Legal ruling on cycle helmets
Comments
-
You're right Dirk (demonising HSE), the HSE even have a "Myth of the Month" section on their site to try and counter some of the rubbish the media comes out with:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/0 -
alfablue wrote:No politician will ever state what would be an acceptable level, however (not if they wish to stay in politics)..
Interestingly, as a resident I am being consulted by Ealing Council about a zebra crossing at our local primary school. They state (I think) that their objective is to reduce from 2000-2010 the number of deaths and serious accidents on the road by 50% (for children the figure was 60%) and if I recall correctly they are slightly behind their target. I think these are TFL figures and apply across London.Bike1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35118936@N07/3258551288/
Bike 2
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35118936@N ... otostream/
New Bike
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35118936@N07/3479300346/0 -
The reason the trains are packed on that particular line is because there are so few lines - okay, the Haymarket - Slateford direction splits to go north, to Stirling and to Glasgow, but that's not a lot, given that they are connecting Glasgow (ca. 1.5million people), Edinburgh (ca. 0.75 million) and Stirling/Falkirk (a few hundred thousand?). Compare that to one small wedge of London!
Not nuclear - even if "country" is Scotland, rather than the whole UK. Its coal/gas.0 -
Indeed- however, that's a lot of people who arn't driving, the bike racks at the stations are often well used and it can be hard to get your bike on the train, sometimes. Would more people cycle if they could easily take their bike with them?Always Tyred wrote:The reason the trains are packed on that particular line is because there are so few lines - okay, the Haymarket - Slateford direction splits to go north, to Stirling and to Glasgow, but that's not a lot, given that they are connecting Glasgow (ca. 1.5million people), Edinburgh (ca. 0.75 million) and Stirling/Falkirk (a few hundred thousand?). Compare that to one small wedge of London!Not nuclear - even if "country" is Scotland, rather than the whole UK. Its coal/gas.
Indeed- a lttle research shows 55% oil, gas,coal and 43% nuclear+renewables. I assume the other 2% must be generated by rounding errors, a frequently overlooked source of power(!). I really should have been listening more closely to what the bloke on the radio was saying this morning!!
Worth noting, however, that the renewables figure is up by 18% on the year before, and that the nuclear figure is lower than usual as a result of "unplanned outages".
Cheers,
W.0 -
Personally - I wear a lid whatever, don't want my melon injured under any circumstance - accident involving a 3rd party or trying to track stand and binning it.
I also think it is up to you to take an element of responsibility and should help yourself a bit - minimal cost for a lid.....However, in court I don't think it stands up as the cyclist is completely the victim....time, place and so on...One for the Lawyers on here.0 -
WGWarburton wrote:Always Tyred wrote:I'm just not optomistic, WG.Also the trams are electric. How do we generate electricity in this country?
.
Mostly Nuclear, I think- minimal carbon emissions.
Cheers,
W.
Not even close I'm afraid. Around 17% Nuclear and falling every year as the power stations come off the bars. Around 33% Coal and another 40% Gas.
That's why I hate the electric car lobby. Incredibly inefficient use of 'energy' through burning almost exclusively fossil fuels in power stations (less efficient than a petrol engine in the first place), then transmit resultant elevtricity through power lines (more loss), then store in a huge battery (more losses through heat generation and chemistry). Crazy idea!!!0 -
cjw wrote:WGWarburton wrote:Always Tyred wrote:I'm just not optomistic, WG.Also the trams are electric. How do we generate electricity in this country?
.
Mostly Nuclear, I think- minimal carbon emissions.
Cheers,
W.
Not even close I'm afraid. Around 17% Nuclear and falling every year as the power stations come off the bars. Around 33% Coal and another 40% Gas.
That's why I hate the electric car lobby. Incredibly inefficient use of 'energy' through burning almost exclusively fossil fuels in power stations (less efficient than a petrol engine in the first place), then transmit resultant elevtricity through power lines (more loss), then store in a huge battery (more losses through heat generation and chemistry). Crazy idea!!!
This might be a Scotland/UK distinction - a disproportionate number of nuclear power stations are located in Scotland, and the scenery is "decorated" with a disproportionate number of wind farms. Another example of Scotland (which of course sponges terribly from England) doing more of their fair share of providing energy, after decades of supplying gas and oil.
There will be a hiatus for nuclear, while new power stations are built by French and German engineers (because we allowed our own expertise to lapse), and then the figure is due to rise substantially. Its the only viable low carbon option at the moment. Wind/wave are just a waste of time - on shore wind in particular - but they do let everyone know how hard the government is trying.0 -
That's not entirely logical. At least it is possible to generate electricity by non-fossil fuel means. If the infrastructure were in place it would eventually facilitate a transition away from fossil fuels.cjw wrote:That's why I hate the electric car lobby. Incredibly inefficient use of 'energy' through burning almost exclusively fossil fuels in power stations (less efficient than a petrol engine in the first place), then transmit resultant elevtricity through power lines (more loss), then store in a huge battery (more losses through heat generation and chemistry). Crazy idea!!!
The first pilot fusion reactors are currently being built. The optomistic part of me hopes that our reliance on electricity will, within decades, be able to satiated by fusion rather than fission. Other than slightly squeakier voices, I'm not sure there is any problem with introducing helium into the atmosphere.
Sadly, since it will take the majority of the world's countries a further long period of time to be able to afford any new technology and to switch over, during which time the rate of burning coal/gas to generate electricity will contrinue to rise, is doesn't matter how many nuclear power stations, or obtrusive wind turbines, or pointless slugs collecting wave power we build in this tiny corner of the northern hemisphere, or how many people cycle to work here.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:Sadly, since it will take the majority of the world's countries a further long period of time to be able to afford any new technology and to switch over, during which time the rate of burning coal/gas to generate electricity will contrinue to rise, is doesn't matter how many nuclear power stations, or obtrusive wind turbines, or pointless slugs collecting wave power we build in this tiny corner of the northern hemisphere, or how many people cycle to work here.
You're not related to John Laurie (Pvt Frazer) by any chance are you?
Cheers,
W.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:cjw wrote:WGWarburton wrote:Always Tyred wrote:I'm just not optomistic, WG.Also the trams are electric. How do we generate electricity in this country?
.
Mostly Nuclear, I think- minimal carbon emissions.
Cheers,
W.
Not even close I'm afraid. Around 17% Nuclear and falling every year as the power stations come off the bars. Around 33% Coal and another 40% Gas.
That's why I hate the electric car lobby. Incredibly inefficient use of 'energy' through burning almost exclusively fossil fuels in power stations (less efficient than a petrol engine in the first place), then transmit resultant elevtricity through power lines (more loss), then store in a huge battery (more losses through heat generation and chemistry). Crazy idea!!!
This might be a Scotland/UK distinction - a disproportionate number of nuclear power stations are located in Scotland, and the scenery is "decorated" with a disproportionate number of wind farms. Another example of Scotland (which of course sponges terribly from England) doing more of their fair share of providing energy, after decades of supplying gas and oil.
Not true. There are a pretty even split. In England + Wales;
Sizewell B, Hinkley Point B, Oldbury, Wylfa, Hartlepool,
In Scotland - Torness and Hunterston B
New stations will take 10's of years to come on line (there is not even an apporved reactor design as yet), whilst Wylfa and Oldbury will be shutting in the next 2 years followed soon after older AGR stations such as Hinkley Point and Hunterston. Net impact is Nuclear provision will fall to below 10% over the next 10 years and is anticipated to rise back to around 19%.
Currently renewables are virtually insignificant (3%ish).0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
That's not entirely logical. At least it is possible to generate electricity by non-fossil fuel means. If the infrastructure were in place it would eventually facilitate a transition away from fossil fuels.cjw wrote:That's why I hate the electric car lobby. Incredibly inefficient use of 'energy' through burning almost exclusively fossil fuels in power stations (less efficient than a petrol engine in the first place), then transmit resultant elevtricity through power lines (more loss), then store in a huge battery (more losses through heat generation and chemistry). Crazy idea!!!
Of course it is logical given the current state of energy production. It is not possible to generate all of our energy through renewabales and never will be - unless you wishj to see every inch of the coast line covered with wind turbines.
You go on to say fusion prototypes are being built. I hope as you that the technology arrives, however what is going on at the moment are not prototypes reactors (simply testing if sustainable fusion is possible). The optimistic scientists still quote '30 years' as a time horizon to realise fusion generation.0 -
cjw, i don't think anyone is arguing that fusion is possible c.f. the sun!!!!!! it is more a case of if we can do it locally. But it is a delightfully neat idea, particularly seeing as the helium can just be released into the atmosphere where it will eventually go into space due to being so very light.0
-
cjw wrote:Currently renewables are virtually insignificant (3%ish).
Nope, 17%.
I think your figure covers the whole of the UK, not Scotland ("this country", for myself and Always_Tyred).
Cheers,
W.0 -
I don't think its necessarily 30 years away either (30 years being the euphamism for "not possible in the forseeable future"). I think I read in New Scientist recently that there were pilot reactors, based on each of two quite different approaches, under constrcution in France (or Switzerland, I can't remember) and the USA. It was my understanding that more energy has already been generated in heat than it takes to create the requisite conditions, but at a very small scale, however, it remains to be seen if more electricity can be generated, and on a viable scale.ride_whenever wrote:cjw, i don't think anyone is arguing that fusion is possible c.f. the sun!!!!!! it is more a case of if we can do it locally. But it is a delightfully neat idea, particularly seeing as the helium can just be released into the atmosphere where it will eventually go into space due to being so very light.0 -
There's one in Dumfries as well I think.cjw wrote:Not true. There are a pretty even split. In England + Wales;
Sizewell B, Hinkley Point B, Oldbury, Wylfa, Hartlepool,
In Scotland - Torness and Hunterston B
New stations will take 10's of years to come on line (there is not even an apporved reactor design as yet), whilst Wylfa and Oldbury will be shutting in the next 2 years followed soon after older AGR stations such as Hinkley Point and Hunterston. Net impact is Nuclear provision will fall to below 10% over the next 10 years and is anticipated to rise back to around 19%.
Currently renewables are virtually insignificant (3%ish).
You might want to bear in mind that the population of Scotland is approximately 5 million, and the population of England approximately 50 million. Ergo, Scotland has about 4 times its share, soon to rise when the English ones are decommissioned.
EDIT: We are all doomed.0 -
Yes, the 3% is UK. However you do realise that the national grid distributes and balances power usage across the UK, so you may not be getting your electricty from your local wind turbine - it's almost as likely that I am using it
0 -
No there is no reactor in Dumfires. Your thinking of Chapelcross which is a decommissioning Magnox station.
I didn't bother listing the station being decommissioned as they aren't relevant.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
I don't think its necessarily 30 years away either (30 years being the euphamism for "not possible in the forseeable future"). I think I read in New Scientist recently that there were pilot reactors, based on each of two quite different approaches, under constrcution in France (or Switzerland, I can't remember) and the USA. It was my understanding that more energy has already been generated in heat than it takes to create the requisite conditions, but at a very small scale, however, it remains to be seen if more electricity can be generated, and on a viable scale.ride_whenever wrote:cjw, i don't think anyone is arguing that fusion is possible c.f. the sun!!!!!! it is more a case of if we can do it locally. But it is a delightfully neat idea, particularly seeing as the helium can just be released into the atmosphere where it will eventually go into space due to being so very light.
I imagine you'e thinking of ITER which they hope (in a few years - 2010 to 2011) will produce more power for a minute of so than they put in. After that there is another prototype planned (DEMO) for which engineers are currently working up plans due to complete planning around 2020 and then 10 year build (ps... I have worked with some of them at JET
)
Then if all goes well scale it up and get power out (another 10 years or so) hence 30 years. Not simply a guess.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:EDIT: We are all doomed.
We are indeed doomed.0 -
Sounds about right. (the 30 year thing was something I always remember from Tomorrow's World, in relation to computers, flying cars, oil supplies, etc.)cjw wrote:I imagine you'e thinking of ITER which they hope (in a few years - 2010 to 2011) will produce more power for a minute of so than they put in. After that there is another prototype planned (DEMO) for which engineers are currently working up plans due to complete planning around 2020 and then 10 year build
Then if all goes well scale it up and get power out (another 10 years or so) hence 30 years. Not simply a guess.
Honestly though - fannying around with wind turbines is simply going to solve a problem far slower than its being created and if there is ANY hope its to hurl money at fusion because this is the only option that I can think of that will be capable of cleanly generating anything like enough power for 10 billion people.
The second it starts to look promising, this is what will happen (i.e there'll be money to be made).
Alternatively, we could cut down the rest of the rainforest and grow oil crops fro biodeisel and plastics. Should do for a while until all of the soil gets washed into the sea.0 -
I've heard people suggesting skiing helmets should be compulsory in the wake of Natasha Richardson's accident.0
-
Oddly, I looked into this last night. The debate in the skiing/snowboard community is remarkably familiar.biondino wrote:I've heard people suggesting skiing helmets should be compulsory in the wake of Natasha Richardson's accident.
Head injuries are indications in only about 20% of downhill snowsports injuries, as compared to, is it 40 or 50% in cycling?
But then, I imagine that the injury rates themsevles are higher.
Lets not have a debate about it.0
