Loz

Charlotte W Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For these reasons I think multi-millionaires and > billionaires who hoard their wealth are not to be > admired but should actually be despised. And do you know how much those multi-millionaires and billionaires care what you think?? Well, if you were to stack one billion pennies up high and then, with a very sharp knife, nick a tiny, weeny piece of metal off the highest penny. In the greater scheme of things, that much. People get that much money generally because they are very clever and work their socks off. OK, some inherit, some get lucky. But frankly, I don't begrudge the Bransons/Zuckerburgs/Gates/Jobs or whatever of this world one penny of what they have. It has been said that if you were to distribute all the money/assets evenly to every person in the world, within 10 years it would be redistributed roughly as it is today. I can believe that.

Burbage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jupiter is the one on the right. That made me laugh out loud. :)

pistachet1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does a mobile phone camera show infrared for real? Yep - it's a good way to show if a remote control is working. Point the business end at any digital camera (mobile phone, webcam or standard digital camera) and press a remote button. You'll see the flashing infrared LED on the camera screen. This effect means there's also a way of tweaking a webcam to see through (some) clothing!

sharonbra Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I love the feel, fit ,style and even the price . > I recommend you try. I did, but my moobs weren't quite held in.

Muley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has there been any news of the driver who hit > Bradley Wiggins being prosecuted? I'd have thought > she would be charged with driving without due care > and attention- maximum penalty six points on the > licence and a fine of ?600. Happily he's back in > training but the penalty seems to bear no relation > to the severity of the injury imposed on the > cyclist by the driver. Erm - you ask for news about what happened regarding prosecution... and then complain about the supposed penalty? Weird.

Feeling like trying a new sport? If you are handy at basketball or netball then try giving korfball a go. Teams have equal numbers of men and women, so clubs are social by nature. http://www.supernova.org.uk They train on Wed nights at Waterloo, so it's nice and central.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't cycle through red lights but often if a light has just gone red, I'll get off my bicycle > and walk accross if clear to do so, and get on my bicyle on the other side. I'm not breaking any law > by doing so. And that is the safe and legal way of doing so. DaveR, on the other hand, is doing the standard approach of picking and choosing which laws he would like to take notice of. And then tries to justify it. Sorry Dave, but that is a complete and utter fail. It is cyclists like you that give them such a bad name. And then whine that cyclists have such a bad rep.

Hmm, I think you are being a bit sarky, but I'll bite. As I said in the Movember thread, Australia has just has such a better track record of men's health issues. I just wish some of the other stuff going on over there could make it to the UK, like Mensline (depression, relationship issues, etc) and the Men's Sheds movement (general health and wellbeing for older men). In the UK, you get the feeling that men's health and other issues are considered something that should not be discussed.

mynamehere Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I consider some of the postings against cyclists > to be "hate" and crimes in spirit if not law I consider your post to be a hate crime against motorists. Lucky for you the law isn't that wide, isn't it?

Cyberia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > mynamehere Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The law should be: > > > > > > 1. if a car touches a cyclist or a pedestrian > > it's > > > the driver's fault > > > > Fantastic idea! I could give up my job, and > spend > > my time cycling into cars and then taking the > > drivers to court! > > Erm... cycling into cars is a cyclist touching a > car and not the other way around. If you're > proposing actually getting hit by cars > deliberately you may find you give up more than > just your job. OK, Jeremy and I will start veering wildly in front of cars on our bikes. Guaranteed payout. Or else leaping off the pavement in front of cyclists for less money, but less chance of serious injury. Get those insurance documents together, cyclists.

In the past 12 months I've used a solicitor for a purchase and a bargain conveyancers for a re-mortgage. The solicitor cost a couple of hundred pounds more. Next time I will use the solicitor for sure. You don't know the difference until something goes wrong. And something *always* goes wrong. As far as location goes, it was handy to drop into the office to sort out the paperwork on the final day, but as far as searches go, most of them outsource them these days anyway.

My view is that a lot of people at the poorer end of society are not just cash poor and time poor, but also information poor. The Guardian case studies were an interesting read in that many of these people who aren't getting their five-a-day isn't so much on cost, but inability to source cheap, healthy food and cook it. A lot of these people were spending ?80 to ?100 a week in the supermarket, and then complaining they couldn't afford 'decent food'. Really? Food has gone up considerably, but Basics/Value carrots/onions/potatoes etc are still affordable. Mince can be bought cheaply, as can chicken thighs and pork. Padding these out with vegies and pasta can feed a hoarde. The seemingly obvious answer is to teach people to cook, but as Jamie Oliver found out, people do actually turn their nose up at healthy food. So is food cost really the reason people aren't getting their 5-a-day? I think it is part of the problem, but certainly not the main cause.

Women are so much better at this kind of health awareness campaign. Men are rubbish at looking after their own health, so it's great to see Movember taking off over here. Movember started in Australia, which just has such a better track record of men's health issues. I just wish some of the other stuff going on over there could make it to the UK, like Mensline (depression, relationship issues, etc) and the Men's Sheds movement (general health).

The case studies attached to that Guardian feature mostly elicited zero sympathy. Saying that ?20 a term for the kid's school milk and fruit was 'unaffordable', then admitting they spent ?24 a month on Sky was just plain stupid. And the couple that was struggling to bring up their four children on a mere ?44K a year? The Gruin shooting itself in the foot, again. Pass me the Foie Gras please?

Sorry - all retired. Must be fat and currently playing county cricket. Surely Patel and Keys can't be the only gravitationally challenged players?

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Robert Key Accepted, though at least he can bat. How did Rob Key not get a better shot at an England career?? OK, one fatboy on the list. You need four more. (And Botham is long retired, so he doesn't count.)

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's manslaughter not murder. I agree that he > needed to be punished, but I don't think you can > say that he is 100% to blame for the girl's death, > she had something to do with it too! Really Otta?? She was incapacitated, granted by her own actions, but that does not mean he should have allowed the train to move. For whatever reason she was leaning on the train, he should have investigated. He had every opportunity to prevent the tragedy. And didn't.

Is Samit Patel really the sixth best batsman in England? He could be the sixth fattest, but I'm struggling to think of five who are larger.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Right I started this thread so I will finish it. > > Miles cycled in London = about 40,000 > > Hit and run by a Merc and left for dead (Red Post Hill) = once > Knocked off by a hired white van (Sydenham) = Once > Near misses with a taxi = twice > With a bus = three times (and once with ?500 compensation, and this without any impact so I ask > my dear readers did Thames buses have anything to hide) > Near misses with blue light vehicles - three > Road rage (where people threatened to kill me after I had asked them politely to give me more > space) = three times > Witness to a crazy woman on the Brixton Road try to take out a cyclist = once > At fault for near misses with vehicles - a couple of times, and profuse apologies > Near misses with bike, mostly recently - three times > Near misses with pedestrains on phone, i pod, texting, numerous times > Times I have almost got hit by a bike twice, only > once my fault and rather embarrasing > > So scientifically, vehicles most dangerous, > followed by pedestrians, and a close thing between > me and other cyclists. Have you ever considered that the problem just might be you? Really, as a pedestrian (never mind a car driver) if I had this many issues over the years I'd be looking a bit closer to home for the solution.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quicker to cycle But less chance of an accident.

A bit of creative editing there binary_star. Number 151 is part of "General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders", not just 'motorists'. That section also applies to cyclists. It also states: - In slow-moving traffic, you should not change lanes to the left to overtake And, don't forget, the cycling part of the highway code (59 to 82) explicitly states: These rules are in addition to those in the following sections, which apply to all vehicles (except the motorway section). The highway code is not just for motorists - cyclists must abide by it as well.

Ah - different DJKQ. That is a cycle lane on the inside. In that case it is up the driver. But if there is only kerb on my nearside then it is a dumb place to cycle. And DaveR's attitude of 'F... you I gonna cycle there' doesn't marry well with his much more enlightened "If a cyclist does something stupid and puts themselves in danger, that is their individual action and they have to take the consequences." Cyclists do need to realise they are vulnerable and not cycle on the nearside of a car. Sneaking in that space between car and kerb is not a clever place to be.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BTW, overtaking on the inside is fair game, if there is enough space. You need to start actually > looking in your nearside mirror - that's what it's there for. How to instantly lose an argument.

Heh heh. Being child-free means never having to say you are sorry.

That's a tough one KK. One one level it is, as you see it, sexist. But it is also a bit of a pop on the traditional male Australian as seen by the British. So is it showing sexism, or a racial stereotype? Or does it have it's tongue in it's cheek so deeply that it is actually OK?