end up either following so much of it that other things suffer or I drop an event, eg the Giro just gone, and feel bad about that.
I have my faves, tennis golf flat racing football F1 test cricket, but I like lots of others. I can get into almost any sport if I invest time in it. It's actually easier to list those I can't. Basketball, T20, the 50 km walk, show jumping, fishing. Esp fishing. That doesn't work at all as a spectator sport imo.