Cyclist hospitalised after crashing into enormous pothole and 'somersaulting' off her bike

That is a good policy, but sometimes other road traffic can make that challenging.  On a recent wet ride I passed a few places where my whole lane was a puddle.  I could pass into the on-coming lane if it was clear, but that isn't always the case.

When the whole lane is flooded, I'll often take my chances and hope for the best. However when there is a 'puddle', like the one shown, some way from the edge of the road - that is a clear indication of either a hole or a depression, which is always best avoided. Not that I, in any way, blame the victim for this - just helpful advice on how deal with our pothole riddled roads.

Other helpful indicators, are the size of the splash when larger vehicles pass through it - if lots of water splashes up, it's going to be a deep puddle.

Another thing, if it's a wide puddle often ride around it, to avoided being showered by close passing vehicles.  They should already be taking care to avoid the puddles, so as not to splash pedestrians.

joe9090 wrote:

Without meaning to feel superior, we do not even know what potholes are here...
Love from the Netherlands!

Now go away before I taunt you a second time....

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Of course if council pensions didn't cost north of £5bn per year, local authorities would have far more money to spend on things like fixing potholes and bothering to cut back verges etc

And if we took pensions off nurses we'd have far more to spend on the NHS, and if we took pensions away from soldiers we'd have more money to spend on defence, and if we took pensions off teachers we'd have more money to spend on education...

Or instead of indulging in a rightwing wet dream we could actually think of the true ways money is being wasted, the £100BN tax gap, another £100BN on HS2, the projected £200BN on a Trident replacement, and of course the hundreds of billions and rising cost of your beloved Brexit before blaming a lack of funds on the perfectly legitimate and relatively inexpensive cost of retirement benefits for public servants.

(p.s. Just to save you reaming out one of your colour-by-numbers supercilious replies, no I'm not a public servant)

All those schemes have been amended over the years to reduce the burden on taxpayers and the older , more beneficial schemes are not open to new starters.

Of course you could simply cut pay instead...

Or recognise that you are offering a package to attract people..

Or recognise that a reduction in ER contributions now will only result in more goverement assistance in the future.

one of the things missing from the bike shortage caused by lack of HGV drivers story, is that roughly 30% of container traffic leaves some of our ports via rail, not road.

HS2 will unlock badly needed capacity on the west coast main line to run more freight trains replacing the current passenger services,with each freight train taking approx 75 trucks off UK roads, trucks that cause the most pollution, most damage to and most danger on our road network.

why do people always concentrate on the why do we need to get between Birmingham and London quicker parts of HS2?

Awavey wrote:

one of the things missing from the bike shortage caused by lack of HGV drivers story, is that roughly 30% of container traffic leaves some of our ports via rail, not road.

HS2 will unlock badly needed capacity on the west coast main line to run more freight trains replacing the current passenger services,with each freight train taking approx 75 trucks off UK roads, trucks that cause the most pollution, most damage to and most danger on our road network.

why do people always concentrate on the why do we need to get between Birmingham and London quicker parts of HS2?

Ok, how much cheaper would it be if HS2 became Normal Speed n, compatible with existing rolling stock and just extra capacity for the existing network?

I only concentrate on the pointlessness of spending all that money on helping people get from that London to Birmingham faster because that's the benefit which the proponents of the scheme seem to publicise.

Yes let’s just base our new infrastructure development on already outdated technologies… why on Earth would you want to future proof???

Haitchaitch wrote:

Yes let’s just base our new infrastructure development on already outdated technologies… why on Earth would you want to future proof???

Why is normal speed rail outdated? Who is in this dreadful hurry? What is this future-proofing thing? Is that what the Pentium processor (TM, duh-dah-duh-dah) did?

We can choose solutions to problems that use entirely adequate technology. Or we can go for the bleeding edge. 747 vs Concorde. Which succeeded? Is there enough demand to be in New York before you set out from London for the huge cost? Is there a lesson in the fact that no other supersonic airliner has been developed since? Will there ever be value in having 20 mins less on the laptop on the train for £100bn?

As of 2018, only half the freight paths available on the West Coast Mainline were in use. If the rail freight system was working at capacity and there was more demand, there would be some justification for HS2 (though more for building new freight routes, which wouldn't require the same arrow-straight line for high speed that is causing an environmental catastophe everywhere HS2 goes), but it isn't. HS2 is an absurd vanity project we don't need and can't afford that's only being kept alive to assuage the large construction firms on which the Tory party relies so heavily for donations.

Rendel Harris wrote:

HS2 is an absurd vanity project we don't need and can't afford that's only being kept alive to assuage the large construction firms on which the Tory party relies so heavily for donations.

Surely we could just subsidise the bonuses for the bosses of building firms by having a publicly funded bung paid to people buying a house instead, which puts the price of all houses up and distorts the market. Oh wait...

I agree about fixing potholes. I don't begrudge ordinary people a decent pension. It's not like we don't have the money as a nation.

AidanR wrote:

I agree about fixing potholes. I don't begrudge ordinary people a decent pension. It's not like we don't have the money as a nation.

Indeed we have one of the worst pension provisions in the western world, in spite of the "triple lock" - a high percentage increase on fack all still leaves you with fack all.

Captain Badger wrote:

Indeed we have one of the worst pension provisions in the western world, in spite of the "triple lock" - a high percentage increase on fack all still leaves you with fack all.

I have a vague feeling that UK state pensions (as opposed to the workplace pensions of those who worked for the state) are not all that bad by international standards of penury. But the triple lock can't last - in the long term it makes pensioners better off relative to working age people in poverty, and inter-generational inequality isn't good. But older people vote, and tend to vote Con in greater numbers.

That said, I don't for a moment disagree that we have generally terrible support for people who need it. I'd love to make it compulsory for every MP to live on Universal Credit for a week a year. Probably week one of the five it takes - by design - to get paid anything at all on UC.

TheBillder wrote:

But the triple lock can't last - in the long term it makes pensioners better off relative to working age people in poverty, and inter-generational inequality isn't good.

No, and it shouldn't be seen as a point of ideology either nor does it need to be. As you say the issue is inadequate support for those that need it, regardless of age, or even a society and economy that ensures that it doesn't happen in the first place.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

We really *don't* have the money as a nation to support this long term as the population pyramid becomes increasingly top-heavy with unfunded public pensions. Something will have to give.

How about tax evasion and avoidance, absurdly low and easily avoided corporate tax, absurd expenditure on "defence" and "infrastructure" that benefits nobody but political donors and the costs of a rightwing paranoia project are addressed first? If after that you can seriously claim that we *don't* have the money to pay nurses' and teachers' pensions...

What a badly informed piece of right wing garbage mouthpiece copy and paste nonsense. Glad to see Rendel put the record straight.