Today's discussion about the news

It's the kind of thing the EU might harmonise, then the UK could make full use of its Brexit sovereignty by keeping 1970 pedal reflectors.

I would say the chances of a lighting issue being enforced against a cyclist is proportionally higher than against a motorist.

Here in the poorest part of England, monocular cars are all the rage.

The Mail is reporting (via a newsfeed I seem unable to filter) that Labour might introduce a blanket pavement parking ban.

This will surely cause the Mail to declare war on cyclists, because people will not be forced to park over even more of the bike lanes.

(Perhaps that's not the spin they will put on it.....)

So we forced them to use our antiquated laws? #confused

I Listened to the Judge handing down sentence in the Sara Sharif case at lunchtime. Well, I listened to as much as I could stomach. What a truly awful, cruel and wicked crime. The judge's descriptions were heartbreaking. They really deserve the sentences they received, if not more.

Excellent news that the Government will not pay compensation to the WASPI women. The Ombudsman got their decision complertely wrong.

They were getting their State Pensions earlier and living longer than men, so it was an extra 8 years payment on average. The harmonisation of State Pension dates still favours women who still on average live longer than men.

How can they have been financially disadvantaged by having to work a little longer before getting their State Pension.

Different argument BB.

If they were retiring early, then they would surely have found out the change of date, as only a fool doesn't check out their State Pension position in the build up to their retirement.

I've always been against the waspi's getting anything by way of compensation.

Dynamos haven't been a legal requirement in Germany as energy source for lights on bikes since 2013, this after dynamos had been largely abandoned by many riders as well as several retailers and manufacturers during the two decades before then.

It used to be that bikes were required to have front & rear lights, front & rear reflectors, and reflectors on wheels and pedals, the only exceptions being racing bikes in daylight hours (a racing bike being defined as a bike weighing 12 kg or less, having drop handlebars or TT bars, and rims with outer widths of 23 mm or less). However in 2017, the law was changed.

Since then, all bikes can be without lights and reflectors when used in daylight hours, however from dusk to dawn (and in tunnels), unless off-road, all bikes require lights and reflectors, including along bike paths adjacent/parallel a road, which are considered 'on road' even if offset by a strip of green verge or whatever.

Blinking front and rear lights have never been allowed as main lights mounted on the bicycle, but there is no restriction about having them attached to the rider's clothing, rucksack, helmet, etc, as extras.

Maybe the police go hard against cyclists in your part of the world? In many german towns, especially university towns like Münster in the north and Freiburg in the south, one sees lots of cyclists riding around at night without lights, especially on bicycle paths running parallel to roads (so nonetheless contrary the law), however they are generally ignored and unhindered by police, so long no endangering appears likely.

I live in the part of German called "England". There's not a lot of enforcement of anything, as far as I can tell.

It would be foolish not to put aside some rainy day money, assuming you can afford to.

Last advice I read was a minimum of 2 months salary.

I'd advice a minimum of 3 months outgoings and ideally 6-9 months of income as an emergency fund whilst in work. For those retired, they don't (generally) have the chance to build it back up, so need £25-40,000.

Anyway, this is what the DWP said:

The DWP pointed out what was described as ‘flawed logic’ in the PHSO’s reasoning, such as the claim not all the letters announcing the change were being read as and when they were sent out. 

It also identified awareness being high among 1950s-born women that the state pension age was changing in 2004, and even higher in 2006, at 90%. 

‘Given the vast majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing, the government does not believe paying a flat rate to all women at a cost of up to £10.5bn would be fair or proportionate to taxpayers,’ Kendall said. 

I do struggle to understand where the fundamental loss to any individual would have occurred from the 1995 act, because this affected people aged 40-45 at the time. Sure, they'd have changed retirement plans, but there was 15-25 years' warning.

The 2011 change I'm less clear on.

Yeah, that's why I said "minimum". As I worked freelance I went for 2 years worth.

That's a rather naive view on how the banking system works. You think the money just sits in a vault?