Seemingly trivial things that cheer you up

1…266267269271272…414

Comments

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,562
    edited July 2022
    Stevo_666 said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Lots of London boroughs have 20mph by default. I think there are three roads in the whole of Richmond that are exceptions.

    Another reason not to live in London then.
    I don't think you should expect London to deliver the ultimate driving experience.
    I lived there for a while and it never did. But they really seem to be going out of their way to make things inconvenient and expensive for drivers in the capital these days. Luckily I rarely need to go into the London postcodes by car.
    I would have thought it was obvious that that has been a London-wide policy for at least the last decade and a half.
    That is clear, I think the point is exactly what that policy is. Although much less of an issue for me now that I am far from the madding crowds
    It's very clear: fewer cars by any available means.
    The anti-car agenda in London has been clear for a while.
    Yes, at least the last 15-20 years. Not just cars. Motor vehicles in general. 🙂 Seems to be finally working as the number of cars owned has been dropping since 2016.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,230

    An Amsterdam street 1900, 1971 and 2013. Which would you prefer?
  • mully79
    mully79 Posts: 904
    …
    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Glad I'm not a Welsh motorist...
    https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/12/wales-set-lower-speed-limit-20mph-despite-widespread-opposition/

    Got no issue with it other than they have done nothing to make the roads in trial areas feel like you should be slower. Even when you are trying to comply it is hard if the road is wide open with standard road markings. I think they're being over-optimistic though if they think it is suddenly going to encourage fat, lazy fekkers to walk and cycle rather than drive.

    Half-arsed is better than not-arsed-at-all, and even if it shaves off a couple of MPH, it should reduce the seriousness of injuries and signals a shift in priorities, even if more would be better still.
    If the only relevant factor is speed then they should set the limit at 5mph everywhere and be done with it.
    Between 20 and 30 is where the graph starts rising more sharply for fatality rate of pedestrians* so arguably there is more to support it as a limit than 30 (given that any limit is arbitrary).

    *It rises from 1.5% at 20mph to 8% at 30mph.
    The other obvious initiative is educating pedestrian to pay more attention when they're crossing the roads.
    Same old bull shit. How on earth do they know the speed a car was going in a fatality ?

    How many 30mph accidents are simply because road design is spectacularly rubbish and you need several pairs of eyes to read all the signage plus your Speedo plus watch for vulnerable road users ?
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    mully79 said:

    …

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Glad I'm not a Welsh motorist...
    https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/12/wales-set-lower-speed-limit-20mph-despite-widespread-opposition/

    Got no issue with it other than they have done nothing to make the roads in trial areas feel like you should be slower. Even when you are trying to comply it is hard if the road is wide open with standard road markings. I think they're being over-optimistic though if they think it is suddenly going to encourage fat, lazy fekkers to walk and cycle rather than drive.

    Half-arsed is better than not-arsed-at-all, and even if it shaves off a couple of MPH, it should reduce the seriousness of injuries and signals a shift in priorities, even if more would be better still.
    If the only relevant factor is speed then they should set the limit at 5mph everywhere and be done with it.
    Between 20 and 30 is where the graph starts rising more sharply for fatality rate of pedestrians* so arguably there is more to support it as a limit than 30 (given that any limit is arbitrary).

    *It rises from 1.5% at 20mph to 8% at 30mph.
    The other obvious initiative is educating pedestrian to pay more attention when they're crossing the roads.
    Same old bull censored . How on earth do they know the speed a car was going in a fatality ?

    How many 30mph accidents are simply because road design is spectacularly rubbish and you need several pairs of eyes to read all the signage plus your Speedo plus watch for vulnerable road users ?
    Is that a serious question?
  • Tashman
    Tashman Posts: 3,495
    mully79 said:

    …

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Glad I'm not a Welsh motorist...
    https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/12/wales-set-lower-speed-limit-20mph-despite-widespread-opposition/

    Got no issue with it other than they have done nothing to make the roads in trial areas feel like you should be slower. Even when you are trying to comply it is hard if the road is wide open with standard road markings. I think they're being over-optimistic though if they think it is suddenly going to encourage fat, lazy fekkers to walk and cycle rather than drive.

    Half-arsed is better than not-arsed-at-all, and even if it shaves off a couple of MPH, it should reduce the seriousness of injuries and signals a shift in priorities, even if more would be better still.
    If the only relevant factor is speed then they should set the limit at 5mph everywhere and be done with it.
    Between 20 and 30 is where the graph starts rising more sharply for fatality rate of pedestrians* so arguably there is more to support it as a limit than 30 (given that any limit is arbitrary).

    *It rises from 1.5% at 20mph to 8% at 30mph.
    The other obvious initiative is educating pedestrian to pay more attention when they're crossing the roads.
    Same old bull censored . How on earth do they know the speed a car was going in a fatality ?

    How many 30mph accidents are simply because road design is spectacularly rubbish and you need several pairs of eyes to read all the signage plus your Speedo plus watch for vulnerable road users ?
    Really, please hand back your license if you can't manage to maintain speed
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    orraloon said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Glad I'm not a Welsh motorist...
    https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/12/wales-set-lower-speed-limit-20mph-despite-widespread-opposition/

    Got no issue with it other than they have done nothing to make the roads in trial areas feel like you should be slower. Even when you are trying to comply it is hard if the road is wide open with standard road markings. I think they're being over-optimistic though if they think it is suddenly going to encourage fat, lazy fekkers to walk and cycle rather than drive.

    Half-arsed is better than not-arsed-at-all, and even if it shaves off a couple of MPH, it should reduce the seriousness of injuries and signals a shift in priorities, even if more would be better still.
    If the only relevant factor is speed then they should set the limit at 5mph everywhere and be done with it.
    Between 20 and 30 is where the graph starts rising more sharply for fatality rate of pedestrians* so arguably there is more to support it as a limit than 30 (given that any limit is arbitrary).

    *It rises from 1.5% at 20mph to 8% at 30mph.
    The other obvious initiative is educating pedestrian to pay more attention when they're crossing the roads.
    A more obvious initiative is introducing a minimum IQ level to be allowed to be in control of a motorised veehickle.
    That might be seen as a blatant attempt to deprive Labour voters of motorised transport.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/03/greenpolitics-liberaldemocrats

    Academic research published in the journal Intelligence compares the way people voted in the 2001 election with their IQ at the age of 10 (using data from the 1970 British cohort study). The results are fascinating.

    On a party-by-party basis, the average (childhood) IQ scores for 2001 voters were:

    Green - 108.3

    Liberal Democrat - 108.2

    Conservative - 103.7

    Labour – 103

    Plaid Cymru - 102.5

    Scottish National - 102.2

    UK Independence - 101.1

    British National - 98.4

    Did not vote/None of the above - 99.7
    If 100 IQ is average (as it’s a normal distribution) either there are a sh!tload of BNP and did not voters or that is nonsense.
    _
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,648
    rick_chasey said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    orraloon said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Glad I'm not a Welsh motorist...
    https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/12/wales-set-lower-speed-limit-20mph-despite-widespread-opposition/

    Got no issue with it other than they have done nothing to make the roads in trial areas feel like you should be slower. Even when you are trying to comply it is hard if the road is wide open with standard road markings. I think they're being over-optimistic though if they think it is suddenly going to encourage fat, lazy fekkers to walk and cycle rather than drive.

    Half-arsed is better than not-arsed-at-all, and even if it shaves off a couple of MPH, it should reduce the seriousness of injuries and signals a shift in priorities, even if more would be better still.
    If the only relevant factor is speed then they should set the limit at 5mph everywhere and be done with it.
    Between 20 and 30 is where the graph starts rising more sharply for fatality rate of pedestrians* so arguably there is more to support it as a limit than 30 (given that any limit is arbitrary).

    *It rises from 1.5% at 20mph to 8% at 30mph.
    The other obvious initiative is educating pedestrian to pay more attention when they're crossing the roads.
    A more obvious initiative is introducing a minimum IQ level to be allowed to be in control of a motorised veehickle.
    That might be seen as a blatant attempt to deprive Labour voters of motorised transport.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/03/greenpolitics-liberaldemocrats

    Academic research published in the journal Intelligence compares the way people voted in the 2001 election with their IQ at the age of 10 (using data from the 1970 British cohort study). The results are fascinating.

    On a party-by-party basis, the average (childhood) IQ scores for 2001 voters were:

    Green - 108.3

    Liberal Democrat - 108.2

    Conservative - 103.7

    Labour – 103

    Plaid Cymru - 102.5

    Scottish National - 102.2

    UK Independence - 101.1

    British National - 98.4

    Did not vote/None of the above - 99.7
    If 100 IQ is average (as it’s a normal distribution) either there are a sh!tload of BNP and did not voters or that is nonsense.
    Just over 40% didn't vote. BNP got 47k votes.

    Doesn't seem right.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,374
    pangolin said:

    rick_chasey said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    orraloon said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Glad I'm not a Welsh motorist...
    https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/12/wales-set-lower-speed-limit-20mph-despite-widespread-opposition/

    Got no issue with it other than they have done nothing to make the roads in trial areas feel like you should be slower. Even when you are trying to comply it is hard if the road is wide open with standard road markings. I think they're being over-optimistic though if they think it is suddenly going to encourage fat, lazy fekkers to walk and cycle rather than drive.

    Half-arsed is better than not-arsed-at-all, and even if it shaves off a couple of MPH, it should reduce the seriousness of injuries and signals a shift in priorities, even if more would be better still.
    If the only relevant factor is speed then they should set the limit at 5mph everywhere and be done with it.
    Between 20 and 30 is where the graph starts rising more sharply for fatality rate of pedestrians* so arguably there is more to support it as a limit than 30 (given that any limit is arbitrary).

    *It rises from 1.5% at 20mph to 8% at 30mph.
    The other obvious initiative is educating pedestrian to pay more attention when they're crossing the roads.
    A more obvious initiative is introducing a minimum IQ level to be allowed to be in control of a motorised veehickle.
    That might be seen as a blatant attempt to deprive Labour voters of motorised transport.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/03/greenpolitics-liberaldemocrats

    Academic research published in the journal Intelligence compares the way people voted in the 2001 election with their IQ at the age of 10 (using data from the 1970 British cohort study). The results are fascinating.

    On a party-by-party basis, the average (childhood) IQ scores for 2001 voters were:

    Green - 108.3

    Liberal Democrat - 108.2

    Conservative - 103.7

    Labour – 103

    Plaid Cymru - 102.5

    Scottish National - 102.2

    UK Independence - 101.1

    British National - 98.4

    Did not vote/None of the above - 99.7
    If 100 IQ is average (as it’s a normal distribution) either there are a sh!tload of BNP and did not voters or that is nonsense.
    Just over 40% didn't vote. BNP got 47k votes.

    Doesn't seem right.

    Unfortunately the link to the abstract is now dead. So 🤷‍♂️
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • mully79
    mully79 Posts: 904
    Pross said:

    mully79 said:

    …

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Glad I'm not a Welsh motorist...
    https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/12/wales-set-lower-speed-limit-20mph-despite-widespread-opposition/

    Got no issue with it other than they have done nothing to make the roads in trial areas feel like you should be slower. Even when you are trying to comply it is hard if the road is wide open with standard road markings. I think they're being over-optimistic though if they think it is suddenly going to encourage fat, lazy fekkers to walk and cycle rather than drive.

    Half-arsed is better than not-arsed-at-all, and even if it shaves off a couple of MPH, it should reduce the seriousness of injuries and signals a shift in priorities, even if more would be better still.
    If the only relevant factor is speed then they should set the limit at 5mph everywhere and be done with it.
    Between 20 and 30 is where the graph starts rising more sharply for fatality rate of pedestrians* so arguably there is more to support it as a limit than 30 (given that any limit is arbitrary).

    *It rises from 1.5% at 20mph to 8% at 30mph.
    The other obvious initiative is educating pedestrian to pay more attention when they're crossing the roads.
    Same old bull censored . How on earth do they know the speed a car was going in a fatality ?

    How many 30mph accidents are simply because road design is spectacularly rubbish and you need several pairs of eyes to read all the signage plus your Speedo plus watch for vulnerable road users ?
    Is that a serious question?
    It is a serious question. Please tell me how you work out the speed if I don’t skid ?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,562
    mully79 said:

    Pross said:

    mully79 said:

    …

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Glad I'm not a Welsh motorist...
    https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/12/wales-set-lower-speed-limit-20mph-despite-widespread-opposition/

    Got no issue with it other than they have done nothing to make the roads in trial areas feel like you should be slower. Even when you are trying to comply it is hard if the road is wide open with standard road markings. I think they're being over-optimistic though if they think it is suddenly going to encourage fat, lazy fekkers to walk and cycle rather than drive.

    Half-arsed is better than not-arsed-at-all, and even if it shaves off a couple of MPH, it should reduce the seriousness of injuries and signals a shift in priorities, even if more would be better still.
    If the only relevant factor is speed then they should set the limit at 5mph everywhere and be done with it.
    Between 20 and 30 is where the graph starts rising more sharply for fatality rate of pedestrians* so arguably there is more to support it as a limit than 30 (given that any limit is arbitrary).

    *It rises from 1.5% at 20mph to 8% at 30mph.
    The other obvious initiative is educating pedestrian to pay more attention when they're crossing the roads.
    Same old bull censored . How on earth do they know the speed a car was going in a fatality ?

    How many 30mph accidents are simply because road design is spectacularly rubbish and you need several pairs of eyes to read all the signage plus your Speedo plus watch for vulnerable road users ?
    Is that a serious question?
    It is a serious question. Please tell me how you work out the speed if I don’t skid ?
    Pretty basic physics would do it.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    All sorts of empirical data based on injuries, start and finish positions of vehicle and body, electronic data from the car that drivers generally don't realise will prove they are lying about 'I was only doing 20', CCTV footage etc. etc

    A road death is treated and investigated in the same way as a murder so uses the same evidence gathering and forensic approaches.
  • mully79
    mully79 Posts: 904
    if a bicycle travelling at 40 mph hits the front of a transit van travelling at 10mph physics wont tell you who was at fault. Thats why they always ask for witnesses.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,330
    mully79 said:

    if a bicycle travelling at 40 mph hits the front of a transit van travelling at 10mph physics wont tell you who was at fault. Thats why they always ask for witnesses.

    The people who do this for a living will be able to tell by the marks on the road.
    Yes, the tell tale marks will be there.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,648
    mully79 said:

    if a bicycle travelling at 40 mph hits the front of a transit van travelling at 10mph physics wont tell you who was at fault. Thats why they always ask for witnesses.

    Lol it really will...
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,562
    edited July 2022
    mully79 said:

    if a bicycle travelling at 40 mph hits the front of a transit van travelling at 10mph physics wont tell you who was at fault. Thats why they always ask for witnesses.

    🤦🏻‍♂️

    I mean there's a guy who designs roads for a living right there ⬆️
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • JimD666
    JimD666 Posts: 2,293
    Up early to take the mutt out to avoid the heat a little. Thick fog instead :)
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    A woman on the telly criticising "Swiss economists" for preaching to us about climate change while sitting there "in the Eiffel tower".
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,562
    kingstongraham said:

    A woman on the telly criticising "Swiss economists" for preaching to us about climate change while sitting there "in the Eiffel tower".

    That's kind of beautiful. Linguistic evolution in action.

    Or just plain stupid.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,374
    rjsterry said:

    kingstongraham said:

    A woman on the telly criticising "Swiss economists" for preaching to us about climate change while sitting there "in the Eiffel tower".

    That's kind of beautiful. Linguistic evolution in action.

    Or just plain stupid.

    Maybe big towers could be described as 'Eiffely'.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    BA cancelling my flight and offering as a replacement the one we would have chosen if it hadn't been three times the price.
  • Munsford0
    Munsford0 Posts: 678
    kingstongraham said:

    BA cancelling my flight and offering as a replacement the one we would have chosen if it hadn't been three times the price.

    That's not trivial, it's bloody epic! Get in!
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,562
    edited July 2022
    Could have put this in a number of threads but found it funny.


    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited July 2022
    I swear the only people who give a sh!t about this trans stuff are old people who don't get out enough and these mental trans activists.

    Everyone else is "meh, I'll be polite".
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,330
    rick_chasey said:

    I swear the only people who give a sh!t about this trans stuff are old people who don't get out enough and these mental trans activists.

    Everyone else is "meh, I'll be polite".

    Tbf the oldies are only giving a sh!t about people giving a sh!t.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,919
    rick_chasey said:

    I swear the only people who give a sh!t about this trans stuff are old people who don't get out enough and these mental trans activists.

    Everyone else is "meh, I'll be polite".

    What about terfs? They seem to have quite strong views.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited July 2022
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I swear the only people who give a sh!t about this trans stuff are old people who don't get out enough and these mental trans activists.

    Everyone else is "meh, I'll be polite".

    What about terfs? They seem to have quite strong views.
    Forgive me but I think there aren't going to be a huge amount of people who identify as a "trans exclusionary radical feminist".

    I think most people want to avoid being too exclusionary, and certainly will want to avoid being radical.
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,919
    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I swear the only people who give a sh!t about this trans stuff are old people who don't get out enough and these mental trans activists.

    Everyone else is "meh, I'll be polite".

    What about terfs? They seem to have quite strong views.
    Forgive me but I think there aren't going to be a huge amount of people who identify as a "trans exclusionary radical feminist".

    I think most people want to avoid being too exclusionary, and certainly will want to avoid being radical.
    There's loads. By way of example, mumsnet has recently struggled to arrange high profile interviews, because so many of its users are focused on the issue.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited July 2022
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I swear the only people who give a sh!t about this trans stuff are old people who don't get out enough and these mental trans activists.

    Everyone else is "meh, I'll be polite".

    What about terfs? They seem to have quite strong views.
    Forgive me but I think there aren't going to be a huge amount of people who identify as a "trans exclusionary radical feminist".

    I think most people want to avoid being too exclusionary, and certainly will want to avoid being radical.
    There's loads. By way of example, mumsnet has recently struggled to arrange high profile interviews, because so many of its users are focused on the issue.
    There was a report out recently which was a study into public views on the issue etc (pretty sure I posted a link at the time), and the majority view is "we want to be polite and adjust pronouns etc but we don't want to be punished if we make a mistake about pronouns, and there are exceptions mainly in sport", as well as "it is a low priority".

    If you consider the premise of mumsnet, of course they likely to have stronger views on the subject. ("Mums" right? kinda a giveaway there).
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,919
    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I swear the only people who give a sh!t about this trans stuff are old people who don't get out enough and these mental trans activists.

    Everyone else is "meh, I'll be polite".

    What about terfs? They seem to have quite strong views.
    Forgive me but I think there aren't going to be a huge amount of people who identify as a "trans exclusionary radical feminist".

    I think most people want to avoid being too exclusionary, and certainly will want to avoid being radical.
    There's loads. By way of example, mumsnet has recently struggled to arrange high profile interviews, because so many of its users are focused on the issue.
    There was a report out recently which was a study into public views on the issue etc (pretty sure I posted a link at the time), and the majority view is "we want to be polite and adjust pronouns etc but we don't want to be punished if we make a mistake about pronouns, and there are exceptions mainly in sport", as well as "it is a low priority".
    I'm not disagreeing with that at all. Just that there are a minority of very strong views on either side.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    That's always the case, though. The issue is when fringe views can gain traction and derail sensible conversation. UKIP -> Brexit is a case in point

Categories