Antiques store describe missile attached to van as "anti-cyclist modification"; Police say no group cycling on IM weekend; Disabled cyclist shows TransPennine bike rack flaws; School's cycling ban due to lack of storage + more on the live blog

You know things are ill-used when the H&S website has to have a special page of myth busters given as h&s when they are nothing of the sort !

The best one was when my wife was told certain shoes were banned in the office. So she pointed them to case 34 on the HSE site !

When this came up before, it was clear they have no powers at all to tell people they can't ride to school. The nearest anyone got to squaring the circle was around having powers as a highways authority (which they clearly are not).

It really grinds my gears when uppity teachers overstep their bounds. I think they suffer from dealing with children and imposing arbitrary rules (e.g. disallowing certain haircuts or hair colours) so much that they get confused about how the real world works and their place in it.

That said, I actually believe that teaching should be elevated as a profession and we should be pumping a lot more money into education in order to invest in the country's future. Currently, if you become expert in a field (e.g. computers; economics) then teaching will be at the bottom of your career trajectory whereas we should be looking to encourage the more competent into those kinds of teaching roles. Hopefully, this will also push out the control freaks who wish to prevent kids from cycling.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Currently, if you become expert in a field (e.g. computers; economics) then teaching will be at the bottom of your career trajectory whereas we should be looking to encourage the more competent into those kinds of teaching roles.

I appreciate the sentiment, however being an expert in one's field does not make you an expert at teaching - it's a whole different skill set. And therein lies the difficulty; to be a decent teacher you need mastery of your subject, which already opens its own career opportunities, then you need to upskill in a whole new field of expertise - teaching - just to take a pay cut.

OTOH teachers have a hell of a powerful union, guaranteed annual pay rises, and - oh, yes! - the holidays!!

The holidays bit was tongue in cheek I take it.
I do know someone who worked in IT in a senior position but is now an ICT teacher. Although as Sriracha outlines, my friend is a bit of an anomaly.

brooksby wrote:

OTOH teachers have a hell of a powerful union, guaranteed annual pay rises, and - oh, yes! - the holidays!!

As a teacher I can confirm that my "very powerful union" finally managed to negotiate a three year pay deal which dones't even come close to replacing the real terms pay cuts we've suffered for over a decade.
Add to that my pension contributions have increased twice, my retirement age has been increased, my final pension has been decreased - all of which occurred after a government commissioned report which concluded that the pension scheme was sustainable without making any changes.

Maybe you're referring to teachers in some other country. Are you in Finland?

Sriracha wrote:

I appreciate the sentiment, however being an expert in one's field does not make you an expert at teaching - it's a whole different skill set. And therein lies the difficulty; to be a decent teacher you need mastery of your subject, which already opens its own career opportunities, then you need to upskill in a whole new field of expertise - teaching - just to take a pay cut.

You're totally right. I consider myself good at what I do, but I have no patience for instructing other people and would suck at being a teacher.

I'd like to see teaching as a profession to be considered at a similar level to being a doctor or engineer and people shouldn't have to reduce their pay to become a teacher. The big problem is that our political system favours short term thinking and not planning for the long term.

Sriracha wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Currently, if you become expert in a field (e.g. computers; economics) then teaching will be at the bottom of your career trajectory whereas we should be looking to encourage the more competent into those kinds of teaching roles.

I appreciate the sentiment, however being an expert in one's field does not make you an expert at teaching - it's a whole different skill set. And therein lies the difficulty; to be a decent teacher you need mastery of your subject, which already opens its own career opportunities, then you need to upskill in a whole new field of expertise - teaching - just to take a pay cut.

Mostly agree, but you need a reasonable amount of competency in the field - not necessarily mastery of it. Some of the best teachers I had were those who were prepared to admit the limits of what they knew, to explore those limits, and to learn along with the students.

Because passengers will open the rear doors without checking. Mind you that would apply to both sides of the car!

hirsute wrote:

Because passengers will open the rear doors without checking. Mind you that would apply to both sides of the car!

If passengers are alighting, the uber should be too close to the kerb for cyclists to pass on the inside. The Grayling manoeuvre should not be the standard method

Depends which side of the road the car stops or as I discovered on a 2 lane one way once - if the passenger gets out in the middle of the road !

I believe that the driver is responsible for the actions of the passengers in some circumstances - eg whether they are wearing seat belts. I wonder if that principle applies here

brooksby wrote:

I've just seen an car drive past my office window.

A normal estate car, with Uber stickers on the doors.

... and with 'cyclists don't pass this vehicle on the inside' stickers on the back.

Discuss 

It would be very hard to pass it on the inside - clambering over the seats with your bike, then what happens when you get to the dash/bulkhead/engine?

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I've just seen an car drive past my office window.

A normal estate car, with Uber stickers on the doors.

... and with 'cyclists don't pass this vehicle on the inside' stickers on the back.

Discuss 

It would be very hard to pass it on the inside - clambering over the seats with your bike, then what happens when you get to the dash/bulkhead/engine?

You knew what I meant!

I suspect that they meant that you shouldn't pass the vehicle on its left-hand side under any circumstances, because the driver might not see you and suddenly fling the vehicle sideways toward the kerb.  Because everyone knows how bad the visibility is on a standard-sized estate car...

Zebulebu wrote:

Odd. I didn't notice much coverage of the gavvers nicking taxi drivers when they blocked London Bridge a couple of years ago.... Funny that.

XR posted this on fb today, and are claiming that the police action was illegal:

"WE WANT TO LEAVE
Last night police kettled peaceful protestors on Lambeth Bridge
A critical mass cycling around central London was stopped on Lambeth Bridge, police closed the bridge to traffic, disrupting the emergency services, and stopping any pedestrians going on or off the bridge including press. They then arrested over 200 rebels who were trapped on Lambeth Bridge, and took them to a temporary detention centre to be processed, confiscating bicycles and banners in the process. Rebels were advised to chant WE WANT TO LEAVE and film evidence of the event
We are advised that this was an overstepping of police powers, and was illegal. If you or your friend was on Lambeth Bridge, please contact Extinction Rebellion legal team xr-legal [at] riseup.net with details, so they can help gather a case against the met police. The last time something like this happened to a critical mass bike ride was in 2012, it was illegal then too, and police had to compensate people. Please share this information, so it gets to those who need it.
And donate now, to support those arrested, in filing a case against the police
DONATE NOW
To support those on Lambeth Bridge and others in the courts:
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/extinction-rebellion-legal/
To support the rebellion to continue:
https://chuffed.org/project/extinction-rebellion-uk-2020
WE WANT TO LIVE"
 

brooksby wrote:

Fun article in the Grauniad about how we all subsidise motor traffic:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/04/treasury-raise-fue...

Takeaway paragraph:

Quote:

... a fuel duty freeze costs real money. Thus far, successive freezes have cost the exchequer well over £100bn. It is not for nothing that David Cameron referred to Robert Halfon, who has run numerous campaigns on the issue, as the “most expensive MP in parliament”.

I'm generally in favour of a fuel duty rise (although I think that should be a lower priority than more targetted approaches e.g. congestion charging) but I do find the reporting around it odd sometimes.

Yes revenue from fuel duty would be higher if fuel duty was higher, but the fuel duty escalator in itself was an arbitrary policy - there's no objectively "correct" value for fuel duty. There's just one government making decisions that are different to previous governments - something that happens all the time.

Do we say income tax is "costing" the government money because it could be higher? VAT could be higher, inheritance tax could be higher etc. - the only difference with fuel duty is that previous governments put a number on exactly how much higher they wanted it to be.

when fuel duty stays the same it's always presented by them as a freeze and doing the 'hard working drivers' a favour, so the government can't have it both ways. if you're freezing it that assumes you were going to raise it, hence you lose money.

dave atkinson wrote:

when fuel duty stays the same it's always presented by them as a freeze and doing the 'hard working drivers' a favour, so the government can't have it both ways. if you're freezing it that assumes you were going to raise it, hence you lose money.

Personally, I look forward to the Govt giving a **** about the hard working non-drivers too...

dave atkinson wrote:

when fuel duty stays the same it's always presented by them as a freeze and doing the 'hard working drivers' a favour, so the government can't have it both ways. if you're freezing it that assumes you were going to raise it, hence you lose money.

I agree that you can't have it both ways, but I think it's equally disingenious when the government trots out that line!