DJKillaQueen

Yes and TFL manage all the main roads.

Hi Milk. Whilst I totally accept you experience of dealing with accident trauma, and agree that in specific circumstances a helmet helps, and totally accept your point about children feeling they are not useful if told they don't help, I would also add that some drivers might also think that because a cyclist is wearing a hlemet, the damage they can do in an accident is limited. In fact I know that some drivers think this way, which is why they are more cautious around cyclists without helmets. Also the evidence doesn't support the theory either.... http://cyclehelmets.org/1012.html As the about article points out, fatalities often are the result of a combination of serious injuries. If a lorry crushes you while turning a corner, it's not a head injury that kills you....and that fatal impacts are often at such a high speed from the vehicle that again, a helmet would not have made any difference to the outcome. SF the OP clearly states the car cut the corner and drove into the oncoming vehicle lane, as cars were turning left. The cyclist was not in the junction box, but at the head of the traffic waiting to turn left. Seems clear to me.

It's a completely idiotic consideration in my opinion. And I defy anyone to try driving over humps at 40-50 mpr without damaging their car...a bit of exaggeration there Pugwash. Most drivers drive according to the conditions. Why punish them with draconian blanket speed limits because of the few idiots. Are we seriously expecting drivers to drive at 20mpr in the middle of the night when there are hardly any vehicles or pedestrians about too? Incidently...Southwark has no power to change speed limits on main roads. Only TFL have that power.

But this is where the rest of us in the real world lose sympathy sf. If a rule changes, you can't then have exemptions for misogynists who can't stomach the new rule. Either the CofE thinks gender inequality is wrong or they don't. And besides, how hard would it be for someone genuinely perturbed by female bishops to avoid them (just as they do female priests)? This need to have opt out rules is just a means to protect some pretty wrong thinking by some members of the church I'm afraid.

The only protection a helmet will give is from impact of light force. A cycle helmet is only polystyrene with a thin plastic shell. They split and crush fairly easily. I always wore a helmet every time I cycled for years. I don't always now (usually shorter daytime journeys) and I definitely think drivers are more careful around me when I'm not wearing a helmet. But it's also easier to see I'm female too without a helmet...so maybe that plays a role ;)

ObsessedwithOlives Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She was infront of the cars and the car turning > didn't see her. You mean he didn't look for her. Motorcyclists get this all the time too when drivers hit them...'I didn't see you'. Funny how they always see Police on motorcycles though.

The OP is clearly saying the car turning right cut the corner. The cyclist would have had to be in front of the oncoming traffic (waiting to turn left) to be hit. Whereever the Cyclist was, the driver turning should not have been on that side of the road as he/ she turned. *crossed posts*

Also it's worth pointing out that central London for example has a lot of courier cyclists for whom time is money. In my experience, they seem to be the worst offenders for some of the things we are talking about. But the Police do regularly target cyclists in central London with on the spot fines, just as they target unisured drivers with pop up ANPR road blocks. I totally agree with the sentiment of DaveR in that most of the angst levied at cyclists is about cyclists being able to sail through traffic jams. The green boxes at the head of lights have been one of the best safety measures introduced for cyclists, yet many times you will see motorists sat in the green box. And I think Boris's idea of advanced filter lights is an excellent one too. I don't cycle through red lights but often if a light has just gone red, I'll get off my bicycle and walk accross if clear to do so, and get on my bicyle on the other side. I'm not breaking any law by doing so.

Helmets don't offer as much protection as people think. They won't protect you from any kind of strong impact nor any kind of substantial weight bearing. I also have found that when wearing a helmet some drivers take less care around me. It seems clear from the OP that the driver was entirely at fault. Glad the lady is ok.

The other issue is whether an insitition free from equality law should be involved with government and establishment? Most people would say no and they would say no because any standpoint argued or defended, would be done so from a standpoint of gender inequality. Government is formed by the will of the people. That's the democratic principle anyway. So that says that if the will of the people is secular, then the power of the CofE within that process should be negated. Put it this way....if a referendum were to be held tm asking people if bishops should retain their automoatic rights to seats in the House of Lords, I think it would most definitely be a no vote. Of course that is intrinsically linked to the issue of any kind of hereditary peerage and an issue that will only be solved by transforming the House of Lords into a fully elected second chamber...and a seperate issue for debate....but the point remains, that there is something distinctly foul about allowing any institution to ignore gender equality whilst having guaranteed roles and power within government.

I think your point on Bishops in the House of lords and exclusion of women is a very good demonstration of how what the CofE thinks and does, impacts on what should a democratic chamber with equality at it's core. Could you imagine if such a thing existed in Parliament? That women were not eligible to stand for any number of seats? There would be an uproar, yet we tolerate it of the Lords. My view is that until thre IS equality for those seats, that Bishops should not be allowed anywhere near the Lords, or any aspect of governement whatsoever.

I was going to follow on from Huggers excellent post by adding that being around anyone, even in friendship, who impacts on your own mental health is too high a price to pay. We are talking specifically about a compulsive liar in this case, but the same can be said of relationships with alcoholics, drug addicts, bullies.....they are all in some form abusive elements within a relationship. I had my own experience of a relationship with an alcoholic/cokehead bully. It lasted six months (by which time I got rid) but it cost me in both personal and emotions ways, and financially too. It also impacted on my career at the time, which I think is what gave me the drive to get away from it in the end. It was only six months, but I felt the repercussions for years afterwards. What I learned from that is that no matter how aware and strong we think we are, a wrong decision in partner can unleash the kind of chaos and devastation that Huggers illustrates. More than anything, a relationship is supposed to be two way (just like a friendship). If you have a partner that impacts on your mental health like this, how is that partner ever going to be a support to you when you need them to be? They are not. More importantly, if children are part of your plans....what kind of parent is he going to make? There's that to think about too. LOL Salsaboy...even I'M tempted by that offer ;)

If he's not prepared to acknowledge he has a problem, and turns the blame on you when you challenge that, then I think the answer for you is to move on. It's only worth helping someone if they are prepared to accept the help. Relationships are always a difficult one because of the additional ties and emotions involved. They can run very deep making walking away just as hard as staying. It sounds as though the belief system he's created for himself is reinforced by the family he has around him and you are never going to change that. I wish you luck though Pinky and hope that you come to the decision that works best for you x

That's true Otta and not something unique to religious institutions either. It's just that religious institutions are painfully slow to change. Of course, the falling congregations are exactly a result of that growing gap between reform on the roles and achievements of women in wider society, amongst other things, and the snail's pace of reform within the church. Increasingly the church is showing itself to be out of step, to it's own detriment.

I agree with every word of your post DaveR. When I had driving lessons, something my instrustor drummed into me was, not only to give planty of room when overtaking a cyclist, but to also check my mirror after overtaking them to make sure I'd done so safely. It was great advice.

You have to think about your own happiness. Very few people could find happiness with someone who lies to them. It is also his problem to address (whatever the underlying reasons may be) not yours. Sadly it may take him losing something he values before he addresses the problem. Having said all that though, it's very easy for people outside of your lives to tell you to dump him. You've been dating for eight years, which is a long time, and suggests that there are other aspects of the relationship that must work very well. My personal view is that it depends on what the lies are, and why he tells them. Someone lying because they have low self esteem and don't want to disappoint is different from someone lying to deliberately cheat, mislead, gain advantange over, or hurt someone. The former is something also often learned as a defence mechanism (against bullying usually or to gain attention) during early childhood. But treatment like CBT, over time, can often change that. If your partner is one of these cases, it means he needs to relearn how to not feel the automated need to lie. Ultimately only you can decide what is right for you. There are plenty of other people out there who don't lie of course. My advice would be that, if your partner is willing to seek some help to try and change, then it might be worth you going on that journey with him and supporting him through it. If he is unwilling to change, then you have to decide if that is a flaw in someone that you can accept for potentially the rest of your life.

It all sounds more complicated that it should be to me. Either the C of E has female bishops or it doesn't. Setting rules for those that don't want it even if they become allowed is just daft and wouldn't be tolerated in normal law. Perhaps the C of E needs to be reminded that it does actually have a woman at the head of it...in the form of the monarch. Queen Elizabeth II tends not to interfere in things even though she has a constitutional right to do so, but a future female monarch might not be so passive.

So the C of E choose to continue it's tradition of institutionalised misogyny and regected the appointment of female bishops today. Does the C of E have any future? Or is this the final death rattle of an institution well past it's sell by date?

Very good point Huggers.

Discrepencies in punishments for comparable crimes are a seperate issue though. The only issue here is whether or not a deliberate or neglectful act by the accused caused or led to the death of this woman. As someone has written above, a jury considered the evidence and decided it had. At that moment, the role of a train guard is to ensure it is safe for a train to leave a platform. And this tragic incident highlights just why there are guards on trains and platforms doing exactly this task. To be fair, his sentence is in line with drivers who cause death through dangerous driving, so perfectly reasonable in my view.

If we want to talk about waste of expenditure within local authorities, be sure to mention the millions wasted by the Lib Dem council when it locked Southwark into ridiculously expensive maintenance contracts James....or the ludicrous amount wasted on that darn call centre (which finally and sensibly has been brought back in house). I could go on. Our estate was leaf cleared last week so no issue there. The general cleaning has been halfed in staff and there are issues from time to time but we are hardly drowning in a sea of litter. There also has to be responsibility taken by the public here too, to not leave as much litter and to manage refuse sensibly.

We have ten noticeboards around our estate on Peckham Rye and I'd be happy to put posters on those for you. You can send them to [email protected] and we'll print them out.

Hmm..so the show that clams to be live, wasn't totally so?

I just find is all so depressing. Where will it stop? When NO-ONE but the tiny few can afford to buy? Rents are already heading that way.

That's partly, true but I always think that as long as a motorist can see you then it's ok. Vans, lorries, buses etc are a different level of risk though. What I would also say is that if a car is on a dual carriageway, the driver has to be as aware of what is to her or his left. We know that cyclists are common place on London's Road's and like motorcyclists they require more effort to see. So for me, part of being a good driver in London is about being continuously aware of what's around you. And if you want to be truly accident free, you have to expect people to do stupid things.