"I rode ten miles to the bike shop clenching it between my buttocks": Reader's collapsed saddle nightmare; Anti-LTN vandalism; "Bet you I can"; Pros injured by driver; National champs reaction; Merckx addresses Remco criticism + more on the live blog

If the Cumbria mine is approved it is planned that 85% of its product will be exported, adding to transport emissions, helping to keep global coal prices low and so deincentivising steel producers from adopting alternative fuels. To claim that it will reduce carbon emissions is simply factually incorrect.

But there you go, as you believe that you know better than the Chair of the Climate Change Committee I think I'll just leave you to it.

Please list the current viable alternatives to coking coal in new steel production at scale.

I'll wait.

Where are the export markets for the coking coal? Lots of steel plants in Europe. EU currently consumes 144 million tonnes per year and produces 56 million tonnes. Cumbrian plant is predicted to produce 2.5 million tonnes per year.

Are we nearer or further from those markets than the current source of coking coal? Australia produces the majority of the world's coking coal exports. Much of the rest comes from USA and Canada.

Is it more or less energy intensive to ship coal from the UK to Europe or Australia/Canada/US to Europe? I'll leave that one for you to figure out.

If only we were in a single market with those steel producers.  

Oh, if only the whole big bad world was a single market, then we wouldn't have to be grown up and take care of our own interests. Oh, if only!

Mummy, I want to be in a big group, please, 'cos I just can't take care of myself.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

Oh, if only the whole big bad world was a single market, then we wouldn't have to be grown up and take care of our own interests. Oh, if only!

Mummy, I want to be in a big group, please, 'cos I just can't take care of myself.

Mummy, that man was gently taking the piss, but I don't have a sense of humour on this subject...... it is not fair.

Sniffer wrote:

Flintshire Boy wrote:

Oh, if only the whole big bad world was a single market, then we wouldn't have to be grown up and take care of our own interests. Oh, if only!

Mummy, I want to be in a big group, please, 'cos I just can't take care of myself.

Mummy, that man was gently taking the piss, but I don't have a sense of humour on this subject...... it is not fair.

If you kids can't play nicely, you'll both be sent to your rooms.

.

mdavidford wrote:

Sniffer wrote:

Flintshire Boy wrote:

Oh, if only the whole big bad world was a single market, then we wouldn't have to be grown up and take care of our own interests. Oh, if only!

Mummy, I want to be in a big group, please, 'cos I just can't take care of myself.

Mummy, that man was gently taking the piss, but I don't have a sense of humour on this subject...... it is not fair.

If you kids can't play nicely, you'll both be sent to your rooms.

Dad, he started it.

Well it's "change" isn't it? The problem is their (our) environment has allowed them (us) to succeed by one series of habits - and indeed the government and culture have encouraged or even enforced these. Then decades later it turns out that this was "nice things" that we couldn't have if everyone did this. Effectively we're living beyond our means on credit - which then falls apart when everyone does it. Maybe you could have seen this coming - but living modestly for your whole life when everyone else is partying hard on the fossil fuels doesn't have mass appeal.

Humans can be quite fickle monkeys. If we fixed it so they could get to the shops and see their grandkids by bike most would have happily forgotten the outrage in a few years. (Like the Dutch weren't always so Dutch about the importance of mass cycling). Right now they're still in "war on the motorist" mode because they've been sold the half-truth of cars and open roads, mass private mobility and a high energy lifestyle.

A few of these people may already be disadvantaged (disability, poverty) and can see "everyone else" enjoying all that. Unfortunately changes often hit these people hardest because they're already up against it unlike those who merely think they are. Often this isn't because of the direct effects of the change eg. a LTN.  It's because the "advantaged" people then effectively steal their resources e.g. by pavement parking / "just stopping" on double-yellows / "borrowing" blue badge spaces (screw the disabled) or clogging up the remaining space on through routes (I can't cut through the estate now!).

It's also easy to stereotype / demonise those on "the other side". Our Nige demonstrates that in this very thread with his "commynist ... pinko ... eco-fanatic" satire and you'll see elsewhere "mamil... lycra... entitled...".

Personally I'm thinking of owning that and just trolling by growing dreads, draping myself in lycra and gluing myself to a peloton on the M25 while also being a member of the Conservative party and an investment banker.

Just because someone has a different opinion to you, doesn't make them brain dead. Your attitutude is part of the problem, and unfortunatley prevelant in younger generations. Residents may have a perfectly valid reason to be against an LTN on a specific road. Don't judge and jump to conclusions.

alexuk wrote:

Just because someone has a different opinion to you, doesn't make them brain dead. Your attitutude is part of the problem, and unfortunatley prevelant in younger generations. Residents may have a perfectly valid reason to be against an LTN on a specific road. Don't judge and jump to conclusions.

What's with the anti "younger generations" thing? Not judging, nor jumping to conclusions much. I'm so tempted to say "ok boomer" but I'd lose whatever moral high ground I might be able to pretend to be on.

Nigel Garage][quote=TheBillder wrote:

 He's just stating facts - young people are rhe most intolerant generation that existed in modern times

Absolute cobblers, when I was young gay people were regularly beaten up in the streets for showing the slightest sign of affection or even just if suspected of being gay, people of colour were constantly given levels of abuse that would lead to arrest these days as a matter of course, women were expected to take sexual innuendo and even assault as "a bit of a laugh"...I could go on and on. Today's young people, for all their faults and terrible taste in music, are far more liberal, kind and generous than the generation I grew up with. What you mean is "young people today don't agree with my views and therefore they must be intolerant", which sits pretty snugly with your general solipsism.

Nigel Garage wrote:

to most people intolerance takes the standard dictionary definition of "unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own."

And if someone else's views, beliefs or behaviour are racist, or homophobic, or sexist, then it is entirely correct to be intolerant of them, isn't it? I didn't notice you earlier today being very tolerant of Insulate UK (a group whose actions I do not support, before you start) - I believe you called them something like "neo-Marxist terrorists", did you not? Not very tolerant, was it?

Nigel Garage wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Nigel Garage wrote:

to most people intolerance takes the standard dictionary definition of "unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own."

And if someone else's views, beliefs or behaviour are racist, or homophobic, or sexist, then it is entirely correct to be intolerant of them, isn't it? I didn't notice you earlier today being very tolerant of Insulate UK (a group whose actions I do not support, before you start) - I believe you called them something like "neo-Marxist terrorists", did you not? Not very tolerant, was it?

I accept the people of Insulate Britain's right to a point of view, not of course their lawless action, just as you should tolerantly accept my right to accurately describe them.

Of course criminal behaviour should not be condoned, either by Insulate Britain of anyone else, but that's a strawman argument that deliberately deflects from the intolerance shown by many young people and so-called "liberals" across a whole range of perfectly legally held views and actions.

And yet you seem to condone the lawless action by anti-LTN protesters? Strange.

Fair enough Nigel, I'm sure you know a strawman when you see one!

Rendel Harris]</p>

<p>[quote=Nigel Garage wrote:

TheBillder wrote:

 He's just stating facts - young people are rhe most intolerant generation that existed in modern times

Absolute cobblers, when I was young gay people were regularly beaten up in the streets for showing the slightest sign of affection or even just if suspected of being gay, people of colour were constantly given levels of abuse that would lead to arrest these days as a matter of course, women were expected to take sexual innuendo and even assault as "a bit of a laugh"...I could go on and on. Today's young people, for all their faults and terrible taste in music, are far more liberal, kind and generous than the generation I grew up with. What you mean is "young people today don't agree with my views and therefore they must be intolerant", which sits pretty snugly with your general solipsism.

You're just fishing for some comment about "ah - the good old days" aren't you?

Nigel Garage wrote:

young people are rhe most intolerant generation that existed in modern times

Based on other sources, I would have to disagree strongly with that assertion, and the link is really just an opinion piece. Zzzzzz....

I think that in the real world you'll find that most young people are more open-minded, more tolerant and more empathetic than older generations.

With the huge amount of abuse on social media, it's not going to take long for someone to decide to block/cancel/ignore someone else. That's not the same thing. I'm sure you know that really but it doesn't fit your point.

One very significant - possibly even defining - difference between Insulate Britain and the anti-LTN protesters is similar to that between Remainers and Brexiteers: the second group are campaigning for their own personal gain regardless of the cost to others while the first group are concerned with the wider consequences for everyone of the government policy direction on those respective topics.

Simon E wrote:

One very significant - possibly even defining - difference between Insulate Britain and the anti-LTN protesters is similar to that between Remainers and Brexiteers: the second group are campaigning for their own personal gain regardless of the cost to others while the first group are concerned with the wider consequences for everyone of the government policy direction on those respective topics.

Yet coincidentally the support for both the EU and LTNs is strongest in the groups that benefit the most from them and vice versa.

It's almost as if most people vote in their own self interest regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum.

How NOT to convince people with a slightly different point of view to yours - behave like you do.

Heck, you'll be calling them 'scum' next.

OnYerBike wrote:

Someone actually wrote "All streets matter" on a placard. Not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Don't pussyfoot about it - bring in colour! "Red streets matter just as much as black streets"! (For overseas readers that's cycle tracks and roads).