Cycling UK Forum

thirdcrank

What's that coiled up to the left of your rear wheel? Have you a sideline clearing drains etc?

thirdcrank

In the context of this thread, I would say that Mick F's illustration of the different configurations possible with his trailer omits arguably the most relevant: ie how small can it be packed when not in use as a (very versatile) trailer?

The answer is some version of "tiny." And in particular "flat."

(I speak with some experience having had it in the back of our car.)

thirdcrank

slowster wrote: ↑10 Feb 2024, 3:05pm
thirdcrank wrote: ↑10 Feb 2024, 2:40pm There's never been anything suggesting that there should be a discussion about helmet threads before they are moved there.
I made a statement on the thread in my capacity as a moderator. I have not suggested there should be a 'discussion about helmet threads before they are moved there'. Protracted discussion of moderation of a thread on that same thread is generally undesirable. If you have an issue with moderation on this thread, I suggest you either:

- submit a report,
- start a thread in 'Using the forum',
- or send Vorpal a PM

as appropriate.

I am sorry that my sincere attempts to support your invaluable - voluntary - work as a moderator should come across as some sort of criticism. To summarise my position, anybody posting on this forum "signs up" to the rules. The longstanding relevant rule here is the one I have posted verbatim above. IMO anybody ignoring that explicit rule has either not read the rules, chosen to ignore them or a combination of both.

I would not expect anybody, especially a volunteer like you are, to provide round-the-clock monitoring of this and I'm sorry if that appeared to be the case. I do say, however, that the first report made by a forum member of this rule being broken should be sufficient to open the trap door into what has been described as the "oubliette."

Making a rod for your own back is a cliché that comes to mind

============================================================
PS I cannot think of a simple reason for a member to report something like this if

breach of forum rules on helmet discussions

is not sufficient, not least because anything else puts the onus on individual members to re-iterate the existing rules

thirdcrank

Here's what I understand to be the current rule on posts about helmets. Although I say "current" I do not remember it ever being different. My reading is that the "helmet" sub-forum is the default place for all helmet discussions - and with good reason.

Cycle helmet debates

On almost every cycle forum there is at least one helmet debate, and more often than not it turns nasty. Thus we have created a separate sub board for cycle helmet debates. This brings together all of the debate in one place, making it easier to see if threads on any particular helmet issue have already been started, and also easier for the moderators to police discussion.
Before starting a new thread please be sure that it has not been covered before - most have and so you can save yourself a lot of typing.
When replying please be sure that you have read and understood properly that you are replying to - helmet threads seem to have a tendency to generate misunderstanding.
When replying please be sure that you make your post as civil, respectful and polite as possible - if you are trying to convince someone of your views, it is much easier to do so if you treat them in a civil manner rather than insulting them.
Please try to avoid making statements along the lines of “it’s like this because I say it is”: for instance “you are stupid to ride without a helmet”. This, is guaranteed to cause annoyance and the thread will descend into chaos. Rather try to write “I would not ride without a helmet because ....” and list a set of logical reasons, etc.

viewtopic.php?t=3661

There's never been anything suggesting that there should be a discussion about helmet threads before they are moved there.

thirdcrank

slowster wrote: ↑10 Feb 2024, 10:32am Two reports have been made that this thread should be in the Helmet forum. When I saw the first one yesterday evening I thought there was a case for arguing that the discussion was primarily about recommendations of hats to keep warm or protect from the Sun which were compatible with helmets. Inevitably that is a somewhat subjective judgement. Looking at subsequent posts and the thread overall I now agree with the reports that it should be in the Helmet forum, and have therefore moved it.

The first line of the OP makes reference to the safe performance of helmets. As you say, moderation requires subjective judgement and IMO usiing the words helmet and safe (or variants) together points to the sub-forum without waiting for reports. Apart from anything else, discussion like this defeats the purpose of a helmet subforum. imo

thirdcrank

It seems to me that tortfeasor is an example of professional jargon and joint tortfeasor ditto but with brass knobs on.

These usages are socially constructed.

thirdcrank

Consider a move to Yorkshire, I’m in shock but then folk in Yorkshire might think the same of South Wales;

I cannot vouch for this anecdote but I believe it to be true. It relates to the aftermath of the Aberfan Disaster and concerns one of the first local police officers at the scene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster

Digging out mainly child casualties with his bare hands caused what I think would now be diagnosed as post traumatic stress syndrome. When it became clear that advice to "Pull yourself together" wasn't working, a transfer away from South Wales was agreed and somebody decided Yorkshire would be ideal. With the whole of the vast area of the West Riding available, he was posted to a working pit village, complete with its own spoil heaps

thirdcrank

I don't think this has much if anyhing to do with vehicle lighting. Rather, the "offending driver was driving to fast round a blind bend

thirdcrank

Not much interest in tortfeasors.

By coincidence, the Pannal Ash training centre where I first heard the expression is the subject of a planning application

https://yourharrogate.co.uk/news/200-ho ... -go-ahead/#

thirdcrank

The point I was trying to make was that the moderator's link didn't help

thirdcrank

Bonefishblues wrote: ↑3 Feb 2024, 2:16pm My old civil law lecturer. Eccentric American, great lecturer :)

As you were there, I'd have expected you to be explaining this to me (or us if anybody else is still reading.)

I can only surmise that it was some sort of explanation of the operation of the Police Act 1964 as quoted above.

thirdcrank

[Post edited by moderator to add link below.]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/240 ... -hit-bike/

I followed that link to this:-

A man who was hit by a drunk driver while cycling and left in chronic pain has called a sheriff's sentencing decision "atrocious".

The Herald told in December how Ian Gillies was on his bike for a weekend leisure cycle when he was hit from behind by driver Mark Hugh Shields, who had been drinking before he got behind the wheel.

I could not see anything more about this event

thirdcrank

A recent Private Eye suggests this may be the next controversy. It describes the pensions "lifeboat" as one of the few success stories in recent years, whereby current pension schemes in surplus pay a levy to ensure some sort of retirement income for the members of those that go bust. The lifeboat funds are invested small "c" conservatively.

Apparently, there are those in government who want those funds to be invested in a speculative way

thirdcrank

I've just used the forum search and I see I have posted the term "joint tortfeasor" several times over the years. The oldest I have found is dated 15 March 2009 and the most recent before this thread 31 May 2019.

search.php?keywords=tortfeasor

Seems to imply I have wasted a lot of my time over the years
====================================================

PS Forgot about this:

Bonefishblues wrote: ↑2 Feb 2024, 8:31pm October 1979 Prof Tom Hervey was rabbiting on about them in a lecture hall somewhere in the Midlands. Any ideas? :lol:

Have you any more information about the identity of this person?

thirdcrank

My first (and probably only) memory of this expression was in section 48 of the Police Act 1964

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... 48/enacted

48 Liability for wrongful acts of constables

(1) The chief officer of police for any police area shall be liable in respect of torts committed by constables under his direction and control in the performance or purported performance of their functions in like manner as a master is liable in respect of torts committed by his servants in the course of their employment, and accordingly shall in respect of any such tort be treated for all purposes as a joint tortfeasor.

Cycling UK Forum

Search found 36215 matches

Re: How do you carry big shopping?

Re: How do you carry big shopping?

Re: What is safe to wear under a helmet?

Re: What is safe to wear under a helmet?

Re: What is safe to wear under a helmet?

Re: Tortfeasor

Re: Where would you emigrate to?

Re: Over-powerful LED lights

Re: Tortfeasor

Re: A place to record lenient sentencing for motorvehicle....

Re: Tortfeasor

Re: A place to record lenient sentencing for motorvehicle....

Re: Halfords Cycle2work

Re: Tortfeasor

Re: Tortfeasor