There have been several very long threads involving arguments on how accidents have occurred (Auriol Grey, etc). I think it was SP who said
that we don't have all the facts to go on that the police and courts do,
so our comments are often pure speculation.
Among the plethora of police reality programmes on TV at present, is an interesting one involving Gwent Police's forensic collision
investigators ("The Crash Detectives"- which is somewhat hidden away on
BBC2 at 7pm on Mondays). The latest one, available at <https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001rsds/the-crash-detectives-series-4-episode-3>,
involves a motorcycle-vs-car crash, which seems not a million miles away
from what happened in the long thread "Miscarriage of justice?"
discussed here not long ago. How this event was investigated both in
terms of what happened and whether or not any laws were broken is well
worth a look.
There have been several very long threads involving arguments on how accidents have occurred (Auriol Grey, etc). I think it was SP who said
that we don't have all the facts to go on that the police and courts
do, so our comments are often pure speculation.
There have been several very long threads involving arguments on how accidents have occurred (Auriol Grey, etc). I think it was SP who saidago. How this event was investigated both in terms of what happened and whether or not any laws were broken is well worth a look.
that we don't have all the facts to go on that the police and courts do,
so our comments are often pure speculation.
Among the plethora of police reality programmes on TV at present, is an interesting one involving Gwent Police's forensic collision
investigators ("The Crash Detectives"- which is somewhat hidden away on
BBC2 at 7pm on Mondays). The latest one, available at <https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001rsds/the-crash-detectives-series-4-episode-3>, involves a motorcycle-vs-car crash, which seems not a million miles away from what happened in the long thread "Miscarriage of justice?" discussed here not long
A lady pulled her car out of GPD to turn right. She was watching traffic approaching on her left (driving towards the city) since that was the direction she intended to take. She didn't keep a look out in our
direction at all.
Ah contraire mon ami. ( Yes it gets you speaking French as well )
Cyclists Have a Longer Lifespan, a New Study Suggests
https://www.menshealth.com/uk/health/a39726399/cyclists-live-longer-study/
Want to live longer? Ride a bicycle
https://velosurance.com/blog/improve-immune-system-cycling-live-longer/
Cycling Can Make You Live Longer: Every Hour You Cycle Adds One Hour To Your Life, Claims Researcher
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/12/cycling-add-years-to-life-expectancy_n_8279048.html
Although thinking about it, that last link seems to require a lot of cycling.
In fact past a certain age, to live any longer, it seems you'll need to
be spending at least half of your time on a bike. So each 12 hours on the bike will buy you an extra 8 hours for sleeping, and 4 hours for
everything else.
Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that exercise is good for.
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:kppia2FqhejU1@mid.individual.net...
..
[quoted text muted]
Try riding a bicycle for a bit.
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:uh9248$3r11$2@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Ah contraire mon ami. ( Yes it gets you speaking French as well )
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 22:38:40 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uh9248$3r11$2@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Ah contraire mon ami. ( Yes it gets you speaking French as well )
I didn't say I would never ride a bike. It's the "on public roads" bit
that scares me.
On 24/10/2023 08:41 am, Jeff Layman wrote:
There have been several very long threads involving arguments on how
accidents have occurred (Auriol Grey, etc). I think it was SP who said
that we don't have all the facts to go on that the police and courts do,
so our comments are often pure speculation.
Among the plethora of police reality programmes on TV at present, is an
interesting one involving Gwent Police's forensic collision
investigators ("The Crash Detectives"- which is somewhat hidden away on
BBC2 at 7pm on Mondays). The latest one, available at
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001rsds/the-crash-detectives-series-4-episode-3>,
involves a motorcycle-vs-car crash, which seems not a million miles away
from what happened in the long thread "Miscarriage of justice?"
discussed here not long ago. How this event was investigated both in
terms of what happened and whether or not any laws were broken is well
worth a look.
Saw it.
It was a T-junction fatal (hours of darkness) crash with a motorcyclist T-boning a car emerging from a side turning. At first, the police seemed
keen to establish that it was a SMIDSY. But their photography, digital scanning, measurements and perusal of available CCTV footage established
that the unfortunate motorcyclist had been doing 60mph or more in that
30mph road.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 13:13:56 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kppia2FqhejU1@mid.individual.net...
..
[quoted text muted]
Try riding a bicycle for a bit.
I wouldn't ride a bike or a motorbike on a public road if you paid me.
And frankly I'm amazed in our nanny state we let anyone else do it either.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 22:38:40 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uh9248$3r11$2@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Ah contraire mon ami. ( Yes it gets you speaking French as well )
I didn't say I would never ride a bike. It's the "on public roads" bit
that scares me.
If there were health benefits to cycling, one might think that they would show up in the data from that ‘cycling utopia’ of the Netherlands, that UK
cyclists demand be copied and installed at great cost in the UK.
The Dutch cycle more than the UK, 9bn miles to 3.9bn miles per annum, and have done so for far longer. Note that the population of Holland is only one-fourth of that of the UK (or in the modern vernacular, ‘four times smaller’).
So you would think that all this health-benefit would show up in the statistics. Let’s see…
There have been several very long threads involving arguments on how accidents have occurred (Auriol Grey, etc). I think it was SP who saidago. How this event was investigated both in terms of what happened and whether or not any laws were broken is well worth a look.
that we don't have all the facts to go on that the police and courts do,
so our comments are often pure speculation.
Among the plethora of police reality programmes on TV at present, is an interesting one involving Gwent Police's forensic collision
investigators ("The Crash Detectives"- which is somewhat hidden away on
BBC2 at 7pm on Mondays). The latest one, available at <https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001rsds/the-crash-detectives-series-4-episode-3>, involves a motorcycle-vs-car crash, which seems not a million miles away from what happened in the long thread "Miscarriage of justice?" discussed here not long
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:uhadt9$j5k2$1@dont-email.me...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 22:38:40 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uh9248$3r11$2@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Ah contraire mon ami. ( Yes it gets you speaking French as well )
I didn't say I would never ride a bike. It's the "on public roads" bit
that scares me.
Indeed.
In the past, I've wasted countless hours vainly trying to explain to "nouveau" cycling zealots, who've successfully persuaded politicians
in some places to waste millions on the provision of useless cycling facilities, that unless people are born to it, or are fitness fanatics
or are driven by sheer practical or economic necessity, no sensible
person would otherwise choose to ride a bicycle on busy public roads.
More especially in the pouring rain or after dark. Which as a commuter
would be almost inevitable.
But it is good for you nevertheless; even allowing for accident
statistics and pneumonia.
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:..
A lady pulled her car out of GPD to turn right. She was watching traffic
approaching on her left (driving towards the city) since that was the
direction she intended to take. She didn't keep a look out in our
direction at all.
Try riding a bicycle for a bit. You might be surprised at the number
of motorists who, when approaching a T junction, almost instinctively
first look to their left and start inching out
And only look to their right once you start shouting at them.
Followed by a shrug and resigned smile; if you're lucky.
On 25/10/2023 09:24, Spike wrote:
If there were health benefits to cycling, one might think that they would
show up in the data from that ‘cycling utopia’ of the Netherlands, that UK
cyclists demand be copied and installed at great cost in the UK.
The Dutch cycle more than the UK, 9bn miles to 3.9bn miles per annum, and
have done so for far longer. Note that the population of Holland is only
one-fourth of that of the UK (or in the modern vernacular, ‘four times
smaller’).
So you would think that all this health-benefit would show up in the
statistics. Let’s see…
Not if a person has a basic understanding of statistics.
Beyond the obvious caveats about confounding factors, different
reporting methods, etc, it is worth noting that everyone dies of
something, sometime. If cycling delayed the onset of the illnesses you
cite, it would not show up with your comparisons. After all, we all die
of something, sometime.
The figures you quote add so little insight into the health benefits of cycling, one wonders why you do it?
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:uhadt9$j5k2$1@dont-email.me...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 22:38:40 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uh9248$3r11$2@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Ah contraire mon ami. ( Yes it gets you speaking French as well )
I didn't say I would never ride a bike. It's the "on public roads" bit
that scares me.
Indeed.
In the past, I've wasted countless hours vainly trying to explain to "nouveau" cycling zealots, who've successfully persuaded politicians
in some places to waste millions on the provision of useless cycling facilities, that unless people are born to it, or are fitness fanatics
or are driven by sheer practical or economic necessity, no sensible
person would otherwise choose to ride a bicycle on busy public roads.
More especially in the pouring rain or after dark. Which as a commuter
would be almost inevitable.
But it is good for you nevertheless; even allowing for accident
statistics and pneumonia.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Ah contraire mon ami. ( Yes it gets you speaking French as well )
Cyclists Have a Longer Lifespan, a New Study Suggests
https://www.menshealth.com/uk/health/a39726399/cyclists-live-longer-study/
Want to live longer? Ride a bicycle
https://velosurance.com/blog/improve-immune-system-cycling-live-longer/
Cycling Can Make You Live Longer: Every Hour You Cycle Adds One Hour To
Your
Life, Claims Researcher
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/12/cycling-add-years-to-life-expectancy_n_8279048.html
Although thinking about it, that last link seems to require a lot of
cycling.
In fact past a certain age, to live any longer, it seems you'll need to
be spending at least half of your time on a bike. So each 12 hours on the
bike will buy you an extra 8 hours for sleeping, and 4 hours for
everything else.
Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that exercise is good for.
If there were health benefits to cycling, one might think that they would show up in the data from that 'cycling utopia' of the Netherlands, that UK cyclists demand be copied and installed at great cost in the UK.
The Dutch cycle more than the UK, 9bn miles to 3.9bn miles per annum, and have done so for far longer. Note that the population of Holland is only one-fourth of that of the UK (or in the modern vernacular, 'four times smaller').
So you would think that all this health-benefit would show up in the statistics. Let's see.
Keep in mind that the Dutch population at 17.2 million is almost exactly one-quarter of that of the UK at 68 million.
To compare cases per year on a per-head basis, the NL figures have been multiplied by 4.
CVD:
UK.324446
NL.347880
Result: UK healthier for CVD.
IHD:
UK.178985
NL.167020
Result: NL slightly healthier for IHD
Stroke:
UK.20326
NL.26072
Result: UK healthier for stroke.
Diabetes:
NL.5.4% of adults
UK.3.9% of adults
Result: UK healthier for diabetes
COPD:
NL and UK ~200 deaths per million
Result: indistinguishable
Or even more dismally.
The Netherlands has relatively more cancer cases than any other country in Europe apart from Ireland and Denmark, with colon, melanoma and breast
cancer the most common forms of the illness, the Dutch cancer centre IKNL said on Friday.
Cancer of the oesophagus, bladder and lung cancer are also far more
prevalent in the Netherlands than in most other European countries, the
IKNL said.
The data comes from combined Dutch and European sources.
Women in the Netherlands suffer from cancer more often, particularly
breast
cancer and lung cancer while incidences of prostate cancer among men is
also higher than in other European countries.
ENDQUOTE
Comment: any health benefits from the amount of cycling by the Dutch over
the Brits seem to be based more on dogma, tropes, and wishful thinking
than fact.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uhadt9$j5k2$1@dont-email.me...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 22:38:40 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uh9248$3r11$2@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Ah contraire mon ami. ( Yes it gets you speaking French as well )
I didn't say I would never ride a bike. It's the "on public roads" bit
that scares me.
Indeed.
In the past, I've wasted countless hours vainly trying to explain to
"nouveau" cycling zealots, who've successfully persuaded politicians
in some places to waste millions on the provision of useless cycling
facilities, that unless people are born to it, or are fitness fanatics
or are driven by sheer practical or economic necessity, no sensible
person would otherwise choose to ride a bicycle on busy public roads.
More especially in the pouring rain or after dark. Which as a commuter
would be almost inevitable.
But it is good for you nevertheless; even allowing for accident
statistics and pneumonia.
Have a read of this article:
<https://road.cc/content/news/chris-boardman-shuts-down-cycling-registration-debate-296551>
The real message has nothing to do with cyclist registration:
"We know we won't make our carbon targets, our legal targets, unless we
drive a lot less”.
There you have it - the reason for talking up cycling despite the fall in cycle usage. Cyclists want cars off the roads, using ‘feeling safe’, ‘health’ and ‘climate change’ as the means to achieve that.
The figures you quote add so little insight into the health benefits of
cycling, one wonders why you do it?
Perhaps I do so because there are no health benefit insights to be had.
The data comes from combined Dutch and European sources.
"Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote in message news:kps1lnFar0mU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Ah contraire mon ami. ( Yes it gets you speaking French as well )
Cyclists Have a Longer Lifespan, a New Study Suggests
https://www.menshealth.com/uk/health/a39726399/cyclists-live-longer-study/ >>
Want to live longer? Ride a bicycle
https://velosurance.com/blog/improve-immune-system-cycling-live-longer/
Cycling Can Make You Live Longer: Every Hour You Cycle Adds One Hour To
Your
Life, Claims Researcher
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/12/cycling-add-years-to-life-expectancy_n_8279048.html
Although thinking about it, that last link seems to require a lot of
cycling.
In fact past a certain age, to live any longer, it seems you'll need to
be spending at least half of your time on a bike. So each 12 hours on the >>> bike will buy you an extra 8 hours for sleeping, and 4 hours for
everything else.
Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that exercise is good for.
If there were health benefits to cycling, one might think that they would
show up in the data from that 'cycling utopia' of the Netherlands, that UK >> cyclists demand be copied and installed at great cost in the UK.
The Dutch cycle more than the UK, 9bn miles to 3.9bn miles per annum, and
have done so for far longer. Note that the population of Holland is only
one-fourth of that of the UK (or in the modern vernacular, 'four times
smaller').
So you would think that all this health-benefit would show up in the
statistics. Let's see.
Keep in mind that the Dutch population at 17.2 million is almost exactly
one-quarter of that of the UK at 68 million.
To compare cases per year on a per-head basis, the NL figures have been
multiplied by 4.
CVD:
UK.324446
NL.347880
Result: UK healthier for CVD.
IHD:
UK.178985
NL.167020
Result: NL slightly healthier for IHD
Stroke:
UK.20326
NL.26072
Result: UK healthier for stroke.
Diabetes:
NL.5.4% of adults
UK.3.9% of adults
Result: UK healthier for diabetes
COPD:
NL and UK ~200 deaths per million
Result: indistinguishable
Or even more dismally.
The Netherlands has relatively more cancer cases than any other country in >> Europe apart from Ireland and Denmark, with colon, melanoma and breast
cancer the most common forms of the illness, the Dutch cancer centre IKNL
said on Friday.
Cancer of the oesophagus, bladder and lung cancer are also far more
prevalent in the Netherlands than in most other European countries, the
IKNL said.
The data comes from combined Dutch and European sources.
Women in the Netherlands suffer from cancer more often, particularly
breast
cancer and lung cancer while incidences of prostate cancer among men is
also higher than in other European countries.
ENDQUOTE
Unfortunately such observations don't appear to be supported by the very simple measure of life expectancy.
quote:
24 Netherlands 82.58 84.02 81.10
30 United Kingdom 82.31 83.97 80.61
unquote:
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/#countries-ranked-by-life-expectancy
quote:
Netherlands 81,7 80,3 83,2 (p)
United Kingdom 81,3 79,5 83,1 (3)
unquote:
https://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/data/europe-developed-countries/life-expectancy/
quote:
26 Netherlands 81.46 79.90 83.10
34 United Kingdom 80.70 78.70 82.80
unquote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
< snippage >
Comment: any health benefits from the amount of cycling by the Dutch over
the Brits seem to be based more on dogma, tropes, and wishful thinking
than fact.
In support of such a claim, your mission therefore, should you choose to accept it, would seem to be to find a single reputable website anywere
in the World which gives the UK a higher life expectancy than that of
the Netherlands.
Another basis of comparison between Netherlands and the UK is population density
Netherlands.............20......424 per sq km
United Kingdom .........34......272 per sq km https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
Which presumably makes a difference where the spread of contagious
diseases and breathing in car exhaust fumes is concerned.
26 Netherlands 81.46 79.90 83.10
34 United Kingdom 80.70 78.70 82.80
Netherlands 81,7 80,3 83,2 (p)
United Kingdom 81,3 79,5 83,1 (3)
24 Netherlands 82.58 84.02 81.10
30 United Kingdom 82.31 83.97 80.61
On 25/10/2023 12:41, Spike wrote:
The figures you quote add so little insight into the health benefits of
cycling, one wonders why you do it?
Perhaps I do so because there are no health benefit insights to be had.
I can understand someone thinking there were no health benefits to
cycling. Wrong, but I can understand a point being made. But, if there
were no benefits, or net benefits, to cycling, it would be a very
significant insight.
You seem to be saying you want to post lots of meaningless data, because there is no meaning.
Nil sum, ergo nil cogito.
In support of such a claim, your mission therefore, should you choose to accept it, would seem to be to find a single reputable website anywere
in the World which gives the UK a higher life expectancy than that of
the Netherlands.
Another basis of comparison between Netherlands and the UK is population density
Netherlands.............20......424 per sq km
United Kingdom .........34......272 per sq km https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
Which presumably makes a difference where the spread of contagious
diseases and breathing in car exhaust fumes is concerned.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uhadt9$j5k2$1@dont-email.me...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 22:38:40 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uh9248$3r11$2@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Ah contraire mon ami. ( Yes it gets you speaking French as well )
I didn't say I would never ride a bike. It's the "on public roads" bit
that scares me.
Indeed.
In the past, I've wasted countless hours vainly trying to explain to
"nouveau" cycling zealots, who've successfully persuaded politicians
in some places to waste millions on the provision of useless cycling
facilities, that unless people are born to it, or are fitness fanatics
or are driven by sheer practical or economic necessity, no sensible
person would otherwise choose to ride a bicycle on busy public roads.
More especially in the pouring rain or after dark. Which as a commuter
would be almost inevitable.
But it is good for you nevertheless; even allowing for accident
statistics and pneumonia.
Have a read of this article:
<https://road.cc/content/news/chris-boardman-shuts-down-cycling-registration-debate-296551>
The real message has nothing to do with cyclist registration:
"We know we won't make our carbon targets, our legal targets, unless we
drive a lot less".
There you have it - the reason for talking up cycling despite the fall in cycle usage. Cyclists want cars off the roads, using 'feeling safe',
'health' and 'climate change' as the means to achieve that.
On 25 Oct 2023 at 12:36:25 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
<https://road.cc/content/news/chris-boardman-shuts-down-cycling-registration-debate-296551>
The real message has nothing to do with cyclist registration:
"We know we won't make our carbon targets, our legal targets, unless we
drive a lot less”.
There you have it - the reason for talking up cycling despite the fall in
cycle usage. Cyclists want cars off the roads, using ‘feeling safe’,
‘health’ and ‘climate change’ as the means to achieve that.
A lot of people want that, including most Western govermnents. Your irrational
dislike of cylists blinds you to the fact that in this matter they are only playing the role of "useful idiots". Blaming cyclists for 'climate change' is a little too paranoid, I think.
On 25/10/2023 12:41, Spike wrote:
The figures you quote add so little insight into the health benefits of
cycling, one wonders why you do it?
Perhaps I do so because there are no health benefit insights to be had.
I can understand someone thinking there were no health benefits to
cycling. Wrong, but I can understand a point being made. But, if there
were no benefits, or net benefits, to cycling, it would be a very
significant insight.
You seem to be saying you want to post lots of meaningless data, because there is no meaning.
Nil sum, ergo nil cogito.
On 25 Oct 2023 at 12:36:25 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uhadt9$j5k2$1@dont-email.me...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 22:38:40 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uh9248$3r11$2@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Ah contraire mon ami. ( Yes it gets you speaking French as well )
I didn't say I would never ride a bike. It's the "on public roads" bit >>>> that scares me.
Indeed.
In the past, I've wasted countless hours vainly trying to explain to
"nouveau" cycling zealots, who've successfully persuaded politicians
in some places to waste millions on the provision of useless cycling
facilities, that unless people are born to it, or are fitness fanatics
or are driven by sheer practical or economic necessity, no sensible
person would otherwise choose to ride a bicycle on busy public roads.
More especially in the pouring rain or after dark. Which as a commuter
would be almost inevitable.
But it is good for you nevertheless; even allowing for accident
statistics and pneumonia.
Have a read of this article:
<https://road.cc/content/news/chris-boardman-shuts-down-cycling-registration-debate-296551>
The real message has nothing to do with cyclist registration:
"We know we won't make our carbon targets, our legal targets, unless we
drive a lot less”.
There you have it - the reason for talking up cycling despite the fall in
cycle usage. Cyclists want cars off the roads, using ‘feeling safe’,
‘health’ and ‘climate change’ as the means to achieve that.
A lot of people want that, including most Western govermnents.
Your irrational
dislike of cylists blinds you to the fact that in this matter they are only playing the role of "useful idiots". Blaming cyclists for 'climate change' is a little too paranoid, I think.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 25 Oct 2023 at 12:36:25 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
<https://road.cc/content/news/chris-boardman-shuts-down-cycling-registration-debate-296551>
The real message has nothing to do with cyclist registration:
"We know we won't make our carbon targets, our legal targets, unless we
drive a lot less”.
There you have it - the reason for talking up cycling despite the fall in >>> cycle usage. Cyclists want cars off the roads, using ‘feeling safe’, >>> ‘health’ and ‘climate change’ as the means to achieve that.
A lot of people want that, including most Western govermnents. Your irrational
dislike of cylists blinds you to the fact that in this matter they are only >> playing the role of "useful idiots". Blaming cyclists for 'climate change' is
a little too paranoid, I think.
I quoted (gave a link to a report of comments by) Chris Boardman that
linked cycling with reductions of CO2 to in pursue our climate targets. I suggest you take up the matter of ‘climate change’ and cyclists with him, as it was his statement and not mine. Quite what is irrational in referring to Boardman’s utterance on the matter I leave to you to explain.
He said
QUOTE
We know we won't make our carbon targets, our legal targets, unless we
drive a lot less. And the only politically palatable way to do that is to give people a viable, attractive alternative.
UNQUOTE
"Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote in message news:kpsctpFdc06U1@mid.individual.net...
Have a read of this article:
<https://road.cc/content/news/chris-boardman-shuts-down-cycling-registration-debate-296551>
The real message has nothing to do with cyclist registration:
"We know we won't make our carbon targets, our legal targets, unless we
drive a lot less".
There you have it - the reason for talking up cycling despite the fall in
cycle usage. Cyclists want cars off the roads, using 'feeling safe',
'health' and 'climate change' as the means to achieve that.
Cycle usage is being promoted for one simple reason
Politicians in towns and cities are forever getting their ears bent by parents about the pollution caused by cars And what it's doing to their children's health.
(The fact that this totally ignores the impact of commercial transport
for which there is currently no alternative or the fact that some of those self same parents may own cars, is for present purposes immaterial)
And the only answer they can come up realistically, in the absence of sufficiently widespread EV take-up, is to promote cycling Which then
allows the politicians to blame the public for the pollution, in not
cycling more. "We've done all we can".
Which also happens to cost much less than does investing in public
transport.
It really is as simple as that.
Plus the fact that in many towns and cities, the existing road structure, when combined with the constant need to be digging them up, both to repair legacy infrastructure and to install new, simply means more congestion producing even more pollution.
All of which then allows the cycling zealots to attach themselves to the coat-tails of the polticians, in pursuit of their impossible dream
Many, possibly as much as 80%, of cases of asthma sensitivity and similar lung conditions arise from a faulty immune response developed in very early childhood. If this issue was tackled, people would be healthier. But it’s easier to impose taxes....
I don't doubt what you say. I would comment like this:
AFAICT the cause of lung cancer from atmospheric pollution from
vehicles and other sources depends on the existence of pre-cancerous
lesions in the lung, which are triggered into growth by the pollutants.
So one might think that tackling the causes of these lesions might be
a good idea. But it'seasier to shift the blame onto private motor-vehicle transport, which can usefully be dealt with by the happy expedient of
raising taxes.
Pollution in the home can be up to eight times that of the levels
outdoors.
The unseemly rush to deal with the latter totally ignores the former. It's harder to legislate against indoor pollution
and much harder to tax,
so the
easy, visible targets are chosen instead.
Many, possibly as much as 80%, of cases of asthma sensitivity and similar lung conditions arise from a faulty immune response developed in very
early childhood. If this issue was tackled, people would be healthier.
But it's easier to impose taxes.
About 20% of cyclist deaths arise from single-vehicle accidents. All
the cycling infra in the world won't stop this. The cycling media ignores
the issue completely. As cycling numbers increase, so will the numbers of fatal cyclist SVAs; it is not a 'safety in numbers' thing. 'Vision Zero'
is a laughable concept, designed to beat people into line with the current political thinking, and doesn't have to be achievable.
On 25/10/2023 13:20, billy bookcase wrote:
In support of such a claim, your mission therefore, should you choose to
accept it, would seem to be to find a single reputable website anywere
in the World which gives the UK a higher life expectancy than that of
the Netherlands.
Another basis of comparison between Netherlands and the UK is population
density
Netherlands.............20......424 per sq km
United Kingdom .........34......272 per sq km
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
Which presumably makes a difference where the spread of contagious
diseases and breathing in car exhaust fumes is concerned.
Correlation is not causation. Anyone with even the simplest knowledge of statistics should know that.
[TRIMMED]
Some cities, and some towns, have good cycle lanes. One technique
I've used, and being a fair weather cyclist it has to be a dry day,
where I would park in a side street, with naturally free parking, and
cycle the rest of the way. In many instances it would be far quicker
than a full commute by car.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:kpstnfFgjsmU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/10/2023 13:20, billy bookcase wrote:
In support of such a claim, your mission therefore, should you choose to >>> accept it, would seem to be to find a single reputable website anywere
in the World which gives the UK a higher life expectancy than that of
the Netherlands.
Another basis of comparison between Netherlands and the UK is population >>> density
Netherlands.............20......424 per sq km
United Kingdom .........34......272 per sq km
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
Which presumably makes a difference where the spread of contagious
diseases and breathing in car exhaust fumes is concerned.
Correlation is not causation. Anyone with even the simplest knowledge of
statistics should know that.
Indeed not.
But anyone with even the simplest knowledge of statistics should know that if people
are standing closer together as a result of a higher population density and are
sneezing over one another then there's a greater possibily of those others catching
a cold as a result
Cause: sneezing over people .Effect: those people catching colds
Variable : the distance between them
bb
On 26 Oct 2023 at 12:32:05 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kpstnfFgjsmU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/10/2023 13:20, billy bookcase wrote:
In support of such a claim, your mission therefore, should you choose
to
accept it, would seem to be to find a single reputable website anywere >>>> in the World which gives the UK a higher life expectancy than that of
the Netherlands.
Another basis of comparison between Netherlands and the UK is
population
density
Netherlands.............20......424 per sq km
United Kingdom .........34......272 per sq km
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
Which presumably makes a difference where the spread of contagious
diseases and breathing in car exhaust fumes is concerned.
Correlation is not causation. Anyone with even the simplest knowledge
of
statistics should know that.
Indeed not.
But anyone with even the simplest knowledge of statistics should know
that
if people
are standing closer together as a result of a higher population density
and
are
sneezing over one another then there's a greater possibily of those
others
catching
a cold as a result
Cause: sneezing over people .Effect: those people catching colds
Variable : the distance between them
bb
You'd think the propensity of the French to kiss each other all
the time would outweigh their lower population density. Just one
of many known and unknown confounding factors in these facile
comparisons of countries.
"Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote in message news:kpup5pF29e2U1@mid.individual.net...
I don't doubt what you say. I would comment like this:
AFAICT the cause of lung cancer from atmospheric pollution from
vehicles and other sources depends on the existence of pre-cancerous
lesions in the lung, which are triggered into growth by the pollutants.
So one might think that tackling the causes of these lesions might be
a good idea. But it'seasier to shift the blame onto private motor-vehicle
transport, which can usefully be dealt with by the happy expedient of
raising taxes.
So how exactly can we identify and tackle the cause of these lesions ?
Will we need to recruit more doctors for instance ?
Won't this also require a lot more monitoring equipment and people to interpret the results ?
How much is all this going to cost ?
How are we going to pay for it all ?
Pollution in the home can be up to eight times that of the levels
outdoors.
"Outdoors" is a big place including places like the Scottish Highlands.
Whereas indoors can include sitting next to someone smoking a cigarette
Only "eight times" ? Are you really sure about this ?.
The unseemly rush to deal with the latter totally ignores the former. It's >> harder to legislate against indoor pollution
Reducing cigarette consumption would be a start.
and much harder to tax,
not in the case of cigarettes
Many, possibly as much as 80%, of cases of asthma sensitivity and similar
lung conditions arise from a faulty immune response developed in very
early childhood. If this issue was tackled, people would be healthier.
But it's easier to impose taxes.
Tackled how exactly ? Recruiting even more doctors, buying even more equipment to comprise an"Immune Response/Asthma Taskforce. in addition
to your previous "Lesions Taskforce"
And who is going to pay for all *this* ?
About 20% of cyclist deaths arise from single-vehicle accidents. All
the cycling infra in the world won't stop this. The cycling media ignores
the issue completely. As cycling numbers increase, so will the numbers of
fatal cyclist SVAs; it is not a 'safety in numbers' thing. 'Vision Zero'
is a laughable concept, designed to beat people into line with the current >> political thinking, and doesn't have to be achievable.
"Vision Zero" is only laughable to anyone who's ever heard of it, or who takes any notice of someone like Chris Boardman. Former pro cyclists generally and former World Record holders in particular may well be admired for their achievements on the bike. But none have ever shown any particular aptitude when it comes to the brains department They're simply mouthpieces or marketing influencers for most part, trading on their reputation on the bike. And good luck to them, if they can bring it off.
Basically it's all just a job creation scheme for self-righteous
desk-bound careerist administrators.
On 12:29 25 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
[TRIMMED]
Some cities, and some towns, have good cycle lanes. One technique
I've used, and being a fair weather cyclist it has to be a dry day,
where I would park in a side street, with naturally free parking, and
cycle the rest of the way. In many instances it would be far quicker
than a full commute by car.
Regarding fair weather cycling, very few bikes these days have
mudguards. Maybe they don't get used in the rain like the old days.
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:uhadt9$j5k2$1@dont-email.me...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 22:38:40 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uh9248$3r11$2@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Ah contraire mon ami. ( Yes it gets you speaking French as well )
I didn't say I would never ride a bike. It's the "on public roads" bit
that scares me.
Indeed.
In the past, I've wasted countless hours vainly trying to explain to "nouveau" cycling zealots, who've successfully persuaded politicians
in some places to waste millions on the provision of useless cycling facilities, that unless people are born to it, or are fitness fanatics
or are driven by sheer practical or economic necessity, no sensible
person would otherwise choose to ride a bicycle on busy public roads.
More especially in the pouring rain or after dark. Which as a commuter
would be almost inevitable.
But it is good for you nevertheless; even allowing for accident
statistics and pneumonia.
On 25/10/2023 04:43 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Oct 2023 at 12:36:25 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid>
wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uhadt9$j5k2$1@dont-email.me...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 22:38:40 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uh9248$3r11$2@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Ah contraire mon ami. ( Yes it gets you speaking French as well >>>>>> )
I didn't say I would never ride a bike. It's the "on public roads"
bit that scares me.
Indeed.
In the past, I've wasted countless hours vainly trying to explain to
"nouveau" cycling zealots, who've successfully persuaded politicians
in some places to waste millions on the provision of useless cycling
facilities, that unless people are born to it, or are fitness
fanatics or are driven by sheer practical or economic necessity, no
sensible person would otherwise choose to ride a bicycle on busy
public roads. More especially in the pouring rain or after dark.
Which as a commuter would be almost inevitable.
But it is good for you nevertheless; even allowing for accident
statistics and pneumonia.
Have a read of this article:
<https://road.cc/content/news/chris-boardman-shuts-down-cycling- registration-debate-296551>
The real message has nothing to do with cyclist registration:
"We know we won't make our carbon targets, our legal targets, unless
we drive a lot less”.
There you have it - the reason for talking up cycling despite the fall
in cycle usage. Cyclists want cars off the roads, using ‘feeling
safe’,
‘health’ and ‘climate change’ as the means to achieve that.
A lot of people want that, including most Western govermnents.
When was it put to the people in the referendum?
I must have been on holiday.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:kpvrp2Fchf1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 26 Oct 2023 at 12:32:05 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kpstnfFgjsmU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/10/2023 13:20, billy bookcase wrote:
In support of such a claim, your mission therefore, should you
choose to accept it, would seem to be to find a single reputable
website anywere in the World which gives the UK a higher life
expectancy than that of the Netherlands.
Another basis of comparison between Netherlands and the UK is
population density
Netherlands.............20......424 per sq km United Kingdom
.........34......272 per sq km
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
Which presumably makes a difference where the spread of contagious
diseases and breathing in car exhaust fumes is concerned.
Correlation is not causation. Anyone with even the simplest
knowledge of statistics should know that.
Indeed not.
But anyone with even the simplest knowledge of statistics should know
that if people are standing closer together as a result of a higher
population density and are sneezing over one another then there's a
greater possibily of those others catching a cold as a result
Cause: sneezing over people .Effect: those people catching colds
Variable : the distance between them
bb
You'd think the propensity of the French to kiss each other all the
time would outweigh their lower population density. Just one of many
known and unknown confounding factors in these facile comparisons of
countries.
You're rather overlooking the fact that the French eat a lot more snails
than we do here in the UK. Which are jam packed with health giving
vitamins and minerals
quote
In addition to containing significant sources of protein and low amounts
of fat, snails are also good sources of iron, calcium, Vitamin A, and a number of other minerals. Vitamin A helps your immune system fight off diseases and strengthens your eyes. It also helps cells in your body
grow.
unquote
https://www.webmd.com/diet/health-benefits-snails
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 20:23:44 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in messageList_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
news:kpvrp2Fchf1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 26 Oct 2023 at 12:32:05 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kpstnfFgjsmU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/10/2023 13:20, billy bookcase wrote:
In support of such a claim, your mission therefore, should you
choose to accept it, would seem to be to find a single reputable
website anywere in the World which gives the UK a higher life
expectancy than that of the Netherlands.
Another basis of comparison between Netherlands and the UK is
population density
Netherlands.............20......424 per sq km United Kingdom
.........34......272 per sq km
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Which presumably makes a difference where the spread of contagious >>>>>> diseases and breathing in car exhaust fumes is concerned.
Correlation is not causation. Anyone with even the simplest
knowledge of statistics should know that.
Indeed not.
But anyone with even the simplest knowledge of statistics should know >>>> that if people are standing closer together as a result of a higher
population density and are sneezing over one another then there's a
greater possibily of those others catching a cold as a result
Cause: sneezing over people .Effect: those people catching colds
Variable : the distance between them
bb
You'd think the propensity of the French to kiss each other all the
time would outweigh their lower population density. Just one of many
known and unknown confounding factors in these facile comparisons of
countries.
You're rather overlooking the fact that the French eat a lot more snails
than we do here in the UK. Which are jam packed with health giving
vitamins and minerals
quote
In addition to containing significant sources of protein and low amounts
of fat, snails are also good sources of iron, calcium, Vitamin A, and a
number of other minerals. Vitamin A helps your immune system fight off
diseases and strengthens your eyes. It also helps cells in your body
grow.
unquote
https://www.webmd.com/diet/health-benefits-snails
Mankinds earliest livestock I believe. Also better from England ...
On 12:29 25 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
[TRIMMED]
Some cities, and some towns, have good cycle lanes. One technique
I've used, and being a fair weather cyclist it has to be a dry day,
where I would park in a side street, with naturally free parking, and
cycle the rest of the way. In many instances it would be far quicker
than a full commute by car.
Regarding fair weather cycling, very few bikes these days have
mudguards. Maybe they don't get used in the rain like the old days.
On 12:29 25 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
[TRIMMED]
Some cities, and some towns, have good cycle lanes. One technique I've
used, and being a fair weather cyclist it has to be a dry day, where I
would park in a side street, with naturally free parking, and cycle the
rest of the way. In many instances it would be far quicker than a full
commute by car.
Regarding fair weather cycling, very few bikes these days have
mudguards. Maybe they don't get used in the rain like the old days.
On 2023-10-27, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 20:23:44 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in messageList_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
news:kpvrp2Fchf1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 26 Oct 2023 at 12:32:05 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:kpstnfFgjsmU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/10/2023 13:20, billy bookcase wrote:
In support of such a claim, your mission therefore, should you
choose to accept it, would seem to be to find a single reputable >>>>>>> website anywere in the World which gives the UK a higher life
expectancy than that of the Netherlands.
Another basis of comparison between Netherlands and the UK is
population density
Netherlands.............20......424 per sq km United Kingdom
.........34......272 per sq km https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Which presumably makes a difference where the spread of contagious >>>>>>> diseases and breathing in car exhaust fumes is concerned.
Correlation is not causation. Anyone with even the simplest
knowledge of statistics should know that.
Indeed not.
But anyone with even the simplest knowledge of statistics should
know that if people are standing closer together as a result of a
higher population density and are sneezing over one another then
there's a greater possibily of those others catching a cold as a
result
Cause: sneezing over people .Effect: those people catching colds
Variable : the distance between them
bb
You'd think the propensity of the French to kiss each other all the
time would outweigh their lower population density. Just one of many
known and unknown confounding factors in these facile comparisons of
countries.
You're rather overlooking the fact that the French eat a lot more
snails than we do here in the UK. Which are jam packed with health
giving vitamins and minerals
quote
In addition to containing significant sources of protein and low
amounts of fat, snails are also good sources of iron, calcium, Vitamin
A, and a number of other minerals. Vitamin A helps your immune system
fight off diseases and strengthens your eyes. It also helps cells in
your body grow.
unquote
https://www.webmd.com/diet/health-benefits-snails
Mankinds earliest livestock I believe. Also better from England ...
I think I've read somewhere [1] that the garden snail that is now
prevalent in England was introduced by the Romans (for food).
[1] Not in Monty Python.
Politicians in towns and cities are forever getting their ears bent by parents about the pollution caused by cars And what it's doing to their children's health.
An awful lot of what we think we "know" about prehistory is totally and utterly contradicted by the archaeology. For example the recent find of a British gold coin dated c. 50BCE. You need a hell of a stable,
sophisticated society to use coinage.
The primary function of which is to
aid trade. Hardly the barbarian cavemen Caesar sold us. But the plebs, war-war sounds much more impressive than jaw-jaw.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 13:30:19 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 12:29 25 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
[TRIMMED]
Some cities, and some towns, have good cycle lanes. One technique I've
used, and being a fair weather cyclist it has to be a dry day, where I
would park in a side street, with naturally free parking, and cycle the
rest of the way. In many instances it would be far quicker than a full
commute by car.
Regarding fair weather cycling, very few bikes these days have
mudguards. Maybe they don't get used in the rain like the old days.
There is an electronic sign on the A38 into Brum, showing the number of cyclist that have passed it that day. It's remarkably weather sensitive.
On a wet day there is fuck all point in the 3+ mile cycleway they carved
out of the main road. But every day there is congestion.
On 25/10/2023 09:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uhadt9$j5k2$1@dont-email.me...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 22:38:40 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uh9248$3r11$2@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Ah contraire mon ami. ( Yes it gets you speaking French as well )
I didn't say I would never ride a bike. It's the "on public roads" bit
that scares me.
Indeed.
In the past, I've wasted countless hours vainly trying to explain to
"nouveau" cycling zealots, who've successfully persuaded politicians
in some places to waste millions on the provision of useless cycling
facilities, that unless people are born to it, or are fitness fanatics
or are driven by sheer practical or economic necessity, no sensible
person would otherwise choose to ride a bicycle on busy public roads.
More especially in the pouring rain or after dark. Which as a commuter
would be almost inevitable.
But it is good for you nevertheless; even allowing for accident
statistics and pneumonia.
Don't worry politics will come to the rescue to close cycle lanes because they're only used by White Men!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycling-london-uk-sadiq-khan-bikes-race-class-gender-a8367916.html
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/oct/12/why-are-london-cyclists-so-white-male-and-middle-class
On 25/10/2023 18:42, billy bookcase wrote:
Politicians in towns and cities are forever getting their ears bent by
parents about the pollution caused by cars And what it's doing to their
children's health.
I'm quite aware that it is a bad idea to go into town when the schools go out. This is because of all the parents collecting their kids in monster trucks.
On 27/10/2023 10:00, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 13:30:19 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 12:29 25 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
[TRIMMED]
Some cities, and some towns, have good cycle lanes. One technique
I've used, and being a fair weather cyclist it has to be a dry day,
where I would park in a side street, with naturally free parking, and
cycle the rest of the way. In many instances it would be far quicker
than a full commute by car.
Regarding fair weather cycling, very few bikes these days have
mudguards. Maybe they don't get used in the rain like the old days.
There is an electronic sign on the A38 into Brum, showing the number of
cyclist that have passed it that day. It's remarkably weather
sensitive.
On a wet day there is fuck all point in the 3+ mile cycleway they
carved out of the main road. But every day there is congestion.
Last time I saw a sign in Birmingham it was in the evening and it said
500 cyclists had used the stretch of cycle-way that day. I guess that
number of cars would normally pass in the same road in a fraction of an
hour.
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:uhg2hp$272ie$1@dont-email.me...
An awful lot of what we think we "know" about prehistory is totally and
utterly contradicted by the archaeology. For example the recent find of a
British gold coin dated c. 50BCE. You need a hell of a stable,
sophisticated society to use coinage.
And also fairly stable and sophisticated methods of deterring forgers.
As students of particulraly grueseome and painful methods of execution
may already know, in some parts of Europe during the Middle ages the
penalty for counterfeiting and coining (just clipping off the edges
of coins) was boiling in oil. Evan as late as 1687 in Bremen*
Although whether it was better or worse that I'd previously thought
I'm not sure. I'd always thought they stuck people in the pot of oil
and then gradually heated it up. But thinking about it that would take
ages and the crowds would have all melted away..
Whereas they actually lowered the condemned person into the
boiling oil on a chains
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_boiling
Better or worse ?
You decide !
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:40:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 27/10/2023 10:00, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 13:30:19 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 12:29 25 Oct 2023, Fredxx said:
[TRIMMED]
Some cities, and some towns, have good cycle lanes. One technique
I've used, and being a fair weather cyclist it has to be a dry day,
where I would park in a side street, with naturally free parking, and >>>>> cycle the rest of the way. In many instances it would be far quicker >>>>> than a full commute by car.
Regarding fair weather cycling, very few bikes these days have
mudguards. Maybe they don't get used in the rain like the old days.
There is an electronic sign on the A38 into Brum, showing the number of
cyclist that have passed it that day. It's remarkably weather
sensitive.
On a wet day there is fuck all point in the 3+ mile cycleway they
carved out of the main road. But every day there is congestion.
Last time I saw a sign in Birmingham it was in the evening and it said
500 cyclists had used the stretch of cycle-way that day. I guess that
number of cars would normally pass in the same road in a fraction of an
hour.
At least a dedicated cyclepath means you don't have tens of cars crawling
in first gear behind that lone cyclist grinding up a slight incline.
(Especially since they decided to enforce the passing distance ...)
Generally more cyclists means more pollution from less cars. It's genius.
On 2023-10-27, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uhg2hp$272ie$1@dont-email.me...
An awful lot of what we think we "know" about prehistory is totally and
utterly contradicted by the archaeology. For example the recent find of
a
British gold coin dated c. 50BCE. You need a hell of a stable,
sophisticated society to use coinage.
And also fairly stable and sophisticated methods of deterring forgers.
As students of particulraly grueseome and painful methods of execution
may already know, in some parts of Europe during the Middle ages the
penalty for counterfeiting and coining (just clipping off the edges
of coins) was boiling in oil. Evan as late as 1687 in Bremen*
Although whether it was better or worse that I'd previously thought
I'm not sure. I'd always thought they stuck people in the pot of oil
and then gradually heated it up. But thinking about it that would take
ages and the crowds would have all melted away..
Whereas they actually lowered the condemned person into the
boiling oil on a chains
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_boiling
Better or worse ?
You decide !
I'm surprised --- I thought oil was too expensive to use for that sort
of thing. (Castle defenders didn't really pour boiling oil on
attackers for that reason, although they did use hot sand, which
really gets in your armour.)
When was it put to the people in the referendum?
Democratic government don't need referendums on every policy. You should
look it up.
When was it put to the people in the referendum?
Democratic government don't need referendums on every policy. You should
look it up.
Seems to work for the Swiss.
On 28/10/2023 09:26, Jeff wrote:
When was it put to the people in the referendum?
Democratic government don't need referendums on every policy. You should >>> look it up.
Seems to work for the Swiss.
That's not for every policy. I do like the idea.
Furthermore if the Maastricht Treaty and other following treaties were
put to a UK referendum, I genuinely believe we would still be in the
EU/EEC.
On 28/10/2023 09:26, Jeff wrote:
When was it put to the people in the referendum?
Democratic government don't need referendums on every policy. You
should look it up.
Seems to work for the Swiss.
That's not for every policy. I do like the idea.
Furthermore if the Maastricht Treaty and other following treaties were
put to a UK referendum, I genuinely believe we would still be in the
EU/EEC.
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 14:32:41 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/10/2023 09:26, Jeff wrote:
When was it put to the people in the referendum?
Democratic government don't need referendums on every policy. You
should look it up.
Seems to work for the Swiss.
That's not for every policy. I do like the idea.
Furthermore if the Maastricht Treaty and other following treaties were
put to a UK referendum, I genuinely believe we would still be in the
EU/EEC.
The "problem" is our constitution is founded on the principle of *representative* democracy. That is we send representatives (not
delegates) to the legislature (who then form an executive therein from).
So referendums are really another way of saying "I don't trust my MP".
Now admittedly I don't trust my MP. Whoever they may be and whatever club they pretend they belong to. But we can't really base a system of
government from the ground up on not trusting it.
No matter what our individual political beliefs are and irrespective of whether they would have been our personal choice, we *can* all trust our
MPs not to share our sense of priorities (as a minimum).
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 16:48:42 +0000, JNugent wrote:
No matter what our individual political beliefs are and irrespective of
whether they would have been our personal choice, we *can* all trust our
MPs not to share our sense of priorities (as a minimum).
"We" ?
You may, I most certainly do not.
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 16:48:42 +0000, JNugent wrote:
No matter what our individual political beliefs are and irrespective of
whether they would have been our personal choice, we *can* all trust our
MPs not to share our sense of priorities (as a minimum).
"We" ?
You may, I most certainly do not.
On 28/10/2023 05:56 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 14:32:41 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/10/2023 09:26, Jeff wrote:
When was it put to the people in the referendum?
Democratic government don't need referendums on every policy. You
should look it up.
Seems to work for the Swiss.
That's not for every policy. I do like the idea.
Furthermore if the Maastricht Treaty and other following treaties were
put to a UK referendum, I genuinely believe we would still be in the
EU/EEC.
The "problem" is our constitution is founded on the principle of
*representative* democracy. That is we send representatives (not
delegates) to the legislature (who then form an executive therein from).
So referendums are really another way of saying "I don't trust my MP".
No matter what our individual political beliefs are and irrespective of whether they would have been our personal choice, we *can* all trust our
MPs not to share our sense of priorities (as a minimum).
Now admittedly I don't trust my MP. Whoever they may be and whatever club
they pretend they belong to. But we can't really base a system of
government from the ground up on not trusting it.
So let the SNP "government" of Scotland declare UDI?
Not a bad idea...
So let the SNP "government" of Scotland declare UDI?
Not a bad idea...
A specious argument; had Westminster granted the Scottish assembly that power then we should have to let them do so. But they didn't, so we don't.
On 29/10/2023 21:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
So let the SNP "government" of Scotland declare UDI?
Not a bad idea...
A specious argument; had Westminster granted the Scottish assembly that power
then we should have to let them do so. But they didn't, so we don't.
I don't think we granted that power to the American Colonies or
Rhodesia, and yet we let them do it.
On 29/10/2023 21:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
So let the SNP "government" of Scotland declare UDI?
Not a bad idea...
A specious argument; had Westminster granted the Scottish assembly that power
then we should have to let them do so. But they didn't, so we don't.
I don't think we granted that power to the American Colonies or
Rhodesia, and yet we let them do it.
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 16:48:42 +0000, JNugent wrote:
No matter what our individual political beliefs are and irrespective of
whether they would have been our personal choice, we *can* all trust our
MPs not to share our sense of priorities (as a minimum).
"We" ?
You may, I most certainly do not.
On 29 Oct 2023 at 16:48:42 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/10/2023 05:56 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 14:32:41 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/10/2023 09:26, Jeff wrote:
When was it put to the people in the referendum?
Democratic government don't need referendums on every policy. You
should look it up.
Seems to work for the Swiss.
That's not for every policy. I do like the idea.
Furthermore if the Maastricht Treaty and other following treaties were >>>> put to a UK referendum, I genuinely believe we would still be in the
EU/EEC.
The "problem" is our constitution is founded on the principle of
*representative* democracy. That is we send representatives (not
delegates) to the legislature (who then form an executive therein from). >>>
So referendums are really another way of saying "I don't trust my MP".
No matter what our individual political beliefs are and irrespective of
whether they would have been our personal choice, we *can* all trust our
MPs not to share our sense of priorities (as a minimum).
Now admittedly I don't trust my MP. Whoever they may be and whatever club >>> they pretend they belong to. But we can't really base a system of
government from the ground up on not trusting it.
So let the SNP "government" of Scotland declare UDI?
Not a bad idea...
A specious argument; had Westminster granted the Scottish assembly that power then we should have to let them do so. But they didn't, so we don't.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 52:43:10 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,184 |