kford

monica Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a shame, the Pavillion cafe in Dulwich park > are always targeted, they fought to get CCTV and > the last I heard it was installed but not working. > Parks need 24 hour security, what happened to the > good old park keeper. Agreed. All CCTV does is record rather than prevent crime. What use is some grainy footage of youths in hoods anyway? It's probably not even admissible in court, as Westminster CC found out recently after installing their multi-million pound system.

It's the time of year for accidents too, with the clocks going back. Still, at least those Scottish farmers get to milk their cows in the light.

Female sparrowhawk

JBARBER Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi kford, > I'm afraid I agree and disagree with you. You're > right to highlight other causes of collisions > including being distracted mobile phones, drink, > etc. But the consequences of a collission at 20mph > vs. 30mph are chalk and cheese. 20mph the victim > almost always survives, 30mph they nearly always > die. > I'm not condoning speeding, and it's a fact of physics that someone hit at 20mph will more likely survive than someone hit at 30mph. But someone alert and sober driving at 25mph is less likely to hit a child than someone drunk or on their mobile phone driving at 20mph. DfT's own figures support that. My point was that - road safety is a complicated subject. We mustn't think: everyone's driving at 20mph - it's all safe and rosy - job done - because it's not.

The road will still be dangerous. Humps do not stop people using their phones, pulling out without looking or driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. Depends how you measure road safety. Edited as meant to be a reply to Loz's post.

If we must suffer them, those tabletop designs are more preferable, like the one which forms a crossing on Peckham Rye. The back roads of Clapham have a few, and they seem to do the job just as well as cushions or full width humps, without the damage to cars, cyclists or spinal vertebrae.

No average speed cameras, please. I'd rather ED motorists have their eyes on the road, not on their speedos. These devices don't stop drivers talking on their phones, drink or drug-driving or driving without due care and attention, which as the DoT's own figures suggest, are the main causes of urban accidents. I'd sooner you lobby for the police to use ANPR to weed out the uninsured, untaxed and unMOTed motorists in the area. According to safety campaigners, they are 10 times more likely to drink and drive and more likely to crash: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4535423.ece

Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Car overturned on Townley at about 3am this > morning (Mr Asset was walking the dog and saw it), > nowt to do with the junction though. > Hope passengers are okay. Those speed humps doing their job then

Didn't mind it when I came across it the other day; the old junction was awkward and necessitated a big crane of the neck to see what was coming if driving from the village and turning right. Must've been tricky for van drivers. Noticed however that tyre tracks suggested someone had driven over the newly-made grass verge, as if the old road had never been removed. As for the kerbs - isn't that a nod towards a 'shared space'?

One on Hansler too

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Kford. That link is worthless as it us very dodgy > assertions by the lib dems. But even if it were > true how much did conductors cost and what is the > net loss really?? I know, those dodgy Lib-Dems, eh. But anyone who uses bendy-buses will tell you they are rife for fare dodging, compared to regular front-loading double-deckers, where it's almost impossible.

Yes, in terms of dodged fares, the bendy bus costs TfL millions: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7291810.stm

Yep, I've seen them parked on the zebra crossing zig-zags in LL, which is an endorsable police offence.

They go well with mash.

How about potatoes?

Always appeal. There are so many loopholes for getting off, eg: the Parking Attendant (PA) has to stand on the pavement in front of the car to write the ticket; the PA has to sign and date the ticket correctly; some boroughs insist that the ticket has to be placed on the vehicle to be valid or it's considered a 'ghost ticket'. There are many more. Wort a punt, unless you're blatantly taking the piss by parking on double yellows, in a bus lane/red route or in front of a dropped kerb.

More Lordship Lane station info: http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/l/lordship_lane/index.shtml

No-one does more than 20 at busy times anyway - it's not possible.

Those speed cameras working just fine then.

I agree completely. What if he ploughed into a bus queue? Doesn't bear thinking about.

I noticed it when I walked past to get the papers at 7.30am yesterday morning.

eater81 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have not heard of this Firezza joint, web site > looks flash, looks like they cater for the more > pretentious elements in this area. Firezza 12" pizza: ?12.95 Pizza GoGo 12" pizza: ?13.95 It's quite thrifty being pretentious.

Is that the spur of pavement by the charity shop? Nearly rode into it on my motorbike this morning.

Clarkes - just what I was thinking - they don't half shift through Grove Vale and LL too. God knows what the stopping distance on one of those things is.

Here's the Tube map from 1949 - they were thinking of it then: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1949.html Wouldn't it be easier to reopen the overground station in Station Road? It's only a couple of stops into Blackfriars.