aracer

You need to check your source - that's the total number killed and seriously injured, the vast majority of which involve motor vehicles (and the vast majority of which are the fault of the driver). What point were you trying to make. I'd guess there are at least 4 times as many cyclists in the Netherlands - what point are you trying to make?

Thank you for perfectly helping me make the point. So despite the death rate of 1000 per 1000 elephants you agree it's not an area we should be addressing. Maybe it's the absolute figures which show where the problem we should be addressing is? Though as I keep pointing out, you also have to compare properly like with like. I'm assuming you weren't walking in the road, so you've not actually had any cars or cyclists pass you in the road (and if you did you'd quickly come to the conclusion it's not cyclists which are the problem). So the issue is actually cyclists passing you on the pavement. Dare I ask how many cars have passed you on the pavement? It might not be your personal experience as you're here to tell the tale, but in both absolute and relative terms the death rate due to vehicles on the pavement is much higher for cars than bicycles. Oh and personally I've ended up in hospital twice due to the actions of drivers, never due to a cyclist if personal anecdotes are important.

Speeding? As already pointed out above, the issues (apart from that) might be same but that still doesn't make it a symmetric situation. The point you seem to be missing is that such a comment is simply expressing that drivers do break the rules just as much as cyclists (in response to those who suggest it's just cyclists), but the consequences of them doing so are far worse. We could just do a for example here - provide me with an example of a cyclist killing somebody whilst using their phone, provide me with an example of a cyclist killing somebody whilst speeding Sorry! I do hope that if specific points are addressed it might actually make people think a bit more - for all its faults and grumpy old men, this forum is more civilized than some parts of the internet where I wouldn't bother.

Because fundamentally the vast majority of problems on the roads are caused by drivers (certainly the vast majority of deaths and injuries). Hence solving both problems simultaneously will lead to less resources being addressed where they will make a real difference (I'm assuming you're not suggesting "simultaneously" means 300 times the resource on tackling car issues). The latter points are irrelevant to this - if we want to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the road, I'm guessing you wouldn't think it sensible to address lots of resource on tackling deaths by elephant even if the stats show that in the last 100 years there has been one elephant travelling one mile along the road and it's killed one person therefore making elephants the leading cause of death on the roads per mile travelled? Though if you're just interested in numbers on the road then my understanding is that there are more bicycles than cars.

You're going to have to give me an example of a way in which a cyclist endangers somebody sat in a steel box rather than just the vague last bit. Because I certainly can't think of it ever happening to me whilst driving, whereas as a cyclist I am endangered by drivers almost every time I go for a ride (it's not usually deliberate, but I can think of numerous examples where it has been), Cyclists being deemed to be in the right (which isn't true anyway) certainly isn't it. Go on, if you're going to make statements like that an example please...

I'm not suggesting Calor pricing isn't dodgy, but clearly gas burnt off on an oil rig doesn't have to be bottled and transported. The cost of a product isn't always the obvious one (I work with software where it costs almost nothing to produce each copy of the product...) You're right about one thing though - we still need a new PM

I'm not sure you understand the concept of opinions - you're entitled to one, but that doesn't make it valid. For example you might have the opinion that pump out is superior to cassette and that would clearly be wrong. Do you really not understand that in the context of a queue of boats waiting to use a lock, the use of a lock is only efficient if it is filling, emptying, gates being opened or closed or a boat driving in or out. The lock sitting there for 3 minutes with the gates open isn't efficient (and wastes 3 minutes of the time of everybody who subsequently has to wait to use the lock, even if that is hours later with the lock in continuous use in between).

I'm guessing you've never experienced somebody deliberately endangering you when riding a bike? I find it difficult to see the humour in such comments (in a country where I've seen plenty of genuine threats to cyclists in online comments)

Try it on me it will bring you to a court.

Well if we're doing threats by proxy, how big is your wife and how nimble?

What work? The work to bring your boat up and let it out of the lock? I don't see any other work the crew has done - I don't suppose they've even done the normal full complement of work required to use a lock. As for the latter, I'd be more than happy to share words with somebody who thought I should wait several minutes to use a lock which isn't currently in use. As already expressed on this thread, the instant your boat has left the lock it's no longer your lock no matter what your intentions are or where your crew are. Meanwhile you seem to think it perfectly reasonable to obstruct the passage of other boats for your own convenience. There's a word for that sort of attitude. edit: though I note we're talking a GU lock, in which case if I was the only boat waiting to go up and assuming you have a NB I would of course wait for you to turn and come back in, because not to wait would be... hmm, let me think of an appropriate word... selfish

Your opinion is wrong, because it doesn't make more sense at all in terms of efficient use of the lock. Moorings on one side and visitor moorings on the other side of the obvious place to pass immediately below the lock? ?

I agree the cyclist made the wrong decision - which is very different from suggesting he was even 50% at fault (clearly he wasn't completely blameless though). That wasn't the question though - I was referring to your suggestion that she was part of a group crossing which certainly isn't the information I've seen (I've checked multiple sources). Also I'm curious what exactly you mean by "no vehicles" and what you think the significance of that is? "push through" seems a bit of a distortion from the available information - he was riding into what was a clear bit of road until a single pedestrian entered it - again we have the car/bicycle dichotomy, there would seem nothing wrong with a car driving through with less clearance on either side than he had.

I did kind of think that, but then the timing of my boat coming out of the water seemed to give me a good timescale to come up with a new name and focus the mind. Shan't be bothering with any other superstitions!

Where are you getting that understanding from? The available information is that she stepped out on her own (there were other people on the crossing at the time, but they were in the process of stepping back onto the pavement on the other side of the crossing). Clearly there was a moving vehicle...

So it makes more sense for everyone in the queue to wait another 3 minutes with the lock doing nothing than for another boat to go straight into the lock you've just left and start using it whilst you turn? You get yourself out of the way a lot more quickly by moving to the side to let another boat use the lock.

Your call

Will It? As part of the process of changing the name of mine I've removed the layer of paint the current name was on to find what I'm fairly sure is original paintwork underneath - which leads me to think that most of the paint is original. The boat is 30 years old. Only if you have the wrong sort of toilet ? Honestly suggested maintenance costs of £5k a year still seems as ridiculously OTT as it did when I bought the boat a year ago. I DIY the fairly minimal engine maintenance and will be DIYing the blacking this week - but even having those done professionally I struggle to see how you get to that (yes I have insurance, licence, BSS, gas, electric to pay, but those aren't maintenance and even if they were it still wouldn't make the costs that high)

I'm disappointed to find that the new name for my boat isn't as unique as I'd hoped. She is going into dry dock tomorrow so the plan is to rename some time this week. I'm wondering what people do in terms of signwriting the new name - I'm removing the old name before the renaming, but presumably there's no rush to get the new name written on the bote? Interestingly, having removed the old name and a layer of paint on one side I've found the original signwriting underneath.

Despite being full length I don't have any problem fitting into such git gaps

Personally I'd have lowered the top paddles. What was the vlockie going to do, fight you (and if there were two of you he couldn't be both sides at once)?

It's irrelevant with car hire as there is a legal requirement to have 3rd party insurance (don't get confused by the waivers to avoid having to pay for damage to the hire vehicle, they won't let you drive away without the appropriate 3rd party insurance). Though I'm sure if push came to shove there would be a similar principle of joint liability. Though it occurs to me that there is a similar requirement for narrowboats - it may not be a legal requirement, but it it a condition of the licence that you have 3rd party insurance. Which makes me wonder whether it's really the case that hire boats are completely uninsured when travelling at night, because that would surely break the licence conditions (which would be a matter for the company, not the hirers). I suspect it's not quite that simple and that 3rd party cover is still effectively in place - it's simply that the insurance company can claim costs back from the hirers. There is a similar situation regarding motor vehicles where in some circumstances the insurance company will pay out a claim and then charge the policy holder.

I should think you just claim direct from the hire company in that case, they would share liability and it would be much simpler. Not that there would be any problem obtaining details when there is a clear liability, GDPR doesn't prevent that.

It takes all sorts. On my most recent before dawn start I got to the Bratch just before they officially opened - which I understood meant I had to work the locks myself. I had been warned about the lock keeper there not approving of boats going through outside official opening hours and going the other way I'd been there just after dawn when there was nobody about to complain. However I got some very friendly help going down (though I got the feeling that the boater waiting to go up was a bit disgruntled that I'd gone through before official opening hours!) It does make things a lot easier if there's an insurance company to claim from - though in the case of a hire boat I'm sure any reputable hire company would sort things out.