blinder999

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Couldn't agree more Macroban. > > I hope Alan Dale's reading this after our spat a > year ago? ah happy days... oh, Alan's messages have been edited! http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,9773,9863#msg-9863

east-of-the-Rye Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > re. the Adys Road/Crystal > Palace Road junction to increase the time allowed > for crossing - it's currently 9 seconds That junction is crazy - I crossed there this morning, and I counted 5 seconds of green man time.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So are the other cars stopping on green, or are > you talking about just a fraction of a second > here? IMO the notion of jumping red lights 'by a fraction of a second' is mob-speak b0ll0cks - we all know when we're supposed to stop - there's no grey area, except when the vociferous car-driving majority wants to excuse their own rotten behavour while hypocritically berating the cyclist minority. For the record, I have an absolutist always-stop-at-red-lights policy, but I really loathe the hypocrisy, ill-considered arguments, knee-jerk reactions and attempted mob-bullying that taints any discussion of cycling. Having said that, I got overtaken at every red light between ED and Hyde Park Corner this morning by a grey-haired bloke in his forties riding an old Peugeot racing bike, wearing black lycra cycling shorts and a yellow top. This was very irritating, and in fact, illustrates my personal reason for never jumping red lights: it p1sses everyone off.

lozzyloz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not all cyclists jump lights blindly. the problem is, so many other road users despise you - and therefore all other cyclists - for not obeying the rules, leading to some very aggressive and dangerous behaviour from people driving powerful heavy machines.

We Brits have a very hypocritical attitude to obeying the rules - we are extremely quick to bang on about other people's infractions, without really examining our own behaviour. A good example is pedestrians' attitude to crossing the road - there I am trying to teach my son to cross when the green man shows, when people all around us are striding into the road with barely a look. It's no wonder that in this environment people grow up to be incapable of obeying rules in the absence of strict enforcement. In some countries it's unacceptable to cross against a red man, or in the absence of a crossing. But here, most people laugh at the notion they should obey these rules - and I can guarantee, if they got on a bicycle, they would be ignoring the red lights en masse - it's just the way British society shapes us. If a rule inconveniences us, we ignore it, unless it is enforced. Laughing in the face of the rules is all very well, but it's very hypocritical to castigate cyclists for joining in.

Ms B Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For what it's worth, I used to work for a fairly > large multinational company based in Europe which > included employees from many countries, with the > largest groups coming from France, Germany, the > Netherlands, Italy and the UK. The thing I > remember everyone saying when they left was that > they would never work with French people again. I worked at Paris Disneyland a few years ago, with lots of French, English, Irish and Dutch people. Everyone got along really well - though I did meet a couple of Irish people who really hated the English.

John Barnes wasn't kidding then

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps tomorrow we will all adjourn to > Sauchiehall Street and take up residence and have > a pop at the natives... EDF is hardly Sauchiehall Street... though I was in Piccadilly Circus waiting for a friend a few years ago, minding my own business, when a young man swaggered up to me and started banging on about how he hated the English because he was Welsh blah blah. Before I had a chance to respond, an enormous shaven-headed Ingerlaaand caricature of a bloke tapped him on the shoulder (obviously having overheard the Welsh nationalist ranting) and said to him, "Yeah, but you are BRITISH, aren't you?" It was a joy to watch the piss and vinegar evaporate from my new Welsh friend. I left them to discuss the matter.

the only Tripitaka for me: http://www.galiciaguide.com/pics/masako2.jpg

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh, and blinder's hacking cough is more likely > from diesel particulates, from said taxis and > out-of-tune trucks and buses. at least it's not the woodbines then

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sit behind something runnning off bio-gas and it > stinks too, doesn't mean it's polluting. In the absence of a full breakdown of scooter vs motorbike relative pollution, I'll trust the evidence of my hacking cough and blackened lungs, and continue to opine that they are not 'environmentally friendly'

> > This final paragraph reveals the fatal flaw in > this test. These are large engine sizes for a > motorbike. Scooters, which are the most common > form of commuter motorcycle only have engines of > 50cc - 125cc. Much smaller than those tested here. the article states very clearly that they tested scooters as well. And anyone who's ever ridden behind a vespa or any other (particularly 2-stroke) scooter will tell you they emit the foulest of fumes > > Very few motorcycle riders into central London > would bother with something so powerful. not true. I see loads of big bikes every day on my commute, as well as loads of stinky old mid-range courier bikes

Rhinestone Cowboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Took the bus into work today, one hour 10 mins. On > thy bike it's 25. Guess it was good to try once I am tempted to get a motorbike (it's been a couple of years) - things such as this new charge put me off. The bicycle takes me 35 minutes, SE22 to W8, and is all the exercise I ever have to take, so I'll probably stick with it for a few more years.

dazed&confused Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- So much for the > Government trying to encourage environmentally > friendly transport! Motorbikes aren't environmentally friendly at all: from the Guardian

haha: Dominic West (McNulty) interview

lizzie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One thing that no-one has mentioned is that the > Mag were cool about kids. My son's 15 and I've > been taking him there for about 3 years to watch > football matches. So long as the kids were > quietish no-one ever minded. He knew John and the > bar staff and I personally think taking kids into > pubs like that demystifies the whole experience > and will prevent them turning into raging binge > drinkers. The CPT doesn't even allow kids outside > on the terrace which is ridiculous. The CPT has just changed its policy, and the old sign (no dirty workclothes, no kids etc.) is gone. There's a new sign saying 'kids welcome' in big letters, and they've started doing barbecues on Saturday lunchtimes.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you read the artyicle rather than the headlines > it says he is considering - that instinctively he > supports better urban spaces and public control of > them but has, sensibly, taken account of the TFL > analysis that it will create traffic congestion - well, that's what Boris's spin doctor says he meant. The journalist writes "But sources close to the ?18 million project, originally given the go-ahead by Ken Livingstone, claimed it had been abandoned to avoid angering motorists." Personally, I agree with Jenny Jones' assessment: "Boris seems incapable of making the tough decisions needed to improve London's environment," she said. "There were huge complaints from motorists ahead of the redesign of Trafalgar Square, but the previous Mayor faced them down. Trafalgar Square was transformed from a famous monument on a traffic island into a well used and loved public space. If Boris hasn't got the guts to make tough decisions, then all his talk of a beautiful London filled with trees, birds and clean air is meaningless."

Boo! No nice piazza in front of the Houses of Parliament cos it'll upset the car addicts Boris shelves Ken's plan for a Parliament Square piazza

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Repeated stats show that police foot patrols do > little or nothing to reduce crime. The average > foot patrol sees one crime being committed every > fours years and even then isn't guaranteed to > catch the perpitrator. Surely the point of foot patrols is to deter criminals from committing crime - therefore if they are successful, they shouldn't see crime being committed - ithey are acting in a 'security guard' type role. When the effectiveness of the police is based on how many crimes they clear up, I can understand why they would rather not be on foot patrol and thus deter crime... a quick google of opinions on police foot patrols brought up this, which sounds quite convincing to me: > They are one of the most ineffectual methods of > policing and yet people still clamour for them. > Bizarre.

Perhaps the Uptown Dulwich Criminals live there.

brendapermaul Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Local parents won't send their children to a > school of this size on this site I understand that residents in the immediate vicinity may be really annoyed by this school (and perhaps with good reason), but there can be little doubt that if the school is any good, it will be massively oversubscribed. And in my opinion, whether it's any good or not will have very little to do with the number of square metres per child. After all these years of waiting, it's great news for local parents that we're finally going to have a local boys' secondary school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/

KoolBananas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Keef I assume he means you mate ;-) dunno about that, Keef's pretty fly (for a white guy)

I think you have to ignore scum like that. I would guess they do know how offensive it is and were trying to get a reaction out of you - might even have been a reverse-psychology attempt at a chat-up: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/am-pickup1011,1,6467330.story "In lieu of complimentary openers about a woman's "soulful eyes" or "great personality," some men now rely on variations of such tried-and-true lines, as "What weird hair color -- that isn't natural," "Oh, you look just like a hobbit," and the piece de resistance, "Nice nails. Acrylic?" Such bizarre tactics are being employed by men using reverse psychology, gleaned from card-carrying pick-up professionals, who believe a little misdirection and subtle indicators of interest are better than a sweaty handshake and all-too-earnest introduction. Arguably no more sophisticated than pulling a pig-tail in the third grade, negative attention-grabbers may not intend to harm the "target," but they are a technique, for which purveyors of the multi-million dollar seduction self-help business have become most infamous."