In the news

Yep.

Stevenson's troll surely is clickbait. If it is an attempt at Swiftian satire it falls flat. He fails to follow his own logic to its repugnant conclusion. I felt he needed help along that way, for the Publick good.

As a graduate of humanities, for me anything that provokes discourse is worthwhile.

Trolling, clickbaiting, challenging, whatever that article is it raises - with actual reference to source material (laws, articles) - questions on the position of a cyclist. It may have an impact on a minimum of one person, but people are not as a whole selfless or politically correct nor are they inherently good or bad.

The reality is, if only to play devil's advocate, we should be free to openly discuss the 'wrong' side of an argument. If you are too busy shutting it down as bad or wrong, you're missing an opportunity to understand why anyone else may think of it as right.

But journalists are all evil lying grief-exploiting click bait merchants - that's why we spend so much time ignoring their output on this thread. This idea that there are multiple opinions and that discovering truth is a gradual imperfect process is just 'centrist' ideology.

I have sympathy with that point of view. The difficulty is that while a few people will engage with an open mind, there are many - seemingly greater in number - that will not. And those people will find their opinions cemented ever more firmly into prejudices by trolling, clickbait, etc. Consider the referendum: did all the people that voted leave really take the time and effort to understand the ultimate implications of their vote, or might many (perhaps even a majority) of them have allowed themselves to be led by provocative opinion pieces? And while a few well-intentioned and open-minded people seek to talk through the issues, many more will simply get on with pursuing their agenda regardless. And they will probably succeed.

you really are determined to die on this hill, aren't you?

glws

In road.cc John Stevenson trolled:

Someone posting an opinion you disagree with is hardly trolling, and certainly not in the context of the rest of those comments.

You deliberatley miss the point of the article too, it seems, to make your own point.

A point which is not mutually exclusive to the article in any case, making me wonder why you state it in the manner in which you did.

Unless you're trolling, of course.

Without phrasing it in the tongue-in-cheek way I did previously, there's an interesting question about why the discourse has become so dominated by ad hominem attacks to the extent that discussion of the ideas is drowned out. Journalists and politicians are lightning rods for this, but it feels a lot more pervasive than that.

Get a bottle of cheap champagne, tell him you've won the lottery, then ask him if he's seen the news.

Police appear to have open and shut the case in record time.

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/camden-road-cyclist-death-cops-de-arrest-van-driver-meaning-no-charges-will-be-pressed-1-5169368

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-floods-bangladesh-nepal-deaths-millions-homeless-latest-news-updates-a7919006.html%3famp

New TV show, Man vs Earth.

**Spoiler alert**

We are losing that contest. rapidly.

Edit. bad speelings

Quite the reverse:

https://goo.gl/images/rBHhvT

Do you have source for this? Am skeptical but happy to be corrected.

In fairness this was a slightly Fisherprice statement made to keep a long post short. It is really about the different ways our eyes and brains create images in various situations.

That Fighter Pilot’s Guide to Surviving on the Roads gives a better explanation, and this post + comment on reddit explains the idea of how that number is arrived at.

yay. so when the seas rise theres lots more of us drowning in one go.

.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4kjLEQLiRE

I'm not sure it is as clear as that. The driver was 'later interviewed under caution at a north London police station'. If the police don't have any concerns about identity, flight risk or continued offending they shouldn't arrest until they are ready to charge. Or at least that is my understanding.

They are appealing for witnesses - http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/metpoliceuk/news/appeal-following-fatal-collision-holloway-257231

Screengrab for the lazy

1 Attachment

From the failing fake news Gruaniad:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/01/law.emmabrockes

According to section 30, subsection (7) and (7A) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to "de-arrest" is to allow that "a person who has been arrested under any act of law at a place other than a police station, shall be released before reaching a police station if a constable is satisfied that there are no grounds for keeping him under arrest". Unlike being released with no further action, being de-arrested means that the record of the initial arrest is removed.

What isn't spelled out is that de-arresting someone does not preclude them from being rearrested moments later for something else.

I don't think this is serious, is it? I hope it isn't serious.

Young Tories turn out to be cunts
https://order-order.com/2017/08/30/young-tories-joke-about-gassing-chavs-in-activate-whatsapp-group/

Not quite as scary as it seems at first glance. If you're on a collision course with something 5 meters away from you, you're going to be taking some sort of evasive action whether you can accurately judge its speed or not. I think the real danger in urban environments is people "looking but not seeing" where they turn their head and saccade over big chunks of their view without realising. I believe that has more to do with the speed they turn their head than anything else.

Yup. Huge quantities of variables beyond mere speed of sight.