My personal feeling is that having fairly heavy e-bikes at 20 mph (effectively not cycles) on shared use with babies in push chairs, elderly, etc driving using throttles rather than pedalling would be "high risk".
Your proposed "change to" suggestion didn't include a 250W limit regulation.the snail wrote: ↑15 Apr 2024, 10:00pmThe requirement to pedal doesn't improve safety and disadvantages those who have difficulty pedalling. Your motorcycle probably exceeds the 250W rating. Would your m/c be safer if it had no throttle and you had to turn some pedals instead. IIRC they removed the requirement for pedals from mopeds because it served no useful purpose.
As somebody (here) posted recently "UK needs to be a society, not an economy". But all our politicians seem capable of is "economy".simonineaston wrote: ↑15 Apr 2024, 1:09pm I’m currently plodding my way gloomily through Catastrophe and Systemic Change: Learning from the Grenfell Tower Fire and Other Disasters (Perspectives) by Gill Kernick, a journalist who used to live in the tower, in which we learn that under the current arrangements at least, this sort of ghastly mess and the awful treatment of ordinary people in pursuit of maximum profit, will continue unabated…
Although not your main point I would regard such issues as under our control. It's just our politicians who are failing us. eg Sunak abandoning targets to switch to lower-climate impacting vehicles, Sunak arguing against low emission zones, wetc. all because he wants votes.simonineaston wrote: ↑15 Apr 2024, 10:27am ..
But as I’ve pointed out previously, we’re entering a wholey new and different era, where circumstances that are completely beyond our control have become the most significant factors in shaping our economy, both UK and abroad… and most are direct or indirect consequences of climate change....
I assume/hope that such ads would be subject to the concept of "truth" or people could complain to the appropriate watchdog.https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/14/political-ads-could-heading-uk-tv-screens-legal-loophole-itv wrote:Political ads could be heading to UK TV screens due to legal loophole
Exclusive: ITV is considering taking paid ads from parties on its streaming platform where ban does not apply
Yet a week or so ago she was blaming the Deep State. Not the fizziest drink in the fridge.al_yrpal wrote: ↑13 Apr 2024, 11:04am If you get a chance read Liz Truss's article in the Saturday Mail. According to her her reforms were sunk by the triumvirate of the BOE, the OBR and the Treasury pulling the economic rug out. She wanted to scrap the OBR (its forecasts are mostly wrong), the Treasury is anti Manufacturing, pro EU Remain, pro immigration, and the BOE staffed by dullards....
Al
I agree and I think we are in agreement. But also from the public perception many (myself included) consider that we have contributed towards our pensions. I retired early so was short on NI contributions to get full state pension so I did some math and paid voluntary NI contributions for the purposes of "topping-up" so I get a higher (not 100%) (new) state pension. I was discussing my voluntary contributions, getting costings, etc. with the Gov. DWP Future Pensions department so very much I contributed for it so in many respects it is reasonable to treat the New State Pension as a contributory pension.Nearholmer wrote: ↑12 Apr 2024, 4:38pm Yes, I’m pretty sure both employee and employer contribute, but my point is that it all goes into one big pot, rather than being set aside for pensions, or the other things we associate with NI.
If the Chancellor decided to scrap NI, which is on the cards, he’d have to increase other taxes to make up the shortfall, and my guess is that it would be electoral suicide to shift the entire burden into income tax, and not recover some from employers under a new name.
I'm unsure of the current tax regime but I thought it always used to be (and maybe still is) that NI was paid both by emploee and employer as well. And the employer contributions can't really be regarded as income tax.Nearholmer wrote: ↑12 Apr 2024, 9:30am The NI vs Income Tax, or indeed any other tax, distinction is largely meaningless in money-flow terms, in that all the money goes into a common pool, and is drawn from a common pool. ...
Or that your New State Pension entitlement and the amount you get depends on the number of qualifying years NI contributions you have made. Below the required number of qualifying contributions and your pension entitlement will be reduced. And you can make voluntary NI contributions to make up the shortfall to increase your State Pensiuon entitlementNearholmer wrote: ↑12 Apr 2024, 9:30am ...
I guess the reason that pensions are notionally associated with NI is partly about accumulating entitlement, and partly about the fact that NI isn’t payable on pension income, which has a sort of notional logic.
To me that sets the relationship between NI and New State Pension.If you do not pay National Insurance you may have gaps in your National Insurance record. This could be because you were:
...
Gaps can mean you will not have enough years of National Insurance contributions to either:
• get a State Pension (sometimes called ‘qualifying years’)
• qualify for certain benefits
You may be able to pay voluntary contributions to fill any gaps.
True, just as brakes, dragging feet, etc. but none of that affects the amount of energy, only the means of its conversion.
highlighting that the energy is from mass, height and gravity and has nothing to do with braking systems or wind resistance, etc. Brakes, wind resistance, etc. are just the means of conversion and don't affect the amount of energy.Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑11 Apr 2024, 12:55pmSurely it will also vary with rotor size and material, caliper and pad design, ambient temperature, wind direction and speed... even direction of sun relative to rotors... Far too many factors to give one speed.Psamathe wrote: ↑9 Apr 2024, 8:02pm ...
For a given hill the energy needing to dissipated will depend on the mass (rider, cycle, etc.), the potential energy. So my <60 Kg on an unladen carbon bike with BB7s will have a lot less energy to dissipate than a >100 Kg rider fully laden with camping gear, 2 days water riding a more than solid steel bike with BB7s.
Very different amounts of energy being dissipated through the same braking systems.
So I'd expect any steady state speeds to vary significantly.
Ian
My understanding of physics (claiming no expertise) is that the amount of energy to be dissipated is just total mass and height (assuming gravity is constant). Things like rotor size, material, etc., wind, speed, etc. will affect how that energy is dissipated. eg 100 Kg dropping 1m altitude will lose 981 joules potential energy. Assuming start and end speeds the same, that means there is 981 joules will turn into heat irrespective of what sort of braking system you have.Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑11 Apr 2024, 12:55pmSurely it will also vary with rotor size and material, caliper and pad design, ambient temperature, wind direction and speed... even direction of sun relative to rotors... Far too many factors to give one speed.Psamathe wrote: ↑9 Apr 2024, 8:02pmFor a given hill the energy needing to dissipated will depend on the mass (rider, cycle, etc.), the potential energy. So my <60 Kg on an unladen carbon bike with BB7s will have a lot less energy to dissipate than a >100 Kg rider fully laden with camping gear, 2 days water riding a more than solid steel bike with BB7s.
Very different amounts of energy being dissipated through the same braking systems.
So I'd expect any steady state speeds to vary significantly.
Ian
Correction in that your should replace "will be" with "is". We are already there, nobody competent there trying to sort anything other than their self-interest.Pebble wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 11:56pm Apparently Gen Z (this being the latest generation) can't quite cope with the competitiveness of Scrabble.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68769981
I doubt there will be anyone to take the helm let alone turn a ship around in stormy waters
So he had time to check out the PR aspects but didn't bother to make checks with scientific or medical people. All seems about PR and public image rather than that we were mid-pandemic, people dying ...https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/11/rishi-sunak-spent-millions-focus-groups-eat-out-to-help-out-scheme wrote:Rishi Sunak spent £2m on focus groups for ‘eat out to help out’ scheme
Exclusive: Extensive polling ordered by the then chancellor, documents reveal, but scientific advisers not consulted
Rishi Sunak ordered multiple taxpayer-funded focus groups and polls to craft the messaging of his planned “eat out to help out” campaign in July 2020, despite keeping the UK’s top medical and scientific advisers in the dark about the scheme.
...
IanThe documents reveal that polling for the Treasury in June 2020 found that only 13% agreed the government should create incentives for people to spend on eating out so they could start to return to normal life, while 39% thought it should not be a priority.
A week later, Sunak’s team discussed how to make the scheme more saleable to the public. The Treasury’s director of communications, Olaf Henricson-Bell, asked colleagues: “Can we test if people are more supportive of the hospitality stuff if it’s framed as about jobs?”
In response, Cass Horowitz, a special adviser who now works for Sunak in No 10, said: “If it helps, Allegra [Stratton, director of strategic communications at the Treasury from April until October 2020] has a nice phrase on this. ‘Eat out, help out’ frames it as supporting the sector/jobs rather than just having a nice time.”
They also reveal that it was only on the day after the announcement of the scheme, on 8 July 2020, that a Treasury official suggested asking the public if they were concerned about its health impact.
But also don't cycle around waiting for things to go wrong. It will spoil enjoyment.Pinhead wrote: ↑11 Apr 2024, 10:07amI am, type 2, thanks, never even thought to say thatJdsk wrote: ↑11 Apr 2024, 10:06amMany people with diabetes do and many don't. Measuring instantaneous blood glucose is enormously easier than it used to be. That should help both in individual victims of bonking and in working out what's happening in general. Much to my surprise this doesn't seem to have led to much increase in our understanding of the latter.
Jonathan
100% THIS is the great advice I get here, and thanks ALL
I will take a blood check kit next time and see