Why are pro cyclists’ legs so veiny?

Sounds like we're both right - the organisation is indeed still proscribed, and the protests were silent and peaceful. Yes, there are people protesting and expressing sympathy with Hamas or shouting antisemitic slogans - but as I understand it the recent ones were not. As for critical mass being proscribed ... I would hope that's paranoia. Except that in the case of the JSO / XR folks there seemed to be a quick mutual escalation between them and government/ police when their actions were seen to be effective (causing a fuss). I still doubt this would happen in the case of cycle protests / gatherings, mostly because they aren't frequent or aiming to be as noisy. So most politicians don't see enough mileage in making it an "issue". But note there are already some who might. Such types may be increasingly gathered in Reform as some of the Conservatives migrate there.

Considering the fuss over £2 parking fees here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c204p0pprvxo a £50 fine might be enough to make them vote for reform!

We are not. We are arresting people for holding up banners supporting a proscribed organisation, which the protestors are happily conflating with protesting against the Gaza genocide. Lets not pretend that CML will ever be proscibed. Especially since the Govt managed to Custard Pie themselves with PA.

You say it's proactive police work, but if they had to be asked to do it then there's no proactivity whatsoever really. Also, PCS suggests that Matthew Brennan was actually born in 2005, which makes his performances even more impressive.

Aargh bloody new site! Anyway Portobello road by Jock's Lodge - the north side actually has a proper separated cycle path (albeit with some issues) but the south side is a mix of "Lane behind the parked cars" and "bus lane". And of course - the latter had cars parked every 30 metres or so - and this is perfectly legal for most of the day and on weekends as the signage recorded. Pragmatism? Only in the sense of "I suppose we have to let the buses through some some times - if only to get them out of the way of drivers. But only at peak times!"

Unfortunately in many cases this has been devolved from the police, and even if you're alleging that the car got into the cycle infra by being illegally driven there you'll need evidence (a very sympathetic police officer to witness it, plus...) However in many cases this isn't even against the rules - even for "mandatory cycle lanes". See for example here: https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/underhand-law-change-undermines-mandatory-cycle-lanes I was reminded of this when cycling west along Edinburgh's

Rendel, you're quoting some web site that is *heavily* summarising some textbook, which is not freely available. Even so, you have selectively quoted the summary, the remainder of which is: "A simple fracture can occur by walking into a fixed object (force required = 73N), whilst a simple fall through 1 m causing a frontal impact (510N) can also result in linear or mosaic fractures. Fractures have been absent when an impact force of 1314 N was recorded." Other information I find online suggests skull fractures correlate with impacts at 1 kN and above. The reality is likely complex and varied. I suspect your 73 N figure is very much at some strange low extreme (thin skull, and some other unstated factors - who knows).

RE: police concern about critical mass. This could start being serious activism (with consequences for the participants). If some bright spark in parliament (many have shown willing) notices this "causes disruption" (or say a party full of the same)... ... then it could be "into the JSO / Extinction Rebellion terrorist sin-bin with you". Can you be certain you *didn't* delay an emergency vehicle / someone going to a vital health-and- wellbeing-related appointment - even if indirectly because "causing congestion"? And slowing people down - that's "economic terrorism" isn't it? All that sounds a bit extreme, but we're already arresting folks for silently holding up non-sweary, non-offensive, not very threatening slogans. (I can hear "a laaaybour government...")

It's not 'the same thing', though, is it? You say yourself that it gets more out than those other methods. Which means there's going to be less left to dry out afterwards. If there's no advantage to getting more out if it doesn't get _all_ of it out, then by that logic you might as well not even bother shaking or towelling it, since those won't get all of it out either, so aren't any better than just ignoring it. Whether the extra amount it gets out is worth the price tag is a different question altogether.

We shouldn't have to ask.