Spain's new "anti-cyclist" laws

tomasrojo

New Zealand might be about to lose its crown as the most cycling-hostile industrialised nation.

cyclists having to stay on the right-hand side of the carriageway, banning children from riding on the road unless accompanied by an adult, and the introduction of a system of fines that it says presupposes that “cyclists represent the same danger as motor vehicles.”

http://road.cc/content/news/77554-spain-set-make-bike-helmets-compulsory-amid-law-reform-designed-push-cyclists

(and an all-ages mandatory helmet law too, of course.)

Technoprisoner

well done Spain

Celly Smunt

Seems progressive.

DirkVoodoo

I for one look forward to the introduction of anti troll laws.

juice1304

And what is wrong with that? I cycle alot but also drive a car and motorbike and i find there is a certain type of cyclist that think they have the right to cycle in the middle of the road because they have the same rights as a diver blaa blaa blaa which would be fine if they weren't cycling at 20kph because if i drove at that speed i would be pulled over by the gardai for dangerous driving. I almost creamed some idiot cycling in the middle of the road on a blind corner one day i swerved around him and missed an articulated lorry by inches we were almost killed by his stupidity. I always cycle as close to the curb as is safe so like 12 inches not three feet I also don't think children should be aloud cycle on the road by themselves.

Technoprisoner

not trolling ...i just agree with it

cyclist been kept to one side keeps them out of the majority of danger

banning children from cycling on the road is a bit of a no brainer .... why would anyone want to put their child in direct danger is beyond me

mandatory helmet wearing....why is it any different to wearing a seat belt in a car?

and a fines system because cyclist contribute to accidents as well as drivers so they should be punished if they break the law.

rp

Technoprisoner wrote: »

mandatory helmet wearing....why is it any different to wearing a seat belt in a car?

Why is it any different from mandatory helmet wearing for car drivers & passengers? With 50% of hospital head trauma admissions coming from that group (compared to 1% for cyclists and 1% for pedestrains), it would seem to be a no-brainer.

jimmycrackcorm

juice1304 wrote: »

And what is wrong with that? I cycle alot but also drive a car and motorbike and i find there is a certain type of cyclist that think they have the right to cycle in the middle of the road because they have the same rights as a diver blaa blaa blaa which would be fine if they weren't cycling at 20kph because if i drove at that speed i would be pulled over by the gardai for dangerous driving. I almost creamed some idiot cycling in the middle of the road on a blind corner one day i swerved around him and missed an articulated lorry by inches we were almost killed by his stupidity. I always cycle as close to the curb as is safe so like 12 inches not three feet I also don't think children should be aloud cycle on the road by themselves.

What I got from that was you overtook on a blind corner and were nearly creamed by a truck as a result.

CramCycle

juice1304 wrote: »

And what is wrong with that? I cycle alot but also drive a car and motorbike and i find there is a certain type of cyclist that think they have the right to cycle in the middle of the road because they have the same rights as a diver blaa blaa blaa which would be fine if they weren't cycling at 20kph because if i drove at that speed i would be pulled over by the gardai for dangerous driving. I almost creamed some idiot cycling in the middle of the road on a blind corner one day i swerved around him and missed an articulated lorry by inches we were almost killed by his stupidity. I always cycle as close to the curb as is safe so like 12 inches not three feet I also don't think children should be aloud cycle on the road by themselves.

MOD VOICE: Covered ad nauseam in the forum already, overtaking on a blind corner, regardless of the other vehicles road positioning is idiotic, if you don't agree feel free to take up a discussion with me via PM, this is OT, leave it out

Technoprisoner

rp wrote: »

Why is it any different from mandatory helmet wearing for car drivers & passengers? With 50% of hospital head trauma admissions coming from that group (compared to 1% for cyclists and 1% for pedestrains), it would seem to be a no-brainer.

where did you get these figures from? they seem a tad dubious to be fair. I know somebody who was killed because they hadnt got a helmet on...and guess what....there wasnt even a car involved

Lumen

Spain's current job seems to be to make Ireland feel good about itself.

Very selfless of them, bravo.

Technoprisoner

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What I got from that was you overtook on a blind corner and were nearly creamed by a truck as a result.

i dont see anything in that post to suggest that he was over taking on a blind corner...what i make from it is this

he was driving around a blind corner at normal speed

he encountered a cyclist in the middle of the road (which he obviously could not see becasue they were on a blind corner) who was more than likely not cycling at the speed limit

the driver took advasive action to avoid hitting the cyclist and in doing so narrowly escaped being involved in an accident with a lorry

DirkVoodoo

Technoprisoner wrote: »

i dont see anything in that post to suggest that he was over taking on a blind corner...what i make from it is this

he was driving around a blind corner at normal speed

he encountered a cyclist in the middle of the road (which he obviously could not see becasue they were on a blind corner) who was more than likely not cycling at the speed limit

the driver took advasive action to avoid hitting the cyclist and in doing so narrowly escaped being involved in an accident with a lorry

So if there had been a car crash already or another reason the road might not be clear, his speed wouldn't be a factor, its simply that everything else is not moving quickly enough?

80 km/he limits on back roads are not targets and blaming a cyclist because he was driving too fast to react to the unexpected is typical of a bad driver.

Ridiculous.

happytramp

juice1304 wrote: »

i swerved around him and missed an articulated lorry by inches we were almost killed by his stupidity.

I just want to let the mods know that I would never, ever accuse another user of being a Moron.

Technoprisoner

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

So if there had been a car crash already or another reason the road might not be clear, his speed wouldn't be a factor, its simply that everything else is not moving quickly enough?

80 km/he limits on back roads are not targets and blaming a cyclist because he was driving too fast to react to the unexpected is typical of a bad driver.

Ridiculous.

did i say that?

if the cyclist used a bit of cop on and had of been cycling towards the side of the road an accident could have been avoided. there is nothing in the mans post to suggest he was traveling at speed. there is however a cyclist in the middle of the road on a blind corner....if the driver had of hit the cyclist instead of nearly hitting the truck you would be up in arms over that....why is this situation any different?

DirkVoodoo

Technoprisoner wrote: »

did i say that?

if the cyclist used a bit of cop on and had of been cycling towards the side of the road an accident could have been avoided. there is nothing in the mans post to suggest he was traveling at speed. there is however a cyclist in the middle of the road on a blind corner....if the driver had of hit the cyclist instead of nearly hitting the truck you would be up in arms over that....why is this situation any different?

You don't know me, so you can't say how I would react. He was driving too fast, if you can't infer that from his post then I can't help you.

Driving slow enough around the bend, he could have slowed down and waited to overtake, no? But it seems he was somehow forced to swerve his car into oncoming traffic, what does that tell you?

I couldn't give a toss what was on the road; cyclist, walkers, tractor, cattle, sheep, etc. Fact is he was clearly driving too fast around a blind bend to react and nearly caused a crash.

Do you not understand the concept of driving with the ability to react to the unexpected? Its a very Irish thing to see the 80 km/hr signpost and mash the accelerator without thinking is it appropriate.

happytramp

If you were unaware that that a cyclist had just turned a corner ahead of you and were forced to overtake it means only one of two things.

1. You were not paying attention to what was happening on the road ahead of you.
2. You were traveling too fast when you took the corner. Other wise the cyclist would have cleared the corner and been on the straight.

Gosub

Just another Spanish law that will be widely ignored. Loads of motorbike/moped drivers don't wear helmets. Loads of car drivers don't wear seat belts, and ofted drive drunk. The smoking laws were put in place in 2011. Guess what..... widespread smoking in bars, at least where I live.

The Spanish would do well to enforce the current laws before they make a big splash, announcing new ones. The amount of British registered cars driving around here without road tax, MOT and even insurance is a disgrace.

Technoprisoner

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

You don't know me, so you can't say how I would react. He was driving too fast, if you can't infer that from his post then I can't help you.

Driving slow enough around the bend, he could have slowed down and waited to overtake, no? But it seems he was somehow forced to swerve his car into oncoming traffic, what does that tell you?

I couldn't give a toss what was on the road; cyclist, walkers, tractor, cattle, sheep, etc. Fact is he was clearly driving too fast around a blind bend to react and nearly caused a crash.

Do you not understand the concept of driving with the ability to react to the unexpected? Its a very Irish thing to see the 80 km/hr signpost and mash the accelerator without thinking is it appropriate.

but there is nothing to suggest he was speeding. and it is also illegal to overtake on a blind corner. regardless of if he was driving slow enough to notice the cyclist. The point being is that this whole situation could have been avoided if the cyclist had of been to the side of the road and nobody could have risked their life's ....this is why the laws in Spain make so much sense

rp

Technoprisoner wrote: »

where did you get these figures from? they seem a tad dubious to be fair

I was quoting from a German study, that I can't find at the moment (its in a thread here somewhere), but these Canadian figures have much the same split:

Pawwed Rig

Technoprisoner wrote: »

banning children from cycling on the road is a bit of a no brainer .... why would anyone want to put their child in direct danger is beyond me.

Children have to learn to get about. you make sure your child has common sense and can cycle safely before letting them out on the road but after a certain age you've got to let them at it. We can only molly coddle them so much. Otherwise you have people who don't have a clue about anything once they become an adults (which I am seeing more and more of).

juice1304

Well it is a lovely attitude you all have cyclists can't do anything wrong. It is apparent even from the OP's title choice "Anti cyclist" They are trying to make it safer for both road users and cyclists. Anyway i don't really care i was merely sharing an experience where it would'nt have happened at all if he had been cycling by the verge, I was'nt trying to troll and i was'nt speeding but you all know how fast i was driving and know the road so i don't need to tell you.

happytramp

juice1304 wrote: »

Well it is a lovely attitude you all have cyclists can't do anything wrong. It is apparent even from the OP's title choice "Anti cyclist" They are trying to make it safer for both road users and cyclists. Anyway i don't really care i was merely sharing an experience where it would'nt have happened at all if he had been cycling by the verge, I was'nt trying to troll and i was'nt speeding but you all know how fast i was driving and know the road so i don't need to tell you.

Fair enough. One question though. Why didn't you brake instead of overtaking?

Technoprisoner

rp wrote: »

I was quoting from a German study, that I can't find at the moment (its in a thread here somewhere), but these Canadian figures have much the same split:

not exactly a 1% figure is it

well i have these figures
The leading causes of TBI are:

• Falls (35.2%);
• Motor vehicle-traffic crashes (17.3%);
• Struck by/against events (16.5%);
• Assaults (10%); and
• Unknown/Other (21%)

35% caused by a fall....you could very easily fall of your bike .


and compared to other causes motor traffic accidents has a lower percentage

Technoprisoner

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Children have to learn to get about. you make sure your child has common sense and can cycle safely before letting them out on the road but after a certain age you've got to let them at it. We can only molly coddle them so much. Otherwise you have people who don't have a clue about anything once they become an adults (which I am seeing more and more of).

children should learn to cycle a bike in parks not on roads..they dont require articulated lorry's to drive pass them to learn how to cycle safely

Harrybelafonte

Technoprisoner wrote: »

but there is nothing to suggest he was speeding. and it is also illegal to overtake on a blind corner. regardless of if he was driving slow enough to notice the cyclist. The point being is that this whole situation could have been avoided if the cyclist had of been to the side of the road and nobody could have risked their life's ....this is why the laws in Spain make so much sense

You seem to be very, very slow in picking up what has been pointed out, so let's break it down like you're five:

1. The man in the car said he had to avoid a cyclist who was not cycling on the left verge of the road on a blind corner. He said the cyclist was moving too slowly. He said he was nearly hit by an articulated lorry while avoiding the cyclist. So answer the questions:

a) Why did the man not see the slow moving cyclist before the corner? He was after all moving very slowly.
b) Why did the man overtake the cyclists rather than slow down? Was he travelling at a speed that wouldn't allow him to do this safely? If so, had it been debris or a sheep or other slow moving traffic, would he have simply driven through them? If he overtook in this instance and hit the lorry, who's fault would it be?
c) If the man had slowed down, would he have nearly hit the articulated truck?

I can do them out in multiple choice if you'd find that a bit easier.

Hmmzis

juice1304 wrote: »

Well it is a lovely attitude you all have cyclists can't do anything wrong. It is apparent even from the OP's title choice "Anti cyclist" They are trying to make it safer for both road users and cyclists. Anyway i don't really care i was merely sharing an experience where it would'nt have happened at all if he had been cycling by the verge, I was'nt trying to troll and i was'nt speeding but you all know how fast i was driving and know the road so i don't need to tell you.

Yes, you were driving too fast. Your own fault entirely.

happytramp

^^^^ This.

Seriously lads, cop on. Whatever about cyclists being annoying at times trying to make out that it's okay to overtake on a blind corner as opposed to slowing down is ridiculous.

IF HE COULDN'T SLOW DOWN HE WAS GOING TO FAST

Harrybelafonte

juice1304 wrote: »

Well it is a lovely attitude you all have cyclists can't do anything wrong. It is apparent even from the OP's title choice "Anti cyclist" They are trying to make it safer for both road users and cyclists. Anyway i don't really care i was merely sharing an experience where it would'nt have happened at all if he had been cycling by the verge, I was'nt trying to troll and i was'nt speeding but you all know how fast i was driving and know the road so i don't need to tell you.

Of course they can, but you like many others who pop in here to spout the usual crap presume we all simply cycle. Most of us drive too, and we experience the same poor driving skills whether on the bike or in the car.

tomasrojo

juice1304 wrote: »

It is apparent even from the OP's title choice "Anti cyclist"

That was an attempt to summarise the linked article.

Spain set to make bike helmets compulsory amid law reform "designed to push cyclists off the streets"

You're entitled, of course, to think that these measures are splendid and only intended to increase everyone's safety, but there has been no attempt to defend or explain them in any detail by the Partido Popular. They're just pushing them through, and they haven't consulted the cycling advocacy groups.

Such is my understanding anyway. If you know better, enlighten away.

Funnily enough, countries with much better road-safety records than Spain. such as the Netherlands, would never consider enacting any of these laws.

rp

Technoprisoner wrote: »

not exactly a 1% figure is it

My bad, 46.63% and 1.33%, then

AltAccount

Not to piss on your parade, but:

Technoprisoner wrote: »

children should learn to cycle a bike in parks not on roads..they dont require articulated lorry's to drive pass them to learn how to cycle safely

The OP mentions "banning children from riding on the road unless accompanied by an adult", so it seems that the Spanish won't be banning children off the road at all, they just won't be alone.

Technoprisoner wrote: »

cyclist been kept to one side keeps them out of the majority of danger...

Again, the OP says "cyclists having to stay on the right-hand side of the carriageway", which is seems to be fairly vaguely worded. I wonder how similar it is to our "you must drive on the left" law.

Technoprisoner wrote: »

i dont see anything in that post to suggest that he was over taking on a blind corner...what i make from it is this

he was driving around a blind corner at normal speed

he encountered a cyclist in the middle of the road (which he obviously could not see becasue they were on a blind corner) who was more than likely not cycling at the speed limit

the driver took advasive action to avoid hitting the cyclist and in doing so narrowly escaped being involved in an accident with a lorry

Question: You must be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Do you believe, based on the description of the situation that we're describing, that juice1304 was able to do that?



Also, while we bemoan the possibility that mandatory helmets may be introduced, it must be of some solace to RLJers, cycle salmon and bike ninjas throughout Spain, that they may soon be able to legally cycle on the footpath (with caveats)

ConBici acknowledges that some measures are to be welcomed, including that local authorities will have the power to allow cycling on the pavement, albeit with the stipulation that “the pavement is at least three meters wide, uncrowded, and cyclists remain at least one metre away from doorways.”

Technoprisoner

its not my parade...and yes children should be accompanied at all times when on a bike.

they obviously have to stay on the right as they drive on the opposite side of the road to us...this would mean they would be cycling beside the foot path which is what ive been saying all along

without knowing the exact corner this happend on you would not be able to answer that...but do not assume that he was speeding

they may be able to cycle on the path...but they would have to do so wearing a helmet and in my opinion the same laws should be introduced here

happytramp

Technoprisoner wrote: »

without knowing the exact corner this happend on you would not be able to answer that...but do not assume that he was speeding

I'm sorry but we have to. Otherwise he would have slowed down as opposed to preforming a dangerous overtaking maneuver.

AltAccount

Technoprisoner wrote: »

they obviously have to stay on the right as they drive on the opposite side of the road to us...this would mean they would be cycling beside the foot path which is what ive been saying all along

I'm not arguing about right and left, I'm pointing out that a similar(ish) law exists here already, depending on the specifics of the law they introduce.

Technoprisoner wrote: »

without knowing the exact corner this happend on you would not be able to answer that...but do not assume that he was speeding

I didn't ask was he speeding, I asked was he able to STOP in the distance he could see to be clear.
What do you think?

Technoprisoner

AltAccount wrote: »

I'm not arguing about right and left, I'm pointing out that a similar(ish) law exists here already, depending on the specifics of the law they introduce.




I didn't ask was he speeding, I asked was he able to STOP in the distance he could see to be clear.
What do you think?

its hard to tell....maybe he made decision that it was better to try go around the cyclist than bring the car to a stop and cause a rear end accident which in turn could also take the cyclist out of it...so without all the exact details of the incident it is hard to tell....still doesnt take away from the fact that if the cyclist had of been at the side of the road the whole situation could have been avoided.

Pawwed Rig

Technoprisoner wrote: »

children should learn to cycle a bike in parks not on roads..they dont require articulated lorry's to drive pass them to learn how to cycle safely

Yes but at some point you have to open up your child to real life. Cycling will give them a good idea of the rules of the road at a young age. I am not suggesting sending a 7 year old onto a motor way or into the city centre but give your child common sense, knowledge and experience and let them off.
Alternatively produce helpless adults.

AltAccount

Technoprisoner wrote: »

its hard to tell....maybe he made decision that it was better to try go around the cyclist

So, he had a decision in your opinion.

He had the option of stopping or swerving.

His (in your opinion) conscious decision caused him to "swerv[ed] around [the cyclist] and missed an articulated lorry by inches we were almost killed by his stupidity"?

Jesus, that's shocking driving tbh...

Technoprisoner wrote: »

than bring the car to a stop and cause a rear end accident which in turn could also take the cyclist out of it...

Was there a car behind him? Was it close enough that it couldn't stop in an emergency situation?

Technoprisoner wrote: »

so without all the exact details of the incident it is hard to tell....

Nope, but it's not stopping you making up a whole load of "what ifs" in his defence...

Technoprisoner wrote: »

still doesnt take away from the fact that if the cyclist had of been at the side of the road the whole situation could have been avoided.

If the lorry had left the depot 5 mins later, or juice1304 was never born, it wouldn't have happened either.


That's a lot of hypotheticals tbh, I think I need a lie down.

Technoprisoner

AltAccount wrote: »

So, he had a decision in your opinion.

He had the option of stopping or swerving.

His (in your opinion) conscious decision caused him to "swerv[ed] around [the cyclist] and missed an articulated lorry by inches we were almost killed by his stupidity"?

Jesus, that's shocking driving tbh...




Was there a car behind him? Was it close enough that it couldn't stop in an emergency situation?




Nope, but it's not stopping you making up a whole load of "what ifs" in his defence...




If the lorry had left the depot 5 mins later, or juice1304 was never born, it wouldn't have happened either.


That's a lot of hypotheticals tbh, I think I need a lie down.

this is getting ridiculous now...like i said without the full details of what had happened you can not say....that is what i said a long time ago.....there is hypotheticals all over the place... including in most of your post's..... the one thing that has been constant though is the fact the the cyclist was in the middle of the road and has caused the danger in the first place....if the cyclist was beside the path the whole situation could have been avoided putting neither the cyclist , person driving the car, the lorry driver or anyone else who could have been following's life in danger

AltAccount

Technoprisoner wrote: »

this is getting ridiculous now...like i said without the full details of what had happened you can not say....that is what i said a long time ago.....there is hypotheticals all over the place... including in most of your post's..... the one thing that has been constant though is the fact the the cyclist was in the middle of the road and has caused the danger in the first place....if the cyclist was beside the path the whole situation could have been avoided putting neither the cyclist , person driving the car, the lorry driver or anyone else who could have been following's life in danger

I've just re-read my posts. I don't see any hypotheticals I've stated, I'm merely trying to test your opinion and see if it's grounded in any facts or common sense.

Unfortunately both qualities seem to be lacking.

Technoprisoner

AltAccount wrote: »

I've just re-read my posts. I don't see any hypotheticals I've stated, I'm merely trying to test your opinion and see if it's grounded in any facts or common sense.

Unfortunately both qualities seem to be lacking.

how is the cyclist in the middle of the road? or do you just like trying to forget they were there in the first place?

AltAccount

Technoprisoner wrote: »

how is the cyclist in the middle of the road? or do you just like trying to forget they were there in the first place?

Why does it matter if juice1304 was in the wrong?

Harrybelafonte

Technoprisoner wrote: »

this is getting ridiculous now...like i said without the full details of what had happened you can not say....that is what i said a long time ago.....there is hypotheticals all over the place... including in most of your post's..... the one thing that has been constant though is the fact the the cyclist was in the middle of the road and has caused the danger in the first place....if the cyclist was beside the path the whole situation could have been avoided putting neither the cyclist , person driving the car, the lorry driver or anyone else who could have been following's life in danger

Are you serious? Whether the cyclists was in the middle of the road or near the kerb the driver will still have to overtake them. On a blind corner? We're dealing with simple rules if the road here. Blind corner, continuous White line, you don't cross it. You're simple proof of the abysmal understanding of road usage and sharing here. The OP said blind corner, he's responsible fir his poor driving no matter what was ahead. If a car had broken down in the middle of that stretch and he cMe around the corner and couldn t stop then he's at fault. It's that simple. Christ, could you dig yourself a deeper hole.

Ifths had happened during a driving test, would he fail?

happytramp

Technoprisoner wrote: »

this is getting ridiculous now...l

You're not wrong there. Just give it over. You know you should never be taking a corner fast enough to cause an accident even if you hit the brakes. Certainly not fast enough to have the momentum to preform an overtake. There is really no need to defend what is clearly a bizarre decision by Juice to overtake a cyclist on a blind corner.

Technoprisoner

AltAccount wrote: »

Why does it matter if juice1304 was in the wrong?

who said he was in the wrong?

do you not think the cyclist should have been to the side of the road...especially on a dangerous corner?

Dermot Illogical

juice1304 wrote: »

I almost creamed some idiot cycling in the middle of the road on a blind corner one day i swerved around him and missed an articulated lorry by inches we were almost killed by his stupidity. I always cycle as close to the curb as is safe so like 12 inches not three feet I also don't think children should be aloud cycle on the road by themselves.

The incident you describe demonstrates that not only do you not know how to drive very well, but that you've joined that lack of knowledge with the absolute certainty that you do. It's a potentially lethal combination.
The cyclist you describe may well have been poorly positioned, but that doesn't make your standard of driving acceptable either.

You mention that you ride a motorbike, one of the least forgiving modes of transport. As one biker to another I'd advise doing some RoSPA training. It may save your life, or it may stop you taking someone else's.

BostonB

Technoprisoner wrote: »

... the cyclist was in the middle of the road and has caused the danger in the first place......

You're missing the point. That the obstruction was a cyclist is irrelevant. Theres lots of situations where you might find either an obstruction or something slow moving in the middle of the road, a child getting a ball, a tractor, something pulling out of a side road or a gate, an animal etc. What would happen if he went around the corner and there was a traffic jam there?

Which is why you don't drive at a speed that is too fast for the distance you can see and stop in. In Germany they have it in Law " the law forbids to travel at speeds that would prolong the vehicle's minimum halting distance beyond the driver's line of sight"

Its common sense.

Del2005

Technoprisoner wrote: »

who said he was in the wrong?

do you not think the cyclist should have been to the side of the road...especially on a dangerous corner?

The cyclist is irrelevant to the person driving the car.

The basic law of driving, or riding, is to be able to stop safely within the distance you can see on your side of the road. He couldn't stop safely and had to swerve into the oncoming traffics lane.

That's why they where travelling too fast for the conditions, note that I never mentioned exceeding posted speed limits.

Stark

Technoprisoner wrote: »

how is the cyclist in the middle of the road? or do you just like trying to forget they were there in the first place?

Damn right there shouldn't be cyclists in the middle of the road. There also shouldn't be pedestrians, animals, tractors, collisions, broken down vehicles, traffic jams, spot flooding, oil spills or anything else that might force you to drive at a safe speed and look where you're going.

Meanwhile in the real world, the rest of us will stick to driving with due care and attention. Yourself and juice1304 need to take a good hard look at the danger your reckless attitude to driving poses to others.

BostonB

That link to the spanish changes also had this one....

...local authorities will have the power to allow cycling on the pavement...

Dermot Illogical

BostonB wrote: »

That link to the spanish changes also had this one....

It's like someone gathered all the stupid sh1t in one place, isn't it?