Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you
Comments
-
UK is in the minority on school uniform, as you well know. Very much struggling with the idea that they must wear very prescriptive clothes but they aren't interested in conformity. "We don't want conformity*"
*apart from the clothes you wear 5 days a week
0 -
You seem to be having a week of missing everyone's point. I've not said 'we don't want conformity' nor has anyone else. I just said it isn't the goal of education, which I thought was a statement of the bleeding obvious.
Obviously a tiny minority of head teachers like to spend too much time on social media bragging about how strict they are as some sort of flex. They are pretty risible.
As an aside, wait until yours get a bit older. The last thing you need at 7.30 is a debate about what they are wearing.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Tail end of Gen-X which will come as a relief I guess.
Not everyone older than Rick is a boomer. 😉
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.0 -
Yes they are and certainly anyone 40 or over is.
0 -
?????? Boomers are 60+
Baby boomers
The demographic cohort born during the mid-20th century baby boom, with the generation typically defined as those born from 1946 to 1964
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.0 -
You're confusing the official definition with Rick's definition. Anyone older than their 30s is a youth hating Boomer. This includes what is officially Gen X as well as actual Baby Boomers and Silent Generation.
0 -
Ah, apologies for misunderstanding your post. I use the official definitions, not the Richter scale. 😉
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.1 -
Don't disagree with most of that, but the Telegraph article makes its point very badly by citing silly 'evidence'. Obviously the headline is to stoke anti-cyclist sentiment and to get clicks.
0 -
Sounds about right. I had another guy hit me from behind because he'd assumed I wasn't stopping for the red light. Broke my mudguard and fucked off.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I disagree with BBs inference that when the threshold of cyclists speed reaches that where harm may be causes, this correlates to cycling either too fast or dangerously.
I'm sure that's not what you mean BB, but we all know we get shouted at for cycling "too fast" sometimes, when going slower than the rest of traffic.
Really they should legislate for cycling when not noticed, or cycling quieter than ear pods.
0 -
I used to ride over Hammersmith bridge as fast as I could, trying to beat my workmate. I ended up in position 282, 1 second faster than him, but didn't get anywhere near the "course record", which is 3 seconds, at 277kmh. Something must be done.
0 -
I think in a lot of cases it is simply that a large part of the population have little reference as to how fast bicycles can go.
From anecdotal experience anything above 10 mph is considered unexpectedly fast so they will never account, or make allowances, for a cyclist going 25 mph, even if the speed limit is 30 mph.
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.0 -
It's the telegraph, so obviously it's not going to be a high quality bit of research.
0 -
Next you'll be opposing all the 20mph zones.
0 -
I'm not following the steps of reasoning you've skipped here.
0 -
Maybe there are just a lot crashes and not a lot of deaths.
A former colleague of mine nearly died (hit by a cyclist at 30mph resulting in a punctured lung and fractured skull), but he didn't, so he's not in the stats.
0 -
I think you omitted the ' ' either side of the last word in your understated assessment of the Telegraph's quality.
As a side 'things that annoy me' observation, people calling five minutes randomly looking on Google 'research'.
0 -
How do you know the cyclist was going at that speed, and regardless, in consideration of other traffic safety data do you think a problem has been addressed that doesn't really exist?
0 -
The speed was in a police report.
Do I think introducing death by dangerous cycling is going to materially change anything? No, the numbers are small as you say. However, I'm not going to say it is a bad thing either, and I do think more needs to be done in London to prevent all the minor accidents.
0 -
20mph zones were introduced because it is the speed at which crashes are less likely to result in fatalities.
I don't see why cycling should be exempt from the same logic.
0 -
Because they are 5% of the mass?
0 -
Whaddabout 'dangerous' horse riding?
it's a clickbait world....
0 -
Maybe because the vast bulk don't result in serious injury. I suspect that dogs on extendable leads cause more injuries, but regulation would be disproportionate given the number of hospitalisations. I also suspect that a 'Dangerous Cyclists Act' would end up being as half-baked as the Dangerous Dogs Act.
0 -
That's an argument for a different maximum speed not an argument against the logic.
0 -
I once had a police report having me coming too fast down a hill. I produced an OS map to demonstrate the absence of a hill and a GPS trace to demonstrate that I had been going 14 mph.
Absent a speed gun, "About 30" is potentially 20 on a bike and 40 in a car.
0 -
Are you a mole for an anti cycling group by any chance.
0 -
I remember a discussion on a politics programme, probably from about 30 years ago, after a rail disaster, and whether they should bring in a different safety system on British railways (like the German one, I think) - but a minister (maybe Cecil Parkinson?) said that given the relatively small number of deaths on British railways, it would cost something like £4m per life saved, if deaths came down to zero, whereas they knew that road safety schemes cost about £200k per life saved.
But, as others have said, road carnage involving motor vehicles is so normalised that it's easier to pick on something much rarer, as it grabs headlines.
0 -
Let's make that speed 5 times the one for the motor car, to keep the kinetic energy the same.
I agree that the speed limit in towns for bicycles should be 100 mph.
How's your logic, hun?
0 -
I'm one of the few posters on here who don't own a car and don't want one. As I said earlier, my views are jaded by London.
0 -
Apparently there is not enough kinectic energy at 20mph to nearly kill someone.
0
