BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[Stevo 666]

I don't think a drop from 30 mph to 20 causes much hardship. It takes a bit of getting used to when it changes but I haven't noticed it massively cause congestion problems. It just means being more aware with your driving, which a lot of people can't be arsed to do.

I invested in safety technology which has kept my license clean since I started driving and my no claims maxed out since I got enough years of driving under my belt. Worked very effectively before 20 limits came along as well.


View: https://youtu.be/HG6oWXmPW6g?si=qhhJrPQ5_g1o28E6

 

[Stevo 666]

I think most Remain voters do grasp the argument around freedom to make decisions (let's call it 'soverignty') for arguments sake. The issue with this is that when you look at it in practice, that argument IMO isn't really that robust.

Firstly, we have always had sovereignty in many aspects, the UK has its own laws which govern us as citizens and are not open to external influence/interference. The idea that we were massively exposed to EU laws and 'interference' was (again IMO) pretty largely exaggerated.

If you are talking about areas such as trade, then this is always an area that is going to be about quid pro quo, all trade is relational and involves compromise. Leaving the EU did admittedly give us more freedom to make trade deals but it still leaves us exposed to other countries imposing rules and governance on us in relation to trading with them. I don't think it is worth making the argument that we can just choose not to make a deal in that case, as that is hardly a problem solver.

If we talk about the big issue, immigration, I would also argue that we have less freedom to make decisions of any consequence than we had within the EU. As has been previously discussed on these threads, one of the main concerns for Brexit voters was migrant boat crossings. The argument with leaving the EU was that we would have more power to stop this, or deal with the issue. As this essentially means trying to return people to the country where they left prior to crossing (usually France), your ability to do this requires an agreement with that country. As we are no longer part of the EU, having such an agreement with the French is pretty much impossible. I would again argue, that this somewhat diminishes our ability to make decisions and in this particularly instance, EU 'bureaucracy' is actually a benefit.

The Brexit argument is often that remainers don't "get it". Many do, we just don't believe that leaving the EU was some panacea that delivered some vague notion of sovereignty back to the British people, largely because all Democratic countries will always be a mix of existing 'sovereign' aspects and will also have to engage in co-operation with other countries that require give and take to get a good outcome.

Bottom line on the sovereignty point is that laws made specifically to suit the UK will always be better suited to the UK than laws designed to take unto account 27/28 different countries with lots of different priorities. Sure there were a lot of laws that were specifically national competencies when we were an EU member but there were also a lot that were not. And the EU is gradually centralisimg more more more of these powers - that is what it does. I don't want that, same as plenty of other people judging by the referendum result.

On the immigration point, you're right that we gave up the ability to return illegals to France, but as is pointed out on here, the numbers of illegals are a lot less than the number of legal migrants from the EU, who we had no choice but to accept when in the EU. Sure, we need to deal with immigration better now but we have the choice.

In any event, regardless of the above we are out and there is no reasonable prospect of rejoining. Probably for the best given the EU seems determined to tax and regulate itself into relative economic irrelevance. Below is a graph showing EU GDP as a percentage of global GDP. Put bluntly, who wants to hang around with losers?

 

[Stevo 666]

I set it myself for that reason. Head up displays should arguably be a mandated safety measure.

That said, focusing solely on speed does have its drawbacks


View: https://youtu.be/ZwEGlzGms4o?si=kUEAY5GaXsloVU0F

 

[Dorset Boy]

Bottom line on the sovereignty point is that laws made specifically to suit the UK will always be better suited to the UK than laws designed to take unto account 27/28 different countries with lots of different priorities. Sure there were a lot of laws that were specifically national competencies when we were an EU member but there were also a lot that were not. And the EU is gradually centralisimg more more more of these powers - that is what it does. I don't want that, same as plenty of other people judging by the referendum result.

On the immigration point, you're right that we gave up the ability to return illegals to France, but as is pointed out on here, the numbers of illegals are a lot less than the number of legal migrants from the EU, who we had no choice but to accept when in the EU. Sure, we need to deal with immigration better now but we have the choice.

In any event, regardless of the above we are out and there is no reasonable prospect of rejoining. Probably for the best given the EU seems determined to tax and regulate itself into relative economic irrelevance. Below is a graph showing EU GDP as a percentage of global GDP. Put bluntly, who wants to hang around with losers?

View attachment 8403

Given that Western Europe and the US have been the two wealthiest regions on the planet for 70 odd years, as the GDP of developing nations increases, you would expect the share of Europe's GDP relative to the world to decrease.
Do you have a graph to show GDP growth in the EU over the same period.?

 

[icowden]

I see that as another drawback of EVs.

Should I act surprised?

 

[Stevo 666]

Given that Western Europe and the US have been the two wealthiest regions on the planet for 70 odd years, as the GDP of developing nations increases, you would expect the share of Europe's GDP relative to the world to decrease.
Do you have a graph to show GDP growth in the EU over the same period.?

I'm sure there are plenty available if you want to make a counter point.

What I'm showing above is that the EU is not keeping pace with the rest of the world. The US is not a developing nation and that has outpaced Europe in growth terms over time as well.

 

[Stevo 666]

Should I act surprised?

No, but it doesn't change my point.

 

[icowden]

No, but it doesn't change my point.

Not sure what your point was. It seems to be that eyesight is brilliant even though it takes 0.12 seconds for an image to be registered and your brain take action. At 70mph that's 3.75 metres of distance between you seeing something and being able to react to it. That's why things like emergency braking can reduce collisions.

Then you have to factor that eyes, like the rest of your body, get tired. After driving for a couple of hours, you have fatigue - your reaction times slow. Computers don't.

Another factor is that your eyes have a blind spot. Cameras and radar have no such blind spots.

Etc etc.

 

[Pblakeney]

Cameras and radar have no such blind spots.

Not entirely true. My wife hit a gate post and blamed the car for not warning her. I had to point out that there is no radar at the sides and it is the driver's responsibility in any case. I had to make that point as gently as possible. 😉

 

[icowden]

Not entirely true. My wife hit a gate post and blamed the car for not warning her. I had to point out that there is no radar at the sides and it is the driver's responsibility in any case. I had to make that point as gently as possible. 😉

Your argument seems to be there that not having radar means radar has blind spots?

 

[First Aspect]

Not entirely true. My wife hit a gate post and blamed the car for not warning her. I had to point out that there is no radar at the sides and it is the driver's responsibility in any case. I had to make that point as gently as possible. 😉

How is single life treating you?

 

[Pblakeney]

Your argument seems to be there that not having radar means radar has blind spots?

No. Quite simply that having front and rear radar means that there are blind spots at the sides.

 

[Pblakeney]

How is single life treating you?

Zen. It's just a car.
Still married as a result.

 

[icowden]

No. Quite simply that having front and rear radar means that there are blind spots at the sides.

But there are only blind spots because the manufacturer has chosen to have them. They could easily solve that if they wanted. It isn't a radar blind spot as far as radar devices are concerned. It's a choice not to have 360 degree radar.

 

[Pblakeney]

But there are only blind spots because the manufacturer has chosen to have them. They could easily solve that if they wanted. It isn't a radar blind spot as far as radar devices are concerned. It's a choice not to have 360 degree radar.

But car manufacturers haven't so in the application as regards cars, I'm right and you're wrong. 😂😉