Always banging my helmeted head on the garage door, never done it when not wearing a helmet: garage doors are rubbish.

Also, the first big crash I had while wearing a helmet resulted in the peak of my helmet rotating down and pushing my glasses into the bridge of my nose, cue lots of blood and a visit to the race St Johns Ambulance folk. The scar will be there for life: glasses and helmet peaks are rubbish too.

Although it could be that my spatial awareness is rubbish, at a push.

Nope, I really like MTBing and really like beer too. Beer isn't always the first thing I want after a ride, but it is often quite high on my list of priorities.

I can understand if you don't like beer though. If you don't like MTBing you're in the wrong place!

Hang on though, is this another of those threads that relate to previous threads where everything is tongue in cheek, but only those who are real-regular on the forum know about it? If so, feel free to "whoosh".

I think that there is a danger of this thread confusing cloning with gene manipulation. The aim of cloning, as GEDA pointed out, is to be able to recreate, many times over, a single prize winning beast. In this way when breeders produce a particularly high quality beast that single animal can be recreated many times over. The aim of this is to produce many beasts of the highest quality for consumption, not for them to be used in turn for further breading.

Ah, okay. I'm comparing apples with oranges then. My mistake.

So, this begs the question why are the death and deformity rates so high and can they be reduced? Clones should be genetically identical to their parent so why is it that these mutations are occuring? Could it be a similar mechanism to that which causes cancerous cells to mutate? If so there may well be interesting medical aspects to learn from this too. Which I suppose puts a whole new ethical/moral spin on it!

If in the beginings of farming and cattle breeding a 1/3 of all cattle died before reaching maturity I doubt we would have continued farming them because people would have starved to death, remember that number doesnt include the ones that were born dead or failed to be carried full term….

Oh I don't know. In the beginnings people didn't eat the same quantity of meat as we do now so higher death rates would be more acceptable. Maybe cattle were a luxury item back then, maybe there primary diet was vegetable, or game meat based. Who knows. Even so if 66% of their cattle did survive they'd hardly starve to death.

I used to live on a farm with beef cattle if you lost one in a hundred calves born alive you'd consider yourself unlucky.

Well, it's obvious you're coming at this from a more knowledgable perspective about the industry than me, naver having been involved in it.

not quite a third!

True, but that only goes back to 2002! Not exactly representative of the thousands of years that we have been messing around with cows is it?!

a **** sight less than a 1/3 thats for sure and thats only of the ones that were born alive!!!

Really? Since humans have started breeding animals for their own ends I'm not so sure the mortality rate hasn't been that low. Of course I'm speculating here (as are you for that matter) we can't possibly know how many died in the early days of farming. It started before recorded history after all. So I suppose your hyperbole could be accurate.

Either way though, you're still discounting the many billions of lives that have been lost prior to cloning coming on the scene, not to mention the associated pain and suffering that went along with it. Seems a bit odd to focus on the (relatively) few that have been lost since cloning arose.

the point was that just because something is right with the current generation (bird of prey born in captivity orsecond generation from a clone) it does not mean the ethical issues associated with the previous generation should be ignored.

Oh, okay. I agree with that, but your argument still seems to stop after a few generations prior. Surely you should be arguning all the way back to the point that humans started getting involved with farming animals, and manipulating their genetics to their own ends? I don't understand the arbitrary point you're starting at, unless you object to the cloning process itself, rather than the idea of genetic manipulation?

Its not though is it, what it actually boils down to are how many aborted feotuses, deformed calves and sickly calves were created to make the one good clone

Yes, but as I said how far back are you willing to go? How many aborted feotuses, deformed calves and sickly calves have been created since humans started manipulating the cow as a species? Genetic modification in it's current form shouldn't be viewed separately to how it's previously been done, i.e. species cross breeding and artificial selection.

woosh, there goes a missed point

Humour me then, because your point was too subtle for me to pick up on! What was the point you were attempting to make?

Well I prefer to take a more longsighted view of animal welfare, its not just the animal that is on my plate that bothers me, but where that animal and its ancestors come from.

Fair enough, the problem is, how far back do you go? I'm pretty sure cows in their current form aren't how 'nature' intended. The whole industry has arisen because of the desire to breed animals for a specific purpose, in many cases this is to the detriment of the individual animals welfare. So, what do you do? Go vegan and cease to be a hypocrite? Or take a more pragmatic approach and try to make sure the animal products you buy are sourced from the more humane farms?

I tend to fall into the latter category, but then I don't have a problem with being a hypocrite (I tended to view it as a spectrum, rather than black and white!).

So, what all this boils down to is. Are these cloned cows and their offspring treated well when they're alive? Are they killed quickly and with as little stress as possible? If so, I'm happy to eat 'em!

Its rather like the argument that its OK to have animals in zoo's if they were born in zoo's which has always seemed a little odd me.

I think that depends on the animal, some animals (birds of prey) appear to 'imprint' themsleves on their carers and would be in considerable danger if they were to be released. Others are kept for their own protection (ironically, mostly because we're their major predator). It's a bit of a generalisation to keep animals in zoos just 'cos they were born there. I'd be surprised if that was most zoos policy.

I suppose the question in this particular case is therefore: Do the offspring of cloned cows suffer similar infant mortality (and similar) rates if they are conceived 'naturally'?

If the answer is "No, they revert to the same rates as uncloned cows" then there are no additional issues that arise. If the answer is "Yes, they continue to have abnormally high death rates, often with unexplained causes" then there are most definitely animal welfare issues. Does anyone know whether this is the case?

About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large.

This isn't very useful as it seems to refer to cloned calves only, rather than the offsrping of cloned calves.

Orbital – In sides

Not sure if it fulfils the 'concept' criteria though.

Primal Scream — Screamadelica?

No. But in witnessing that split second where a bull takes the upper hand, you just might change your mind.

I hope not, but never having experienced/witnessed it I cannot be sure I wouldn't.

Yup – exactly. But as above, when the tables turn, perhaps the feeling starts to emerge that some animals might be more equal than others (to paraphrase another well known Spanophile).

I can well believe this. It's a shame that such situations arise at all, particularly when they are deliberately manufactured.

Lets just say that viewed with the right mix of cynisism and respect it encourages mindfulness and introspection. Not altogether without merit.

I try to take the view that most of these kind of events have merit of one form or another, be it from a sociological, political or even ethical/moral point of view. Unfortunately when weighed up against the pain, distress, confusion etc… that I imagine the animals go through, not to mention the degradation of the humans involved, the cost/benefit analysis is vastly overweighted on the cost side of things, the benefits being minimal.

Almost, but not quite. For example, I know I wouldn't like to see a human be killed by a bull.

I don't think I want to see either fight or die if that's okay! I'm not sure bulls really want to see either situation for that matter!

The rational debate could go right down the spiral until we're talking Descartes' "cogito ergo…" stuff – but let's just agree that we'll never know exactly how thoughtful a bull is. To that extent, we cannot really emphathise with it on a meaningful level. What we can be a wee bit more sure of its that our fellow humans can and will think about things to varying extents.

So, we can empathise more with the humans than we can with the bulls. Still not convinced it's a valid argument for saying their lives are worth less than ours.

But we're still made of the same basic building blocks as other animals and are still possessed of instincts and emotions which run deeper than the conscious mind.

So surely we're not so far removed from the bull after all, and should maybe be viewing both (potential) deaths equally abhorently/apathetically? Or is this a debating point against the idea that we should be appealing more to our animal instincts rather than our rational minds. To be honest, I'm struggling to try to maintain both points of view, but I think I understand what you're getting at, even if I don't subscribe to the same opinion!

Sometimes it takes something quite shocking to remind us that we are not as special as we think we are. Perhaps a life and death spectacle like a bullfight?

I think this is what I was aiming at! If we're not as special as we think we are, our lives aren't necessarily as important as we think they are. Shouldn't we therefore treat other life a bit more akin to the way we treat our own?

This is all a bit heavy for a Thursday afternoon!

If you're speaking from an unexperienced and uneducated (about the subject in hand) point of view your opinion is being proclaimed from a point of ignorance and no doubt based on sentimentality

That's a bit of an assumption isn't it?! One can surely express an opinion about something while remaining objective, neutral, open to changing their mind and aware of their ignorance about a subject can't they?

I hope so anyway, 'cos that's the way I've been living my life for the past few years!

Peyote: perhaps beacuse it's the ability to rationalise on that level that makes us unique.

You might subscribe to the "virus with shoes" view of humanity but hey – you're part of the gang!

Can we be certain that we're the only species that can rationalise? It's putting a lot of faith in our current knowledge of "life" if we are. I'm not comfortable with assuming this anyway. I like the "virus with shoes" view of humanity!

Bullfighting is amoral at best but cheapening human life is downright immoral. This response doesn't have to be logical… if nothing else it's purely evolutionary.

Doesn't this go against what you say earlier about us being able to rationalise? Surely, if we're so different from other life, we should be utilising rationality and logic wherever possible. Not just conforming to the baser instincts of emotion and speciesim (is that a word?!)?

Evolutionary speaking we've long since departed from this route. We've created our own version of evolution so again, logic and rationality should be teaching us that actually, treating all life as equal, is to ur advantage?

A bull is a glorious and noble thing – but it doesn't give a **** about you, me, or even another bull.

The same argument can be applied to humans…

Surely you owe it to your species to put human life above much else?

Never really understood this logic. My emotional mind says, "yes" I'm biased towards my species. Yet, all rationality tells me there's no real reason to put human life above all else.

Can anyone explain why humans are more important, ideally without referring to religious texts?

Anyone watching an animal get killed for fun, should equally enjoy watching a human get killed for fun. Can't really see why one is worse than t'other myself.

the emergency services aren't allowed to leave the site until the baby has been found or accounted for in the event of a crash. (from the mrs ambulance driving father)

Surely not?! There's no smiley in this post, but I can't believe this policy actually exists!

Or is this going to be a "Whoosh" reply…

Anyway Snopes have some interesting stuff on "Baby on board" signs: snopes article

I'm going to be in a similar position soon TimP. Haven't tried either, but I think I prefer the trailer option simply because you can then lock the trailer up at the nursery, then have your bike back to normal for the rest of the day. Plus I'm used to a trailer for doing the weekly shop.

Plus with a trailer I can keep using panniers/rack. Not sure this is the case with the seats. I stand to be corrected though.

Just for the record, I was recommended not to use a seat or trailer until little-un was 9 months old. Not sure if this is strictly correct 'cos they all seem to develop at a different rate so plucking an arbitrary age out of the air seems a bit of a cop-out to me.

As you say, it depends so much on the route, but even more it depends on how sensible your daughter is. Personally I'd have no problem with a smart 9 year old walking to school on her own, but I reckon my missus would have her concerns. Could she maybe meet up with some friends to walk together?

Risk perception is weird, I think maybe the fairer sex tend to be more protective of kids.

edited – beaten to it by DD!

Yep, got one on the back of my Dahon Mu Uno. Been using it for a few months now, but not fully confident enough to remove the front brake yet.

Not really a road bike, or a commuter in the conventional sense. It is SS though!

It's kind of depressing that loyalty isn't regarded as a worthwhile commodity from employers these days. I know the reasons why, and can see how they work but it all seems a bit too focussed on individuals and too little on the "greater good", be it the company/organisation you work for, the industry as a whole, or even society.

Still, that's the world we live in, adapt, be flexible or get left behind…

While I don't 'buy' in to the idea of getting a car purely due to mpg, what TJ is saying is really bollocks – as he's just not understanding that if you have a family you need (to maintain the standard of living to which you are accustomed) a car that can carry them and all their pariphenalia in comfort and safety.

There, that's better.

As someone else said, people but expensive baby stuff for themselves, not their offspring.

We're all essentially selfish, having a baby is selfish (we want ensure our genes are passed on). So kitting a baby out in stuff that cements their/our place in society is to be expected I suppose.

Most folk don't like it when this is pointed out to them though! True altruism doesn't exist…

Obesity
Poor quality meat products
Processed potatoes (okay chips and mash type stuff is good, but it's those 'smily faces', Alphabites, croquettes and all the rest of them. There's a whole aisle in the supermarket filled with this stuff)
Supermarkets (I go 'cos they're convenient, but that's only because there aren't any local shops left to go to. Viscious circle, I know)
Babies, new parents and all advertising asociated with them (my son is 9 months old so I'll exclude him, but my word, the amount of tedious small talk, advertising and oneupmanship you have to put up with)

How about Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy?

I enjoyed them and I'm 30+!

Over the past 18 months I reckon I could've claimed back over £1k in cycle mileage for business purposes (20p/mile). If only I didn't live 25 miles away from work and have to subtract my commute from my total mileage!

I've reused a powerlink on my Tourer for five chains now (about 8000 miles), it still seems to work fine and there's no noticeable stretching. I probably would recommend swapping it for a new one on a regular basis (maybe every two chains?), but it's got to the stage that I'm curious how long it's going to last!

Religion propagates itself by the indoctrination of children, placed there by the parents.

To an extent I suppose it does, although it isn't a simple "yes" or "no" question. I'm sure many relegious folk have been converted later in life. My parents weren't Christians until their mid-thirties, so they can't have been indoctrinated. I was a Christian until my late teens (10+ years ago now I hasten to add!), I think some may say I was indoctrinated, but I reckon that word is a bit loaded. Although I can't remember being given a choice of relegions (or atheisim for that matter) so maybe…

What is certain is that in the case of my parents and me the above asertion is incorrect. Interesting debate argument though!

Always liked "Sui-cycles".

*chuckles at the thought of cycling to work and moving house every time I start on a new site*

You could become a nomad and live in a tent!

You see, there's always choices difficult ones maybe, but choices nonetheless.

To really "need" something like a car is really incredibly rare.

taxes on fuel are not necessarily based on ability to pay

That's a bit open to debate isn't it? As a personal example – I sold my car when I couldn't afford to run it any more, voila 0% fuel tax for me to pay!

Ransos is correct unfortunately, far from the "persecuted British motorist" model that is perpetually sold to the population of this country, the truth is that things have never been so cheap for the motorist.

Shame really because sooner or later we're going to have to start paying the full price for all our forms of transport, air, sea and land. It's going to be a shock to the system of 99% of the population when that happens. Should be good for local produce though!

I’ve done Bikeability training (but I’m not fully accredited yet). During my training it was flagged up that my pedals didn’t have reflectors on them (I use SPDs, M520) and could possibly be setting a bad example to the kids. I countered this by explaining that reflectors were only required at night/dark conditions (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837).
Not that it mattered anyway, my huge panniers (with reflective patches I hasten to add) pretty much obscure my pedals!

Claiming bikes that don’t have reflectors are “unroadworthy” is a bit petty and pathetic in my opinion. Unfortunately it isn’t that surprisng to me judging by some of the CPT Instructors I’ve met.

Ive been using ones from Argos for the past few years, £14.99 wireless jobbies. Seem to be quite sturdy and have survived some god-awful weather and conditions (muddy Mountain Mayhem for example!).