SVG version for download here (will scale/print/project to any size).
Friday 13 September 2019
Friday 5 January 2018
Brexit Solves Nothing
This post is in response to @owenjones84's recent Guardian article 'I don’t like Brexit – I just don’t see how it can be stopped'.
I'm sure I'm not alone in my disappointment with Labour over Brexit but can you imagine any leader writing a defeatist headline like this?
Attlee? Wilson? Callaghan? Or go back further - there would be no Labour party if Hardie had said: "I don't like these Conservatives - I just don't see how they can be stopped."
You've asked, Owen, for a "compelling counter argument" for 'reversing' the referendum result, implying there is a compelling argument for Brexit.
Yes, we've had a referendum. But that was it. It was just a referendum. Brexit is not a done deal.
The electorate had a different view in the 2015 General election to that of the 2017 General Election. Why was that? Well, the electorate a a different set of data to ponder and chose accordingly. Yet for some reason, you are having to ask how to challenge the outcome - even perhaps questioning if it can be challenged.
This is politics. You challenge views you don't agree with - even (or especially) if those views come from the electorate. Particularly if said electorate was made promises that could never be fulfilled.
Anyway, enough of that, it's an argument that will wage until the next generation or so bring some sense to bear.
If Labour really is the progressive force it claims to be, then its leaders need to lead. And they need to bring the electorate with them. Your barracking of those who are actually trying to lead does not help any more than some of the tactics about which you complain.
So as requested, here is my 'compelling counter argument' that UK Labour need to tell the electorate:
Brexit Solves Nothing.
Yes, 'tell' the electorate. It's time to lead. It's time for Labour to expose this con on a nation.
Try it for yourself. Think of any argument for leaving the EU that could not have been already solved or heavily mitigated from Westminster that will be solved post-Brexit. Then think on how many of those issues will be exacerbated post-Brexit.
Immigration, regulation, sovereignty, you name it. None of them will go away as we scrabble for trade deals with blocks and nations that can smell our desperation from the other side of the globe. We will not be the arbiters of regulations. Trade deals will be tied to greater immigration.
Brexit was a failure by
Westminster. A failure to communicate. A failure to look further than
'the economy' as a measure of social wellbeing. A failure to implement controls that were available. A failure to collect appropriate tax. A failure to counter the decades of drip, drip, drip anti-EU rhetoric of the gutter media & politicians with the huge benefits membership of the EU has brought to UK citizens.
Labour is currently between a rock and a hard place - likely to lose 30% of its vote no matter which way it eventually swings, but your support will grow as yu expose the reality of the con.
Corbyn has the benefit of not being (so) regarded as 'the elite establishment' - he needs to play this card for the benefit of the country, not his personal ideology.
Every benefit of UK membership of the EU needs to be sold to the electorate.
Every concern of the electorate needs to be addressed - first and foremost in Westminster and then by working on a plan to reform those parts of the EU.
History will not look kindly on a party with such an astonishing past of fighting for and implementing huge social benefits, if it continues to stand on the sidelines while those it claims to represent suffer most.
If Brexit happens, you may win a term off the back of the Conservatives collapse, but do you really think the UK electorate are going to stop believing the lies of our gutter press? You will replace the EU as the scapegoat - this time for the failure of Brexit. Your complicity in that failure will not be rewarded.
Labour needs to be be true to its 'For The Many, Not The Few' mantra rather than enabling a policy that will be 'By The Many, For The Few' but most of all it needs to be honest about the causes and consequences of Brexit.
Brexit. Solves. Nothing.
Full disclosure: I too "had profound reservations about the current incarnation of the EU, and
even considered the case for leave" but I dismissed the argument because within two weeks of the start of the referendum campaign it was clear we had a startling choice: to stand with the racists and xenophobes or to stand against them. It's not a particularly subtle view and perhaps a little counter productive, but for me it was a really, really simple choice. We will sort out the other stuff later.
And yes, I know, it should be 'Nothing is solved by Brexit' but we're currently in the soundbite era of politics.
Wednesday 7 June 2017
Monday 5 June 2017
We Need to Talk About Tolerance
This post has been brewing for a while in my drafts folder, but with the announcement of the General Election, I thought it time to air it. The atrocity in Manchester gave me pause for thought but the [ironic] pronouncements by Theresa May of the last few days cannot be ignored.
The UK has always been thought of as a tolerant society. And we are. Or rather we were. To understand why this has changed, we need to explore why we were regarded as a welcoming haven for citizens of the world.
I have worked in many, many organisations both large and small. Just like countries, the culture of a business is influenced by its history, processes, geography, environment and even its products.
But note what is missing: Employees.
Why? Because most of the people in an organisation are led. Founders and leaders all too often recruit in their own image, seeking out those with a shared vision to build a company. While the general culture of an organisation is influenced by many things, including the diversity of employees, the ethical culture is driven from the top.
The same is true for countries. The people of many nations have been duped into following despots, collectively convinced they are on the right side of history.
There are many who would not admit it, but we like being led. Its easy, comfortable, secure. We're part of the 'in' crowd if we follow a popular (or populist) leader. We get to slide the blame to those who don't follow. We no longer have to shoulder the responsibility. And yes, there are parallels in religion too.
UK became a tolerant society because of our choice of leaders. Post war, too many had seen the horrors first hand. We chose leaders who offered hope, who had the courage to offer something that would benefit all.
We undertook one of the greatest endeavours in history: the creation of the NHS. We created a safety net for the most vulnerable in society, those who dropped out of the bottom would be caught and helped. Equality for (or rather, fair treatment of) all eventually became enshrined in law.
Immigration helped make the UK a very attractive proposition for external investment. Our economy benefited, our society was enhanced.
As memories faded and a majority become collectively more comfortable, we have started voting for leaders who will benefit us individually, rather than society as a whole.
Political, media and business leaders have been quick to seize on this, setting policies that appeal to the low hanging votes - lower taxes, 'efficiency' savings, out group blaming.
We tolerate the appalling treatment of the vulnerable in society because we're told to by political 'leaders' and media. If policies do not (appear to) directly affect us or our families, it's not 'our problem', because we're told it's someone else's fault.
We're told the NHS is 'over budget' and overwhelmed by an immigrant population but NHS funding has been slashed since 2010 and much has been redirected to private profit. Immigrants make up a huge proportion of NHS staff and make a greater financial contribution to the economy per head than native born.
We tolerate 40,000 deaths from air pollution per year as 'a cost of doing business'. Each and every one of those 40,000 people will have suffered for years, even decades, before succumbing. Transport contributes significantly to air pollution, particularly in urban areas, yet we are told it is 'aspirational' to own a highly polluting futility vehicle.
Yet we can't talk about it because we're told it is 'none of our business' how an individual spends their money. It is.
We tolerate the removal of £135 per household 'renewable subsidy' because we're told it will reduce our bills. Conveniently omitted is the £440 per man, woman and child we each pay to subsidise the fossil fuel industry. Why do we quietly tolerate this?
We tolerate the hatemongering of politicians and media because we're told 'all opinions are equal'. UK tabloid media front pages spew bile daily, but we buy them without shame.
On mainstream radio, LBC promote the poisonous rhetoric of Farage. The BBC's Jeremy Vine provides false 'balance' to life long experts in their field with 'the loud man from the pub' ranting unsubstantiated bile over the phone. Each are given equal air time and equal credence.
The most popular media outlets are those that give voice to those who wish to promote their particular target of intolerance. We have normalised the hatred of others with the repeated lies on every front cover or news bulletin. Traffic reports dare not speak of the nature of a progressive march yet we'll invite hatemongers onto prime time TV and radio.
We are being led away from our culturally progressive international partners toward regressive regimes in vain attempt to mitigate the unfolding disaster of Brexit and the Great Repeal Con.
The irony of holding 'liberal values' (really just being kind to those less fortunate) is that we remain all too silent while those who hate are given every platform to spread their vitriol. We often won't talk about our values for fear of offending our friends and colleagues.
To be able to choose leaders that promote tolerance, not those who seek to gain from division, we need to be unafraid to offend those who vote for or promote regressive policies.
"The only thing I can't tolerate is intolerance" is a great maxim, but useless if we're afraid to talk about the things that harm our society.
If you believe that UK should restore its liberal, open values, we need to talk. To friends, neighbours, colleagues, family and strangers. We have to drown out the torrents of hate that flow from the front pages and mouths of weak politicians.
History has proven silence to be a poor choice.
#BeCarefulWhatYouVoteFor
The UK has always been thought of as a tolerant society. And we are. Or rather we were. To understand why this has changed, we need to explore why we were regarded as a welcoming haven for citizens of the world.
I have worked in many, many organisations both large and small. Just like countries, the culture of a business is influenced by its history, processes, geography, environment and even its products.
But note what is missing: Employees.
Why? Because most of the people in an organisation are led. Founders and leaders all too often recruit in their own image, seeking out those with a shared vision to build a company. While the general culture of an organisation is influenced by many things, including the diversity of employees, the ethical culture is driven from the top.
The same is true for countries. The people of many nations have been duped into following despots, collectively convinced they are on the right side of history.
There are many who would not admit it, but we like being led. Its easy, comfortable, secure. We're part of the 'in' crowd if we follow a popular (or populist) leader. We get to slide the blame to those who don't follow. We no longer have to shoulder the responsibility. And yes, there are parallels in religion too.
UK became a tolerant society because of our choice of leaders. Post war, too many had seen the horrors first hand. We chose leaders who offered hope, who had the courage to offer something that would benefit all.
We undertook one of the greatest endeavours in history: the creation of the NHS. We created a safety net for the most vulnerable in society, those who dropped out of the bottom would be caught and helped. Equality for (or rather, fair treatment of) all eventually became enshrined in law.
Immigration helped make the UK a very attractive proposition for external investment. Our economy benefited, our society was enhanced.
As memories faded and a majority become collectively more comfortable, we have started voting for leaders who will benefit us individually, rather than society as a whole.
Political, media and business leaders have been quick to seize on this, setting policies that appeal to the low hanging votes - lower taxes, 'efficiency' savings, out group blaming.
We tolerate the appalling treatment of the vulnerable in society because we're told to by political 'leaders' and media. If policies do not (appear to) directly affect us or our families, it's not 'our problem', because we're told it's someone else's fault.
We're told the NHS is 'over budget' and overwhelmed by an immigrant population but NHS funding has been slashed since 2010 and much has been redirected to private profit. Immigrants make up a huge proportion of NHS staff and make a greater financial contribution to the economy per head than native born.
We tolerate 40,000 deaths from air pollution per year as 'a cost of doing business'. Each and every one of those 40,000 people will have suffered for years, even decades, before succumbing. Transport contributes significantly to air pollution, particularly in urban areas, yet we are told it is 'aspirational' to own a highly polluting futility vehicle.
Yet we can't talk about it because we're told it is 'none of our business' how an individual spends their money. It is.
We tolerate the removal of £135 per household 'renewable subsidy' because we're told it will reduce our bills. Conveniently omitted is the £440 per man, woman and child we each pay to subsidise the fossil fuel industry. Why do we quietly tolerate this?
We tolerate the hatemongering of politicians and media because we're told 'all opinions are equal'. UK tabloid media front pages spew bile daily, but we buy them without shame.
On mainstream radio, LBC promote the poisonous rhetoric of Farage. The BBC's Jeremy Vine provides false 'balance' to life long experts in their field with 'the loud man from the pub' ranting unsubstantiated bile over the phone. Each are given equal air time and equal credence.
The most popular media outlets are those that give voice to those who wish to promote their particular target of intolerance. We have normalised the hatred of others with the repeated lies on every front cover or news bulletin. Traffic reports dare not speak of the nature of a progressive march yet we'll invite hatemongers onto prime time TV and radio.
We are being led away from our culturally progressive international partners toward regressive regimes in vain attempt to mitigate the unfolding disaster of Brexit and the Great Repeal Con.
The irony of holding 'liberal values' (really just being kind to those less fortunate) is that we remain all too silent while those who hate are given every platform to spread their vitriol. We often won't talk about our values for fear of offending our friends and colleagues.
To be able to choose leaders that promote tolerance, not those who seek to gain from division, we need to be unafraid to offend those who vote for or promote regressive policies.
"The only thing I can't tolerate is intolerance" is a great maxim, but useless if we're afraid to talk about the things that harm our society.
If you believe that UK should restore its liberal, open values, we need to talk. To friends, neighbours, colleagues, family and strangers. We have to drown out the torrents of hate that flow from the front pages and mouths of weak politicians.
History has proven silence to be a poor choice.
#BeCarefulWhatYouVoteFor
Monday 23 January 2017
Define Success
A question posed by Katja Leyendecker (@KatsDekker) this morning:
Serious question.
...to which I replied "8-80".
This may seem like a slightly flippant response to the serious question, but it certainly wasn't intended as such. Follow up replies from Katja quickly clarified this was as much about measuring on-going success as much as outcomes. Hard to grasp and define...
And therein lies the problem. Each cycling advocacy group will have a different measure of success. For example, some of my local group are very proud of the number of children trained. This is a valid measure, but I haven't seen an increase in the number of bicycles chained up at school (anecdote klaxon).
Other than perhaps, cycle counts, we have no national standard that can be used by local advocacy groups to measure their success (or effectiveness of their campaigning) against an objective target.
The measure of the success of any campaign can only really be measured by its outcomes. Objectively measuring ongoing progress towards an outcome is a little more challenging. We have had decades of political 'encouraging' rather than 'enabling', so perhaps it's time to start measuring success by who has been enabled.
8-80 (#8to80) is not a new concept (e.g. this, from David Hembrow (@DavidHembrow) in 2011). It is clearly the standard to aspire to for all urban transport infrastructure but may also be a useful way of consistently measuring effectiveness of campaigning and the implemented schemes.
Towns and cities are ever evolving, but schools, shopping centres, stations and industrial areas tend to remain fairly static. Routes to and from these destinations are like the most trafficked. They are frequently surveyed by LAs for start/destination of motor traffic use, but rarely (I have never been questioned) when walking or cycling. We have some counts of existing cyclists, but have little data on those who are not using these routes.
How onerous would it be to annually count those who are not cycling these routes?
Getting data at the lower end of the 8-80 could be done via (PTAs at) schools - to parents: "Would you (do you) allow your eight-year-old child to cycle from [home|school|town] to [school|town|home] unaccompanied by an adult".
Data for the upper end could be also gathered in this way ("Would you allow/encourage/discourage your childs grandparent to cycle from home to town?"), as well as for intermediate ages.
The collated data would give a consistent picture across the country. It will allow advocacy groups to compare apples with apples and provide on-going success markers.
TL;DR:
A year on year decrease in those not cycling at the two extremes of the 8-80 range is the surest measure of how successful the advocacy has been.
Of course all this may be already happening... but then why would Katja be asking the question?
Serious question.
— Katja Leyendecker (@KatsDekker) January 23, 2017
What does SUCCESS look like in cycle campaigning?
...to which I replied "8-80".
This may seem like a slightly flippant response to the serious question, but it certainly wasn't intended as such. Follow up replies from Katja quickly clarified this was as much about measuring on-going success as much as outcomes. Hard to grasp and define...
And therein lies the problem. Each cycling advocacy group will have a different measure of success. For example, some of my local group are very proud of the number of children trained. This is a valid measure, but I haven't seen an increase in the number of bicycles chained up at school (anecdote klaxon).
Other than perhaps, cycle counts, we have no national standard that can be used by local advocacy groups to measure their success (or effectiveness of their campaigning) against an objective target.
The measure of the success of any campaign can only really be measured by its outcomes. Objectively measuring ongoing progress towards an outcome is a little more challenging. We have had decades of political 'encouraging' rather than 'enabling', so perhaps it's time to start measuring success by who has been enabled.
8-80 (#8to80) is not a new concept (e.g. this, from David Hembrow (@DavidHembrow) in 2011). It is clearly the standard to aspire to for all urban transport infrastructure but may also be a useful way of consistently measuring effectiveness of campaigning and the implemented schemes.
Towns and cities are ever evolving, but schools, shopping centres, stations and industrial areas tend to remain fairly static. Routes to and from these destinations are like the most trafficked. They are frequently surveyed by LAs for start/destination of motor traffic use, but rarely (I have never been questioned) when walking or cycling. We have some counts of existing cyclists, but have little data on those who are not using these routes.
How onerous would it be to annually count those who are not cycling these routes?
Getting data at the lower end of the 8-80 could be done via (PTAs at) schools - to parents: "Would you (do you) allow your eight-year-old child to cycle from [home|school|town] to [school|town|home] unaccompanied by an adult".
Data for the upper end could be also gathered in this way ("Would you allow/encourage/discourage your childs grandparent to cycle from home to town?"), as well as for intermediate ages.
The collated data would give a consistent picture across the country. It will allow advocacy groups to compare apples with apples and provide on-going success markers.
TL;DR:
A year on year decrease in those not cycling at the two extremes of the 8-80 range is the surest measure of how successful the advocacy has been.
Of course all this may be already happening... but then why would Katja be asking the question?
Monday 16 January 2017
Nearmiss-o-meter Build Guide, Part 2
Build Guide, Part 2
This part of the build guide uses the switch PCB design available here on GitHub. As with the main board, it is possible to replicate the circuit design using a pegboard. |
| The Switch PCB |
Click on the picture for an enlarged view.
 |
| Molex Connectors and Ribbon Cable |
The Molex connectors are designed to be crimped, but the crimping tools are absurdly expensive,
The red marking on the ribbon cable I've used denotes the switch wire. The opposite side ins the ground and the centre two are for the LEDs
UPDATE: Thanks to Paul for this crimping tool recommendation - much, much easier (and more secure) than soldering all for less than a tenth of the price (£23) of the official Molex ones.
 |
| Molex Plug |
Insert Connectors into Molex Plug
Once soldered, crimp the connectors over the cable insulation and then push into the Molex plug casing, ensuring the barbs locate in the square holes (arrowed). |
| Switch on PCB |
Solder the Momentary Switch to PCB
Straighten the switch legs and splay them out slightly. This will allow the switch body to sit directly onto the PCB.Solder the legs from the back, ensuring the switch doesn't 'pop-up', then cut off any excess.
 |
| LEDs on PCB |
Solder the LEDs to PCB
Mount the LEDs tight to the PCB. Note the positive tails (arrowed, slightly longer) and both to the inside.Solder from the back and then cut off the tails.
 |
| Ribbon Cable, Switch End |
Cut the Ribbon Cable
Cut the ribbon cable to the required length (this will depend where you mount the switch relative to the nearmiss-o-meter on the bike - I've cut to approximately 280mm long).
Leave the switch wire (red stripe on my build) about 10mm longer than the other three.
Solder the Ribbon Cable to Switch PCB
Tin the ends of the wires an push through the PCB from the top. Double check the routing from plug to PCB is as per the photograph, solder from the back and snip off any excess.That's it!
Next up, the Arduino code and case fitting.
Friday 13 January 2017
Nearmiss-o-meter, Build Guide, Part 1
Build Guide, Part 1
This part of the build guide uses the PCB design available here on GitHub. It is possible to replicate the circuit design using a pegboard, but I wouldn't recommend it.The list of parts I have used is available here.
 |
| Nib Removal |
Clean Up the PCB
When the boards are manufactured, they often have small 'nibs' left on the edges (circled red). Carefully break these off with a small pair of pliers and use a file to remove the remnants.Click on the picture for an enlarged view.
 |
| Sonar Bridging |
Solder the Sonar Bridges
There are two bridging pads on the PCB to allow the use of the US-100 or the MaxSonar (not yet tested).The photograph shows where I have bridged with a short length of wire for the US-100 sonar.
Cut the Header Pins
 |
| Female Header Pins Cut Into Groups |
Using a sharp knife, cut both male and female header pins into five pairs and three singles.
 |
| Male Header Pins Before Cutting - Note Orientation |
Solder Header Pins into the Feather M0
Note the male header pins have a top and a bottom. The flat face (shown in the top pair in the photograph) seats against the Feather. |
| Solder Headers Using A Breadboard |
Solder pins to: BAT, EN, 11, 10, 6 , 5, 3V, GND, A2, A3, A5, RX and TX.
 | |
| Solder from bottom of PCB |
Solder the Header Sockets onto PCB
With the header sockets still attached to the Feather M0, solder them from the bottom of the PCB.Once soldered, cut the pins back as tightly as possible, particularly the three nearest to the Sonar, the ones in front of the Molex and the one connected to the BAT pin. It may be better to cut these pins flush with the PCB before soldering -they must protrude no more than 0.5mm.
 |
| Header Pins for Feather |
Again, ignore the extra pins on my board!
The top of the PCB should now look like this.
 | |
| Resistors R1 and R2 |
Solder LED and LDR Resistors/Jumpers
The LDR (R1) and the blue LED (R2) resistors are soldered onto the bottom of the PCB and the red (R3) and green (R4) resistors are soldered to the top.I am using a 100KOhm resistor for the LDR and insulated jumpers wires for the LEDs as they are rated for 3.3volts.
 |
| Resistors R3 and R4 |
 |
| Molex Socket and Switch |
Solder Molex Socket and Toggle Switch
These are soldered onto the bottom of the PCB. Try to ensure they both sit as flat and square as possible.Note: Both of these need to be tight to the PCB, but make sure there is plenty of clearance between the toggle switch and the 3V header pin before soldering.
 |
| Blue LED |
Solder the Blue LED to PCB
This is the (optional) indicator of a near miss - also used to sanity check.Bend the lens to 90°, ensuring the correct orientation of the positive and negative legs. The positive leg (on the right with the lens facing you) need to be covered with a short length of insulation.
Solder to the PCB and cut any excess short as usual.
 |
| GPS Module Headers |
Solder GPS Headers
Use the breadboard to solder the headers to the GPS PCB with the uBlox module face down. These are standard square headers that are normally supplied with the GPS module.Try to keep the PCB as square as possible.
 |
| GPS Antennae |
Attach the GPS Antennae
A small piece of double sided sticky tape, or a very thin blob of bluetac will hold well enough.Note the routing of the antennae wire.
 |
| GPS Soldered to PCB |
Solder the GPS to PCB
Solder the PCB module onto the top of the PCB, again ensuring it is as straight as possible.Cut the header pins as short as possible, either before or after soldering.
 |
| US-100 Sonar Position |
Solder the US-100 Sonar to the PCB
The sonar mounts on the underside of the PCB. It should align evenly on each side of the PCB (it is slightly narrower).
Make sure the sonar PCB (green) is no more than ~0.5mm from the main PCB (purple).
 |
| Sonar Soldered from Top |
While soldering, make sure the sonar PCB remains perpendicular and parallel (~0.5mm) to the main PCB. Solder a pin at one end, check alignment, then solder the pin at the opposite end and re-check. Do not solder the remaining two pins until you are sure the alignment is spot on.
 |
| Battery Fly lead and LDR Position |
Solder the LDR and Battery Fly Lead to PCB
If you have already printed a 'snorkel', use this to position the LDR facing the side of the snorkel, otherwise just leave a small gap between the LDR and the sonar. It is a little difficult to see, but the LDR is no the right hand corner of the PCB in the photo.The battery fly leads only need to be ~25mm long. Once soldered in, use a hot glue gun (on the PCB/wire junction) to provide some support (not shown in photo).
The next post will detail the switch build.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)