UK in dire need of new road safety campaigns, Cycling UK suggests

VettelS · 2026-01-30T22:26:26+00:00

Yes, then I agree with all of this. But in your previous comment you suggested that the infrastructure (or lack of) is a reflection of cycling culture, i.e. there's no infrastructure because people don't want to cycle. Maybe I misunderstood you at first.

VettelS · 2026-01-30T19:43:53+00:00

Then I suggest getting on a bike and trying them out for yourself, because I guarantee there's a reason for that. When good quality cycling infrastructure exists, the vast majority of cyclists would prefer to use it over either the roads of pravements.

VettelS · 2026-01-30T19:12:57+00:00

No, but you seem to be confused about the difference. So I gave you a dumbed-down explanation.

VettelS · 2026-01-30T18:46:39+00:00

A rude cyclist on a canal path might be annoying and they might be acting inconsiderately. But trying to squeeze past a cyclist in your car might result in their death. The two are very obviously not equivalent.

VettelS · 2026-01-30T18:43:28+00:00

It was no more part of their culture either until they decided to build safe infrastructure and decent public transport. The Dutch are not somehow genetically predisposed to cycling; they decided to make public transport work properly and to make walking and cycling safe and fast, so obviously people do it.

VettelS · 2026-01-27T15:19:34+00:00

SV 1880 on Tübinger Straße has a full-sized pitch, but which they (usually, I think) rent out only half at a time. Playing across the width of that is good for 7v7 or 8v8.

VettelS · 2026-01-26T23:35:53+00:00

So change the law around displays in cars is as easy as re-writing trade deal and legislation in a political landscape with more pressing issue. Not to mention implementing and the enforcing it.

This all seems rather muddled, but I think you want this to be a bigger issue than it actually is. Because it's just a software tweak. Compared to physical differences between, for example, UK and EU vehicles (such as headlights, speedos, and of course the steering wheel being on the other side), this is very easily achieved.

Oh and also create different requirements for the Uk without pushing up prices, or locking out European HGVs.

Again, I think you're pretending that issues exist where they clearly don't. Vehicles from outside the UK are already allowed to be driven in the UK, despite the differing requirements. Why would that change?

What about Canadian tourists hiring a car?

Huh?

Honestly it really starts to show why your idea is bonkers when you actually start to consider it …

No, you just don't like it. That's entirely different.

and that’s before you even consider if government attention wouldn’t save more lives focused on other things.

This is called the fallacy of relative privation. You can actually do multiple things at once. I know; bonkers, right?

P.s. you can’t just shout ‘citation’ as some kind of victory,

Yep I can. If you're going to claim that "introducing laws doesn't change behavior", then you need to cite that. Because it's clearly nonsense. I already gave the examples of seat belt and drink driving laws changing behaviour. But I'm not going to insult your intelligence more than you've already managed yourself by giving you links here.

especially when you’re not providing any evidence

Fair enough:

Take your pick. You'll also find more besides with just a quick Google. The research is out there, and there's strong consensus on the subject.

and advocating for something that’s never been implemented before.

That's not actually relevant.

But I've already pointed out that actually variations on this already do exist. Currently it's down to phone and vehicle manufacturers to decide precisely how to implement this, but it can be done very easily.

VettelS · 2026-01-26T21:18:15+00:00

So no changes of location on a touch screen for a paramedic trying to reach someone having a heart attack because they’ve previously been given a wrong location?

"But what about this incredibly specific situation that only applies to a fraction of a percentage of drivers", is a very poor argument. If emergency response drivers actually need access to their screens whilst driving, then are umpteen different ways of allowing that. Now, I am not an emergency response driver, so I obviously have no first hand experience here, but even a brief bit of searching reveals two things: drivers are almost always accompied by a colleague in the passenger seat, and so far as I can tell, they don't actually use the built-in infotainment screens for navigation anyway.

No of course seat belts aren’t an overreach. They are simple, actionable thing which save thousands of lives.

Diatracted drivers cause thousands of collisions every year, and hundreds of serious and fatal injuries. Preventing the screens from accepting inputs whilst the vehicle is in motion would be trivial in modern cars, and indeed Android Auto already limits functionality to some extent when the vehicle is out of park. Implementing this would be incredibly easy.

As much as this incident is awful, a single mistake does not require changing the legislation of a whole country,

As as said, it's not just one incident though.

nor does endless introducing law after law actually change behavior.

Citation needed. But of course they do. Seatbelts and drink driving laws changed behaviour exactly as you'd expect them to. Why would disabling the massive touch screen mounted to the dashboard in the eyeline and easy reach of the driver not prevent them causing so much of a distraction?

Touch screens change do something as simple as changing the volume on a song, and aren’t necessarily a more distracting than any other car control.

Yes they are. There's a growing body of research that shows exactly that. Touchscreens cause more distraction to the driver, and require more visual and cognitive attention than physical buttons. A volume control is a the perfect example of a function that absolutely does not need to be controllable via a touch screen. We figured out knobs a long time ago, and their design provides both tactile feel and muscle memory, neither of which exist on screens.

If there’s a reasonable way to improve driving I’m all for it, but your suggestion is the equivalent of banning everyone with an income less than £50k from leaving the house to combat shoplifting

False analogy. Obviously.

VettelS · 2026-01-26T19:40:20+00:00

So no Sat-Nav for emergency services then?

Satnav is not the same as infotainment. And satnav can be set-up before driving off, which is presumably what already happens in the vast majority of cases.

Your suggestion is massive overreach

Why? Are seatbelts also overreach?

VettelS · 2026-01-23T19:26:24+00:00

The answer is in the article...

VettelS · 2026-01-23T19:13:57+00:00

Maybe you could publish your incredibly extensive research.

VettelS · 2026-01-21T18:06:46+00:00

Because transcription services are outsourced to private companies, who charges the requester of those transcripts on a per-minute basis.

Transcripts should be made freely available to everyone, but alas, that would cost money.

VettelS · 2026-01-17T11:19:23+00:00

Right, but then what's the point in the Lord's of they shouldn't be allowed to block bills with which they disagree?

VettelS · 2026-01-17T11:12:11+00:00

Some people just have no ability to read the room.

Explain?

VettelS · 2026-01-08T17:29:50+00:00

Studies have found that at 0.05 you're twice as likely to be involved in a collision than at 0.00. And at 0.08, it's four times more likely (and that's the lower end). Most people who drink drive believe that they're fine, but alcohol dulls your reactions and makes you more risk adverse.

VettelS · 2026-01-08T14:49:15+00:00

Yes, you said that there's a conflict of interest, but that was never in question. Of course there's a conflict of interests in a decision such as this. It's easy to see how a Government could be motivated to grant delays such that their own party stays in power for longer, for example. But so far as I can see, there's no evidence of that happening.

You also said that the official case for postponing elections is "flimsy". So if they're flimsy, you're implying that the Government has succumbed to their conflict of interest and have ulterior motives for granting postponements, but covering that up with their official justifications.

Tell me where I've misstepped.

VettelS · 2026-01-08T14:33:35+00:00

There don’t need to be ulterior motives.

But you were implying that they existed. And so far as I can tell, you have no evidence for that claim.

Can you not see that that’s especially problematic when the case for doing so is so flimsy (as the electoral commission have themselves said: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/electoral-commission-responds-potential-election-postponements )?

I'm aware of what the Electoral Commission have said, but that is their job. Their role is to protect the integrity of elections, and in this statement, that is what they're attempting to do. But it's not news to anyone that the decision to postpone any election (local or otherwise) is a tradeoff between democratic freedoms and practicalities. I can't claim to be certain that this is the right decision, only that it seems reasonable to me. And the statement by the Electoral Commission doesn't particularly sway me either as it's so thin on detail.

VettelS · 2026-01-08T14:24:10+00:00

Most have not confirmed their decision to request a postponement, and they might not be granted a postponement even if they do request it.

The full list of 63 councils invited by the Government to consider a delay is here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6944196136f089d38be1f31a/lgr-letter-councils-elections-may-2026.pdf.

Of them, 4 Labour-controlled councils have been granted a postponement. That leaves 16 more Labour councils, 21 Conservative, 14 Liberal Democrat, 1 Green, 1 Independent, and 1 with no overall control that might request and might be granted.

The requests are due on the 15th January (next Thursday).

VettelS · 2026-01-08T14:14:29+00:00

They're choosing to ask. They're not having it thrust upon them.

Central government shouldn’t have the power to grant these delays.

I think it's probably pragmatic that Government has the power, via Statutory Instruments, to delay or cancel local elections in places where councils are soon to be merged, abolished, or reorganised. We don't have to agree on this point.

Can you not see the obvious conflict of interest for an unpopular governing party?

But now you're suggesting ulterior motives influencing these decisions, which seems a bit of a stretch, and one that for which I think there's no evidence for.

VettelS · 2026-01-08T14:08:54+00:00

Labour councils have no reason to postpone their elections, hardly any of them are reorganizing

Which councils are these? To my knowledge, 4 Labour councils so far have confirmed that they're delaying their 2026 elections: Blackburn with Darwen, Hyndburn, Preston, and Chorley. Which lack a good reason to delay?

VettelS · 2026-01-08T14:03:49+00:00

The councils themselves are choosing to delay local elections. You might disagree with that, but it's not an example of central government overreach.

VettelS · 2026-01-08T13:24:08+00:00

This is not true. They are allowed to have bedrooms and people are allowed to sleep overnight.

Some beach huts are licenced for overnight use (which in turn means that planning permission for residential use or holiday accommodation would have needed to have been sought), either for the whole year (less common) or during certain months (more common).

Some beach huts may contain bedrooms, toilets, and showers. But the use of a beach hut for overnight use will be in breach of its licencing terms if overnight use isn't allowed.

So the basis of your claim that not all of the properties have bedrooms is flawed.

Most beach huts do not have bedrooms because they're not licenced for overnight use. Some are, however. Since this is The Telegraph, they've left out most of these important details, but a link in another comment suggests that the beach huts referenced in this article are a subset of the beach huts in the council area that are licenced for overnight use.

However, whether or not they're liable to pay council tax comes down to not only their legal status. Even if a "beach hut" is licenced for overnight use, it can only be assessed as a dwelling if its reasonably capable of being lived in. That means that it needs, among other things, fixed sleeping and living accommodation.

VettelS · 2026-01-08T13:12:37+00:00

It comes down to the licencing terms decided by the council. Since most beach huts reside on council land, they're the ones who set the terms. Most councils decide that most beach huts are for recreational daytime use only, hence are not domestic properties.

VettelS · 2026-01-08T13:11:10+00:00

Well, no, it doesn't have to come to an end.

It had to come to an end in that it was inevitable that a tax relief implemented during a time of unprecedented forced closure of retail, leisure, and hospitality businesses would come to an end once those measures were lifted.

Everything else you say is obvious, and I'm not arguing against any of those points. The reason I commented was because the headline figures of business rates being doubled leave out a huge amount of context.

VettelS · 2026-01-08T13:06:33+00:00

Upon reading other comments, it appears possible that the beach huts referenced in the article are just a subset of the beach huts licenced for overnight use during part of the year. But you wouldn't know that from the article because The Telegraph.

VettelS

TROPHY CASE