Live blog: Movistar to use SRAM in 2020?; RGT Cycling virtual training app officially launches; Driver with no licence who hit cyclist given nine month drive ban; Cyclist carrying a child provokes online fury + more

ktache wrote:

Whenever I was riding down the Bristol Road in Brum, I always thought that they should put a cycle route down the middle bit, where trams used to run.

That's even worse - you'd have to cycle with the chattering of squirrels on either side jsut waiting to pounce.

ktache wrote:

Whenever I was riding down the Bristol Road in Brum, I always thought that they should put a cycle route down the middle bit, where trams used to run.

Which, I thought, they now have done. 

ktache wrote:

Whenever I was riding down the Bristol Road in Brum, I always thought that they should put a cycle route down the middle bit, where trams used to run.

Princess avenue in Liverpool is pretty similar - a wide expanse of grass and trees with a footpath, and park benches (mostly unused) hemmed in by two lanes of traffic either side.

As long as access to it is properly thought out, it seems a good idea. The squirrels are still a problem though.

Vlad the Impailer wrote:

Brilliant - Liverpool are building a cycle path in the central reservation of a dual carriageway for cyclists to feel safer and improve air quality.

How does that work when you have vehicles on both sides.   How do the young/elderly get onto the poluted cycle path across 2 lanes of traffic ???

They are doing this in Birmingham on the A38 Bristol Road through Northfield as well.   Yet another brainless idea of councils to put cycle paths where you cant  actuallyget to them to use them.

Sounds nice and relaxing to be cycling along a thin path whilst tonnes of speeding metal vehicles go past you only a couple of feet away. Aaaah - just breathe in that clean air and enjoy the relaxing woosh as the cars go past.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Vlad the Impailer wrote:

Brilliant - Liverpool are building a cycle path in the central reservation of a dual carriageway for cyclists to feel safer and improve air quality.

How does that work when you have vehicles on both sides.   How do the young/elderly get onto the poluted cycle path across 2 lanes of traffic ???

They are doing this in Birmingham on the A38 Bristol Road through Northfield as well.   Yet another brainless idea of councils to put cycle paths where you cant  actuallyget to them to use them.

Sounds nice and relaxing to be cycling along a thin path whilst tonnes of speeding metal vehicles go past you only a couple of feet away. Aaaah - just breathe in that clean air and enjoy the relaxing woosh as the cars go past.

It's not as bad as it seems  - the dividing bit is raised up and about 15 metres wide. I'd have no worries being there - much nicer than on the road. 

burtthebike wrote:

9 month ban for someone without a licence; I'm very nearly speechless.  Talk about making the punishment fit the crime.  Or perhaps this is the new "people's government"* new policy on giving serious offenders heavier sentences?

 

 

* the one elected by only 43.6% of the people, but still got a massive majority in parliament.

It is as it always has been, a conviction on a motoring offence results in driving licence penalties/endorsements,whether you hold that licence or not. The court cant do anything differently without a change in the law,which would have to come from parliament.

So start by lobbying your MP.

Awavey wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

9 month ban for someone without a licence; I'm very nearly speechless.  Talk about making the punishment fit the crime.  Or perhaps this is the new "people's government"* new policy on giving serious offenders heavier sentences?

 

 

* the one elected by only 43.6% of the people, but still got a massive majority in parliament.

It is as it always has been, a conviction on a motoring offence results in driving licence penalties/endorsements,whether you hold that licence or not. The court cant do anything differently without a change in the law,which would have to come from parliament. So start by lobbying your MP.

I'm waiting until he's responded to my demand that the report on Russian interference in our elections is published; just imagine if it showed that the referendum wasn't kosher.

burtthebike wrote:

9 month ban for someone without a licence; I'm very nearly speechless. 

But, but...

1. careless driving

2. failed to keep a proper lookout

3. entered the carriageway when it was unsafe to do so

4. collided with a cyclist

5. failed to stop at the scene

6. no driver's license

7. no insurance

£300 and a 9 month ban is seriously taking the piss. He has shown that he's prepared to drive without a license or insurance. Minimum 2 years ban and threat of custodial sentence if caught driving while banned or, after the ban, if he drives without either a license or insurance.

burtthebike wrote:

* the one elected by only 43.6% of the people, but still got a massive majority in parliament.

You mean the party which secured roughly 30% more votes than the next closest party and slightly less than all the other parties put together?

Please, lets not turn a cycling forum into a political soapbox. 

Welsh boy wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

* the one elected by only 43.6% of the people, but still got a massive majority in parliament.

You mean the party which secured roughly 30% more votes than the next closest party and slightly less than all the other parties put together?

Please, lets not turn a cycling forum into a political soapbox. 

What I meant was that a party which got less than 50% of the popular vote, isn't a "people's party".  It's the party of the 43.6%, not the 56.4% who voted against them.  Like Trump in America, they didn't win the popular vote, it's just that our absurd, illogical, some might even say insane, voting system gave them a massive, undeserved majority in parliament.  Now I'm not sure what your definition of democracy is, but last time I checked it was the will of the majority of the citizens, which the tories clearly don't have, they just have a majority of seats in parliament, so they clearly aren't democratic or the "people's party".

Please feel free to disagree, and to explain why a political subject like how cycling is treated in our society isn't a suitable subject for discussion on a cycling forum.

burtthebike wrote:

What I meant was that a party which got less than 50% of the popular vote, isn't a "people's party".  It's the party of the 43.6%, not the 56.4% who voted against them.  Like Trump in America, they didn't win the popular vote, it's just that our absurd, illogical, some might even say insane, voting system gave them a massive, undeserved majority in parliament.  Now I'm not sure what your definition of democracy is, but last time I checked it was the will of the majority of the citizens, which the tories clearly don't have, they just have a majority of seats in parliament, so they clearly aren't democratic or the "people's party".

Please feel free to disagree, and to explain why a political subject like how cycling is treated in our society isn't a suitable subject for discussion on a cycling forum.

How many governments in the post war period got more than 50% of the vote?

Did you complain in 1997?

Labour got an enormous majority then on a similar vote share to the Conservatives in 2019.

Welsh boy wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

* the one elected by only 43.6% of the people, but still got a massive majority in parliament.

You mean the party which secured roughly 30% more votes than the next closest party and slightly less than all the other parties put together?

And? Get 43 percent of the vote, get 43 percent of the seats. That's democracy. Not "get 30 percent more votes than the next closest party, get a majority of the seats and dominate the country for 5 years."

(sorry, had to respond to this. First past the post is undemocratic and indefensible.)

Luca Patrono wrote:

And? Get 43 percent of the vote, get 43 percent of the seats. That's democracy. Not "get 30 percent more votes than the next closest party, get a majority of the seats and dominate the country for 5 years."

(sorry, had to respond to this. First past the post is undemocratic and indefensible.)

FPTP is not an ideal system by any means. A few years ago the British public were given the option of a far more representative system and they rejected it outright.

So FPTP is what we're stuck with.

Rich_cb wrote:

Luca Patrono wrote:

And? Get 43 percent of the vote, get 43 percent of the seats. That's democracy. Not "get 30 percent more votes than the next closest party, get a majority of the seats and dominate the country for 5 years."

(sorry, had to respond to this. First past the post is undemocratic and indefensible.)

FPTP is not an ideal system by any means. A few years ago the British public were given the option of a far more representative system and they rejected it outright.

So FPTP is what we're stuck with.

AV was not an improvement. Analysis showed it would not have changed either any of or the overwhelming majority of election results. The Tories and Labour killed it by mandating that it be put to a referendum and then throwing the kitchen sink at the campaign against it.

Now they gaslight by saying that referendum was the electorate voting to stick with FPTP forever. Constitutional reform should not be linked to what the electorate think or can be persuaded to think, it should be linked to what is objectively most democratic and representative of the people.

(sorry guys, I imagine most of you hate the political discussion. hope you can forgive the strength of feeling given the situation atm)

Luca Patrono wrote:

AV was not an improvement. Analysis showed it would not have changed either any of or the overwhelming majority of election results. The Tories and Labour killed it by mandating that it be put to a referendum and then throwing the kitchen sink at the campaign against it.

Now they gaslight by saying that referendum was the electorate voting to stick with FPTP forever. Constitutional reform should not be linked to what the electorate think or can be persuaded to think, it should be linked to what is objectively most democratic and representative of the people.

(sorry guys, I imagine most of you hate the political discussion. hope you can forgive the strength of feeling given the situation atm)

Of course it is an improvement.

It would guarantee that the winning party in any seat has more support than the second place party.

If it wouldn't change the results of elections dramatically that just shows that FPTP, for all its flaws, isn't as unrepresentative as some make out.

I do enjoy the idea of making a country more democratic by ignoring the opinion of the electorate.

Rich_cb wrote:

Luca Patrono wrote:

AV was not an improvement. Analysis showed it would not have changed either any of or the overwhelming majority of election results. The Tories and Labour killed it by mandating that it be put to a referendum and then throwing the kitchen sink at the campaign against it. Now they gaslight by saying that referendum was the electorate voting to stick with FPTP forever. Constitutional reform should not be linked to what the electorate think or can be persuaded to think, it should be linked to what is objectively most democratic and representative of the people. (sorry guys, I imagine most of you hate the political discussion. hope you can forgive the strength of feeling given the situation atm)

Of course it is an improvement. It would guarantee that the winning party in any seat has more support than the second place party. If it wouldn't change the results of elections dramatically that just shows that FPTP, for all its flaws, isn't as unrepresentative as some make out. I do enjoy the idea of making a country more democratic by ignoring the opinion of the electorate.

The proposal on offer wasn't an improvement, and it was, as you point out, very little different to the existing situation, so why would anyone vote for it?  If we had been offered proportional representation, then the result might have been different, but the result is used to discredit PR, which we weren't offered.

FPTP is not democratic, and very few people claim that it is, they just keep repeating the mindless mantra that "it's our system" and therefore, in the good old British tradition, right.

burtthebike wrote:

The proposal on offer wasn't an improvement, and it was, as you point out, very little different to the existing situation, so why would anyone vote for it?  If we had been offered proportional representation, then the result might have been different, but the result is used to discredit PR, which we weren't offered.

FPTP is not democratic, and very few people claim that it is, they just keep repeating the mindless mantra that "it's our system" and therefore, in the good old British tradition, right.

It was an improvement and ironically the last few elections have shown exactly why.

Tactical voting? Remain Alliance? Brexit party standing down to manipulate the results?

None of those things would happen under AV.

How is that 'not an improvement'?

quiff wrote:

Seems the person filming was so angry they lost the ability to use actual words.

It's Bristolian.