I did a speed awareness course a while back
Did an online one a couple of weeks ago, only 2 of us (out of 7) knew all the speed limit questions...
Also had a discussion about 20mph zones, and when one of the folk complained how hard it was to drive so slow the Instructor suggested using a lower gear.
I live in the Scottish Borders and every village & town has now 20mph zones in the majority of the streets, no big deal - far safer for pedestrians & cyclists etc.
Blanket 20 zones like Wales is bringing in dont really reduce speeds unless they are rigorously enforced, in fact they normalise speeding. Do it properly or leave it alone.
Disagree, only needs one vehicle to drive at the speed limit.
It's made a real difference here as far too many people seemed to drive at 40mph EVERYWHERE, whether in a 30 or a 60 - it's definitely brought their urban speeds down.
I've noticed that people who would normally go at 35 or more in a 30 will go at 25-30 in a 20mph zone. So that's some kind of win, I guess.
Some collisions with pedestrians in urban environments are unavoidable, but the point of 20mph zones is to turn a fatal speed at impact into a surviveable one.
If drivers opposed to 20mph zones actually totted up how much time they 'lose' by driving through town at 20mph as opposed to 30mph, they will probably find they have cumulatively wasted a lot more whining about them.
anecdotally the 20 mph limits have significantly changed driving behaviour. Far less unsafe overtakes when I am on my bike. yes some folk ignore them but I would bet average speed have droppeds
One of the wierd things is 20 mph limits have virtually zero effect on the time taken to drive a distance across a city. thats because the amount of time spent between 20 and 30 mph is not much and traffic flows more smoothly
If drivers opposed to 20mph zones actually totted up how much time they ‘lose’ by driving through town at 20mph as opposed to 30mph, they will probably find they have cumulatively wasted a lot more whining about them.
It takes 3 minutes to travel a mile at 20mph and 2 minutes at 30mph. So no significant difference at all.
I agree with all the above but im sick of being harrassed when trying to stay at 20, and all that one car doing 20mph is doing is causing a series of risky overtakes. Im not against 20 zones, just enforce them properly.
It takes 3 minutes to travel a mile at 20mph and 2 minutes at 30mph. So no significant difference at all.
and that’s before you take into account improved traffic flow. Try getting that through some of the thick skulls though . . .
Plus the difference in injuries to pedestrians at 20/30/40.
I agree with all the above but im sick of being harrassed when trying to stay at 20
Bullying is a part of society. Ultimately, is a clean licence valuable to you, or preventing serious injury or worse. It's a risk assessment drivers have to make for themselves, and it's their responsibilty.
and all that one car doing 20mph is doing is causing a series of risky overtakes
Respectfully, that's crud. Replace car with bicycle, stick it on the Daily Mail website, and we'd understandably be annoyed; if it quacks like a duck then it's victim blaming. The enforcing comes from educating motorists, and therefore society in general.
But I get you - I drive at 20mph and a queue magically forms behind like I'm magnetic or something. It is enforced, just not enough. But I need my licence clean, so meh.
I agree with all the above but im sick of being harrassed when trying to stay at 20,
You're not responsible for the dickhead activities of other drivers, their tailgating, or their overtaking decisions. I still get harassed by idiots in 30mph limits, in 40mph limits...
I agree with all the above but im sick of being harrassed when trying to stay at 20, and all that one car doing 20mph is doing is causing a series of risky overtakes. Im not against 20 zones, just enforce them properly.
Use cruise control and if the vehicle behind is too near, just slow down a bit, and then back up to the limit - they soon get the message.
If I'm at the 20mph speed limit and am being overtaken then I hold down the horn to warn any nearby pedestrians/cyclists/drivers of the potentially dangerous overtake
Meanwhile the deputy chairman of the Tory party keeps his finger on the nations pulse
Christ on a ****ing bendybus! I despair.
https://twitter.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1686310898732826625?s=20
This bloke (billionaire investor) nailed it
I must invest where I know I have proper leadership, not leadership which is on a clickbait cycle
Sure he’s a billionaire investor which means his motives aren’t the same as mine, but he ain’t wrong and he recognises there’s ‘a lot’ at stake.
Meanwhile the deputy chairman of the Tory party keeps his finger on the nations pulse
Unsurprisingly its a tad misleading.
It could equally be reported as using the freedom from the EU to increase the price per pint from a supermarket by up to 11p.
The alcohol tax on pints in pubs isnt being cut its just being frozen.
Pretty much everything else is being increased though.
Thatcher's Rover - ULEZ exempt and also not currently taxed. Otherwise, good point, well made.
Course, given the soaring price of absolutely everything over the last couple of years, 11% wouldn't have been a reduction even if it were an ACTUAL ****ING REDUCTION and not just "not an increase" which as far as I can tell is exactly what it is?
The Durham Brewery Ltd
Beer Duty changes from today.
Nice to see our local Conservative MP Richard Holden MP speaking on Good Morning Britain this morning. As usual evading answering any questions. So I'll sum it up for you...
They're putting up taxes and increasing their revenue without saying that's what they're doing - nothing new there.
For those already struggling in the current financial climate and unable to afford to drink in the pub; alcohol gets more expensive.
For those who enjoy a pint in their local; beer is not getting less expensive.
For those who enjoy the full-bodied stronger beers with a solid alcohol backbone to support rich flavours; your tipple of choice is going to be a lot more expensive.
Beer consumed in the UK is predominately produced in the UK using ingredients predominately grown in the UK. If they are citing Brexit as the reason for these changes (that they now have the freedom to create a lower duty rate for draught beer) why haven't they done more with this new found freedom? Save the UK institution that is the pub and lower the rates on draught beer. Supporting the UK brewing industry and pub industry. These industries have been hit harder than most through COVID and again with energy prices soaring.
Good news though...Richard Holden's prosecco and pre-mixed drinks are going to get cheaper! Ah, those good old fashioned staples of the pub trade. Thanks 'Beer Parliamentarian of the Year'.
I don't think there was any doubt about which direction Sunak was heading in, but still.... even by their usual gutter standards...
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1686632932071579649?s=20
Rishi reminds me of an increasingly desperate ex begging their partner to take them back, you just start looking at them as pathetic and pitiful.
I think anyone voting Lab expecting their policies to be shaped by the “eco-mob” will be sorely disappointed.
Straight to the point and remarkably insightful comment from the BBC's new OB correspondent (NSFW)
https://twitter.com/supertanskiii/status/1686699038748352514
It takes 3 minutes to travel a mile at 20mph and 2 minutes at 30mph. So no significant difference at all.
so thats just a half hour extra to do 30 miles.
and 2nd gear at 20, 4th at 30 means twice as much fuel and emissions
Plus encouraging some people to do 20mph all the time.
And pothole damage will (possibly) be less, so less incentive for councils to look after the road, therefore they will get worse.
30/60mph was ok 50 years ago, so have we regressed since then?
Oh, the joys of riding a motorcycle at 20mph, in potholes! makes everyone want to get a range rover for the walk to school
apart from
1) you do not spend all your drive at the speed limit in towns. You are constantly speeding up and slowing down. so its only the extra time spent at 30 mph not 20 mph that counts - not the whole journey time
2) Cars use less fuel at 20 mph ( if you were claiming the opposite - your post is confusing) . Well proven and documented. Even the RAC research that showed the opposite they had to admit was fixed and in real conditions showed less fuel used. traffic flows better at 20 mph so less stop and start reducing emmissions and feul consumption
no car will pull 4th at 30 mph but not 3rd at 20 mph surely? Every hire car I have had will run along happily at 20 mph in 3rd or 4th
No we have advanced since then in that we now have a much better understanding of the damage from pollution, the risk to pedestrians and traffic flow management
so thats just a half hour extra to do 30 miles.
Which 20mph zone is 30 miles long?
Certainly would make no difference in London or Bristol as the average traffic speed is something like 12 - 15 mph.
makes for some pretty grim reading
I can't read it as its behind a paywall
The headline 'Stagnant UK living standards lay bare the challenge for Jeremy Hunt' suggests people are somehow maintaining their previous living standards. I'd think that if you're in the same financial position as you were this time last year, not considerably worse off, then you're one of the very lucky ones and the exception rather than the rule
Has anyone else seen the irony of a Prime Minister that won't engage with Greenpeace because some of their members may be judged to have broken the law. The same Prime Minister that is in possession of at least one fixed penalty notice for lock-down law breaches.
Truly they are knob-wits of the highest order.
when over 1 in 4 people believe Even people on out of work benefits shouldn't be able to afford school shoes/or a balanced healthy diet his Polling can't get any lower :/
I don’t understand that polling… only 50% of people polled thought that those on minimum wage should be able to afford to commute to the jobs where they earn that minimum wage?!
Checkmate, Starmer!
Rumour has it Starmer is preparing fiscally responsible funding for a draughts challenge event for us in the wall.
(Well actually Labour have responded with their own dimmer than dim Chess roll-out.)
What next ? - upgrade 30MPH to 40 ?
I don’t understand that polling… only 50% of people polled thought that those on minimum wage should be able to afford to commute to the jobs where they earn that minimum wage?!
I assumed you added the minimum wage and benefits scores together? So 91% thought people on minimum wage or benefits should be able to afford to commute.
That makes sense but may be wrong.
^ that poll is odd...are people really ok that so many people live with some awful porverty? Or did the questions get asked / worded / answered confusingly?
so thats just a half hour extra to do 30 miles.
and 2nd gear at 20, 4th at 30 means twice as much fuel and emissions
1) it's proved in urban situations that 20mph is faster than 30mph, due to smoother traffic flow. Plus, show me a 20mph zone that's 30 miles long.
2) twice the emissions and fuel? Rubbish. The speeding up and then slowing costs more, so a stedier 20mph is proven to increase mpg 10-30% with associated reduction in pollution.
https://www.eta.co.uk/2023/05/05/myth-busters-20mph-speed-limits/
and 2nd gear at 20, 4th at 30 means twice as much fuel and emissions
This was disproved on a French TV programme. More fuel was used accelerating to 30 (50kmh) than due to inefficient running at lower speed now there's a 20 limit. There are also reductions in tyre and brake dust. Cycling increases in 20 zones (30kmh) which also reduces fuel use. A virtuous circle - even if in reality very few people do less than 25, but they didn't respect the 30 either. Overall there's an improvement in both safety (deaths per km ridden) and pollution - in town.
And you'r'e assuming ICEs. EVs and hybrids are super efficient at very low speeds. They are now a quarter of sales overall and higher than that for town use.
Most of the major French towns are now 20 (30kmh) and despite a significant increase in the number of cyclists deaths in towns haven't increased in the same proportion. However, in the countryside the death rate is increasing along with cyclist numbers. The 55 year-old recreational cyclist out of town is now the cyclist most likely to die; 38% of deaths with 56% of total deaths out of town- the out of town deaths have risen three times as fast as in town.
https://mdb-idf.org/onisr-2022-mortalite-routiere-cyclistes-probleme-chiffres/
In my town there are now pedestrian zones which cyclists can use, 20 (30kmh) limits, traffic calming measures (not just speed bumps). My own road is a nice example - a STOP was inverted to cut speed in front of a school, the parking organised on alternate sides of the road to create a chicane to slow traffic before another junction and of course, a 30kmh zone down from 50kmh and a couple of mild speed bumps. The result is great, when they installed a "radar educatif" before the measures I saw up to 90kmh, I haven't seen more than 44kmh recently.
alric
Free Memberso thats just a half hour extra to do 30 miles.
and 2nd gear at 20, 4th at 30 means twice as much fuel and emissions
If you've somehow found a 20mph limit that's 30 miles long and in which you can go at 30mph absolutely all the time, then sure, that's how it works.
And the emissions thing is just nonsense, sorry. I thought it might possibly be higher, surely nobody actually thinks it'll be twice as much? The reason it's more complex is again that you don't go at 30mph all the time, it's accelerating that consumes the most fuel and releases the most emissions (not the same thing) and you do more of that with a 30 limit.
Yeah thats nonsence, you might accelerate up to 20 in 2nd and go straight into third, but you're only in 2nd for about 2 or 3 seconds.
Depends what the ratios are on your gearbox, but 1st/2nd are generally carpark gears, not driving gears.
im not sure there's much to be gained from going to war against safer , less polluted neighborhoods
but Sunak really needs to do something massive
https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1688989290057945089?t=s6N6TaQJ2A33mUrJUTSqmA&s=19
France is well ok.... Pleasant place to be!
The Italians are not messing about... questionable and hot headed at times to play to the steretoype, but more of this please!
If that list of ministers who could lose their seats is even close to what might happen… I think I’m going to need a day off booked just in case.
When's the election again?
If that list of ministers who could lose their seats is even close to what might happen… I think I’m going to need a day off booked just in case.
It does beg the question who's going the be next! pm! thread title. 😕 Could Boris weasel his way into one of the 90 ?
Interesting looking at the scottish seats. all those Glasgow seats? I think the campaign will shift that greatly. Only losing 10 seats would be not bad for the SNP - they would still be the largest party in Scotland and a few weeks ago folk were predicting they would lose 20+ ( its only losing 7 actual sitting SNP mps)
I firmly believe that given the open goals labour have left the SNP for campaign attacks that they will not lose 10 seats if its ten predicted at this moment - the campaign will favour the SNP
there are also some obvious errors - independents down as SNP and alba MP ( defector) down as SNP
Ill also be suprised if the tories hold 3 in Scotland which it seems to suggest.
We will see in the fullness of time and its a very accurate polling method
When’s the election again?
a very very long time away- over a year at the earliest
theyll hope inflation will have halved by then,
i suppose the vote collapse in their 'safe' seats is why they are so desperately going full culture war on the immigration thing
between now & then i imagine they can do a lot of damage and stuff the lords with as more cronies as possible
When’s the election again?
Jan 2025 is the latest possible IIRC
Hang on, Kier! Starmer! already has his own thread title with exclamation marks - will he get a new one or will we reduce, re-use and recycle?
We'll need a new leader of the oppo thread surely 🙂
some more details of that poll ^^
It is a wonderful scenario, and I would be ecstatic if it happened on general election day, but I fear that whilst it might be what people are saying right now come election day the Tories will get significantly more than 24%.
There is a section of the electorate that will always only ever support the Tories, no matter what the circumstances, that minority represents more 24% imo.
Some Tory supporters might be staying schtum concerning how they will vote on the day but it doesn't mean that they won't be voting.
I reckon the obvious attempt by the Tories to turn the next general election into a culture war battle is a desperate attempt by them to hang on to their core voters and agitate them to go and vote.
Some diehard Tory voters might well feel disillusioned with the present shower but many are likely to stay at home rather than vote for another party. Getting them angry about leftie lawyers is likely to encourage them to get off their arses
I would tend to agree Ernie. The "shy tory" is a real factor in polling and their base appears to be around 30% - but weirder things have happened. Canadian conservatives got went from ruling to being wiped out IIRC and look what happened to labour in Scotland. politics is more volatile now
I wonder if the polling companies know all that Ernie?
It does beg the question who’s going the be next! pm! thread title. 😕 Could Boris weasel his way into one of the 90 ?
The leadership campaign is well underway already. It’s between Cruella and Kimi Badenoch. They’re both upping the ante on far right fruitloopery. It’s going to be ironic, to say the least, to watch 2 immigrant, women of colour slogging it out, after the upcoming electoral wipeout, to be leader of a party that has effectively become The National Front. It’s clear neither of them do irony
It’s between Cruella and Kimi Badenoch. They’re both upping the ante on far right fruitloopery<span style="text-align: center;">m</span>
<span style="text-align: center;"> My money is on Badenoch </span>
The leadership campaign is well underway already. It’s between Cruella and Kimi Badenoch. They’re both upping the ante on far right fruitloopery. It’s going to be ironic, to say the least, to watch 2 immigrant, women of colour slogging it out, after the upcoming electoral wipeout, to be leader of a party that has effectively become The National Front. It’s clear neither of them do irony
A bit like I remind my aged Uncle who voted for Brexit because of all those folk "not from here" (he was referring to Asians, not Poles) that he's replaced whites with non-whites and we've Sunak as PM.
A bit like I remind my aged Uncle who voted for Brexit because of all those folk “not from here” (he was referring to Asians, not Poles) that he’s replaced whites with non-whites and we’ve Sunak as PM.
To be fair the brexiteers were promising to replace the European migrants with non-European ones.
Well some of them were.
<p style="text-align: left;">To be fair the brexiteers were promising to replace the European migrants with non-European ones.
Well some of them were.</p>
thats not the message most received
this was the reality of the campaign
I wonder if the polling companies know all that Ernie?
Obviously they do, the shy Tory factor is a known phenomenon :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_factor
At least one pollster, Opinium, has recently changed its methodology in an attempt to deal with the issue.
Which is why Labour leads are consistently smaller in Opinium surveys than other pollsters. Currently most pollsters give Labour a 20% or more lead over the Tories, in contrast the very latest Opinium poll gives Labour a 14% lead:
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1687901984701960192
I expect that the shy Tory factor will become less obvious as we approach election day and people become more prepared to nail their colours to the mast. So the final opinion polls are unlikely to be widely inaccurate.
I don't do crystal ball gazing but if I had to guess it is reasonable imo to say that the Tories won't get less than 30% in the next general election.
As I keep saying, I don't believe that the Tories have ever received less than 30% in any general election in the last 200 years (although not necessarily as a unified party - possibly in alliance with unionists)
And I think it is reasonable to expect Labour to get probably somewhere between 40-45%
The latest poll gives Labour their largest lead over the Tories since mid-July.
It's time for Sunak to ramp up the culture war I fear.
Obviously it doesn't appear to be making any difference but what else can the Tories do?
Nobody is buying their increasingly nasty ‘policies’ because I think pretty much everyone can smell the utter desperation of it all.
Everything they announce barely lasts 5 minutes before the whole thing collapses under the weight of its own unworkable stupidity and incompetence, then they just double down and keep digging.
This is absolutely on the money by Raffael Behr in yesterdays Guardian
Policy that can’t work and laws written purely for campaign slogans are clear symptoms of a moribund regime
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1689164850469986305?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
Nobody is buying their increasingly nasty ‘policies’
Some people do, My nan, who passed away in January this year voted for Brexit.
Athough to be fair to her, over the last year or two she expressed remorse saying that she shouldn't have really voted as she'd started to see what a shit show it all was.
And she'd be long gone when the bad effects really start to kick in, her words, not mine.
Even on her deathbed in a carehome, she kept remarking 'how peculiar' it was that there were so many foreign doctors and nurses.
This was during one of the medical strikes last winter when we were flitting between care home and hospital as she kept getting discharged only for the care home to get her blue lighted back to hospital a day or two later, round and round we went.
I miss her dearly, more than I will say, but if you'll forgive my gallows humour, it's safe to say that's one less voter gullible to the extreme right that won't be voting any more.
Nobody is buying their increasingly nasty ‘policies’ because I think pretty much everyone can smell the utter desperation of it all.
And they aren't actually doing anything. Inflation is up, mortgages are up, disposable income is down - these things are always going to result in a change of government. Most people recognise that these things need fixing, not immigrants.
Another on-point article by Marina Hyde on our absentee government
https://twitter.com/MarinaHyde/status/1691693718879735945?s=20
Meanwhile 30p Lee struggles to get his head around the most basic maths
https://twitter.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1691701068210561075?s=20
Another fine day in the sunlit uplands of Toryland
Meanwhile 30p Lee struggles to get his head around the most basic maths
I'm struggling too, although I won't deny that I am rubbish at maths. What has he got wrong? Wages are now rising faster than inflation, just about, presumably this means that on average the purchasing power of wage earners is currently increasing slightly?
What surprises me is that a Tory politician should be celebrating wages increasing faster than inflation. I can't help thinking that someone might want to have a word with him, as a Tory government tries to denounce public sector wage demands above the rate of inflation.
Past inflation when wages weren't rising means an absolute loss in puchasing power. The fact that the rate of increase in prices has slowed and some wages are catching up doesn't mean that people have not taken a massive real terms pay cut. For example, a mate who is single was telling me his patterns of expenditure have not changed at all but a year ago he was generally left with £400 in his account at the end of the month. Now he is left with nothing.
No, current wage growth higher than the rate of inflation won't of course suddenly reverse months/years of falling purchasing power.
But the maths behind the claim that wage growth above the rate of inflation means "more money in your pocket" seems reasonable correct to me, even if in reality it means bugger all to most people due years of falling living standards and a cost of living crises.
What has he got wrong? Wages are now rising faster than inflation
We've just had 12-18 months in which inflation has significantly exceeded even the current level of wage growth, so while some people might start to keep pace from now on, it does not undo the deficit that has made people poorer over that period.
It's why junior doctors have correctly calculated they need a 35% rise to repair the cumulative damage. They have had year upon year in which their pay rises have been sub-inflationary, and lots of other people will be in this position.
You could also say that the current headline rate of inflation is a mid-summer snapshot, and we should expect energy prices to increase again in a few months' time, so even over the next 12 months, people's wages may not keep pace despite these figures.
This is probably as good as it gets for Rishi's 'targets', and I wouldn't be surprised if he goes to the voters before the winter hits and another chunk of middle England has to find a new mortgage deal.
And frozen tax allowances also mean that +95% of us are poorer even if wages had kept pace with inflation.
Ernie - check compound inflation vs your compound net wages (pick a year to start, 2010 maybe?) - are you better or worse off?
For example, a mate who is single was telling me his patterns of expenditure have not changed at all but a year ago he was generally left with £400 in his account at the end of the month. Now he is left with nothing.
Do you know me, Bill?
I used to be able to put money into my savings each month, but I haven't been able to for a few months now. This is after trimming back my spending. I've got naff all debt, a cheap mortgage, no student loans, and a decent job, and instead of being comfortable I'm having to watch my bank balance way more closely than before.
I'm moving from public sector to private in a few months and it'll be my first real world pay increase in 5 years.
Yep, 'more money in your pocket' now will still buy you less than it would 18 months ago. It's all smoke and mirrors and the BoE is now talking about more interest rate rises due to prices going up (ffs).
Don't forget that a lot of the general public have no idea about how inflation actually works, let alone stuff like compound interest etc or the effect of freezing tax rate boundaries. People only care about the money in their wage packet and the payments to get shiny things on the whole. It's why Lee Anderson's tweet will work, people just don't understand the the figures actually mean.
As for calling an early election? Not happening. They're too busy feathering their own nests for when they do get kicked out and probably also leaving a few 'presents' in the system for Labour that won't come out until 2025/6 so they can then blame Starmer for them.
But the maths behind the claim that wage growth above the rate of inflation means “more money in your pocket” seems reasonable correct to me, even if in reality it means bugger all to most people due years of falling living standards and a cost of living crises.
A good measure is 'real' wage growth taking into account nominal wage growth and inflation. Something like this but including July would do it;
I’m moving from public sector to private in a few months and it’ll be my first real world pay increase in 5 years.
*My first real world pay increase since hitting the top of my salary scale 5 years ago
Ernie – check compound inflation vs your compound net wages (pick a year to start, 2010 maybe?) – are you better or worse off?
I have already made that point;
in reality it means bugger all to most people due years of falling living standards and a cost of living crises.