Loz

Search around and then get John Lewis to price match. Their after-sales service is even worth a couple of extra quid.

First, ask for the evidence. A photo can never be evidence of a yellow box offence: they need a video showing that you entered the box with no exit available AND became stationary - remember that any lane can be available to you, not just the one you are in. If that shows you contravened the law, then unless you can swing a technicality (i.e. incorrect road markings) then it's time to stump up the dosh. Lots of info online if you google it.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The sovereign grant is around ?30million per year. Try replacing that with the full Presidential office and associated civil servants. I doubt you'd get much change and may even cost you more. At the moment a meeting with the Queen equals and perhaps surpasses a meeting with the POTUS. Utterly invaluable for the UK. The UK President would be a comparative nobody on the world stage.

He's talking about EDF PMs, not email, r-c.

Fnarr, fnarr.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If that's your view, you're entitled to it. But resorting to insults is a bit childish, you could > try a little harder to articulate your side of the argument. I've not made an argument - merely asked you to back 'facts' you've asserted with some actual proof. Which you have consistently failed to do. > Exactly the sort of response I'd expect from a wannabe boy racer in his 1.1 Astra and cheap tinted glass, really. Because resorting to insults is a bit childish, isn't it? As it happens, I don't own a car.

There was a whole thread on this a while ago... http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1429642,page=1 Basically, the green space is not part of the school.

keekybreeks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > im pretty thick skinned on the EDF But, but... you've only been here two days? Ha ha. I make myself laugh sometimes.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your point (4): In the links I've posted. My case > is rested and you are entitled to your opinion. Well, considering your links did not back up your assertion that "20mph seems to be the equilibrium in terms of cost/benefit" with any actual evidence, the only real conclusion is that you are, indeed, talking out your bottom.

Acestream. And http://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/wiki/livestreams

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How are we all doing on Snorks bingo? just a > couple of more obvious targets needed for a Full House No white, middle-aged attempts at street talk yet.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In fact, this useful site shows that even > car-loving America has some low limits as low as > 10mph in residential areas > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_U > nited_States > > Shall we go there? Floundering more a little, LL. And, I think, avoiding the question. Let's rewind a little... 1) Back a page, you stated, "Generally the consensus seems to be 20 seconds per mile. So the question is are people thinking that time savings outweigh the life savings?" 2) I said, "Where does that line of thinking stop? Is 15mph even better? 10mph? 5mph? What is an 'acceptable' number of deaths/injuries?" 3) You said "20mph seems to be the equilibrium in terms of cost/benefit." 4) I said, show me the evidence. Show me where there are actual scientific evidence or stats to back the cost/benefit ratio, comparing it to, say 25mph or 15mph? Since then, you have a) said you'd already posted the links (you hadn't), b) told me to google it myself and c) posted links that don't show this at all. Full on floundering. I assume therefore, you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that 20mph is the "equilibrium in terms of cost/benefit" as you claim. And no evidence that the number of deaths at 20mph are deemed acceptable, but those at 25mph are not. And that the 'life savings' between 15 mph and 20mph are seen as unworthy of concern, but the 'life savings' between 20mph and 25mph/30mph are. In other words, you are talking out your bottom.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For a mile? Maybe. Maybe not. But at that speed > that would be once every 3 mins. > > But I don't understand the argument that somehow you can do it at 30mph and not 20mph or that you > need to check so often and for such length (as opposed to a split-second glance) that you are > actually increasing the danger. It's ludicrous. That's probably true. I know for the motorways with 50mph average speed cameras at roadworks, holding a speed of 47-50 mph over the course of three or four miles is actually quite hard. Drop below 47 or so and drivers behind get annoyed, wander over 50mph for too long and you risk getting your average speed too high. Cruise control would be bliss in these.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Utter nonsense. The idea that you need to constantly check your speedo to maintain 20mph is > simply an indication you're not a very good driver. I'll bet good money that you cannot maintain a car speed between 18-22mph for one mile without looking at the speedo every 30 secs or so.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > Err, read the links I posted! > > > > Which one/s? I can only see the City of London one, which doesn't cover that question. > > You could google "20mph cost benefit analysis" Well, I could have, but you claimed you had already posted the links. > But I've done that for you, found the link and point you towards pages 57 - 61 > > http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ That doesn't answer the question I asked at all. That starts and ends with the assumption of 20mph - it doesn't analyse whether 20mph is the correct speed to use based on any cost/benefit analysis as you claimed. My original question was, "So is there any actual scientific evidence or stats to back the cost/benefit ratio, comparing it to, say 25mph or 15mph?". By your flailing around, I suspect the answer is 'no' then. So we still don't know whether 15mph even better. Or 10mph? Or 5mph? Or what is an 'acceptable' number of deaths/injuries? There is no cost/benefit analysis as you claimed, is there?

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People who sit at a funny angle or sideways on > trains B*stards! Don't blame me on buses - on half the buses I can't get my legs in straight due to the stupidly small space they leave between seats. And I'm not amazingly tall, so I reckon quite a few people suffer this.

Is there some weird old thread renewal programme/competition going on? Or has LM lost it?

AFN, I reckon.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > So is there any actual scientific evidence or > > stats to back the cost/benefit ratio, comparing it > > to, say 25mph or 15mph? > > Err, read the links I posted! Which one/s? I can only see the City of London one, which doesn't cover that question.

peckhamside Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have not read every post so some of these points > may have been made. > 1. Driving more slowly saves fuel. Not if you have to drop a gear. Petrol consumption is not governed by how fast you are going, but how much you have to depress the accelerator pedal. That's why you see cars advertised with "city cycle" and "highway cycle" MPGs, with the faster highway cycle usually having the higher MPG.

Well, that was a rather unexpected Godwin.

OH MY GOD ... WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! No one should ever leave their house. Ever.

That would, indeed, be a real shame. Though her profile says she was 'active' today.

Maybe. Or maybe it's just all for nothing.

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are Brazilian and lovely people and in summer they seem to wear > little shorts and t-shirts and I'm embarrassed to say it's sometimes distracting to the point that > Im forced to leave the house. A bit like this? http://karauke.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/want-to-break-free-queen.jpeg[