"Hi-vis distracts from the real issues on our roads," says makers of bike camera warning signs; "Tedious" number plate debate follows former Met chief's comments; Friday Facebook Fancy; A front light with a difference; Mythbusting + more on the live blog

Yeah: watched that (I think I read the book, some years ago - I note that the tv programme was dated 2010). The scene where he showed how badly his marathons had (edited) worn down 

I had a Audi overtake me around 200m from a roundabout at 0615 Wednesday morning.
He was braking hard for the roundabout.
My garmin had him at approach speed of 64mph in a 30mph zone.

My Garmin picked up a 70mph approach from the rear on Thursday night ... that one turned out to be a train 😄

hutchdaddy wrote:

These are pants

You do realise that you don't have to wait for Xmas to get some new underpants, don't you?

I only wear black, so it doesn't show up any, ahem, incidents.

Hey give me back my pants thief!!

I don't suppose you actually read the review?

It is a 'brain fart' of an idea that won't survive the first contact with reality, so I don't think it is going to happen.

What it does reveal is a level of prejudice amongst police and lawmakers, that they would blurt this out without a clear understanding of how it might work in practice (i.e. where the plates go, how children's bikes get registered) nor in terms of criminology (how it might deter 'dangerous' cycling) or the proportionality or public interest of this. To me, the danger is not around whether or not we get number plates on bikes, but more what kinds of other things happen as a result of this prejudice.

the little onion wrote:

What it does reveal is a level of prejudice amongst police and lawmakers, that they would blurt this out without a clear understanding of how it might work in practice (i.e. where the plates go, how children's bikes get registered) nor in terms of criminology (how it might deter 'dangerous' cycling) or the proportionality or public interest of this.

What you're saying is the police and lawmakers think exactly the same as the majority of the non-cycling Great British public...

squired wrote:

I'm not gifted with height, so my frame size is typically around 50cm.  Include some mudguards and lights in the winter on my road bike...  where exactly would a number plate go?

The fact is that the police just don't want to do their job.  In the summer I was hit by a guy on an e-scooter.  I've had two shoulder surgeries since and am likely not back on the bike until January.  The response from the police was that scooters are on the road illegally, so there is nothing they can do about the guy who hit me.  When my MP got involved they just said in a letter to him that it is the government's fault because they allow e-scooters to be sold by shops.  They even commented how they did an "education campaign" locally, stopping e-scooter riders, but it achieved nothing (what a surprise).  How about just stopping anyone riding one and confiscating them.  That will stop it pretty fast.  

Thanks, that's handy to know.

So, if you want to commit a crime, like punch a copper or rob a bank, you can just do it using e-scooters and the police are powerless to do anything.

So, if you want to commit a crime, like punch a copper or rob a bank, you can just do it using e-scooters and the police are powerless to do anything

No, No, No! What renders them powerless is if the offender fails to provide video evidence of him offending to confirm the video taken by the victim or someone else, or if he can't remember the incident. It's some catch, that Police Catch 22!

squired wrote:

[...] The response from the police was that scooters are on the road illegally, so there is nothing they can do about the guy who hit me.  [...]

We've had some pretty convoluted examples of Police Logic before (as wtjs will attest) but surely this must take the biscuit - the Police can't do anything because he was doing something illegal?

We've had some pretty convoluted examples of Police Logic before (as wtjs will attest) but surely this must take the biscuit - the Police can't do anything because he was doing something illegal?

These ridiculous dodges seem to be creeping out into other aspects of modern life. I have an 82 year old friend who had several uPVC windows installed. 2 of the locks failed, but the installer has failed for months to turn up to perform the simple job of replacing the locks. The insurer/ industry regulating body told him that they couldn't do anything because the window installer is still in business!

squired wrote:

The response from the police was that scooters are on the road illegally, so there is nothing they can do about the guy who hit me.  

By that logic, they can't do anything about shootings.

Steve K wrote:

squired wrote:

The response from the police was that scooters are on the road illegally, so there is nothing they can do about the guy who hit me.  

By that logic, they can't do anything about shootings.

Or stabbings, unless it's by a chef using one of their work knives.

I think I'm going to buy fake brand-name trainers and then I'll be able to get away with any crime that I want to commit.

Just do it from your cycle there at night - as long as you're without pedal reflectors you're clearly already illegal.  Sorry mate, the bike wasn't legal on the road anyway so...

hawkinspeter wrote:

Steve K wrote:

squired wrote:

The response from the police was that scooters are on the road illegally, so there is nothing they can do about the guy who hit me.  

By that logic, they can't do anything about shootings.

Or stabbings, unless it's by a chef using one of their work knives.

I think I'm going to buy fake brand-name trainers and then I'll be able to get away with any crime that I want to commit.

Even then it would have to happen in the kitchem, because carrying knives around just because you happen to be a chef isn't a defence, agaisnt offensive weapons charges.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Even then it would have to happen in the kitchem, because carrying knives around just because you happen to be a chef isn't a defence, agaisnt offensive weapons charges.

I disagree as it's illegal to carry most knives or any weapons in public without a 'good reason' and a chef carrying their knives with them on the way to or from their work is a 'good reason'. They would typically be carried in a roll and not just loose in their pocket, so they wouldn't be mistaken for stabby knives. It's quite common for chefs to be incredibly possessive of their knives and to not allow anyone else to touch them or use them so it's not unusual for them to not leave their personal knives in the kitchen.

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

Or swords... this was down your way?

chrisonatrike wrote:

Or swords... this was down your way?

Quite likely - there's a Sikh temple just near my road. In the 'good reasons' for carrying bladed weapons, they include religious reasons as Sikhs are supposed to carry a kirpan knife. National costumes are also an exemption.

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

I disagree as it's illegal to carry most knives or any weapons in public without a 'good reason' and a chef carrying their knives with them on the way to or from their work is a 'good reason'.

You're sort of right and sort of wrong, yes a chef or a carpenter etc is legally allowed to carry their knives and other bladed tools to and from the workplace, but the second it's taken out of its case/tool roll/pocket to be used in a threatening manner it automatically transforms into being an offensive weapon and the carrier/wielder is subject to exactly the same laws as someone who was carrying it for offensive purposes from the outset.

Rendel Harris wrote:

You're sort of right and sort of wrong, yes a chef or a carpenter etc is legally allowed to carry their knives and other bladed tools to and from the workplace, but the second it's taken out of its case/tool roll/pocket to be used in a threatening manner it automatically transforms into being an offensive weapon and the carrier/wielder is subject to exactly the same laws as someone who was carrying it for offensive purposes from the outset.

Well, yes. If you take a work tool and start using it in a threatening manner then it will automatically be treated as an offensive weapon, whether it's a knife, a hammer or a screwdriver. A more grey area would be if a chef was attacked and was somehow able to open up their knife roll, select the relevant knife and then defend themselves with it - although the chef had no intention of using it that way and had good reason to be carrying it, would that be considered to be carrying an offensive weapon?

hawkinspeter wrote:

I disagree as it's illegal to carry most knives or any weapons in public without a 'good reason' and a chef carrying their knives with them on the way to or from their work is a 'good reason'.

Is it normal for chefs to carry their own knives home at the end of every service and bring them back again tomorrow? seems uneccesary to me.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Is it normal for chefs to carry their own knives home at the end of every service and bring them back again tomorrow? seems uneccesary to me.

It depends on the kitchen environment and nature of employment. If it's a stable job with known, trusted chefs then a chef could leave their knives there and know that no-one's going to start chopping bones with them. If it's a high-turnover kitchen then you wouldn't want to leave very expensive knives lying around, especially if there's a chance that the place could close down or you get made redundant.