"You were talking about undertaking, no? On roads that's usually referred to when one car passes another on the left. It generally happens when there asre multiple parallel lanes. You must have been talking about cycle lanes since you weren't complaining about the cars doing it. Unless you believe cars are above complaint. It seems that way."
No, I was talking about cyclists squeezing up the inside of traffic where there is no cycle lane rather than passing on the right where they are supposed to.
"You get annoyed when we're hogging a whole lane making you go slow and get annoyed when we don't behave like cars. Just come out and claim it's your road, you clearly are itching to do it."
I don't care about good cyclists, I pass any number of them each day, and honestly, when I see a cyclist in my right mirror whilst in a queue I outright edge left as far as I can to make sure they can pass safely without having to cross into the oncoming lane. I do the opposite to cyclists trying to squeeze past like fuckwads on the left though and move in to block them because otherwise they're going to get themselves hit.
I'm guessing you never learnt to drive because your arguments are stupid. You seem to think drivers are out to get cyclists - they're not, they just don't want to have their day ruined by some dickhead who thinks because he's on a bike the rules of the road don't apply to him and so cycles dangerously. People don't want to have their car damaged, nor their day ruined by some dickhead who simply felt it's okay to pass where it isn't.
I'm a cyclist and a driver, I know it full well from both sides - it seems pure cyclists like yourself though just don't get it. You think it's a battle, you think they're out to get you, they're not, they just don't want the hassle of a damaged car and an insurance claim because you cycle like a dick. You cry about the highway code when it suits but repeatedly ignore it where it doesn't, outright claiming it doesn't say what it blatantly does when I quote it to you because no, obviously in your head, you're always in the right, because after all, you're a pure cyclist, and such cyclists are never wrong because the rules of the road don't apply to them!
The problem with people like you is that when it comes to places like Sheffield, or Cambridge where there are cycle-through routes in pedestrian areas, you then treat pedestrians exactly like you claim cars treat you, you insist they get out your way because you're a cyclist, in both Sheffield and Cambridge I've seen this any number of times, even down streets where there are signs explicitly telling cyclists to give way to pedestrians because when you're cycling on pavements, pedestrians have right of way, it's up to you to avoid them not vice-versa.
Yes, I should've probably been more clear, in the UK you can have two bikes side-by-side providing that they are on straight open roads (i.e. not around bends, and not down country lanes), and providing they are not causing traffic to back up in a queue behind them, and providing they do not drop back to single file or slow down if a driver attempts to overtake. It's these sorts of scenarios I was referring to, I don't think anyone has a problem with those that behave, let cars pass, and only do it when there's good visibility- it's those that dangerously block the road round windy country roads and stuff that are a major hazard especially, and the UK's highway code does state that they, as slow moving vehicles, have an obligation to let people pass and not cause a tailback.
"I know you don't like it, but cyclists are allowed to take an entire lane all to themselves. It doesn't matter how much you hate, it is the law."
LOL so your response to me after trying to batter me with the highway code is to simply pretend it doesn't exist when it doesn't go in your favour? Grow up.
"If they're happliy drifting by on the inside while you're stopped in congestion, there's no conflict and it's legal."
Read what it says. It says quite clearly "For example] where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works". Are you really so mentally deficient that you can't comprehend that basic statement?
"What do you think the cycle lanes are for anyway?"
Ah misdirection. When proven wrong, go off on a COMPLETE FUCKING TANGENT, the rule of retards when arguing despite the fact they're blatantly wrong. Cycle lanes were nothing to do with my point, blatantly they're quite different.
Still you obviously don't get why cyclists are meant to act like any other traffic and follow the rules like any other traffic, so have fun being a dick. The problem is when you inevitably come a cropped because you were cycling like an idiot not fulfilling your obligations as a road user in the high way code you will be the one whose face is all red, the problem is, it'll be a different kind of red. At least you can't pretend you didn't have the highway code highlighted to you, and the reasons why you're supposed to follow it though, no, the only excuse you'll have is that you were cycling like a dick because you wanted to piss car drivers off because you find it entertaining. I hope when it happens and you're led in a hospital bed with no chance of recompense and are at risk of being sued for being at fault because you broke the highway code you feel it was worth it.
Iran is too locked down now, and doesn't have the political capital for anyone to care if say their connections were to get DDOS'd or similar.
I would've thought somewhere like Venezuela would be better - full of hate for the US and the West, but with enough political capital and enough of a stranglehold on the West's fuel supply (now that we've given up Iranian oil) to avoid any too punitive a punishment. This said, Chavez is a bit sporadic in his hate of the West so a good enough backhander his way and he could probably be bought perhaps. Syria would probably have been better if it wasn't now in a state of war.
Well the good thing about Bristol's cycle paths was that they were separate from the roads, so would tend to cut across countryside where there were no roads often meaning they were actually much more direct. In those circumstances I sympathise, I can see why they would prefer them - perfectly safe in that you're not near cars at all, and more direct to boot.
"Which is 100% legal. Read the highway code. Now, as a cyclist and a driver, I should complain about the number of idiot drivers who don't apparently know the laws of the road, like you, for example."
Two-abrest, and in certain conditions.
In the middle of a fucking country lane 2 abrest where it's narrow, or sometimes 3 abrest, and round corners I think you'll find not.
Further, if cyclists are preventing overtaking for an extended period by riding 2 abrest then they fall foul of this section of the highway code also:
"Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass."
And they often fall foul of this:
"Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."
As for:
"Wow, you must be going really slowly to be regularly undertaken by cyclists. Or is the traffic really congested and they undertake? Yes? Then read the highway code, numbnuts, it's entirely legal to undertake in congested conditions."
You completely misunderstand this section of the law. This section of the law refers to the fact you can undertake if you have two lanes of traffic and the faster lane is jammed or moving slowly. It does not mean cyclists can undertake in the same lane and it also states you cannot undertake unless every vehicle you undertake is turning right anyway. The highway code also explicitly states:
"[167 DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example] where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works"
"It never ceases to amaze me the number of cars who will accelerate hard, then brake hard to get past a cyclist just to slam into trafffic."
It wouldn't even matter if I was one of these, because you are traffic too, and if you don't get that then there is your problem. On a bike you are a road user like any other, you are not special. People are allowed to overtake you if you are moving slow and if they then hit traffic it doesn't matter - you don't have a right to overtake them, you are supposed to wait just like they are unless you can safely overtake on the right. If you can't then tough shit.
Honestly, you came here trying to clout me with the highway code and then went on to perfectly prove my point that you are a cyclist who has absolutely no fucking clue about the rules of the road which is why people like you at very least need to be forced to take the driving theory test so that you can a) understand the rules, and b) understand why they are the way they are.
I'd hope it wont take a traffic accident for you to learn the rules are the way they are for good reason, but the way you seem to think you are not traffic and the rules do not apply to you suggests that's probably the case. The problem is you'll probably be one of those do-gooders who pretends he's perfect because he rides a bike and it was the evil driver's fault entirely even though you flouted the rules, undertook on a left-turner's blind spot and got crushed.
"Do not have (working/effective/any) lights when it's dark."
I live in and commute to/from rural Yorkshire and this is another pet hate, cyclists and walkers who not only fail to have working lights, but for some reason I simply cannot comprehend cycle/walk along country lanes where there is no pavement WEARING NOTHING BUT FUCKING BLACK.
I mean, it's as if they're actually trying to get themselves killed.
"Cycling two-abreast is explicitly permitted by the highway code although it tells you to go in single file on busy or narrow roads."
I live fairly rural now so this is exactly why it's a problem, they do it down tight country lanes, often to the point they're taking up more than half the road.
"On my route to work, I undertake long queues of static cars. I can see no rational reason not to. Waiting at the back of the queue helps nobody."
Even static traffic starts moving, if the lights change, or if a police car/ambulance comes past people might pull in, and if you're in their blind spot, which you are by undertaking, then they will crush you. Cyclists undertaking to the front of a queue has been a particular problem for large vehicles like buses/lorries who then turn not realising a cyclist is in their blind spot. The issue is that by undertaking you may well be in their blindspot, people won't see you. You may not like facing oncoming traffic but those are the rules of the road, if it's not safe to overtake - i.e. if an oncoming car may hit you, then don't pass - that's how passing is supposed to occur.
"I also use a left-turn lane to go straight on. It's tricky to explain without diagrams, but the alternative is to cross into the middle lane, where I'll obstruct cars."
Sure but again the point is that at least people see you. I'm unsure if you cycle and drive or if you just cycle, but if it's the latter then the reason you don't realise these sorts of things are a problem are because you've never had an "Oh-shit" moment as a cyclist appears where they shouldn't out of a blind spot and you nearly hit them.
Honestly the rules of the roads are the way they are precisely because they take into account blindspots- this is precisely why undertaking in any vehicle be it a bike, car, or bicycle is explicitly forbidden.
I was a long-term Nokia user up until I got an Android phone relatively recently, having use their phones since the 90s.
Honestly, their mapping system was always "okay", but it's not even close to Google maps so it absolutely is inferior. It was about the same level as TomTom's maps were on my SatNav - fine most the time, but not so great for finding individual premises, and more "wrong roads" than Google Maps.
Yep, it's exactly the same problem in the UK, the issue here is that cyclists are supposed to cycle on the road, rather than pedestrian pavements, and yet do not have to know the first thing about the laws of the road.
What happens is you have idiot cyclists cycling side-by-side (cars can't do that, motorcycles don't do that) just because they want to chat, you have them under-taking people, which you are not supposed to do, and you have them cycling in the wrong lane "because it's easier than following the rules of the road". Like you say they also ignore red lights, they ignore traffic signs, they use their mobile phone whilst cycling.
Honestly, if you want to help cyclists then force them to pass a fucking driving test on their bike and start issuing more penalties to dangerous/stupid cyclists.
None of this will happen though as there is a push to get people cycling to hit green targets. I do sympathise with this, and I'm honestly not sure what the balance is, the balance of making them wear helmets sounds like a good start though as unlike the TFA's I've never known it put anyone off cycling who genuinely wants to, and it at least gives them some semblance of protection when they inevitably cycle like fucking idiots that almost seem as though they're actively trying to get themselves killed.
Of course, the other option is more cycle lanes - so that they don't have to even interact with traffic in the first place. I used to live in Bristol (UK) when I was young, and as a kid it was always great for that, I could cycle anywhere I needed to without ever really going near a road other than to cross it at a crossing. I don't know if it's still like that but that's probably the easiest solution, although, far from the cheapest.
Was my first thought too, so effectively they're combining an inferior mapping system with an inferior search engine both of which lack the level of data Google has collected via street view etc. so effectively it's just going to be a shitter version of Google maps?
Competition is good but the problem is Google is so far ahead in terms of raw data collected and mined that it takes more than just simply screaming "Me too" then partnering some arbitrary mapping system with some arbitrary data source as Apple recently found out to it's detriment.
Yeah if you're talking about data where redactions is required. When you're dealing with local government, much of the time and with many of the requests that's not the case.
Even in those cases where redaction is required, why not just get someone to spend a day redacting at £60k a year rather than claim they need that person to do all the work of collating and scanning too?
It's a get out clause that's abused when they either a) can't be arsed to do the work (which having worked in local government myself seems to be a kind of terminal illness amongst the majority of employees there), or b) don't want to be embarassed.
I've noticed a lot of councils etc. bypass the act by using the maximum cost get-out clause too.
They apparently don't have to honour requests that would cost over a certain amount to honour, which sounds fine to stop people DDOSing them with expensive requests, but what happens is often people will get a response saying:
"Sorry, we wont honour this as it's too expensive, it'll take x number of days at £y amount of staff time to fulfil"
Which again sounds fine, until you do the math. The £y value often implies they were going to pay someone £60k a year just to do a basic £14k a year office junior job of collating files and scanning them in.
It's really disgusting and they need to be pulled up on it.
Yeah, I do agree somewhat with what you're saying.
I guess the reason in this case is because the question asked is something that should be answerable with a high school education or having picked it up in even a film or TV documentary, a book, or even from conversations with people.
I guess the issue is that one would hope a candidate for a job such as president of the united states may have paid enough attention at school, or spent enough time in the real world to be worldly enough to not have to answer this question.
I think your point only holds true to a certain threshold on what people should normally know by their age- one would hope that a 20 year old man with no mental disability would not have to ask someone how to whipe their own arse for example.
Well again, that's exactly the point here isn't it? It wasn't the jury verdict alone that determined guilt and a custodial sentence, the appeals judge also felt he was guilty enough to deserve a custodial sentence, albeit a slightly shorter, and suspended one taking into account the fact he'd already done 3 months.
The guy has made his way through a lot of the judicial safeguards (the police feeling strongly enough about the case to pass it to the CPS, the CPS feeling they have enough evidence to prosecute, the jury determining guilt, and the appeals judge determining guilt) and not only been found guilty, but guilty with compelling enough evidence for two independent judges to decide on a custodial sentence.
I agree people deserve further safeguards than just trial by jury, but this guy has had exactly that, and still been found guilty.
What nonsensical drivel, that doesn't even make any sense. I don't assume anything, I merely pointed out that her political leaning is largely irrelevant unless you're trying to naively attack one political leaning.
"You mortals are so narrow-minded"
This statement implies you are immortal. Tell me, do you also wear a superman cape whilst you run round in public too?
"There must be balance."
Agreed, but this is precisely why your mention of her political leaning is stupid. There are many liberals who would disagree with her, so what was the point in pointing out she was a liberal as if it was liberalism that was part the reason for her being stupid?
"The being funny part is what the psycho on TV was arguing he wasn't doing."
Sure, and I don't defend that, but attack her on her ineptitude, not her political leaning else you simply appear just as partisan as she is.
Well the judge determined the sentence and could have given a mere fine or similar in this case but obviously deemed the circumstances were strong enough to warrant giving him a prison sentence.
Even the appeals judge determined he was still obviously guilty, and deserved a custodial sentence (although suspended by this point).
When a full jury, and two judges determine criminality, and enough so to justify a custodial sentence I'd rather place my faith in them than I would The Daily Mail.
Yet he was found guilty meaning the jury obviously felt there was enough evidence to convict.
You can't suggest there is a more simple explanation when it suits you and ignore it where it doesn't.
The most simple explanation in this situation was that he was in fact trying to groom the kids and that the jury felt there was enough evidence to that fact to convict, hence why he was convicted for it.
Neither of those things are strange to be fair. He was their coach and it's not unusual here for the coach to do that sort of thing to tell them when lessons will be or to let them know he wont make it or whatever.
As for having a phone, well, this is the UK, most kids now seem to have a mobile phone by about the age of 5.
That's not the point, it looks like he really did send them to everyone.
The point is that it offers him plausible deniability as a fishing expedition - send it out and if one of the teen girls replies then he's got what he wanted, if they don't and he gets reported, he can pretend it was all an innocent mistake because hey look, he even sent it to family members, so it must have been unintentional right?
He was for the most part trying to be funny without a doubt, but that question was a question that he foolishly slipped in because he clearly genuinely didn't know the answer.
I'm not from the US, so I don't really care who wins, as I think they're both shit for the rest of the world, and when I started watching that video and saw he was talking with the tone he was I instantly assumed that it was as you say, that it was something being taken out of context. For what it's worth, I also thought Romney was a pretty decent speaker, having not really bothered to listen to him before. However when he reached that bit it was the mannerism, the way he phrased it, it was clear he was slipping a genuine question in as an aside. This is a common thing many stand up comedians actually do, they slip a serious question into their routine between the comedy to make people think, the problem is in Romney's case, it was not the sort of question you'd want a future president to be needing to slip in. Even if it was part of his routine I'm not sure that really helps much anyway as it would mean he was playing the card of celebrating stupidity, much like people seem to think it's funny that they're shit at maths. Again, you'd hope a president would encourage education, intelligence, and brilliance, if they make light of stupidity as if it's somehow cool to be stupid and ask stupid questions then that in itself is a major problem.
Slashdot Mirror
"You were talking about undertaking, no? On roads that's usually referred to when one car passes another on the left. It generally happens when there asre multiple parallel lanes. You must have been talking about cycle lanes since you weren't complaining about the cars doing it. Unless you believe cars are above complaint. It seems that way."
No, I was talking about cyclists squeezing up the inside of traffic where there is no cycle lane rather than passing on the right where they are supposed to.
"You get annoyed when we're hogging a whole lane making you go slow and get annoyed when we don't behave like cars. Just come out and claim it's your road, you clearly are itching to do it."
I don't care about good cyclists, I pass any number of them each day, and honestly, when I see a cyclist in my right mirror whilst in a queue I outright edge left as far as I can to make sure they can pass safely without having to cross into the oncoming lane. I do the opposite to cyclists trying to squeeze past like fuckwads on the left though and move in to block them because otherwise they're going to get themselves hit.
I'm guessing you never learnt to drive because your arguments are stupid. You seem to think drivers are out to get cyclists - they're not, they just don't want to have their day ruined by some dickhead who thinks because he's on a bike the rules of the road don't apply to him and so cycles dangerously. People don't want to have their car damaged, nor their day ruined by some dickhead who simply felt it's okay to pass where it isn't.
I'm a cyclist and a driver, I know it full well from both sides - it seems pure cyclists like yourself though just don't get it. You think it's a battle, you think they're out to get you, they're not, they just don't want the hassle of a damaged car and an insurance claim because you cycle like a dick. You cry about the highway code when it suits but repeatedly ignore it where it doesn't, outright claiming it doesn't say what it blatantly does when I quote it to you because no, obviously in your head, you're always in the right, because after all, you're a pure cyclist, and such cyclists are never wrong because the rules of the road don't apply to them!
The problem with people like you is that when it comes to places like Sheffield, or Cambridge where there are cycle-through routes in pedestrian areas, you then treat pedestrians exactly like you claim cars treat you, you insist they get out your way because you're a cyclist, in both Sheffield and Cambridge I've seen this any number of times, even down streets where there are signs explicitly telling cyclists to give way to pedestrians because when you're cycling on pavements, pedestrians have right of way, it's up to you to avoid them not vice-versa.
Yes, I should've probably been more clear, in the UK you can have two bikes side-by-side providing that they are on straight open roads (i.e. not around bends, and not down country lanes), and providing they are not causing traffic to back up in a queue behind them, and providing they do not drop back to single file or slow down if a driver attempts to overtake. It's these sorts of scenarios I was referring to, I don't think anyone has a problem with those that behave, let cars pass, and only do it when there's good visibility- it's those that dangerously block the road round windy country roads and stuff that are a major hazard especially, and the UK's highway code does state that they, as slow moving vehicles, have an obligation to let people pass and not cause a tailback.
"I know you don't like it, but cyclists are allowed to take an entire lane all to themselves. It doesn't matter how much you hate, it is the law."
LOL so your response to me after trying to batter me with the highway code is to simply pretend it doesn't exist when it doesn't go in your favour? Grow up.
"If they're happliy drifting by on the inside while you're stopped in congestion, there's no conflict and it's legal."
Read what it says. It says quite clearly "For example] where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works". Are you really so mentally deficient that you can't comprehend that basic statement?
"What do you think the cycle lanes are for anyway?"
Ah misdirection. When proven wrong, go off on a COMPLETE FUCKING TANGENT, the rule of retards when arguing despite the fact they're blatantly wrong. Cycle lanes were nothing to do with my point, blatantly they're quite different.
Still you obviously don't get why cyclists are meant to act like any other traffic and follow the rules like any other traffic, so have fun being a dick. The problem is when you inevitably come a cropped because you were cycling like an idiot not fulfilling your obligations as a road user in the high way code you will be the one whose face is all red, the problem is, it'll be a different kind of red. At least you can't pretend you didn't have the highway code highlighted to you, and the reasons why you're supposed to follow it though, no, the only excuse you'll have is that you were cycling like a dick because you wanted to piss car drivers off because you find it entertaining. I hope when it happens and you're led in a hospital bed with no chance of recompense and are at risk of being sued for being at fault because you broke the highway code you feel it was worth it.
Iran is too locked down now, and doesn't have the political capital for anyone to care if say their connections were to get DDOS'd or similar.
I would've thought somewhere like Venezuela would be better - full of hate for the US and the West, but with enough political capital and enough of a stranglehold on the West's fuel supply (now that we've given up Iranian oil) to avoid any too punitive a punishment. This said, Chavez is a bit sporadic in his hate of the West so a good enough backhander his way and he could probably be bought perhaps. Syria would probably have been better if it wasn't now in a state of war.
Well the good thing about Bristol's cycle paths was that they were separate from the roads, so would tend to cut across countryside where there were no roads often meaning they were actually much more direct. In those circumstances I sympathise, I can see why they would prefer them - perfectly safe in that you're not near cars at all, and more direct to boot.
"Which is 100% legal. Read the highway code. Now, as a cyclist and a driver, I should complain about the number of idiot drivers who don't apparently know the laws of the road, like you, for example."
Two-abrest, and in certain conditions.
In the middle of a fucking country lane 2 abrest where it's narrow, or sometimes 3 abrest, and round corners I think you'll find not.
Further, if cyclists are preventing overtaking for an extended period by riding 2 abrest then they fall foul of this section of the highway code also:
"Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass."
And they often fall foul of this:
"Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."
As for:
"Wow, you must be going really slowly to be regularly undertaken by cyclists. Or is the traffic really congested and they undertake? Yes? Then read the highway code, numbnuts, it's entirely legal to undertake in congested conditions."
You completely misunderstand this section of the law. This section of the law refers to the fact you can undertake if you have two lanes of traffic and the faster lane is jammed or moving slowly. It does not mean cyclists can undertake in the same lane and it also states you cannot undertake unless every vehicle you undertake is turning right anyway. The highway code also explicitly states:
"[167 DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example] where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works"
"It never ceases to amaze me the number of cars who will accelerate hard, then brake hard to get past a cyclist just to slam into trafffic."
It wouldn't even matter if I was one of these, because you are traffic too, and if you don't get that then there is your problem. On a bike you are a road user like any other, you are not special. People are allowed to overtake you if you are moving slow and if they then hit traffic it doesn't matter - you don't have a right to overtake them, you are supposed to wait just like they are unless you can safely overtake on the right. If you can't then tough shit.
Honestly, you came here trying to clout me with the highway code and then went on to perfectly prove my point that you are a cyclist who has absolutely no fucking clue about the rules of the road which is why people like you at very least need to be forced to take the driving theory test so that you can a) understand the rules, and b) understand why they are the way they are.
I'd hope it wont take a traffic accident for you to learn the rules are the way they are for good reason, but the way you seem to think you are not traffic and the rules do not apply to you suggests that's probably the case. The problem is you'll probably be one of those do-gooders who pretends he's perfect because he rides a bike and it was the evil driver's fault entirely even though you flouted the rules, undertook on a left-turner's blind spot and got crushed.
"Do not have (working/effective/any) lights when it's dark."
I live in and commute to/from rural Yorkshire and this is another pet hate, cyclists and walkers who not only fail to have working lights, but for some reason I simply cannot comprehend cycle/walk along country lanes where there is no pavement WEARING NOTHING BUT FUCKING BLACK.
I mean, it's as if they're actually trying to get themselves killed.
"Cycling two-abreast is explicitly permitted by the highway code although it tells you to go in single file on busy or narrow roads."
I live fairly rural now so this is exactly why it's a problem, they do it down tight country lanes, often to the point they're taking up more than half the road.
"On my route to work, I undertake long queues of static cars. I can see no rational reason not to. Waiting at the back of the queue helps nobody."
Even static traffic starts moving, if the lights change, or if a police car/ambulance comes past people might pull in, and if you're in their blind spot, which you are by undertaking, then they will crush you. Cyclists undertaking to the front of a queue has been a particular problem for large vehicles like buses/lorries who then turn not realising a cyclist is in their blind spot. The issue is that by undertaking you may well be in their blindspot, people won't see you. You may not like facing oncoming traffic but those are the rules of the road, if it's not safe to overtake - i.e. if an oncoming car may hit you, then don't pass - that's how passing is supposed to occur.
"I also use a left-turn lane to go straight on. It's tricky to explain without diagrams, but the alternative is to cross into the middle lane, where I'll obstruct cars."
Sure but again the point is that at least people see you. I'm unsure if you cycle and drive or if you just cycle, but if it's the latter then the reason you don't realise these sorts of things are a problem are because you've never had an "Oh-shit" moment as a cyclist appears where they shouldn't out of a blind spot and you nearly hit them.
Honestly the rules of the roads are the way they are precisely because they take into account blindspots- this is precisely why undertaking in any vehicle be it a bike, car, or bicycle is explicitly forbidden.
I was a long-term Nokia user up until I got an Android phone relatively recently, having use their phones since the 90s.
Honestly, their mapping system was always "okay", but it's not even close to Google maps so it absolutely is inferior. It was about the same level as TomTom's maps were on my SatNav - fine most the time, but not so great for finding individual premises, and more "wrong roads" than Google Maps.
Yep, it's exactly the same problem in the UK, the issue here is that cyclists are supposed to cycle on the road, rather than pedestrian pavements, and yet do not have to know the first thing about the laws of the road.
What happens is you have idiot cyclists cycling side-by-side (cars can't do that, motorcycles don't do that) just because they want to chat, you have them under-taking people, which you are not supposed to do, and you have them cycling in the wrong lane "because it's easier than following the rules of the road". Like you say they also ignore red lights, they ignore traffic signs, they use their mobile phone whilst cycling.
Honestly, if you want to help cyclists then force them to pass a fucking driving test on their bike and start issuing more penalties to dangerous/stupid cyclists.
None of this will happen though as there is a push to get people cycling to hit green targets. I do sympathise with this, and I'm honestly not sure what the balance is, the balance of making them wear helmets sounds like a good start though as unlike the TFA's I've never known it put anyone off cycling who genuinely wants to, and it at least gives them some semblance of protection when they inevitably cycle like fucking idiots that almost seem as though they're actively trying to get themselves killed.
Of course, the other option is more cycle lanes - so that they don't have to even interact with traffic in the first place. I used to live in Bristol (UK) when I was young, and as a kid it was always great for that, I could cycle anywhere I needed to without ever really going near a road other than to cross it at a crossing. I don't know if it's still like that but that's probably the easiest solution, although, far from the cheapest.
It's easy for the US to get stuff taken down in Russia, they just have to pay the right police a few thousand USD, that's peanuts.
Was my first thought too, so effectively they're combining an inferior mapping system with an inferior search engine both of which lack the level of data Google has collected via street view etc. so effectively it's just going to be a shitter version of Google maps?
Competition is good but the problem is Google is so far ahead in terms of raw data collected and mined that it takes more than just simply screaming "Me too" then partnering some arbitrary mapping system with some arbitrary data source as Apple recently found out to it's detriment.
Yeah if you're talking about data where redactions is required. When you're dealing with local government, much of the time and with many of the requests that's not the case.
Even in those cases where redaction is required, why not just get someone to spend a day redacting at £60k a year rather than claim they need that person to do all the work of collating and scanning too?
It's a get out clause that's abused when they either a) can't be arsed to do the work (which having worked in local government myself seems to be a kind of terminal illness amongst the majority of employees there), or b) don't want to be embarassed.
I've noticed a lot of councils etc. bypass the act by using the maximum cost get-out clause too.
They apparently don't have to honour requests that would cost over a certain amount to honour, which sounds fine to stop people DDOSing them with expensive requests, but what happens is often people will get a response saying:
"Sorry, we wont honour this as it's too expensive, it'll take x number of days at £y amount of staff time to fulfil"
Which again sounds fine, until you do the math. The £y value often implies they were going to pay someone £60k a year just to do a basic £14k a year office junior job of collating files and scanning them in.
It's really disgusting and they need to be pulled up on it.
Yeah, I do agree somewhat with what you're saying.
I guess the reason in this case is because the question asked is something that should be answerable with a high school education or having picked it up in even a film or TV documentary, a book, or even from conversations with people.
I guess the issue is that one would hope a candidate for a job such as president of the united states may have paid enough attention at school, or spent enough time in the real world to be worldly enough to not have to answer this question.
I think your point only holds true to a certain threshold on what people should normally know by their age- one would hope that a 20 year old man with no mental disability would not have to ask someone how to whipe their own arse for example.
Well again, that's exactly the point here isn't it? It wasn't the jury verdict alone that determined guilt and a custodial sentence, the appeals judge also felt he was guilty enough to deserve a custodial sentence, albeit a slightly shorter, and suspended one taking into account the fact he'd already done 3 months.
The guy has made his way through a lot of the judicial safeguards (the police feeling strongly enough about the case to pass it to the CPS, the CPS feeling they have enough evidence to prosecute, the jury determining guilt, and the appeals judge determining guilt) and not only been found guilty, but guilty with compelling enough evidence for two independent judges to decide on a custodial sentence.
I agree people deserve further safeguards than just trial by jury, but this guy has had exactly that, and still been found guilty.
"You assume ultra-conservatives must be better?"
What nonsensical drivel, that doesn't even make any sense. I don't assume anything, I merely pointed out that her political leaning is largely irrelevant unless you're trying to naively attack one political leaning.
"You mortals are so narrow-minded"
This statement implies you are immortal. Tell me, do you also wear a superman cape whilst you run round in public too?
"There must be balance."
Agreed, but this is precisely why your mention of her political leaning is stupid. There are many liberals who would disagree with her, so what was the point in pointing out she was a liberal as if it was liberalism that was part the reason for her being stupid?
"The being funny part is what the psycho on TV was arguing he wasn't doing."
Sure, and I don't defend that, but attack her on her ineptitude, not her political leaning else you simply appear just as partisan as she is.
Well the judge determined the sentence and could have given a mere fine or similar in this case but obviously deemed the circumstances were strong enough to warrant giving him a prison sentence.
Even the appeals judge determined he was still obviously guilty, and deserved a custodial sentence (although suspended by this point).
When a full jury, and two judges determine criminality, and enough so to justify a custodial sentence I'd rather place my faith in them than I would The Daily Mail.
Well he was found guilty, isn't that kind of the point?
Yet he was found guilty meaning the jury obviously felt there was enough evidence to convict.
You can't suggest there is a more simple explanation when it suits you and ignore it where it doesn't.
The most simple explanation in this situation was that he was in fact trying to groom the kids and that the jury felt there was enough evidence to that fact to convict, hence why he was convicted for it.
Well the jury were convinced, so I guess the compelling evidence was there.
Neither of those things are strange to be fair. He was their coach and it's not unusual here for the coach to do that sort of thing to tell them when lessons will be or to let them know he wont make it or whatever.
As for having a phone, well, this is the UK, most kids now seem to have a mobile phone by about the age of 5.
That's not the point, it looks like he really did send them to everyone.
The point is that it offers him plausible deniability as a fishing expedition - send it out and if one of the teen girls replies then he's got what he wanted, if they don't and he gets reported, he can pretend it was all an innocent mistake because hey look, he even sent it to family members, so it must have been unintentional right?
"Stupid liberal bitch"
Wow, calm down there, partisan much?
He was for the most part trying to be funny without a doubt, but that question was a question that he foolishly slipped in because he clearly genuinely didn't know the answer.
I'm not from the US, so I don't really care who wins, as I think they're both shit for the rest of the world, and when I started watching that video and saw he was talking with the tone he was I instantly assumed that it was as you say, that it was something being taken out of context. For what it's worth, I also thought Romney was a pretty decent speaker, having not really bothered to listen to him before. However when he reached that bit it was the mannerism, the way he phrased it, it was clear he was slipping a genuine question in as an aside. This is a common thing many stand up comedians actually do, they slip a serious question into their routine between the comedy to make people think, the problem is in Romney's case, it was not the sort of question you'd want a future president to be needing to slip in. Even if it was part of his routine I'm not sure that really helps much anyway as it would mean he was playing the card of celebrating stupidity, much like people seem to think it's funny that they're shit at maths. Again, you'd hope a president would encourage education, intelligence, and brilliance, if they make light of stupidity as if it's somehow cool to be stupid and ask stupid questions then that in itself is a major problem.
What representatives? This was a trial by jury, the jury decided he was guilty.