Sorry. Couldn’t get past Q7.

“7. Do you participate in any other extreme sports:”

Which seems to infer that riding MTBs at trail centres is an extreme sport.

These people you see who are affording new cars and multiple foreign holidays simply cannot do so from benefits. the levels simply are too low.

Motability provides 580’000 cars to people on benefits.

Not all of them are genuinely disabled.

http://benefitfraud.blogspot.com/2011/11/light-sentence-for-calculated-benefit.html

@TJ “Riiiiiiiiiiight – and how quickly can you spin up a nuclear reactor for whenteh kettle all go on at half time in the cup final?”

Faster than you can make the wind blow when a high pressure is sitting over the UK in winter. Anyway as well all know nuclear (ours and imported French) is the major part of the base load mix along with coal and gas. Page 2 at

http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/48B9E295-C618-40ED-BA7F-65BC2855DD6B/51125/Operational_Winter_Update_11_12_No2.pdf

Well they would say that wouldn’t they as their primary purpose for existing is to stop nuclear power generation.

http://www.energyfair.org.uk/anti-nuclear-campaigns

Nuclear works for us and works even better for the French. Unlike wind it works all the time and doesn’t need gas power stations to back it up.

I bought a house once where the previous owner had tried to cope with damp by repapering after covering the wall plaster in one area with a rubber solution. The wet wall was directly inside the place where a flat roofed porch was which was a red herring. I eventually found the cause of the damp to be that someone had replaced a floorboard after doing work at a radiator and had put a nail through a pipe causing a slow but ongoing leak.

If you can narrow the damp problem to one area then inspecting the central heating piping is worth doing. It’s a big job but you have a big problem.

So, if I understand it correctly this means that with the benefit of hindsight, discussion, careful perusing of legal texts and precedents, and looking at all available evidence and arguments put forward by various learned friends and by using all their legal experience and training the High Court judges have agreed that the police commander’s decision made in a fairly short space of time during an ongoing public order situation was correct.

Well done that man!

XM317 – max width 2.1 as per Mavic.

http://mtb.mavic.com/en/product/rims/mountain-bike/rims/XM-317

I could be wrong but is it not the case that a claim made to another driver’s insurance will get both parties details on to the claims/accident database that all insurers share? So could affect your premium as it would be a no fault accident to declare next time you apply for a quote?

For minimal damage to a banger I would either ignore it or try a cash settlement. Not worth the hassle and possible accident record of an insurance claim.

Still going back to OP – quite a U Turn Mr Balls. Amazing what politicians will do to cling to power/try to win power.

Would it be too much to say that Balls has listened to what other people have said, including the Tories, looked at the numbers as the situation developed then changed his mind. Only a fool sticks to Plan A when it becomes apparent Plan B is better?

I sincerely hope the reason for the split is not money, as that (*in forum terms) would make all the Scots Thatcherites/Tories now wouldn’t it …

It isn’t money but money is always discussed because unionist politicians say Scotland couldn’t afford to be independent.

Scotland would have been better off outside of the UK.

Or in the same ballpark anyway, even according to Stephanie Flanders who is hardly likely to skew the numbers towards the SNP view.

On the Treasury view, the gap between spending and revenues in Scotland for 2009-10 was £3,150 per head. On the Scottish Nationalist view, the gap between spending and revenues was closer to £2,130.

Please, take your pick. All I ask is you bear in mind one other number – related to one other obvious, but very important fact. Namely, that Scotland is not the only part of the UK that is currently spending more than it raises in revenues.

If you apply the same kind calculation to the UK as a whole, the net ‘subsidy’ for the average person was well over £2,000 last year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990

“Its not even the right thing to do – as can be seen from the fact our economy is heading down the pan since the torys started making cuts compared to other economies.”

I see the UK wasn’t one of the 9 European countries that had their credit rating cut. So maybe they are doing something right.

Actually the Tories haven’t cut overall govt spending so far anyway.

Govt spending 2009-2010 669bn

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/government-spending-department-2009-10

Govt spending 2010-2011 691bn – Up 0.3% allowing for inflation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/26/government-spending-department-2010-11

Perhaps Balls has just realised the Tories are right on the pay freeze. Being is opposition doesn’t mean you oppose every govt policy right or wrong.

If I was the opposition parties in Scotland, I might start asking the questions of why the SNP was not keen to have a legally binding referendum. The SNP manifesto only says that are referendum will happen, Uncle Alex has chosen when in the term of the parliament. If he is confident that the people of Scotland will chose Independence (for better or worse) then go to the people early. Otherwise it will just appear that he is on the run.

The opposition had the chance for a vote in the last Scottish Parliament. They voted against it. Since the only reason there is going to be a vote is because the SNP won an outright majority then why shouldn’t the SNP set the date as well?

The more that a Tory PM interferes in Scotland the more chance of a yes vote as there is a large section of the population that will vote against anything perceived as a Tory position. Personally I thought Thatcher was a great PM but she made the Tories electoral poison up here.

@Wrecker

I think you’ll find that your 3rd link is about the chap who declared his own tiny island independent. He isn’t a native Shetlander either but a soothmooth. As per the comment on the link.

I hope the rest of Scotland does not think we are all idiots up here in Shetland. Captain Calamity has been a laughing stock since he came here. He is a soothmoother, a white settler and is certainly not speaking for the people of Shetland. It was just our misfortune that he was shipwrecked on our shores.

T

So, the argument on who has a “mandate” falls apart, the only people with a mandate are those with constitutional responsibility for the issue, thats the only way it can work, otherwise you get two different parliaments, both elected by the people, both having an equal claim to a “mandate”.

In Scotland the sovereignty is with the people not the parliament. So whether the Westminster MPs vote against a referendum does not matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath

More Scots voted against the SNP than voted for them, and a vote for the SNP in no way implies a vote for independence.

Of course it doesn’t. The SNP manifesto contained many other policies apart from the pledge to hold an independence referendum.

That is why there is now going to be a referendum so the people of Scotland can decide their own future.

Can’t see how – the position remains true that a change in the constitutional status is a matter for a whole UK parliament, since the 1707 act of union denoted that was binding on both nations, so only a whole UK parliament can enact legislation repealing it. A referendum brought about by any enactment of a Scottish parliament cannot bind the whole UK parliament, as it would be ultra vires. The only powers the Scottish government has are the ones that have been given to it by the UK parliament, which could in theory take them away again.

There was no power for the USA or India or any other former part of the empire to become independent. It happened though.

The UN calls it self determination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#The_UN_Charter

@ac505

– why would we want to follow after the likes of Iceland and Ireland hailed by Alex (fat face) Salmond as being our inspiriational future…… Where are they now, in the knackers yard I do believe.

I don’t see Norway regretting becoming independent. In fact even with Ireland’s problems I don’t see any of them wanting to come back to the UK.

Does Salmond’s “fat face” make his ideas wrong?

Personally I think there would be a great exodus from Scotland if independance were to become reality, I for one would be getting in line to buy my ticket.

I’m sure we would struggle on somehow without you.

Not ones like those. In general on road lanes are only there when the road is wide enough to ride safely without them. The net effect is to increase hassle from drivers as they don’t understand why I’m not in the lane at places like these. Although, strangely, most other cyclists on this road ride in thne doorzone here.

SNP maifesto said nothing about timing of the referendum.

True.

“We think the people of Scotland should decide our nation’s
future in a democratic referendum and opinion polls suggest
that most Scots agree. We will, therefore, bring forward our
Referendum Bill in this next Parliament”

I can’t see any reference in the manifesto to when the vote should be held.

http://votesnp.com/campaigns/SNP_Manifesto_2011_lowRes.pdf

But the question of whether Scotland should be independent can only be decided by the people of Scotland and that includes the timing. The unionists had a chance in the last parliament to allow a vote which I think they would have won. They bottled it though. Now with the SNP overall majority (achieved despite a voting system expressly designed to prevent it) the ball is in Salmond’s court. He will only get one chance. Cameron is only increasing the risk of the UK breaking up by interfering and making a vote for independence into an anti-tory vote. If anything is likely to increase the pro vote then that is it.

Nobody, not even the SNP anticipated their overall majority. If they can achieve that then independence is possible.

If speeding is so awfull, why do the police not prosecute evryone who actually has an accident ?
They will happily prosecute speeders all day long , but heaven forbid if you have a car / car interface , thats OK is it .

It’s down to cost effectiveness. Speed camera prosecutions are almost automatic. Very little police or court time involved as most people plead guilty. If every speeder plead NG the system would grind to a halt within 3 months.

As for speed traps. That involves two cops taking perhaps 10-15 minutes per speeder. Doing a careless driver involved in an accident means far, far more time getting statements from the other driver and independent witnesses. Then when it reaches court (which is more likely because carelessness is more subjective) rather than two cops giving evidence using an hour of the court’s time it might take a whole morning or a whole day. Too expensive. A simple speeding case is really cheap and easy to prove but most people plead guilty anyway.

I can’t comment on everywhere but I worked in one city where there was an unwritten rule that it was usually a waste of time reporting non injury road accidents as a careless driving. The courts were too busy dealing with junkies, shoplifters, assaults etc. So the police report would just get marked “No Proceedings” by the Procurator Fiscal.

Obviously there were exceptions and really bad bits of driving would get taken to court. In general though more speeders (potentially dangerous) were dealt with (whether by Fixed penalty or through the court) than careless drivers where bad driving (actual danger) had caused an accident – or crash as it is called these days.

IMO the best way of dealing with bad driving, whether speeding or not, is more traffic cars. Drivers can’t argue with on board video showing their driving. With cutbacks though most traffic depts are getting smaller not larger.

I think a 1mph when the bikes were in use at Antartica counts as a fail.

“Today Niklas and I tried the ice bike for the first time. Towing our sledges behind the bikes was very hard. We went 1.5 miles in about 1.5 hours.

28th Dec entry at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc/diaries/helen-skeltons-polar-challenge-for-sport-relief/pg/1

Later on they try the bikes again and do 15 miles in a day. Are bikes not supposed to be faster than walking?

He was there to catch people cos it’s an easy place to safely do 40 at 9pm.

You might be right and 40 in a 30 is not always risky. But if you choose to speed then that is the chance you take.

There is a stretch of rural road near me which was a national speed limit – 60mph until being reduced to a 30mph for long term building work. All the work is finished it is still a 30mph limit though. (The building was a water treatment works with no on site staff so the work hasn’t changed the character of the road)

Speed limits are not always based on safety and risk.

Think of it like this:
40mph = about 60 feet per second (I think, from dim & distant memory)
Average driver reaction time = 2.5 seconds
Therefore 2.5×60 = 150 feet BEFORE you’ve started braking. Basically for 150 feet you’re a passenger in your own car unable to do anything about anything.

150 feet thinking? Not if you are awake. The highway code quotes a total stopping distance at 40mph of 118 feet. Of that 118 feet 1/3 is thinking, the rest stopping. So around 40 feet reaction time.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_188029.pdf

Using Sheldon Brown’s gear calculator a 22/32/44 chainset with 170mm cranks and 26″ wheels with 2.125 tyres gives a gear range of 17.8-103.8 inches.

Using a 22/36 crank and a 12-36 cassette on 29inch – 700×56 tyres gives 17.8 to 87.4 inches. around 12% of the high gear.

If you need the top end then using a 11-36 cassette gives 17.8 – 116 inches though with bigger gaps somewhere in the range.

Personally I’d go for the 12-36. You are losing just about 1 top end gear compared to your current setup. But I suppose it depends if you spin or push at the top end. If you spin out in top with your current gears go 11-36, if you don’t go 12-36.

http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/

Here, drink-riding is seen by most to be in exactly the same boat as drink-driving; with all the pious rhetoric from non-pub-cyclists as STWers have shown on here for the past two pages. It’s seen that way for the reason given in my example. It’s not what happens to the selfish drunk rider, it’s how their actions might affect others

So the Australian law is based on scaremongering using scenarios that don’t happen.

Something like the helmet law then. Based on the belief that cycling is far more dangerous than it is.

@zokes

“It does have some big repercussions as the cyclist. But… if you happened to drift in front of a big truck, and the truck swerved in front of a car to avoid you, your drink-riding would have pretty undesirable repercussions for some innocent bystanders. “

Can you quote one incident, ever, where this has happened? In fact quote any incident where a drunk cyclist has killed anyone other than himself.

Let’s talk about events that actually happen.

As for seizing drink driver’s cars, fair enough. As drink drivers are not responsible for the majority of road deaths are we going to start seizing the cars of people for the second speeding offence or the second using a mobile offence.

After all using a phone is more dangerous than driving at the legal alcohol limit.

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/driving-with-a-mobile-phone-is-worse-than-drink-driving

“If everybody turns the heating up, drives more and wastes as much energy as possible then you can have even more spectacular storms in the future. “

Or it might just be weather. Like the hurricanes in 1968, 1987, etc etc.

A steel roof has been torn off a neighbour’s roof here just north of Glasgow. Numerous trees down. Greenhouse glass gone in next garden. Kkingston Bridge in Glasgow was closed both ways for overturned HGVs.

What I was wondering is why if faulty implants have been used by private clinics it is not then the job of the same private clinics to remove them.

Why (if they need removed) is the NHS having to clear up the mess and pay the cost?

With regards to REGULAR RECREATIONAL CYCLING I believe wearing helmets:
1. definitely prevents head injures
2. doesn’t subject the rider to greater risk of crashes through risk compensation.I believe wearing helmets:

Just because you believe something doesn’t make it true. Any evidence?

Normal driving as part of a job is not perceived as risky. Risk compensation was still found in the study of taxi drivers. Other than your belief is there any reason risk compensation should not apply to regular recreational cycling?

Given that regular recreational cycling is so safe it would only need a tiny risk compensation effect to outweigh helmet protection.

“I’m not prepared to accept some comparison to another scenario.”

But sometimes you have to. If risk compensation has been proved to exist elsewhere why should cycling be exempt? Risk compensation is a reasonable explanation of why no big helmet effect is seen at population levels along with the fact they provide only limited protection.

A good study risk compensation was the Munich Taxi Driver study.

http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html

Regular driving which is safe but still demonstrated risk compensation.

“I go back to my original statement that the unsolved debates concern legislation not safety for an individual.”

Not true. If you are going to crash a helmet is a good thing. If wearing a helmet increases your risk of a crash through risk compensation then wearing a helmet may be a bad thing.

So even an individual may not benefit from wearing a helmet.

Perhaps this explains why many helmet advocates justify their position by the number of times it has prevented injury in a crash. Perhaps helmet wearers crash more often?

“There is no argument that as an individual you are safer.”

The argument is risk compensation.

As for Cracknell? Doesn’t practice what he preaches

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1379107/No-helmet-James-Cracknell-minus-head-protection-saved-life-cycle-smash.html

As for whether a helmet saved his life. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Avoiding the crash in the first place is better though. Like using a mirror and swerving to avoid the truck hitting him in the first place. Riding east towards a rising sun at dawn is best avoided as well.

“The accident happened just after sunrise at 5.30am “

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/7904182/James-Cracknell-fractures-skull-in-Arizona-truck-crash.html

“The fact that compared to most other forms of transport it is dangerous & therefore people wear helmets seems not to have occurred to our Danish friend (& others)”

With (in 2010) 111 cyclist killed in the UK and a total cycling mileage of 3.1 billion miles I make it around 27 million miles cycled for each cycling death. Dangerous??

Not a big enough risk I’m going to worry about it.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-safety-annual-report-2010/rrcgb2010-01.pdf

No. You just got lucky. If found it would have been confiscated at best.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/04/13/scots-cop-arrested-on-jet-knife-charge-86908-23058044/

(In Scotland any knife being carried must have a blade less than 3″ long which does not lock unless covered by exceptions like tools of trade etc.)

“It’s just that it suddenly struck me what folly it actually was, to stop and wait, in such circumstances. There was no genuinely practical need for me to do so. “

Absolutely. If there is no traffic on the road with the green then a quick shoulder check for police cars and then through on red most of the time.

It has been calculated that a cyclist stopping adds the equivalent of 100-200M to his journey. So on a commute with around 30 sets of lights that would be a fair bit of extra time. I’d be mad to be waiting at red lights on near empty roads at 6am. especially as many stretches are sequenced to be green for traffic at 30mph so on a bike they are all red.

Yes it’s illegal. I see few road users who aren’t breaking some law. So I won’t lose sleep over it.

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/stop.pdf

I think Thatcher was a great PM. She doesn’t deserve a state funeral though as she was too divisive. A good case against it made by Peter Oborne.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100125535/lady-thatcher-deserves-every-honour-%E2%80%93-apart-from-this-one/