Loz

It might be saving it for later, SJ. :)

At that time, it would a pretty good chance it was foxy.

Average stopping distance at 20mph = 40ft. 20 of those feet (i.e. more than a parked car length) are reaction time, so you will not even have hit the brake yet.

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In response to aquarius moon: > > Or maybe the driver was texting? or speaking on their phone? or checking their facebook account??? Or maybe they weren't? I can't see your point, unless it's to try and deny that the the pedestrian might have been at fault. As I posted (quite a few pages ago now), I did exactly this the other day, strolled out onto the road without looking properly.

For Oystercards they do antantant and have done for quite a while. There are two different caps, though - one for all transport and one for buses only.

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Reducing the numbers of deaths on the roads (as has been done recently) is obviously good. > > But surely 132 fatalities is 132 too many? 132 families who lost a loved one? Is that fair, or > acceptable? > > Think what you are saying here!! Sadly, every time you look at this sort of thing you have to do a cost/benefit ratio type study. It sounds awful, but it has to be done. Zero deaths is a virtual impossibility in just about any area. You have to accept some level of death. You cannot take the risk of everything. It is either impossibly expensive or impossibly intrusive or completely infeasible. In this case you would just get to the (flawed) logic conclusion that all transport - car, buses, cycles - must be banned. Look at all the child protection stuff brought in since the Soham murders. Most of it is rather ineffective and indeed has got to the silly position where we are putting teenage girls on sex offenders lists for sending someone a topless picture of themselves. All you can do is lower risk as much as possible as cost effectively and as sensibly as possible.

It's OK, though I can't see why it become the biggest animated film ever. More of a Disney film (one layered obvious plot, all aimed at kids) than a Pixar film (lots of clever subplots and references that adults get and slightly go over children's heads). Having seen kids watch it, girls tend to like it more than boys.

I suspect something similar to that dreamed up somewhere in the Wannsee Villa, Jeremy.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The downgrading of the words ?nerd? and ?geek?. I saw one of our local hairdressers in a t-shirt > bearing the slogan ?I?m a hair geek?. Huh? Does it now just mean it?s something you?re not shit at? > In my day, nerds and geeks had severe social skills problems ? is this no longer necessary? As a long-serving geek, I object to that. Geeks have always been those that are particularly good at something generally intellectual and generally to the annoyance/confusion of those that were a bit scared of what was, essentially, a different culture. It's good to see the word get wider acceptance and use.

Ah, one of the joys of having a little Chinese in my bloodline - I'm 48 and my hairline hasn't moved a millimetre north. Getting a bit grey, though.

Jocky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > why did you move from hampstead? > > moving in with my better half. I'm Hampstead and > she's Tooting so we wanted to find somewhere which > combined the characteristics of both. You made the right choice - ED has all the gentle elegance of Tooting combined with the edginess of Hampstead.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When someone says or writes "my bad", I'm always waiting for the next word, as "bad" is normally > used as an adjective. Usually it is an implied "grammar".

Ha ha. Input your name, address and a scan of your key? Why not cut out the middle-man and just leave your front door wide open when you go out?

Nope. Her choice of opening line was far from the worst aspect about her.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Sit on my face' sometimes works on some of the women I know, but only if the guy is hot snyway. Many (many) years ago when I worked in a pub, one girl propositioned me with the rather direct opening line of "fancy a f***?".

And 'soz'. Nggggggghhhh.

Yer a miserable bugger if this doesn't make you smile.

TFL Buses with seats so close together that no reasonably sized person can get there legs into and sit properly. Can they not test these things with some reasonably sized people?

Poor, LD. Very poor. Trying to equate victim blaming always-innocent rape victims with trying to get cyclists to take some responsibility for poor, stupid and irresponsible behaviour of some cyclists is a really bad and lazy argument.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's leave aside these cyclists for a moment OK. If I, as a pedestrian (which I generally am, since I don't have a car at the moment, just a zipcar card) dart out at night between cars and onto the road and someone hits me (be it in a car or on a bike) then it is my fault. I have to take responsibility for my actions that caused me to be injured. In fact, I did something like this (without actually being hit) just the other day in broad daylight. Had a quick (but poor) look and stepped onto the road, right in front of a bicycle. A combination of his startled yell and my panicked leap backwards meant no harm was done. He gave me a mouthful and I sheepishly apologised. He rode on. It wasn't his fault. At all.

Local tramp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I like to drive around and throw things(coins,eggs and Rotten fruit) at cyclists because I think they > are a complete bunch of morons. They ride around dressed up like they are competing in the Tour de > France , imagine if motorists started driving to work all dressed up like Lewis Hamilton. Cyclists > are the most selfish and ignorant people around they are like rats scurrying around on the roads > without a clue with what's going on around them. They should be banned from public roads. If people > want to ride bikes then go and do it in a park or a private track where you not a hazard to the > decent people in society who have enough to worry about without some dickhead on a bike swerving all > over the road. 0/10. I can do better than that. And have.

If you want easy, try fajitas. Cook up some meat/sauce (or two) and the rest is chopped cold stuff. Everyone does their own assembling!

OK, "they were doing everything in there power to be killed" may be a little OTT (but, hey, this is a forum). But cycling on the road at 11pm with no lights and a child on the back is stupid, dangerous and irresponsible. No?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can't boycott a food manufacturer because they're doing research. Hugo! Welcome back! I avoid 'Persil Color' because they can't spell. I avoid ASDA because their advertising only welcomes mums. So yes, I could quite easily add this lot.

But surely it is the responsibility of ALL road users to do whatever they can to prevent death and injury (including their own). But claiming possible 'victim blaming' in this incident, you are completely absolving one party of any responsibility.