Monday, 16 February 2015

Bikes use more road space than cars when moving...


Got into tweet exchange with some loony^H^H^H^H^H misguided cyclists over insurance, licencing etc... Got to the usual 'bikes take less space so cause less congestion bit with the usual image...

However this image has always annoyed me as it shows *parked* vehicles, not moving ones. If you are designing a car park, fine, but for road planning it it nonsensical.

So the figures... (from first reliableish looking google search result in each case).

An urban cyclist rides at 10mph, a bike is approximately 6' long, and needs about 13' to brake from 10mph (thinking distance assumed to be the same car/bike so ignored) - and minimum recommended cycle path width is 5' (1.5m) - so at 10mph a bike (carrying a single person) uses 5' by 19' of road space. About 1.5m by 6m

A small car is about 5' wide and 13' long, at 10mph it needs 4' of breaking distance (thinking distance ignored again as same as for bike, so cancel out). So at 10mph a small car (regardless 1-4 occupants and luggage) uses 5' by 17' of road space. About 1.5m by 5m.

So to travel safely a bike uses over 1sqM of road more than a car (whether the car is carrying 1 or 4 people!).

In addition a car can reliably and consistently go at a particular speed - right up to the speed limit (or other safe speed) so meaning no passing is required. Whereas a bikes speed depends on the fitness/strength/recovery of the cyclist - so closing up/passing may be frequently needed - causing confusion, stress and conflict.

And if a cars are travelling faster, then they are (of course) using the space they occupy for less time... So at 10mph a bike and solo driver may be on par, but in most other circumstance, the car uses less road space than a bike - a quarter with 4 passengers, and half for each additional 10mph of speed.

So there you go - bikes need smaller parking areas, but use generally use more road space to get you there later and unfit to do anything once you arrive!

**Edit** to put some linkable data in - the highway code breaking distances starts at 20mph, but going with that... And giving the bike figure the benefit of the doubt that it does include thinking distance.

Highway Code (UK government body): The breaking distance for a car at 20mph is 12m/40'
The CycleScheme (a pro-cycling group): The breaking distance for a bike at 20mhp is 18m/60'

(Notwithstanding the fact cars have anti-lock breaks, are regularly MOT tested and are driven by trained/licensed drivers who are required to be alert/sober etc.Whereas a bike has what ever brakes it happens to have, in whatever condition they happen to be in and may be ridden by absolutely anyone).

Saturday, 10 January 2015

A series of tweets on Islam.

@pperrin: OK, got it: 'What is a Muslim': A Muslim is someone who endeavours to love Mohammed more than their parents, themselves, than life itself.

@pperrin: Having established what a Muslim is, the question is whether trying to love Mohammed more than anything is either sensible or desirable.

@pperrin: A good proof of loving something more than life itself is to die for that thing... #Islam

@pperrin: A good proof of loving something more than anything is to do he worst possible thing in the name of that thing... #Islam

@pperrin: A good proof of loving something more than anything is to die having shown that you value nothing but that thing... #Islam

@pperrin: Loving something more than everything else is tantamount to not loving anything else - not even liking it - hating everything else. #islam

@pperrin: Loving a single thing above anything else and wanting to demonstrate it seems to lead directly to total evil in all but that thing. #islam

@pperrin: Christ taught that you should love everyone. Mohammed taught that all your love should be for him. #islam #christianity

@pperrin: Xtians tend to show love of love christ by loving everyone. Islamists often seem to show their love of Mohamed by killing everyone else.

@pperrin: What Jihadists do is 100% sensible and rational within the islamic 'primary directive' of showing they love mohammed above everything else.

@pperrin: So at best a Muslim will love Mohammed and be benign, at worst the will show they love Mohammed by destroying everything else. No upside(!)

@pperrin: I think that concludes my Islamic Scholarship until/unless significant new information arrives. Shudder. #islam

Wednesday, 7 January 2015

Extra long tweet...


I wanted to say 'mate', but I don't want to risk being seen as patronising. I only know you from your tweets - one day one must have crossed my time line and whatever it contained, I decided to follow your tweets. I miss loads of tweets on my timeline, but still see some of yours, see conversations you are in - I retweet some of your tweets (to the 2000+ glorious loons who follow me for some reason!), I reply to some of your tweets.

I have no 'expectations' or 'demands' of anyone on twitter - you are just a tweeter I follow (I really try to follow as few as possible, so I can do them all justice!). Just from your tweets I thought you had a worthwhile cause, and I might be able to be a tiny bit of help, I don't really know you, or what you have been through, or how it has affected you - but (on blind faith) thought your message was worth supporting so tried to help spread it.

No doubt my retweets of your tweets have been retweeted - and other people have retweeted your tweets in the same way... but with out your original tweets none of that would exist.

I do loads of different stuff on twitter - much of it changes all the time - but if you hadn't tweeted on this CSA stuff, I probably wouldn't have tweeted much on it at all - and loads of other tweeters and retweeters would have missed it too.

I don't really know you - but as one bloke to another - I do believe in you, that you are making a difference, that you do matter.

Happy new year (mate)!

Wednesday, 31 December 2014

The means or production is now freely available, but now state regulation enslaves us instead.

Production generally requires three intrinsic, physical things 1) Labour(/Skills) and 2) Tools(/Machinery) 3) Raw Material.

To liberate the plebs from slavery Marx banged on about who owned 'the means of production', meaning tools/machinery - but this was at a time when machinery was expensive, exotic and rare.

Nowadays, if you have a viable commercial proposition you can raise the capital to buy the 'means of production' the tools/machines will probably be available off the shelf for next dey delivery... and if not a subcontractor with the equipment will be only too happy to enter into a contract to supply you.

No, the game has changed, what limits plebs is not the machinery, nor the skill and almost certainly not the raw material. What really keeps the plebs enslaved now is *state regulation*.

You can setup your machines and use your labour/skill to process raw material - simple, no private individual can stop you. But will the state allow you to? Are there patent/licencing/tax/duty/inspection/registration requirements that the state will use to stop you? Can you afford the arbitrary taxes the state imposes on you for seeking financial independence? Are you prepared for the state taxes/duty on the energy you use, the state taxes/NI on the price of the labour you use, the states enforcement of artificial 'intelectual property rights', the states restrictions/regulations on you advertising, storing, transporting and selling what you produce?

'Capitalism in a free market' worked - it brought equality to all men in so far as money doesn't care who owns it. If you can 'create' then you can convert you creativity/creations into money that is the same as the money used by everyone else.

However the game has changed - people who oppose such equality, who want an 'unfair advantage' that ensures they stay on top have twisted the playing field so the rules don't do what they are supposed to. And the tool they use to tilt the pitch is state regulation - they create arbitrary, illogical new rules to stifle the equality capitalism produces. Whether it is taxes, licences, regulation, monopoly or laws, the markets are not free they are perverted to ensure the rules designed for free markets (the rules of capitalism) now deliver the plebs, just as enslaved, to the children of the same rich, powerful masters who enslaved their forefathers.

We are no longer enslaved by lack of control over machinery, we are enslaved by lack of control over our political masters.

Thursday, 20 November 2014

What is the Tragedy of the Commons? Authoritarian Propaganda.

The Tragedy of the Commons is mostly known as an economic theory regarding the over exploitation of common land leading to the destruction of its value - often presented as English peasants overgrazing the commons so leading to the loss of the entire grazing resource.

However this is not the most important lesson to be drawn from 'The Tragedy of the Commons'. The truth is that the English commons were not over-grazed to destruction - they were working just fine - but with the dissolution of the monistaries under Henry VIII the Commons that had been stewarded by the  People and Church were seized by the state/King and divided up among his supporters who went on to fence in the land, forming enclosures and banning the Commoners from using this usurped resource.

After the Commons has been appropriated in this way, the new 'land owners' did, indeed, over-graze them to the extent that commoners were excluded from using them and often starved. The land owners had also shifted their 'production' from corn to sheep, fleeces and mutton being more profitable than corn - but beyond the budget of the commoners - also contributing to the poverty and starvation of the masses. And later with the 'Corn Laws' (artificially forcing up the prices) leading to starvation among English plebs at the same time that the Irish plebs were starving from the potato famine.

The 'Tragedy of the Commons' has joined that body of 'fictional works' which often gets quoted as fact (Lord of the Flies is another example) when it is just a superficially plausible sounding story.

The real Tragedy here is that this fake, retrospective justification for the seizing of the commons from the commoners, leading to their poverty and starvation is accepted as truth, when it is just a revisionist fairy tale used to (falsely) justify the theft of the land of England from the English people to whom it truly belonga - in common.

We need to take it back - it is ours, it always has been and always will be.

Monday, 17 November 2014

An MP who doesn't make their party/whip clear is deceiving you.

You have an MP for one official reason only - to represent you in the House of Commons - in debates, but most importantly in divisions (parliamentary votes).

This is they only thing they have unique privileges/rights to do - this is what they are paid for.

Everything else they do - charity work, community activities, etc it entirely their own business - they could do this whether or not they were an MP. They are not councillors, social workers, community activists - at least not as part of being an MP. Any such activities they do on their own account and should do on their own time at their own expense.

With this in mind - the essential right to vote in the House of Commons - the biggest influence on any non-independent MP is their party whip. The party whip works for the party leader, to force MPs to support the party/party-leader on parliamentary votes.

Any MP who does not absolutely and clearly show which whip they obey is deceiving the voter, and hiding the biggest potential conflict of interest they have chosen to accept.

It should be a legal requirement (if not already, under the trades description act) for all MP's to declare their party loyalty/whip whenever the represent themselves as an MP.

Sunday, 9 November 2014

Arguments against Referenda - debunked.

The authoritarians in liberal clothing argue against referenda, but their arguments are flawed:-

1) Referendums are never about the question on the ballot - people vote one way or the other for all kinds of different reasons.

This is not an argument against referendums, it is an argument for more referendums - give people the referendums they want and they won't need to use the few they do get to 'send messages' about other issues, other issues that should have their own dedicated referendums!

2) Referendums never settle the issue - people just call call for re-runs.

Again this is not an argument against referendums, it is an argument for more referendums -  if the public mood changes over time (and why shouldn't it? we have general elections every 5 years to allow people to change their minds!), if the public mood changes over time just have another referendum! and do what the public now want to do - what is the problem with that?

3) Referendums are too expensive.

Democracy is expensive, war is expensive etc... but its the price of our 'system'.

But with more varied and more frequent referendums, there is every opportunity to establish infrastructure to make referendums much, much cheaper than they currently are.


Referendums are the first step to direct democracy and liquid democracy - they are a step that we must take.

Now which party support binding, public triggered, referendums? Oh thats UKIP.