ThunderDragon Blog

Well, lost luggage isn’t exactly a new thing at airports, especially if they’re Terminal 5, but this is taking it several steps further…

Vietnamese authorities say they are mystified as to who owns a Boeing 727 which has been abandoned at Hanoi’s Noi Bai airport.

The plane was flown in from Siem Reap in neighbouring Cambodia in late 2007 and has been unclaimed ever since. (BBC)

What a thing to lose! Sometimes I can’t find my keys, but how on earth do you lose a big planelike that?!

Iain Dale is doing an article on politicians and their cars, and I came across this online quiz - so I’m asking bloggers: which car are you?

The results say that:

I’m a Ford Mustang!

You’re an American classic — fast, strong, and bold. You’re not snobby or pretentious, but you have what it takes to give anyone a run for their money.

“Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

via Sally in Norfolk

David Cameron has been caught jumping a red light at a pedestrian crossing whilst cycling. Dizzy uses this a way into a diatribe against all cyclists. Whilst he has some point, he goes way too far with it all. Jonathan Sheppard also comments on this story, but in a less aggressive manner. But I agree most with Samuel Coates.

As a cyclist, I jump red lights occasionally. But only when it is absolutely clear and I know that no traffic or pedestrians will come across my path. If there are pedestrians waiting to cross, I stop. If they are already clear of my path, I will continue. This is simple common sense, and the only way that cyclists can use the roads in an efficient manner. However, pedestrians also need to be aware of cyclists, and treat them as they would a car, rather than ignoring the approach a cyclist at a crossing when the red light is showing to them.

I also, even, use pavements! Every day, in fact. Because the way I cycle to work, it is not possible for me not to without putting myself in great danger on a specific roundabout. There are also cycle lanes that use the pavement - which makes no sense. Either bikes should be allowed to be ridden on pavements, or cycle lanes should not be put there - because that endangers pedestrians when cyclists are using them because pedestrians always walk in the cycle lane bit, and it endangers cyclists as it is always hazardous to try and rejoin the road from such a cycle lane. Not to mention the fact that is is utterly hypocritical.

The problem is less cyclists and more idiot motorists and the complete failure to provide enough cycle lanes. Barely a day goes by when a car, bus, van or lorry does not cut me up or try and force me off the road, either on purpose or through sheer incompetence. The buses are, in fact, the worst. One bus very nearly drove me off the road twice in the space of two minutes.

What needs to be done is for motorists to actually understand the cyclists have the same rights to sue the road as they do. That means not pushing in front of me or pushing me off the road. Especially since you will not lose any time behind a cyclist during rush hour. Also, cycle lanes should be provided on all main roads. Most of the cycle lanes that are available for me to use on my way to work are either in the wrong place or literally just a couple of meters long. What’s the point of them? Bugger all. Cycle lanes should all lead somewhere. And motorists should actually realise that they are not allowed to stop or park in them.

Cyclists also need to take care of themselves. I have lights and wear a hi-vis jacket whilst cycling. You can’t miss me. Yet idiot motorists always seem to. And they get what they deserve - a mouthful of abuse and usually a hand gesture as well. What they deserve.

UPDATE: Mike Rouse adds his thoughts on the matter.

The idiot’s guide to catching a bus is now here. It’s so simple that even the most bone-headed person who has never ever used the bus or public transport before could manage it.

Someone who hasn’t has to use public transport - and especially buses - before is a very lucky person, because public transport is shit. Slow, expensive, crowded, and usually dirty. I don’t use it unless I absolutely have to.

Instead, I cycle.

Because buses in my experience are absolutely rubbish.

If bus companies want people to use their services, then there are two simple things that they need to do:

1. Be more regular and reliable.
2. Be cheaper.

They’re really not hard. If I don’t know that I am able to get to where I need to be on time, I won’t use public transport to get me there. And if it costs as much - if not more - than the petrol in a car would cost, nobody is going to use it unless they have to.

If you want people to catch a bus, rather than releasing an idiot guide just improve the service you provide.

Westmonster, needing some entertaining, went looking around the 10 Downing Street e-petition site, coming across some amusing petitions that have been submitted by the great British public. One however is both amusing and, remarkably, quite a good idea:

Besides the rather painfully bad grammar, the idea is actually quite good. Cycle lanes should lead somewhere. Many of the cycle lanes provided country-wide are absurdly short and often in the wrong place - just added in for the sake of being able to claim a certain distance of cycle lanes. More cycle lanes would encourage more people to cycle, and make all cyclists much safer. I thought we were all supposed to be pro “green” and healthy things nowadays?

And one more thing - the person who decides on the links to these petitions is definitely amusing themselves on the job. Just look at the link to the petition above: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/bikes4justice/

I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?

How on earth can driving whilst using a mobile phone a bad enough offence to warrant jail time? Especially for two years! Yes, it’s stupid and dangerous - nobody is claiming that it isn’t - but it sure as hell isn’t worth the potential sentence of two years in jail. Especially at a time when the prisons are so overcrowded that they are releasing real criminals early!

Even the idea of a custodial sentence for such a minor crime is ridiculous, especially considering the current state of the prison system. And two years is an absurdly long length of time in itself. People commit far more serious crimes than driving whilst using a mobile phone and get shorter jail sentences.

This is a policy aimed solidly at the middle-class, aiming to criminalise them. Just give larger fines and more points to the perpetrators, and raise the penalties for actual dangerous or reckless driving and it’s results.

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian

Bloody hell, the government really is just crap at looking after our data, isn’t it!

My details were almost certainly among those lost, and I am by no means pacified by Ruth Kelly apologising for “any uncertainty or concern” caused, especially since sorry seems to be the easiest word for Labour minister to say under Brown.

They were lost in May for crying out loud! Why did they not at least tell us that they had lost it? This isn’t however the fault of Ruth Kelly, who was only informed of this on 28th November. Stephen Ladyboyman most certainly can be, however, as he was told of this loss of data on June 4th, and whatever he did didn’t tell people like me whose details are more than likely to have been lost and potentially in the hands of fraudsters. What is staggering , however, is that even though nothing had been done about this loss of data on the government’s behalf, they only told the new Secretary of State after the government had lost the details of 25m other people.

I wonder, if that hadn’t have happened, would she - let alone us - ever have been told?!

What this does is demonstrate categorically that the State cannot be responsible for any more of our personal data than absolutely essential. Even what it currently holds is too much, and certainly even the thought of this incompetent bunch of morons ever getting hold of enough information to make an ID card should make all intelligent people very, very scared.

UPDATE: Ladyboy defends doing bugger-all about this because he “assumed the new minister would’ve been told about it.” Why didn’t you do something about it yourself? Or would that have meant that you would actually have to had earned your pay? Read Mr Eugenides’ comments on this issue.

I’ve just seen a report on TV saying that police drivers shouldn’t pursue criminals because some cause deaths. This is utterly wrong. The police should always give chase to suspects unless it is obviously extremely dangerous to do so for themselves and innocent passer-bys.

The fact-file that comes with the report says that there were between 11,000 and 19,000 police chases in 2005/6 in England and Wales, of which approximately one in eleven led to a death. Whilst this is obvious tragic for the individuals and their families concerned, it is usually the suspect - who is running away from the police - who dies. So, really, I can’t see it as much of a problem. If they hadn’t ran away, they wouldn’t have died.

If the police are restricted in the way in which they can give chase to criminals, then the criminals win. All they have to do is break the speed limit or do something considered dangerous enough to force the police not to pursue and they get away with it. This is obviously unacceptable. We cannot get into a position of policing by numbers, whereby criminals know all they need to do in order to escape the police is to run a few red lights.

Taking precautions to ensure that as few deaths as possible occur in police chases is obvious - but only so many can be taken. Such as training all police officers who drive patrol cars as highly as feasible, and have guidance on what sort of pursuits to continue, and which to back off from, but with the knowledge that these are guidelines not hard-and-fast rules. Also, helicopters could be employed - but they are expensive. But not everything can be done - for example, the skill of the driver being chased is, obviously, impossible to change.

But criminals must know that the police will pursue them. Otherwise they will have the ability to offend with impunity - so long as they have access to a car and are willing to take a few risks.

Source: BBC - article 1, article 2

Ha!

That is a transparent attempt to lessen the damage to his reputation.

So does he now consider himself a “serial potential killer”? Or is that definition just for the likes of us non-parliamentarians?

So even though he helped make the law, he decided to break it anyway!

If he was talking before he started driving - why? If he answered the phone whilst driving - why? There is no justification for it. If he was talking before he started driving, then he did so willingly, and if he answered the phone whilst driving he couldn’t have known that it was definitely an “important deportation phone call”.

He has no defence, and his attempts to manufacture an excuse out of an impossible scenario just shows that he won’t even accept real wrongdoing, despite calling others who do it “potential serial killers”. I think we all know who the potential killer is now.

Source: BBC