Cycling UK Forum

pjclinch wrote: ↑22 May 2024, 10:42am
Vorpal wrote: ↑22 May 2024, 9:57am
cycle tramp wrote: ↑15 May 2024, 10:04pm
I'm pretty sure that branches the current laws of diversity - indeed I'm surprised that bikeability haven't been threatened with legal action.
Bikeability doesn't require helmets, though.

It's mainly the schools & local authorities that do.
This is, indeed, the case.

Vorpal wrote: ↑22 May 2024, 9:57am And I doubt that it has been challenged. It should be. It absolutely should be.
I know for a fact I've challenged it, but despite coming at it with evidence and bloody-mindedness it's really slow progress. When I put it to Cycling Scotland over a decade ago that they ought to emphasise that their Bikeability Scotland course didn't require helmets I had a good conversation with Christopher Johnson of CS where he said he was broadly in agreement with all my points but what he was being paid to do was to create a course that would have maximum uptake across Scotland, and if it specifically stated helmets were an optional extra then various LAs where delivery was in the hands of ex Police old-school RSOs wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot bargepole. So his remit required him to avoid the issue, and in the circumstances I think that was a reasonable choice.

But things have progressed a bit. For example, the Bikeability Scotland resources now feature kids riding in just their normal clothes/school uniforms rather than dayglo tabards for everything, and looking at pictures of actual delivery this has spilled over in to standard practice. That's quite significant as a culture change. And the last time we had a resource update and call for comments I penned my usual essay on helmets, this time majoring on inclusiveness, and on the back of that was a call for images of unhelmeted riding. That would have been unthinkable back when I started chipping away at it.

I meant legally challenged. I challenged it myself when I was teaching Bikeability, but I was told (albeit more politely) to put up or shut up. I was aware of a couple of people who had been told that they were not allowed to teach Bikeability for the local authority because of their refusal to wear a helmet or enforce helmet-wearing. One of them started their own company, and had just gotten round to hiring other teachers when I moved.

I'm glad that things have progressed in Scotland. They don't seem to have where I used to live.

My experience is similar to JerseyJoe's. I cannot lose weight by counting calories.

The slowing metabolism is backed by science. Here is a Healthline article with linked references.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/6- ... ITLE_HDR_8

Philip Benstead wrote: ↑17 May 2024, 3:43pm
Audax67 wrote: ↑17 May 2024, 9:47am
Philip Benstead wrote: ↑15 May 2024, 9:08am

squashing does not work, also some children even primary school children have very large heads.
Yeah, corn rows & so forth. So what? If they want to ride and helmets are obligatory they either find one that fits or lose the hairdo. There's no legal obligation to square the circle.
For instance, schools may have particular policies or rules related to hair or hairstyles that could result in unlawful indirect discrimination against pupils with certain protected characteristics.

This is an important point, and should be raised with schools / local authorities who are too inflexible on the helmets requirement.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑15 May 2024, 10:04pm
I'm pretty sure that branches the current laws of diversity - indeed I'm surprised that bikeability haven't been threatened with legal action.

Bikeability doesn't require helmets, though.

It's mainly the schools & local authorities that do.

And I doubt that it has been challenged. It should be. It absolutely should be.

The folks who teach Bikeability largely accept the requirement for helmets. Those that don't often aren't allowed to work for the local authorities / schools who require helmets.

So, it's probably going to take a case of some parent being put out enough that their kid is being discriminated against to bring a legal challenge. I donæt know what the chances are of that occurring, but I imagine that they are small.

Please argue nicely, folks.

A number of posts have been removed from this thread.

Please argue nicely.

I have to admit that If I were to come across a Raleigh Super Grand Prix in the right size, like the one I had as a teen, I'd be horribly tempted to buy it.

It was one of the last Carleton ones, and had metallic bronze/ gold paint, when most of the others I saw were blue.

simonineaston wrote: ↑6 May 2024, 1:31pm Go to France, eat out, leave all cooking equipment at home - win, win, win!

LOL. Maybe another time. We haven't done any family tours since before he outgrew the tandem, so we'll stick to places where we can hop on a bus or train & get home in a couple of hours, if he gets fed up, or it doesn't go to plan.

slowster wrote: ↑6 May 2024, 4:37pm
Vorpal wrote: ↑6 May 2024, 11:50am a one-person pot & eat out of the pot. If I eat anything else, I either use that same pot, or buy stuff I can eat with my hands, like bread.
I suspect the answer depends upon whether you just want to scale up that approach for two people, or whether you will want to cook more than just one pot meals.

Scaling up should be fine.

Pendodave wrote: ↑6 May 2024, 1:16pm I'd be tempted to buy my nice replacement gear and let the teen "borrow" the old stuff.
Allows for differences of opinion on meal choice, or different components of a joint meal to be cooked without complicated synchronization of finish times.
Hope it goes well!

The seals all need replacing in the old stove, and we both like pasta or rice one-pot meals, so I think that I will stick to that for the sake of simplification. We can supplement with cold sides.

All of my recent tours have been solo tours. I just carry a small stove that fits in a one-person pot & eat out of the pot. If I eat anything else, I either use that same pot, or buy stuff I can eat with my hands, like bread.

Littlest, now 15 (and working on being the least little

) wants to have a go at touring this summer.

So we will need to cook for 2, one of whom is a teenager who is likely to eat at least 2 portions himself

I need to replace my stove, anyway, so recommendations for:
-A stove
-cooking gear for 2 people
-plates & stuff (I don't think we will use a frisbee

)

I usually carry cooking & eating gear in front panniers, so I'd rather stuff that folds down small & weighs a bit more than ultra light weight, but bulky.

My brother & I started on our low end 10 speeds, just to overnight at a favoured fishing spot with dad's camping gear & our stuff packed in bin bags. My first proper tour was on the first bike that I bought with money I earned, a late 70s Raleigh Super Grand Prix.

Pebble wrote: ↑13 Apr 2024, 12:55pm
Bonefishblues wrote: ↑13 Apr 2024, 12:20pm
Pebble wrote: ↑13 Apr 2024, 11:27am
Publish the details of the accident so we can learn by what and how they happened - no need to publish the names of those involved.
Indeed. They can be easily obtained by the prurient, as Vorpal & Jonathan explained.
so you are suggesting they don't publish the details of how and why an accident occurred in case someone uses them for sexual gratification ?

total and utter nonsense

The crux of problem is that media publish information that includes the names of the victims, drivers, dates, etc. Even if they don't give precise locations, it can often be discerned.

If you subsequently can read a report about a crash at the junction of such and such on these dates involving a cyclist and the driver of a Ford Focus, it is all too easy to connect the newspaper report with the details given in the investigation report.

When it is a simple crash involving common models of car, it's probably not so easy to figure out. But when it involves less common models, a rural road where crashes are relatively rare, a less common mode of transport, such as a cyclist or equestrian, it might be rather simple to get the names of the people involved.

Global fertility has dropped dramatically over recent decades, and with it population growth.

Population growth in the UK is at 0.33% and dropping.

Fertility rate in the UK (approximately 1.49 in 2022) is already below replacement (approximately 2.1).

Population growth comes mainly from immigration, and is expected to slow further and even reverse in coming years.

pwa wrote: ↑19 Apr 2024, 5:04am Crunch time! When the default 20mph thing was first proposed for Wales I recognised that the making or breaking of it would be in the political arena, with the voting public's reaction determining how it would fare. In a democracy, no measure can survive if the public don't want it.

What about things that have been done 'for the greater good', such as public smoking bans or the first introduction of speed limits?

How do we measure public opinion? Because there is a great deal of bias in these discussions, and the questions make a difference.

There is a big difference between: 'what do you think of the following measures to improve road safety.... ?

And, 'do you want a blanket 20 mph speed limit?'

There is an awful lot of noise from a minority of people on a few of these issues, and it is unreasonable to call that public opinion.

Additionally, it's not democracy when measures cause harm, however popular they are.

A bit late to the game, but we've had a few threads before...
on the bonk:
viewtopic.php?p=793659#p793659

nutrition for cycling
viewtopic.php?p=1766312#p1766312

the bonk & diabetes
viewtopic.php?t=123562

Cycling UK Forum

Search found 18529 matches

Re: Cycle training in schools and big hair

Re: Cycling: Does it encourage over eating?

Re: Cycle training in schools and big hair

Re: Cycle training in schools and big hair

Re: UK Politics

Re: Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells

Re: I have a small wish to re own, do you

Re: cooking for two people

Re: cooking for two people

cooking for two people

Re: Simplest and cheapest bike you have toured on?

Re: Cyclist dies after crashing into open car door

Re: UK Politics

Re: Default 20mph for Wales

Re: Feeling bad - is it the bonk?