Good luck with the email. I suspect you may be pretty angry and frustrated that your previous communications have been ignored, and that you have been left out on a limb, but try not to let that come through in your email: just keep it factual and dispassionate. Don’t over-egg it or lay it on too thick, but try to couch whay you say in terms that indicate you are acting to protect the company’s interests (assets, revenue generation, reputation and legal, e.g. not only possible H&S enforcement action, but maybe even loss of licence?) and also your email receipient’s interest: in the event of a major accident, it will be no defence for them to claim ignorance, and they will be just as much in the firing line as you if not more so. Phrases like ‘we are extremely exposed if there is an accident’ may be appropriate (we = you want him/her to identify with you and be on your side).

If you can get the site director on your side, he/she may even be able to force an answer from whoever is responsible for the safety rule about why that particular flashpoint threshold was chosen, and if you had sufficient information about the risks, the company (not just you) might be able to come up with a temporary MoC procedure which will allow continued production with an acceptable level of safety pending a permanent fix.

I suspect the severity of the sentence means that he is likely to appeal. I wonder if he will also appeal the verdict as well as the sentence, since from the limited reporting it does seem that there may have been flaws in the prosecution case. Obviously we have not heard all the evidence, but if the police expert witness evidence and video regarding stopping distances were or could have been significant factors in the jury’s verdict, then that might well be part of the grounds for an appeal.

A further thought:

– In addition to regular safety audits, there should also be a site wide system for recording and tracking health, safety and environmental deviations/non-compliance and the progress towards corrective action to close them out, e.g. on a spreadsheet or similar. The spreadsheet should be regularly reviewed by the site senior management to monitor progress, and it should be also be sent to the relevant managers responsible at corporate level for group safety management, who should be using that information from all group sites to monitor the group’s overall safety performance, and be regularly updating the board with that information.

In other words, it should not be the case that you are having to keep chasing your line management for a response and instructions: they should be the ones chasing you because the deviation should be a red flag trigger prompting pressure on them from the site manager and from corporate to explain why it has not been fixed and when it will be fixed. Again, it sounds like there is no such system in place, or if there is then it has broken down, which is very concerning given the obviously high hazard nature of your processes/industry.

A few thoughts:

– Clearly you in the middle of a classic safety vs. continued production scenario. Evidently senior management are avoiding the issue, and by their omission/inaction seeking to make you responsible for the decision to continue or stop. In that sort of situation I would consider a detailed email/report to the site director/manager, summarising the issues, including pointing out the risks and consequences (not just the consequences in terms of plant damage and downtime in the event of a fire/explosion, but also the potential for fatalities if applicable, and also the consequences for the company and individual senior managers (i.e. them), e.g. prosecution resulting in fines and prison sentences). Mark the email to send you a receipt when opened/read, and print off hard copies of all previous and future emails and keep them in a safe place.

– If UK based, who has undertaken the DSEAR assessment? If it’s not you, then I would ask for the assessment to be reviewed/updated by the person who did it or is now responsible for it. The changes you describe (drains not working, flashpoint raised etc.) would almost certainly be classed as ‘significant’ and therefore trigger a requirement for the DSEAR assessment to be reviewed.

– Is there no internal company safety audit process? If this state of affairs has existed for months, then it’s the sort of thing that a good safety audit should pick up and trigger immediate negative feedback for the site and site manager. The fact that senior management are not responding to your communications suggests that they are not worried about the consequences for them of this being picked up on an audit.

What risk does the seal oil present that does not already exist by virtue of the presence of the gas? The gas is flammable and warrants a nitrogen blanket, so what extra or new risk will flammable vapours from the seal oil introduce?

You have a system where flammable gas/vapour and a potential ignition source (the compressor) are continuously present, so your focus has to be on the reliability of the controls to prevent the escape of gas from the system and the ingress of oxygen into the system (incl. failure of the nitrogen blanket).

If company procedures prohibit such a set up, then can you check with whoever is responsible for those procedures as to why, and what the company would expect to be in place instead?

How is this possible as the insurance is a contract solely between the home owner and the insurer? The requirement to have insurance is a contractual agreement between the mortgage lender and the home owner. There is no relationship whatsoever between the insurer and the mortgage company.

It’s perfectly possible and used to be standard (as I say, some/most/all mortgagees may have relaxed this requirement, taking a calculated risk of not losing money on homes which are uninsured and destroyed by a fire). Sometimes the policies were issued with the bank or building society named as a joint insured. The alternative was that the mortgagee required the mortgagor to have their interest noted on the policy, which effectively created a relationship between the insurer and the mortgagee (in other words, if the insurer paid out the whole sum insured for the house to the mortgagor without checking with the mortgagee first, then the insurer would be liable for the mortgagee’s losses if the mortgagor did a moonlight flit with the money). In practice, this would be very unlikely to happen anyway, as the money would be more likely to be paid in instalments directly to the builder appointed to rebuild.

I’ve never been asked to provide proof of insurance to the mortgage provider, nor have they asked.

Like I say, a calculated risk, and it may depend upon your loan to value. The more money a mortgagee has lent, the more likely they are going to want to be certain that they will get their money back if the property is destroyed. In some cases the lender will want their interest protected to the extent that if the insurance company rejects the claim because of some excluded action by the mortgagor, such as fraud or arson, the insurer will still pay the mortgagee whatever they have financially lost.

Interesting about the mortgage and insurance – I’ve just taken out a new mortgage and it was never mentioned (I insured it anyhow but no one has ever asked to see proof).

The banks and building societies used to be very hot on ensuring that there was buildings insurance cover, although in part this was also at one time a ploy to try to get the mortgagor to buy their insurance from the bank’s insurance broking division, so that the bank received the commission on the insurance. Consequently to some extent the requirement to supply details of an alternative insurance company to the bank and have their interest noted was an obstacle which helped deter mortgagors from choosing not to use the bank’s insurance scheme.

However, there is a genuine risk for the bank if the house is destroyed by fire etc. It may be that the banks don’t bother where the loan to value is so low that even if the house were destroyed, the outstanding loan would still be lower than the value of the land for rebuilding. Equally, it may be that some banks have decided to just chance it and not check any more that there is insurance, on the grounds that it is very rare that they would lose out as a result of the mortgagor not having insurance, and the rare losses would be offset by the saving in admin costs in not doing the checks.

but after the first year our mortgage company have never checked we renewed?

Typically the mortgagee will require the insurance company to ‘note their interest’ on the policy. This means that any large insurance claim payment should not be made to the policyholder without checking with the mortgagee first (to stop people with a high loan to value doing a runner with the money), but I suspect that there are also checks whereby the insurance company will tell the mortgagee if the policy is not renewed.

a plastic pipe to the hot water tap upstairs and fed by a combi boiler (ive never had one of these) has broken

Which raises the possibility that she may be able to sue the builder/plumber concerned if it can be shown that they were negligent, e.g. the fitting was not properly secured or the wrong type of fitting/pipe was used. If she has buildings insurance, then the insurance company or their loss adjuster would investigate that and do the work to get their money back. If they were successful in doing so, then that should virtually guarantee that she could also then claim against the builder/plumber/their insurer for the loss/damage of her own contents, although that is obviously going to be a slow process.

Does she own the house or is she renting it?

If she owns the house but has a mortgage, then the mortgagee will have required her to have buildings insurance cover, even if she has chosen not to insure her contents.

If she has buildings insurance cover, then it is likely that the policy includes cover for alternative accommodation where the house is rendered unhabitable as a result of an insured peril, such as flooding or escape of water.

The buildings insurer needs to be contacted straight away, since delay may increase the damage to the house.

simondbarnes – Member

I am trying to decide which rim to buy to replace the knackered Open Pro on my 853 Equilibrium. So few decent silver options around.

H Plus Son TB14[/url]

Edit – sorry, misread the question.

I suggest you clarify what you want, since a ‘large frying pan type pan which is ovenproof’ is not very clear.

It would help if you gave us some idea of what exactly you looking to use it for/cook in it, including the style of cooking. For example, are you looking for a pan which you can use to sear/brown meat on the hob, and then continue cooking in the oven with the addition of a sauce etc.? Does it need a lid?

Here are a couple of pans which might fit your description but are quite different.

Le Creuset Shallow Casserole

A saute pan without a long handle to allow it to be placed in an oven (also known as a rondeau pan).

edit: had tried the step with a bit of tissue paper and a bleed block between the pistons, couldn’t produce any fluid, don’t know if it’s dependent on temperature or something. Was sure I’d read that the leaks were so small that it wasn’t possible to detect the usual way…

Try doing it keeping the lever slightly squeezed/under pressure for a longer period, e.g. overnight. You could use a cable tie or a bungee cord wrapped around the grip and the lever several times to maintain the pressure on the lever.

I’ve got SKS P35 chromplastic guards on my fixed, which is fitted with 28mm Vredestein Senseo Extreme Weather tyres.

However, depending upon the clearance between the tyres and the Paddy Wagon’s calliper brakes, you might be better off with the Bluemels version (also made by SKS). The SKS P35, P45 etc. have a squarish section, and the arms of a rim brake can hit/press against the corners, which limits how close the guard can be mounted to the underside of the brake (and consequently how much clearance there will be between the guard and tyre).

I believe the Bleumels version is rounder in section, and so can be mounted closer to the underside of the brake, giving more clearance.

Since the Paddy Wagon has rear facing track ends, I would suggest getting an extra pair of Secu Clips for the rear mudguard, which will allow you to pull the mudguard stays quickly from the clip when you need to remove the rear wheel, e.g. to fix a puncture.

As for reflectives and (longer) flaps, just fit them yourself. You can use a cut up piece of plastic milk bottle or damp proof course for a longer flap.

Dusk is one of the worst times on the road

QFT.

At dusk and in low sun I have my many lights on; bright and flashing, no pissing around with mini get-me-home lights….

remember, you’re up against the worst of the drivers Britain has, tired and on their way home and with the sun in their eyes. [/quote]

To state the bleeding obvious, just in case it has not already occurred to the OP: if you are training rather than commuting, you have the luxury of deciding in which direction to ride. Therefore choose a direction that will result in the sun being behind you on the return leg when it is lowest in the sky. Then it will not be in your eyes, and more importantly it will not be in the eyes of the drivers behind you.

I wouldn’t use anything exposure for a city commute. They are fantastic peerless off road lights but even on low way way too focussed and bright for a town.

I agree with the exception that I have an Exposure Blaze rear light, and I think it’s excellent in all conditions. I especially like the pulse mode which I think is more effective than an on/off flashing light. The only downside in my opinion is the fact that the bracket is only suitable for fitting to the seat tube, which is fine providing you don’t have a bag that would get in the way.

I also think that the Joystick and similar lights on flashing mode are excellent for making oncoming drivers aware of you in low light conditions (as opposed to nighttime), i.e. tree lined roads, very overcast or rainy weather, twighlight and dusk. The OP already has a bar mount for his Six Pack, and the Exposure etc. will fit the same mount (he just needs to buy another bar mount with the addition of the plastic clip for the Exposure, and he said he planned to buy another bar mount anyway. An advantage of this is that the Joystick can also be used as a helmet light when paired with his Six Pack for off road riding.

There are some very detailed posts on hub gears and their lubrication on the Cycling UK forum, e.g. here and here. In particular a poster called Brucey appears to be a fount of all knowledge about hub gears, and he suggests using semi-fluid grease in some of the Shimano hub gears. On one of the threads I recall there was a discussion about drilling an oil port on Shimano hub gears (like the older Sturmey Archer hubs which just kept going used to have).

CFH/molgrips, who needs belt drive or a Hebie Chainglider if you have a Gazelle Heavyduty NL. It comes with chaincase, stand, lock and dynamo, and is about as maintenance free as it gets. Stick a crate on the front rack and you can throw your backpack in it.

At 23kg it makes the Genesis Smithfield look postively malnourished, and regularly riding 9 miles a day on it should makes you as fit as a butcher’s dog.

A choice of hats with an effective peak for when it’s raining (especially if you wear glasses). In Spring to Autumn a cheap cotton road racing casquette style cap will do, but in Winter I would suggest either the belgian style Castelli Difesa or the Rapha Deep Winter Hat, or both (the Difesa is just uninsulated Windstopper, so is not as warm as the insulated Rapha Deep Winter Hat). Providing your bonce is not so big that your helmet is at the limit of its adjustability, you should be able to wear them under your helmet (especially the Difesa which is thinner). Alternatively you may be able to get something equally effective or better from the mountaineering clothing makers, like the Lowe Alpine hat, which is a shelled fleece lined cap with a wired peak, which covers the ears, but which probably won’t fit under your helmet (unless you can buy a larger helmet).

Incidentally, a downside of hats covering your ears and keeping them warm, is that they can make it more difficult to hear vehicles behind you. So I would be tempted to get whichever Busch and Muller mirror is suitable for your handlebars. It’s not a subsitute for looking over your shoulder, but it does make it easier to keep track of vehicles approaching from behind.

Like most others, I would avoid a backpack. A particular issue with backpacks on the road can be that they make it more difficult/awkward to look over your shoulder, although a pack like the Osprey Talon which puts most of the carried weight lower on the back might reduce this effect.

Lastly, I would say the most important thing is your route: I would do everything I could to reduce the risks from drivers, including a longer route using off road tracks, cycle paths and quieter and safer roads. In dangerous traffic I would even go so far as to ride on the pavement if there are no pedestrians on it: in some areas some sections of pavement seem always to be empty of pedestrians. However, if I did this I would ride much more slowly as a precaution against someone stepping out from behind a hedge, and stop if I encountered an oncoming pedestrian to allow them to walk past me.

I think my issue is that it’s reactive.

Inevitably all prosecutions are reactive, although ideally the prosecution would be for having breached the relevant safety legislation without there actually having been a fatality. However, they are also pro-active: without legal minimum standards of safety, and the real threat of prosecutions for failure to comply, the standards of safety in events would inevitably fall. Some organisers would do things properly anyway, but there would be others who would exploit the situation and cut corners to save costs or make more money (by making the courses more dangerous and ‘exciting’ to attract bigger audiences, reducing marshall cover and training, inadequate first aid provision etc. etc.).

It’s a kneejerk response to a tragic event.

No it isn’t. The event occurred in 2014 and only now is it going to court. The HSE will have investigated this case thoroughly and only decided to prosecute based on the usual criteria: better than a 50% likelihood of conviction and in the public interest.

You can cause a fuss over this and legislate more but in the grand scheme of probabilities there are several other incidents that will occur before another runaway bike causes a fatal head injury.

Don’t confuse the very specific circumstances of this accident, with the specifity of the safety precautions. The HSE would not prosecute because of a freak occurence. They are almost certainly prosecuting because there were widespread and fundamental failings in the whole management of safety of the event. It might not have possible to predict exactly how that spectator was killed, but it was probably reasonably foreseeable that an accident would be much more likely to occur as a result of the failings.

I suspect that there are some very particular reasons why the marshall is being prosecuted, and would expect that we will learn what they were from the reporting of the trial.

Generally the HSE will not prosecute ordinary employees (and the marshall is in a similar position) as opposed to directors and senior managers, because it is the employer that is in control of the workplace and of the employees, and it is the employer that has the primary duty to provide a safe place of work, safe work equipment, suitable training etc. etc.

Consequently, most work related injuries and fatalities which are caused by some faulty act or omission of an employee, can usually be traced back to a failure of the employer. For example, if an employee removes a safety guard from a machine, it is usually because it makes the work somehow easier and quicker (especially relevant if the employee is on piece work rates), and the employer has a duty not only to provide safe equipment (fitted with guards) but also to ensure that it continues to be used in a safe manner (so proper training and also regular checks to ensure that it’s in good order, including that guards are not missing).

If an employee is injured because of a missing guard, even one that the employee himself/herself removed, the HSE will be more likely to prosecute the employer, because they failed to actively manage safety in the workplace. Put crudely, the employer cannot just provide suitably guarded machines and then ‘hide’ in his office and assume that everything is OK on the workshop floor: the employer has to actively manage safety all the time. So if one employee repeatedly removes the guard, then the employer would need to address that with disciplinary action, and ultimately even dismissal. Remember that the employee in this scenario is not only a danger to themselves, they are also a danger to other employees who might operate their machine.

There is also a lot of civil case law on the subject of when employers are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees. In one case an employer was held liable when an employee’s prank caused an injury to another employee. The reason why the employer was held liable, was because the employee responsible had a history of similar dangerous pranks in the workplace, which the employer had failed to address and put a stop to, i.e. the employer should have disciplined the prankster and if necessary dismissed him to protect the rest of the workforce.

Marshalls are different to ordinary employees in that they obviously have a specific safety function. For a marshall to be prosecuted, that suggests that they were somehow very derelict in performing their duties. In other words they were given instructions to do XYZ, and completely ignored them. The only other possibility I can think of is that the marshall refused to answer the HSE’s questions during its investigation (hindering it’s investigation and potentially making it much more difficult to prosecute the organiser), and so the HSE decided to prosecute the marshall to deter others in similar situations from refusing to cooperate and/or to force the marshall to give evidence in court in his defence which would expose the failings of the organiser.

For those who think this prosecution is inherently a bad thing for the sport, regardless of the circumstances of the case and its merits, I would say that active enforcement of the legislation by the HSE should be welcomed, since it helps to encourage everyone to maintain and raise safety standards. If I were a race organiser, I would much rather have established guidelines and recognised good practice that I could follow (knowing that following them means that I have done my best to ensure everyone’s safety and well as protecting myself and others against prosecution if something went wrong), rather than starting with a blank sheet of paper and trying to figure out from scratch what I should be doing to run a safe event.

To succeed with a libel action, one has to prove that what was said wasn’t true

Not so. The burden of proof in a libel case is on the defendent to show that what they said was true (or that it was ‘fair comment’ or one of the other accepted defences to libel).

not what some person on the internet had (interestingly) inferred from a simple statement that I wasn’t surprised.

More than one person has inferred it, and the insinuation was pretty clear. What other credible interpretation could be made of the ‘simple statement’ that you were not surprised?

not expecting it to be up to art gallery standards

It’s not a question of art gallery standards. I have several framed OS maps, and I realised after I had wall mounted them that the picture framers had used anti-reflective glass, and that if they hadn’t done so much of the maps would have been obscured from most viewing angles by the glare from sunlight or artificial light. This would have made them not only difficult or even impossible to examine close up, but would also have greatly spoiled their decorative effect.

I appreciate that you are not going to be examining any maps affixed to the ceiling of your vehicle; I am just suggesting that reflected glare might have an impact on the decorative/aesthetic effect you are seeking, and if you wanted you could get an idea in advance of what the end result might be before buying and installing the maps and polycarbonate sheet.

Good shout Perchy, that could be worth a look.

For wall mounting I suspect this would not work: you really want a non-reflective or anti-reflective surface, otherwise the glare from sunlight or interior lighting can make it difficult to see the map. Picture framers use anti-reflective glass for this reason.

However, polycarbonate might be ideal for a ceiling mounted map in your situation. I would suggest you get hold of a small piece or offcut of polycarbonate and sellotape it in position with a piece from an old redundant paper map behind it, to see what it looks like during the day and at night with artificial light.

If the ceiling board is smooth and either flat or curved in only one direction, then I would have thought that using a laminated version might be better, because it will be tougher and more resistant to any damage or marks. I would expect that an exposed paper surface would inevitably get damaged and deteriorate, and would then look very shabby.

The encapsulation used for the folded laminated OS maps you can buy in shops is probably too rigid and not sufficiently flexible for your needs (even if you could get it rolled up rather than folded).

I would recommend that you take a look at the custom versions of the OS maps available from Aqua 3 (https://www.aqua3.com/index.asp), because they are very thin and flexible. I have one that is folded, and it feels like it is printed onto a thin, tough plastic sheet rather than the three layer encapsulation used on the standard OS maps.

According to their website they are available mounted onto a PVC whiteboard (as well as flat and folded), and it might be that the whiteboard itself is sufficiently flexible and light enough to allow it to be affixed to your ceiling board.

the boost chainline version of the XT double chainring crankset only comes with 26/36 chainrings

You can get 24/34 versions from the german retailers, e.g. Bike Discount.

I think the bolt circle diameter of older 10 speed chainrings would not fit the new XT cranks (the bolt holes are not at 90 degrees to each other).

Assumedly that also means buying two diff sets of special tools for both removing and installing

The ISIS SRX BB looks like it requires a Park BBT 22 type tool, which is probably the most common fitting cartridge bb tool, e.g. it’s the same one for a Shimano square taper bb. If you don’t already have such a tool, you might find it useful to have one for other bikes. If not, I’m sure there must be a STWer close to you with one: just post a new thread asking to borrow one and give your location in the thread title.

I think those cyclists who think Chris Boardman is being OTT in his comments about the levels of concentration required for cycling on some UK roads being exhausting, are the ones with a skewed perspective.

I suspect that those cyclists fall into two groups: those who are much worse/less safe cyclists and just don’t know it (they think they are good/safe, but are simply not as aware of what is happening around them and make worse decisions without realising it), and those who are regular cycle commuters on such roads for whom the high levels of concentration necessary etc. are something to which they have simply become acclimatised and so they do not find them exhausting. You could regard this acclimatisation as a training effect, i.e. training to improve mental stamina, but you could also regard it as a case of ‘boiled frog syndrome’: becoming gradually inured to a dangerous and unpleasant environment.

Chris Boardman probably finds the riding on busy roads unpleasant because he is not as acclimatised to it as regular cyclists. But it’s the regular commuting cyclists whose perspective is skewed: we need ordinary people to be able to get on a bike and ride without experiencing what Chris Boardman describes, and maybe that is one reason why he may prove to be a very good choice for his new role.

For all our sakes, I hope he gets the backing and resources that he will need.

Standard Shimano MTB triple chainline is 50mm, whereas Tiagra has a road triple chainline of 43.5mm, so a 6.5mm difference, which might not work well with the front derailleur.

I think it might be theoretically possible to fit smaller rings to the Tiagra chainset, since it has sufficiently smaller bolt circle diameters, but (and depending on whether 4 or 5 arm) I think you would struggle to find the rings you want, unless you went for Stronglight or TA rings, and the outer ring would probably look out of place.

I suspect the simplest option would be to buy one of the various road triple chainset options offered by Spa in square taper format, and fit a UN50 series bottom bracket.

I am not sure why it is being suggested that I need to justify it to anybody.

Because it is an unsubstantiated accusation on a public internet forum that the persons concerned are incompetent/negligent, i.e. libellous.

I think my initial posting stands on it’s own merit

Only if it’s sole merit is libel.

My remarks were made without prejudice to any of the parties involved

I don’t think you know what the word ‘prejudice’ means. Your original post was a good example of it.

I am definitely not going to go into any specifics, given that it is an ongoing court action.

Why not, given that the specifics you referred to did not involve and evidently pre-dated that race?

The problem with your post is that it makes a serious allegation on a public internet forum that persons are incompetent/negligent, without providing any evidence to substantiate it. That sort of vague insinuation is damaging to them and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to defend against. It’s libellous.

It’s not clear what this “data” actually was

I presume that it was the names, addresses and telephone number/email address of policyholders who had been involved in a non-fault accident. As I understand it the claims management companies to whom that illegally obtained data is sold will then contact the person to try to get them to make a claim for other (sometimes fake) losses, e.g. injury such as whiplash and car hire, against the at fault driver and their insurer.

The problem with keeping that sort of data confidential from the employees handling it, is that the employees need it to be able to deal with the claim.

As I see it, the investigation and convictions are signs that the system is working: it’s a criminal offence, and despite police reportedly often being unwilling/inadequately resourced to investigate these types of crimes, they did so and achieved convictions. Those convictions will help to deter others: the sentences were not severe, but it is the fear of being caught that deters, rather than the potential sentence.

It’s their data, and they aren’t looking after it is my viewpoint.

What do you think they should be doing to prevent this?

Zokes, never mind the comments, tell us more about the bike. What was it like going down the hill?

It may have been a tongue in cheek comment by Chris Hoy, but on a serious note, it was a harmful comment to make by someone who has benefitted the sport, but who has himself greatly benefitted from the sport and ought to think carefully about what he says given his status as a sporting hero and someone who can influence views and debates.

We currently have a major obesity crisis in this country which is placing huge demands on the NHS (limiting the available resources for non-self inflicted health conditions) and which is damaging the health and lives of the sufferers and their families.

I have seen a few very obese people on bikes wearing lycra and close fitting jerseys, and my initial thoughts were similar to Hoy’s statement. However, I immediately then changed my mind, and mentally congratulated those people for having the courage and the determination to get out and ride a bike, since it does take a lot of courage when you have people like Hoy making such remarks and knowing that others who don’t say it may well be thinking it, and since by getting out and riding they are taking steps to towards a healthier lifestyle. We need to encourage such people every step of the way, not make sniggering remarks which may embarrass them and discourage them from continuing to ride or take other exercise.

Given the archaic language in the wanton and furious charge, and the fact that that law is very rarely used, I would expect that the legal meaning of those terms and that law were discussed in court and explained to the jury. I would also have expected the prosecution to have made it clear during the course of its examination of witnesses and evidence, in what respects it was asserting that the evidence given was evidence of the wanton and furious charge and/or the manslaughter charge.

Without the transcript of the trial, we do not know what evidence was cited as proof of the wanton and furious charge, nor of which aspect of that particular law, i.e. wanton and furious vs. other wilful misconduct vs. wilful neglect.

I suspect that the fact that Charlie Alliston twice shouted out ‘Get the f@@@ out of my way’ or similar may have been a very significant factor in the wanton and furious conviction, i.e. the fact he said it twice:

a) itself suggests he had enough time to react to prevent the collision, or possibly reduce the liklihood/severity of injury by reducing the collision speed, and

b) the actual words might be seen to suggest that he expected the woman to get out his way, and that he did not swerve or brake as quickly as he possibly could have done because of that expectation.

There’s always a balance to be struck, and good enough is good enough.

Neverthless, although I used the term power to weight ratio in my post, which is more normally used when discussing racers and competition riding, it is still relevant to tourers and ordinary people. If a bike is heavy and not very nice to ride, that is likely to spoil the experience.

The fact that as things stand the bike is only likely to be ridden four times a year, might itself be a reason to spend more, because if it’s nicer to ride then she might want to use it more.

In contrast, DrP, having read some of your posts (e.g. South Downs Way in a day on a single speed), I suspect that spending a similar amount of money on an upgrade for one of your bikes might not make anywhere as big a difference to you: you are very fit, very motivated and would get out and ride regardless.

It’s your wife – do you want her to continue riding with you or not – then get a decent light set of wheels, maybe put her on a better bike than you are for those rides.

Agreed. If she’s 7.5 stone with a corresponding – or worse – power to weight ratio compared to the OP, then heavy wheels and/or a heavy bike is going to be much more of a handicap and spoil the ride much more than it would for the OP.

DrP, would it help you to justify spending more money on the wheels, if you were to think of them as a spare set for your own bike (which just happen to be stored by having them on your wife’s bike)?

I’ve just realised that the link in my post above is to a version of the recipe that bakes the finished blocks of potato in the oven. However, most versions of the recipe fry them instead in oil or butter (I only posted that version of the recipe because all the others use american measurements, e.g. like this one).

Whatever meat or protein you choose, how about potato pave for the carbohydrate? Here is a recipe.

Although they look fancy, they have the following advantages:

– Most preparation and cooking is done well in advance.
– If eating indoors and serving hot food – with the emphasis on comfort food – fry them as per the recipe.
– If eating something lighter al fresco, especially cold meat, you could dispense with frying them and serve cold (or fry and allow to cool).
– Potatoes and cream – what could be better? (apart from frying them).

I would also suggest contacting the Salvation Army. As I understand it, if they locate the ‘missing’ person, they will approach them and ask them if they are willing to have the SA disclose their location etc. to the person who instigated the search by the SA.

That power of veto is probably a good thing: if the person does not want to be contacted, then it’s probably best to accept that and try and forget about them.

I expect that, resources permitting, the SA are probably well placed to advise and counsel people in your position, whichever way it goes.