What a hero you are stevextc! I wish I was you.

Unfortunately for us mere mortals, some of those incidents are a trifle more bothersome and we might like to have insurance to mitigate the financial impact. Insurance which would be invalidated simply by not remembering to wear a helmet for a low risk activity.

Dickyboy – Member

Yes but why is kerley’s lad not living back home instead of spending £375 a month on rented accommodation?

Perhaps because there’s no jobs or prospects where he’s from? I grew up in Cumbria and would have struggled to find decent work if I hadn;t moved south. On the one hand you say live with your parents – well that equates to unemployment and on the other hand you say get a job – for which you have to move away.

The real story in kerleys post is the fact that someone is raking £1500 a month in from the state in rent, presuming everyone in the shared house is on benefits. That is scandalous.

Ewan – are you talking about tax take or benefits?

The point I was making above is that the levels of tax avoidance – legal or otherwise – far exceeds the amount claimed in benefits by ‘scoungers’ and probably exceeds the benefits bill in its entirety. So, why not focus efforts where there is more to be gained?

The answer can only be ideology – divide and rule.

zilog6128 – Member

This is irrelevant though! The programme is about people who’ve chosen to use the benefits system as their living, rather than working…”

Actually, no it wasn’t. Most on there hadn’t chosen it as way of life. And this zero sum argument is completely wrong too. The program pointed out enough times that applying an arbitrary cap to benefits and forcing people onto the street costs more in the long run in other payments and interventions, and the government has admitted as much.

Two things strike me on this one:

1. The willingness of some to condemn those at the bottom for gaming the system to get the maximum out of it while not really applying the same condemnation to all those self employed entrepreneurs who are ‘tax-efficient’. I know which category I’d bet takes the most from the system.

2. The disingenuous way the whole thing is reported in the first place. Most of these people aren’t ‘getting’ £30,000 (or whatever sum it happens to be), it mostly goes to their private landlord who in turn is probably renting them an ex-council house which was bought for a massively discounted rate. Those landlords are the real scroungers but it’s the **** Tory party which have enabled such a ridiculous situation to arise in the first place. And what’s their solution? Extend right to buy to housing associations. Anyone would think they had an agenda.

I suppose the only real question left is…

Have you ever tried just 12 sheets?

I used to have a Triodos account until I found out about the whacky Anthroposophical ideals of its founders…

That and the shit interest rates!

Nationwide. Switched from Coop a while back and its at least some way removed from the practices of Barlays, HSBC et al.

Decent rates on cashback Credit Card and savings too if you’re bothered about that kind of thing…

Yes, its something like £10 for the day. I don’t want a days worth of 8 channels of shite. I want to watch one channel for 2 hours. £2 seems fair. But what they are actually doing is setting the bar so high that is actually a push to the higher subscription fee i.e. it only takes a few days and you may as well have bought the full package.

thisisnotaspoon – Member

It’s a bit like going down to the local car boot and seeing a fat bike, you’ve always really wanted a fat bike, and it’s practically being given away.

But it’s fine, the market was setup with completely legitimate intentions, so no harm done and the law might never catch up with you.

In this analogy Kodi is the Market. You don’t advocate shutting downa whole market because a couple of the traders are selling knockoffs. You just go after the dodgy dealers.

I think I’m the same as a fair few here, the odd thing i’ll stream but I pay for enough too. Some things I’m happier to pay for than others and I don’t put the same value on most stuff as the vendor does. For example, I don’t think its worth £40 a month to watch sky sports but I would happily pay a couple of quid for the odd game. I don’t have that option though. Same type of thing applies to most films. If the stream wasn’t available I’d just not watch it until it came on TV, with some exceptions.

Theres an article in the Telegraph linked to somewehre which quotes £36bn revenues for the film industry and a loss of £500m to piracy. Two things to note: 1 – that’s not really a very big loss, I think its a lower proportion than shoplifting in traditional shops, and 2 – most of that £500m isn’t lost as it simply wouldn’t be watched in the first place.

So, to sum it up, meh.

BQ Aquaris x5 plus.

Cheap (ish) but good. Have a look.

avdave2 – that all sounds a bit like projection. Got some issues yourself needs to get off your chest?

munrobiker – exactly the sort of drivel I’m talking about. ****.

Northwind – I think that’s where it started – using “you” might seem a bit confrontational in some circumstances so people started chickening out and saying “yourself”, which has bled over into myself. It’s not evolution of language though, it’s just shite!

Tis a good point, a friend and I, you do however, get my drift. I just need to wipe the egg off myselfs face now.

That is quite a concerning article. How anyone could be so inept as to be confused by that road yet still have a driving licence is more than worrying.

I note its the first in a series of hard hitting articles, I can’t wait to see what round two brings…

I was 13 when they took mine.

Don’t remember much else. It hasn’t made me faster.

Hope that helps.

qtip – I shall suppress a smirk.

poisonspider – I don’t necessarily disagree but your reaction above could be construed as a bit melodramatic…

To be fair, I don’t think anyone is suggesting anything of the sort. Xyeti simply showed himself up as a bit of a tit but I doubt he really meant anything by it, except to somehow offend me.

Meh.

As it happens, no. Are you? What a strange question.

You imply that these strava bores weren’t tolerated. The fact he didn’t go up to them and try to make them talk about something else, as you said you would have done, shows that he did tolerate them.

Basically, I’m not sure its me typing shit, if you catch my drift.

xyeti – Member

blah blah blah… there’s no point even trying to debate why you think it’s acceptable to even try and understand where you have gone slightly wrong.

Good luck.

Hows the view from that there high horse?

I really don’t understand why you seem to be so animated about some other people’s conversations.

I don’t think Poisonspider actually wants to be saved. I believe its called rhetoric. Do you think that I think you are actually sat on a horse?

DT78 – Member

summary – likes strava

Nothing wrong in any of that DT78, the point in question is whether or not the instant you finish a ride you whip out the ‘strava enabled device of choice’, check your stats and talk only about those stats for the next half hour. If so, congratulations, you can consider yourself a Strava bore. If on the other hand you check your stats, pat yourself on the back and proceed to consider and discuss a less trivial aspect of riding/life then you are unfortunately just normal.

imnotverygood – Member

Why is it worthy of me commenting on a forum about it?

To which, the only sane response is “Why is it worthy of me commenting on a forum about someone else commenting on a forum about it?”

Sometimes people overhear things they like and they sometimes overhear things they don’t like. Some people find some things interesting and some things some people find uninteresting. Some things people find so interesting that they deem them worthy of comment and perhaps some other people might also find it interesting and perhaps comment. Some things are even worthy of comment by their lack of interestingness. Some comments are complete drivel. You are free to choose your stance, but choose wisely.

What seems to be happening here, is that some people are complaining that Poisonspider expressed a dislike for someones attitude. The same people are expressing a dislike for his attitude but seem not to spot the ironing in the situation.

No-one is suggesting that you shoudln’t do as you please, but merely pointing out that there’s far more to life, and a nice bike ride, than the speed at which you go down or up a hill, and that if you focus solely on that, it makes you a bit boring.

WCA is bang on. Nowt wrong with Strava but its a bit sad if thats the only thing you take from a ride.

Bit like this really:

Duggan – Member

… consider cycling just a less boring form of going to the gym.

If that’s what you want then fine, no-ones going to stop you, not even Poisonspider. Other people are allowed to form an opinion on your attitudes though. I suspect you get a lot more out of it than you realise its just that you are focussing on (in my and many others opinion) a very narrow and dull aspect of the sport as a whole.

Everyone seems to be getting their knickers in a twist that Poisonspider has an opinion, and stated at, whilst simultaneously defending the right of some other people who had a different viewpoint stating theirs. That right? Freedom of speech but not for Poisonspider?

This, and the guardian point of view on the other thread, seem to align quite nicely with my viewpoint – I use Strava as a sort of log. Just a record of where I’ve been and a rough guide to ‘performance’. The segment stuff is sort of interesting but I’d really not be bothered if it wasn’t there.

The point seems to be that the ‘Strava obsessed’ of this world seem to need the numbers to have fun and don’t seem to be able to enjoy the location, scenery, general challenge without it. Dullard seems to be a very apt term.

Ian Bradbury is definitely on to something. One of my Dad’s little gems of wisdom is, to paraphrase “the best safety device you could put in a car would be a massive spike in the middle of the steering wheel”. While its said tongue in cheek its true. How many people would risk half of the daft manoeuvres they do if they didn’t feel so safe and protected?

And, at a slightly different level, the same applies to bikes. Crap brakes? Ride slower and more carefully. And obviously the converse is true. Feel safer and more in control = take more risks.

Right then, this guy Ben that craigxxl has linked to – looking at his injury it looks to me that the actual injury he suffered was caused by his helmet. The shape of the ‘tear’ in his scalp is the shape of the pressure the helmet would exert in a crash.

That’s not to say the helmet didn’t help, but you cannot say for certain that his injuries would be worse without the helmet. The only thing you can say for certain is that they would be different. Chances are the outcome would be much the same I imagine.

If a similar injury was shown from a rider not wearing a helmet, presumably those who advocate wearing a helmet would use it as an argument to do so…

For what its worth I think its a good thing that people can choose to wear a helmet if they want. Its also a good thing if people can choose not to wear one. What should never happen is for people to be obliged to wear one.

Going the other way wrightyson and it was some sort of beige skoda saloon I think.

So the consensus is overtake if you want to and its safe then?

Phew, I’m glad that’s been cleared up.

“Drives me nuts” doesn’t mean angry. I find it mildly irritating.

Occasionally, i might mutter something about them being a pillock but I’m not about to smash their head in with a wrench for going a bit slow.

Though do feel free to carry on leaping to conclusions.

Cheers Pook. Its not easy this internet lark!

Edukator – Troll

A pattern seems to be forming here, those who ignore legal speed restrictions and make little attempt to adapt their speed to road conditions (which may mean a speed lower than the limit) find that other drivers are going slower than themselves and get angry about it.

Who’s getting angry about people going slowly? I’m angry that someone suddenly and unpredictably decided to go fast!

FWIW

This is a different thread edukator. Do try to keep track.

And no, there is a huge difference between caution ie not taking risks, and being inept, such as the morons who have to brake when a truck passes in the opposite direction or are incapable of driving within the speed limit, except once it’s not there anymore ie the 40 in a 30, 40 in a 50 brigade.

The option to brake was there but not quite neccesary as there was still plenty of clear road to go. The point (and yes, there was one) was that it really shouldn’t have ever been part of the equation, but for one persons irrational reaction to being overtaken.

On a motorway its sort of amusing, if annoying, but its downright dangerous on a single carriageway.

Driving cautiously is fine. Driving timidly, like you’re not sure what the controls of your car do, isn’t.

Do you mean the “Car Park”?

Edukator – Troll

Just how long is your car? 5m? Even tail-gaters leave more than that.

You’ve also stated that it was the lead car that accelerated hard so a gap would have opened up between the lead and second car giving you plenty of space to pull in.

(unless the three of them were working together all with the specific aim of putting you in difficulty – seems unlikely)

What car do you drive BTW? It’s no doubt in here somewhere but it’s easier to ask.

I’m not sure I quite get what your point is.

You seem to be suggesting that it was reckless to overtake three cars at once, but have no problem with muscling into a tiny gap between cars when overtaking.

There were no gaps between the cars prior to the point where I overtook so no, it was not possible to overtake one at a time.

Once overtaking all three, I am already alongside car number three by the time I notice he’s accelerating in an out of character and unexpected fashion, therefore no, I cant just cut in as he’s there, right alongside.

Two options, jam on the brakes and hope I can squeeze in or two finish the overtake, noting that the road is still clear, just annoyed at the f***wittery.

Edukator – you can only overtake one car at a time if there are gaps between them, which there weren’t.

Given this remarkable revelation of yours, that overtaking was possible earlier on, you would assume that if one of the other cars was intent on overtaking, then it would have done so already, seeing as they could overtake only one (or two) cars as opposed to three.

Edukator – you mean your not on stw to talk about cars? Whats up with you?

To add to the engine braking debacle – my usual commute involves a nice decent into Buxton, which, in the right gear you can nicely coast with no stress and not break the speed limit – except for far too many other drivers who absolutely must brake for every single corner regardless of their speed, the corners sharpness, the amount of gravel/ice/mud/water on the road or lack thereof etc etc.

Drives me nuts.

Suggsey might have a point. I probably could have been a bit more aggressive in getting past but when there was so much space, it really didn’t seem necessary.

CFH – I agree. Mronic thread title really.

Gary_M – Member

I’d stop now if I were you.

Yes I thought that myself, looks like a ‘I’m committed now and will pass whatever it takes’ situation.

It was more of an ‘heres a good place to overtake, whats this **** doing, oh for **** sake’ situation.

Never any danger just really **** stupid.

It was just about at the point of having to cut back in but not quite and that’s what makes it worse, a perfectly safe manoeuvre made difficult by a pillock.

Predictable as it was, this thread wasn’t meant to be a dissection of my driving today, which frankly none of you can really comment on, unless you happened to be in the vicinity of Cromford at about 1200 today. It was meant to see if you had experienced people trying to block you from overtaking, which to me, seems dangerous.

Edukator – Troll

So you had just gone through a bend with a dangerous poor-visibility crossroads immediately after that a sensible driver would slow for and then accelerate away from. And perhaps not check the mirrors as he’d just done that for the junction.

(edit to fix the quotes!)

Or perhaps, given the fact that he’d already covered a couple of miles at a painfully-slow-on-that-particular-road pace and none of the other cars had overtaken despite having had plenty of opportunity to do so, it was reasonable to assume a. they wouldn’t now overtake and b. he wouldn’t suddenly decide to do a Lewis Hamilton impression just as someone did overtake.