The "issues" left many Blackberry owners only able to text and make calls.Er, and the problem is ... ?
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
Latest Blackberry Out(r)age
From the BBC:
Monday, 10 October 2011
A referendum we actually want
Courtesy of the Moose, here's a poll from the Lancashire Telegraph:
You can vote here (link no longer active).
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am probably the least violent person on the planet. I rarely lose my temper, and when I do my anger is far more likely to be directed against myself than anyone else. But I cannot see why people should not be able to defend their own property in any way they see fit. Once you have broken into my house, you have crossed a line. You have already broken a law, and if you do that, you lose the right to claim the law in your favour when things go wrong for you. You either obey the law, or you don't. Cross over into my territory uninvited, and the laws are mine.
I think the current laws on defence of property have it about right, actually. You are allowed to use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself and your property. If you wake up to find an intruder in your bedroom, the law accepts that you will be very frightened and may not act with the degree of proportion you may exercise in the cold light of day. The law would not allow you to blast a shotgun at someone taking a pee inside your garden gate at closing time, and rightly too. But if you did the same to someone who was on your upstairs landing and heading towards your children's bedroom, the law would look much more leniently on your actions. What I think goes wrong is in the way these laws are interpreted by the Police and the Courts. Often, we have seen law-abiding householders arrested and put through the mill simply for defending what is their own. It's not right, but that's a matter of the interpretation of the law, not the law itself. In every case where a householder was convicted that I have read about, there has been a significant element of revenge and punishment, or lack of due care, in the retribution exacted by the householder. Tony Martin, for example, shot a young man in the dark without knowing who he was or why he was there. Munir Hussain followed the intruder down the street and with the help of a number of relatives subjected him to a ferocious attack which left him brain-damaged. You might feel very sympathetic to those convicted, and say the intruders got what was coming to them, but both cases are difficult and complex. It is always foolish to make cast-iron judgements from cases like these. These are, if you like, on the edge of what is reasonable and what is not, and no-one will ever agree on the rights and wrongs. But, put simply, if you are in fear of your life or your property, the law allows you to take reasonable steps (and even, in extreme cases, unreasonable ones) to defend yourself and your stuff.
The best advice I have had on the subject came from a serving Police officer:
This right of attack on intruders can't be absolute. I have heard of cases from the US where someone has knocked on the door of a house to ask to use the phone after a car breakdown and been shot on sight. That's not right. But neither is rolling over and according 'rights' to people who by their deliberate actions have demonstrated that they don't care a scrap for yours.
The right to live without harm from others, and the right to keep the things you have worked hard for, are probably the most basic rights we have. We need to make this completely clear to those who govern, who enforce and who judge.
Thanks, Bucko.
You can vote here (link no longer active).
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am probably the least violent person on the planet. I rarely lose my temper, and when I do my anger is far more likely to be directed against myself than anyone else. But I cannot see why people should not be able to defend their own property in any way they see fit. Once you have broken into my house, you have crossed a line. You have already broken a law, and if you do that, you lose the right to claim the law in your favour when things go wrong for you. You either obey the law, or you don't. Cross over into my territory uninvited, and the laws are mine.
I think the current laws on defence of property have it about right, actually. You are allowed to use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself and your property. If you wake up to find an intruder in your bedroom, the law accepts that you will be very frightened and may not act with the degree of proportion you may exercise in the cold light of day. The law would not allow you to blast a shotgun at someone taking a pee inside your garden gate at closing time, and rightly too. But if you did the same to someone who was on your upstairs landing and heading towards your children's bedroom, the law would look much more leniently on your actions. What I think goes wrong is in the way these laws are interpreted by the Police and the Courts. Often, we have seen law-abiding householders arrested and put through the mill simply for defending what is their own. It's not right, but that's a matter of the interpretation of the law, not the law itself. In every case where a householder was convicted that I have read about, there has been a significant element of revenge and punishment, or lack of due care, in the retribution exacted by the householder. Tony Martin, for example, shot a young man in the dark without knowing who he was or why he was there. Munir Hussain followed the intruder down the street and with the help of a number of relatives subjected him to a ferocious attack which left him brain-damaged. You might feel very sympathetic to those convicted, and say the intruders got what was coming to them, but both cases are difficult and complex. It is always foolish to make cast-iron judgements from cases like these. These are, if you like, on the edge of what is reasonable and what is not, and no-one will ever agree on the rights and wrongs. But, put simply, if you are in fear of your life or your property, the law allows you to take reasonable steps (and even, in extreme cases, unreasonable ones) to defend yourself and your stuff.
The best advice I have had on the subject came from a serving Police officer:
Always sleep with something big and useful under the bed. Don't ever keep a baseball bat for things like this. Unless you are a baseball star, it will be easy for a slimy lawyer to argue premeditation. Non-players only keep baseball bats for one thing. Make it a torch (a "big, fuck-off 5-cell Maglite" was his choice of words). Hold it by the bulb end in your cupped hand, and have the length resting on your shoulder with a finger on the button. When you see the intruder, snap the light on, blind him, and then bring the blunt end down on his head with all your force. No court in the land would convict you for taking a torch to investigate a strange noise in the night.I have the 5-cell Maglite, and I would use it exactly as recommended. I am not a violent person, but if you do violence to me or the people or things I care about, I will use maximum force against you. As I am even-tempered and not used to being angry, I will probably not stop until you were no longer moving and no further threat to me. I would regret it afterwards but, as the saying goes, I would rather be judged by twelve than carried out by six.
This right of attack on intruders can't be absolute. I have heard of cases from the US where someone has knocked on the door of a house to ask to use the phone after a car breakdown and been shot on sight. That's not right. But neither is rolling over and according 'rights' to people who by their deliberate actions have demonstrated that they don't care a scrap for yours.
The right to live without harm from others, and the right to keep the things you have worked hard for, are probably the most basic rights we have. We need to make this completely clear to those who govern, who enforce and who judge.
Thanks, Bucko.
Another Season, Another IAM Poll
This time, it's winter driving. Got your shovel? Got your Thermos of tea? Got your woolly blanket? Then go for it ...
Here.
Shame there's no motorbike version. I could tell 'em a thing or two.
Sunday, 9 October 2011
Looking Like A Wasp
On my last working day, I rode to work in a downpour. I don't mind rain while I am riding; in fact, secretly, I quite like it. If you've got decent gear, then you aren't going to get wet, and all you have to do is to take things a bit more steadily than normal, put your lights on, watch out for blind car drivers peering out through misted windscreens, and enjoy the pitter-patter of tiny raindrops on your visor. I said "if you've got decent gear", and that's a big 'if'.
Riders of a similar vintage to my own will remember when 'waterproof' as applied to motorcycle clothing was an in-joke. It wasn't, they knew it, we knew it, and we did the best we could with what we had. But nowadays, with modern materials and manufacturing techniques, it is possible to make bike gear that is completely waterproof. Not only that, but the kit is breathable, too. I suppose it has always been possible to make stuff waterproof; you just had to have enough thickness of PVC and heavy welds. But this was awful to wear - heavy, clammy, stiff, and if you walked about in it you got wetter from your own sweat than you ever would have done from a bit of rain. So GoreTex and its derivatives have been a blessing to bikers, allowing the manufacture of kit that is both 100% waterproof and a pleasure to wear at the same time.
When I returned to biking four years ago after a lay-off of ten years, I was lucky. My local dealer carried a range of Richa bike gear and they had what I needed: a waterproof textile suit with a thermal lining and CE-approved armour. It was January when I bought it, and warmth was a priority. The Richa Albatross suit (no longer made) delivered the goods. It was a bit bulky and heavy, but it was as warm as toast and never let a drop of water in, despite being ridden through some Biblical storms. I wore it almost every working day and came to rely on it. But all good things must come to an end, and recently the suit has been showing its age.
It started with a damp feeling to the rear end when sitting on a wet bike seat. I never actually got wet trousers, but the clammy feeling wasn't nice. The Cordura outer had also started 'wetting out', where the nylon absorbs water rather than shedding it, which doesn't affect the waterproofing but makes the suit weight a ton after a ride in the rain, and take a week to dry. I had done the standard thing and washed the suit first in Nikwax Techwash and then in TX Direct, but it only lasted a day or two. And then, a few nights ago, I rode to work in the rain. And after five miles my left leg was soaking. Time to shoot the dog.
I could have just replaced the trousers, although Richa's strange zipping arrangements meant I would have to stick with salopettes, which I wanted to get away from. So I decided to go for a new jacket and trousers combo, this time with a small amount of high-visibility material. Not a neon banana suit, but something subtle. The dealer didn't have a lot of stock. I ended up sticking with Richa (why not?) and bought a Vision Fluoro jacket and Monsoon trousers. They are slightly lighter-weight material than the Albatross kit, and may end up being less warm as a result, but they fit well and are comfy, and that means I am more likely to wear them for normal day-rides as well as the daily commute. The tickets added up to £230, we settled on a round £200, and off I went.
I have worn them once so far, and can report that they kept a light shower out, and were fairly warm - although the weather is hardly Arctic at the moment - so it's so far so good. The commute begins again tomorrow.
Here is the jacket (the trousers are black and unremarkable) - front:
And back:
Riders of a similar vintage to my own will remember when 'waterproof' as applied to motorcycle clothing was an in-joke. It wasn't, they knew it, we knew it, and we did the best we could with what we had. But nowadays, with modern materials and manufacturing techniques, it is possible to make bike gear that is completely waterproof. Not only that, but the kit is breathable, too. I suppose it has always been possible to make stuff waterproof; you just had to have enough thickness of PVC and heavy welds. But this was awful to wear - heavy, clammy, stiff, and if you walked about in it you got wetter from your own sweat than you ever would have done from a bit of rain. So GoreTex and its derivatives have been a blessing to bikers, allowing the manufacture of kit that is both 100% waterproof and a pleasure to wear at the same time.
When I returned to biking four years ago after a lay-off of ten years, I was lucky. My local dealer carried a range of Richa bike gear and they had what I needed: a waterproof textile suit with a thermal lining and CE-approved armour. It was January when I bought it, and warmth was a priority. The Richa Albatross suit (no longer made) delivered the goods. It was a bit bulky and heavy, but it was as warm as toast and never let a drop of water in, despite being ridden through some Biblical storms. I wore it almost every working day and came to rely on it. But all good things must come to an end, and recently the suit has been showing its age.
It started with a damp feeling to the rear end when sitting on a wet bike seat. I never actually got wet trousers, but the clammy feeling wasn't nice. The Cordura outer had also started 'wetting out', where the nylon absorbs water rather than shedding it, which doesn't affect the waterproofing but makes the suit weight a ton after a ride in the rain, and take a week to dry. I had done the standard thing and washed the suit first in Nikwax Techwash and then in TX Direct, but it only lasted a day or two. And then, a few nights ago, I rode to work in the rain. And after five miles my left leg was soaking. Time to shoot the dog.
I could have just replaced the trousers, although Richa's strange zipping arrangements meant I would have to stick with salopettes, which I wanted to get away from. So I decided to go for a new jacket and trousers combo, this time with a small amount of high-visibility material. Not a neon banana suit, but something subtle. The dealer didn't have a lot of stock. I ended up sticking with Richa (why not?) and bought a Vision Fluoro jacket and Monsoon trousers. They are slightly lighter-weight material than the Albatross kit, and may end up being less warm as a result, but they fit well and are comfy, and that means I am more likely to wear them for normal day-rides as well as the daily commute. The tickets added up to £230, we settled on a round £200, and off I went.
I have worn them once so far, and can report that they kept a light shower out, and were fairly warm - although the weather is hardly Arctic at the moment - so it's so far so good. The commute begins again tomorrow.
Here is the jacket (the trousers are black and unremarkable) - front:
And back:
Saturday, 8 October 2011
Reflective Tape
Three years ago, in the winter, I had one of those dreadful 'what if?' thoughts. I wrote about it here, but the gist is that I almost had a breakdown (and on the Yamahaha that means no lights as well as no go) on a very nasty stretch of rat-run road with a lot of blind bends and high banks. It made me wonder what my chances would be against a speeding car if I were to be stranded by the side of that road with no lights on. I suspected they would be very poor, and I bought an ex-Police riding jacket on eBay the next night. I've worn it a few times, mainly on filthy nights or on long motorway journeys in poor weather, but it's too obvious and look-at-me to wear for work or with mates. I really do look like a policeman in it, and I don't feel totally comfy with that.
But the dark nights and mornings are coming (in fact, for me they have already started), and I decided to make the bike a little more visible, even if that little strand of wire gives way and I am left invisible. But I wanted to be discreet. There's nothing that shouts 'bearded safety expert with no sense of adventure' more than a bike plastered in chevrons and extra brake lights. And on eBay I found this:
It arrived quickly, beautifully packaged in a proper box, and seller cheekybloke666 deserves a thumbs-up for his service. It really is black. In fact, it looks exactly like insulating tape, only a little wider and thicker. I took my time and used a craft knife to cut it very precisely, as I didn't want the end result to look a bodge. I think I succeeded, as it's hardly noticeable - until you shine a light on it, when it lights up like a road sign.
I put a strip of it round the Yam's top box, where there is a flat band that might have been made for it, and two more infills for the hand guards, following the line of the moulding round the edge. Here's the side view ...
... and here's the front.
Discreet, I hope, but bright enough to catch the eye. In daylight, the strips really are just plain black.
I recall another incident from way back, when I was in the car and came to a country crossroads in similar weather, to find a young lad who had fallen off a moped, sprawled across the centre of the junction. The sky was black, the rain was black, the road was black, his gear was black. His white crash helmet was the only thing I saw, and I saw it in time to slam on the brakes and miss him. If he'd had a black one, I am not sure I would have noticed until I was picking his constituent parts from my front suspension.
What I think I am saying here is that, for all normal purposes, I believe firmly in defensive riding and not relying on the skill and goodwill of others to keep out of trouble. But sometimes, especially if you go down, a bit of passive high-viz may not be a bad thing. My usual helmet is grey with a white and black pattern, and I have overlaid some of the black with this tape too. It doesn't alter the pattern at all, but in a strong light it makes quite a difference. Here's what it looks like, in normal light (sorry for the blur) ...
...and by flash.
(What looks like rough edges is where I trimmed it around the air vents.)
I don't think it looks too bad. My commute is on rural roads, some fast A-roads and some small country lanes, but all of it unlit. I will feel just a tiny bit safer with this kit.
Next episode: Richard goes shopping for a new jacket and trousers.
But the dark nights and mornings are coming (in fact, for me they have already started), and I decided to make the bike a little more visible, even if that little strand of wire gives way and I am left invisible. But I wanted to be discreet. There's nothing that shouts 'bearded safety expert with no sense of adventure' more than a bike plastered in chevrons and extra brake lights. And on eBay I found this:
25mm REFLECTIVE BLACK TAPE per metre * REFLECTS WHITEHmmm. Sounds like something I could use - especially at two quid a metre. So I ordered two metres. A fiver, all in, including postage. Bargain.
REFLECTIVE BLACK STEALTH TAPE
REFLECTS WHITE! EXCELLENT FOR BLACK VEHICLES!
25MM DEEP
PRICED PER METRE. MULTIPLE PURCHASES SENT IN A CONTINUOUS LENGTH.
TOP QUALITY 5 YEAR OUTDOOR DURABLE
SELF ADHESIVE
SUITABLE FOR MOST SMOOTH CLEAN SOLID SURFACES.
CAN BE REMOVED AT A LATER DATE WITH NO DAMAGE TO SURFACE.
It arrived quickly, beautifully packaged in a proper box, and seller cheekybloke666 deserves a thumbs-up for his service. It really is black. In fact, it looks exactly like insulating tape, only a little wider and thicker. I took my time and used a craft knife to cut it very precisely, as I didn't want the end result to look a bodge. I think I succeeded, as it's hardly noticeable - until you shine a light on it, when it lights up like a road sign.
I put a strip of it round the Yam's top box, where there is a flat band that might have been made for it, and two more infills for the hand guards, following the line of the moulding round the edge. Here's the side view ...
... and here's the front.
Discreet, I hope, but bright enough to catch the eye. In daylight, the strips really are just plain black.
I recall another incident from way back, when I was in the car and came to a country crossroads in similar weather, to find a young lad who had fallen off a moped, sprawled across the centre of the junction. The sky was black, the rain was black, the road was black, his gear was black. His white crash helmet was the only thing I saw, and I saw it in time to slam on the brakes and miss him. If he'd had a black one, I am not sure I would have noticed until I was picking his constituent parts from my front suspension.
What I think I am saying here is that, for all normal purposes, I believe firmly in defensive riding and not relying on the skill and goodwill of others to keep out of trouble. But sometimes, especially if you go down, a bit of passive high-viz may not be a bad thing. My usual helmet is grey with a white and black pattern, and I have overlaid some of the black with this tape too. It doesn't alter the pattern at all, but in a strong light it makes quite a difference. Here's what it looks like, in normal light (sorry for the blur) ...
...and by flash.
(What looks like rough edges is where I trimmed it around the air vents.)
I don't think it looks too bad. My commute is on rural roads, some fast A-roads and some small country lanes, but all of it unlit. I will feel just a tiny bit safer with this kit.
Next episode: Richard goes shopping for a new jacket and trousers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
