Loz

The government is cancelling a single contract... "In regard to Addison Lee, the only existing government contract with the company will expire at the end of this month and is not being renewed." No company likes to lose a contract, but I can't see this affecting AL too much. On the other hand, how much have AL raised their profile? Good publicity and bad publicity is all publicity. Plus, although AL lost the injunction hearing, the judicial review he wanted has been brought forward to before the Olympics, which is pretty much what he wanted in the first place. Job done, really.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the-e-dealer Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rainbow Crabby Patties at Bikini Bottom . Yum. > > > I just googled 'Burgers Bikini Bottom'. Just thank your stars you didn't google 'Crabby Bikini Bottom'

Or let any cabs in, then. Which I don't have a problem with. But they have to be fair and consistent - let some in, let all in... or keep them all out.

Why do you want cabs sitting in bus lanes, while they sort out change, receipt, etc? The point of bus lanes is to keep buses moving. Having a black cab sitting there for a minute or so is just not sensible.

Great site, SJ. BBC1, 08 May 1984 1905 Blankety Blank With Terry Wogan. 1940 A Question of Sport With David Coleman and team captains Bill Beaumont and Emlyn Hughes. 2010 Dallas 2100 Nine O'Clock News With Sue Lawley. 2125 The Golden Land. A trilogy of films about the Jews of the United States. 2215 Come Dancing Introduced by David Jacobs. 2300 Night Music. Vocals and music to satisfy and particular mood. 2345 News and Weather 2350 Closedown Yep, why would you want 250 channels against that quality line up? Who needs telly after midnight, anyway?

Ha - the Guardian happily prints the output from the Fawcett Society, so accuracy of stats isn't their strong point! I suspect they just happily regurgitated the press release from 'cyclists' lobby group CTC', since the report does not mention that stat at any point. Plus the 16-24 age group seems to have been somehow classed as a non-adult group, because I suppose it didn't fit the 60%-75% story, especially in the fatal accident category. Plus the article talks of 'responsibility', rather than the reports more measured 'contributor factor'.

OK, I'm no Murdoch fan (or a football fan, for that matter), but really, the football coverage now is light years ahead of an hour of Match of the Day on a Saturday evening. I think pretty much every game (outside the still-sacred-for-some-reason Saturday 3pm kickoff) is available live. That can only be seen as an improvement. I spent some time last night watching the Windies v Australia test. Would BBC of old have covered that? Nope. I get to watch snowboarding on Sky Sports late in the evening. The missus even watched the netball league last year. Sports coverage on TV can only be said to have improved. A lot. And Murdoch - like him or hate him - made that happen.

Hmm, so we've gone from 'up to 75% of collisions involving cyclists' to '60%-75% of all adult cases'. Still not right though. Actually, you are reading more into the stats than ever intended. The report talks of 'contributory factors' and clearly says: The Contributory factors in a road collision are the key actions and failures that the police officer judges to have led directly to the actual impact and, as mentioned earlier, should be viewed as indicative only as they result from a subjective view of the accident. Under the STATS19 system, factors can be attributed to any of the vehicles or casualties involved. This provides the opportunity in the case of cycle collisions to investigate the extent to which the police reporting officers judged that primary contributory factors were related to the cyclist or to others involved in the collision (this does not necessarily mean that the cyclist or other road user was in fact responsible). The report also states: Research quoted in Turner, et al. (2006) found that the extent of error on the part of the cyclist varies considerably with age. The crash circumstances of approximately 2,000 injured cyclists were examined and, for children aged under 12 years, a high proportion was judged to be due to cyclist error. Furthermore, the 8 to 12 year old cyclists were judged twice as likely to have caused a crash if they had had no formal training. In contrast, for cyclists over the age of 18 years, less than half of collisions were considered to be due to the actions of another road user. Anyway, here is the graph of contributor factor attribution. The full report can be found at: http://www.worthingrevolutions.org.uk/sites/worthingrevolutions.org.uk/files/PPR445.pdf

Personally, the very thought of a back, sack and crack makes me squirm. Ngngngngngngnnnn.

Chippy Minton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are a FEW irresponsible cyclists, but drivers are responsible for up to 75% of > collisions involving cyclists. Nice 'DFS Sofa Sale' use of the phrase 'up to' Chippy. I assume you are referring to the DoT report? That percentage refers to a particular age range. Across ages and accident severity, the percentage of driver fault vs cyclist fault varies wildly.

I think the AL head knows how to keep his campaign in the papers. Having a pop at cyclists all but guaranteed him reams of coverage. Cyclists shouldn't be in bus lanes anyway. Have you been in a bus trying to get up Dog Kennel Hill with a rapidly tiring cyclist barely staying moving in front?

Dovetailing somewhat with the Addison Lee thread... never get a black cab from Heathrow to ED if you are paying for it yourself. I got one about five years ago (fortunately with a friend who was on expenses) and it was just short of ?100!! I shudder to think what it would cost nowadays.

giggirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes you absolutely have a legal right to park in Grove Park but what I?m picking up from your posts > is a sense of entitlement. Sorry if I?m reading something into your posts that you didn?t intend > to be there. I got that feeling, and also from cheryl42. I think it was the line that Hugo picked up on especially.

6.55 flight? Is this not a business trip? Cab, on expenses, surely??

Rubbish, snowy. Black cabs ferry carry people for money. Minicabs ferry people for money. Both are regulated services. There is no difference. Except in price, of course. Person A gets a black cab from ED to Heathrow. Person B gets a minicab. Why should person A have their cab allowed in the bus lane and person B not? It's just not right. This is not an AL vs black cabs issue. This is a minicabs vs black cabs issue and whether one part of the industry should have unnecessary privilege and the other discriminated against. Now if you are arguing that black cabs (and by extension, minicabs) not be allowed in bus lanes at all, then I wouldn't disagree.

I think he looked a bit uncomfortable at a couple of the questions thrown at him in the commons - Ben Bradshaw especially seemed to corner him. Also, he seems to be avoiding the did he arrange the SpAd personally question as well. I think that he deserves the chance to defend himself and Leveson should bring his appearance before the enquiry forward to as soon as possible. But, I think his days are numbered.

He's right though. Why should black cabs be allowed in bus lanes and minicabs not? Either all or none.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you may have the right to stick a note wherever you like. But its Bollocks! Actually, I think it is technically littering.

postboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You should ring the police if you're concerned or take a photo of him on your mobile but make sure > you are not on your own. There may be an innocent reason for this but in this day and age you cannot > be too careful. If you are with other you could always confront him. For what??? Honestly, this is the equivalent of some thug in a boozer going, 'you lookin' at my missus'? Don't confront people that are not actually doing anything wrong. How would you like it? Let's all go down to the playground next weekend and confront each and every person with children and get them to prove they are theirs. Unless they are carrying documentary proof that they are actually the parents of the children, we could detain them all and call in the police and social services. You can't be too careful you know...

I'm with Bic Basher - damn handy website. If you want a quick way, each stop has a five digit number on the pole which you can enter into the site. Saves trying to figure it out on a map.

Shouldn't his be in the lost and found section? It seems to qualify on both counts. Which leads to the question... shouldn't it be the "lost or found" section. Most posts wouldn't meet both criteria.

Clare from marketing? Maybe. But anyone from HR I would gladly throw over the side myself. Even in the ship wasn't actually sinking.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To play devils advocate, the first part of the equation in "women and children first" is down to > an outmoded view that women are lesser/weaker creatures in need of protection and men are > chivalrous and noble. But surely the class structure that DJKQ is talking about is also part of a now outmoded view. You can bet that, on the ship that sank in Italy last year, the first class passengers had no priority for the lifeboats. You can't argue one outmoded view without the other, else you should argue neither. > Thanks to feminism such ludicous stone age thinking has gone for good. Going. But not gone. It still hangs around like a bad smell in too many places. Though I have to say, usually the fault of feeble-minded men, rather than women.

... who is just like Angelina Jolie on a bad hair day.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Almost 75% of women passengers on the Titanic were saved, compared with barely 17% of men - and you > want to argue about class war? It's a sideshow. Ah... thank you Hugo. All very well to waffle on about class forever, but the rank sexism of 'women first' should be tackled.