DJKillaQueen

Good article from the Independent... http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/woolwich-murder-they-killed-then-they-performed--these-men-should-be-starved-of-our-attention-8628664.html Raises some poignant questions about our reaction as a society.........

Hmm, Santerme, Otta.....I've made a total of three posts on this thread (four with this one) all relevant to the topic........not sure how that makes me anything but restrained tbh ;)

It's a good point TE44 but it's also a reflection of how desensitised to violence we've become. People don't always make the disconnect between movies and reality for example. Personally I am not squeamish to blood and gore, except that is, when it's my own family, or friends, or pets. So that also might explain why people don't react in the ways we'd perhaps expect.

That's pretty much how I see it too El Pibe. This wasn't the act of an ideological movement for maximum effect. It was the act of two lone individuals on another innocent individual. I would say it has all the signs of something planned without much thought, rather than the other way round. My point is that being able to carry out such a barbaric murder requires more than just the subscription to a particular view. For me, blaming jihadist ideology just seeks to place understanding and motive on something I think has no rationale to it. The only place blame ban be laid is with the killers themselves.

I think religion has nothing to do with it. These were two guys who are clearly dangerous and psychopathic. The one speaking to the camera on sky news had a south London accent and probably grew up here (if not born here also). Worse still they were driving around with knives and meat cleavers in their vehicle. It was probably a murder waiting to happen, if not today, tomorrow, next week. And if not a soldier, or help for heroes supporter, it would have been someone else for some other reason down the line. The killing I think was random. The motive random. The preparedness to kill someone, real. No doubt in the coming weeks information will be released about the two killers, and many of us will not be suprised by it, probably.

Ok looking through it seems that EE are doing work, removing masts etc, and that 4G has compromised 3G and 2G signal reception (so it looks like a problem set to last for months). EE have told staff to deny it (of course).... Looks like my best plan would be to demand Tmobile move me to a 4G connection free of charge, or force them to cancel my contract with no penalties.

Doing a bit of digging on mobile phone forums and found this.... Apparently on the old network infrastructure, T-Mobile & Orange masts where literally positioned right next to each other, these masts were errected before Orange & T-Mobile became a single carrier. EE have now decided to streamline the service and remove masts from locations where two are within close proximity, this seems to be what is causing issues. And this I spoke to EE who denied there were any problems. I then spoke to one of their technical team and was told yes there are issues as when TMobile and orange became EE they had so many masts located next to one another that they have started to remove them without upgrading the mast left in situ and the network is struggling. He said it will all be resolved eventually and any issues of signal loss need to be reported to the technical team and not the customer service team as they will deny deny deny!

Will check it out Willard....thanks.

Ok...well I will try and get t-mobile to compensate me then until they fix the mast. I have another six months to run on my current contract, so if they can't provide me with a full service - they can compensate me instead.

Thanks for the info LD....I'm going to demand one tm.....except you say you plug it into your modem? I don't have a landline anymore and use a contract mobile instead. How would the booster box help my mobile signal?

No. I have both vodaphone and t-mobile and can't get a vodaphone signal at all in my home. I've been on a contract phone with Tmobile for 18 months now and had no problems until the last few days and exactly as described above. Last night I had a full strength signal but my call kept dropping. There's definitely something going on and it's not our handsets.

I have cycled accross it LM but am always expectant of the driver cutting to go left.....it really is a challenge even for the most confident of cyclists. Whereas the simple answer would be to use the island as a radial cycle crossing point controlled by lights. Cyclists should never be forced to go around such a huge island with three lanes of traffic crossing around it.

I agree with that JohnL. And that is what happens in cities with the better working transport plans.

1. I cycle most of the time. 2. Use public transport occasionally (if weather is too bad to cycle/ or required attire is not cycling attire/ or visiting family or friends oop North) 3. Drive if transporting something, doing a big shop (usually bulk buying a month's supply of cat litter) or working somewhere not more easily accessible on cycle or by public transport. And cycling on a fine day is my favourite mode of transport. We are well served here with routes through parks and along the old canal route etc. It's only once hitting Elephant and Castle it becomes a bit cycle unfriendly for me. Imo, there's a lot that can be done there (because there is certainly the room to do so) to make for a safer cycle route to the south bank (another favourite cycle route of mine), without impacting on vehicle traffic flows. It just takes some proper planning by the powers that be, and the funding and will to carry out the alterations. Edited to add; and kerbed bus lanes. I am a big fan of those.......from my experiences of cycling in Paris.

I agree LD that there are renewable energy sources, but we are a long way from them being our main supplier of electricity. And especially with solar panels, I can't see why all new builds can't utilise that technology for example. There is definitely a controlling factor at play which is deciding how slowly we convert to renewable energy, namely the oil compnaies who want to see us use every last drop of oil before they are forced to change business. And that frustrates me as much as it probably no doubt frustrates you. But also cost versus productivity of wind farms are challenges too. Personally I am interested in the advent of geothermal energy and think that might be the long term clean solution for our energy needs, but it's going to takes decades to convert all of our energy needs to it. So in the short term the challenges are different. Engines per se are far cleaner than they've ever been but at present for example, nearly half of all new car sales are diesel engines (diesel gives more miles to the gallon). Road tax on diesel vehicles is almost double that of petrol vehicles but for the driver, the savings made in fuel consumption offset for that. From a cycling viewpoint, road pollution in heavy traffic is a concern (although drivers also inhale all this stuff through their air con).

You know the ony way to have accident free roads is for ALL road users to show consideration to and awareness of all other road users. There really is no 'a cycle weighs less than a car and therefore is less likely to kill' leeway to that. LD I have sympathy (or is it empathy) with all 8 points of your post and I do think London suffers from that centuries old issue of poor town planning. Whilst other major European cities benefitted from an overview of wider cohesive town planning (including infrastructure) London has continued to be a planning nightmare of borough pitted against borough, and the mangled mess of ad hoc road networks that we see today. Again I will refer to Paris with its seperated transport infrastructures, where lorries are not allowed witihn the inner orbital and cyclists enjoy a network of protected routes that keep them away from the designed main arteries and orbitals. It's efficient transport planning with minimal impacts on residential and pedestrianised areas. Helped also by a well run subsidised public transport system making for a promoted affordable alternative over the car. Obviously the issue of fuel and energy use is a difficult one. Whilst electric vehicles will improve environment in urban areas, they won't do much for the burnng of fossil fuels. Electricity is less efficient as an energy source than petrol, and still requires the consumption of energy to produce it.

Let's look at it a different way. One of LD's main points is regarding the animosity shown towards cyclists by some drivers, and by animosity we are talking the kind of road rage that endangers lives (I have no disagreement with her on the danger such drivers pose to others). So if a person has a skewed view of a group of people, and some of that group of people deliberately break the rules of the road, then it gives validation to the skewed view, in te mind of the holder. In other words, you get this circle of hate, validated in the minds of the haters by the unlawful, or dangerous, or selfish or whatever, acts of the few. So for me, and bear in mind I cycle more journeys than I drive, if cyclists run red lights, they are just giving fuel to the kind of driver that might one day hate me enough to cut me up and cause me serious injury. So it matters. It's that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones kind of thing. Now when it comes to a good integrated road policy I have some ideas. I have often cycled in central Paris for example and am impressed with just how much more enjoyable it is. Why? Well there is an active network that supports the seperation of cycles from the busiest roads. Many bus lanes are kerbed, so not only can cars not use them illegally, but busses can not 'squeeze' past cyclists to make the next stop and cut you up, either. I think in London the thinking has always been of how to integrate cycling (and public transport) into traffic flows. I think the opposite needs to happen. How to create a network of safe routes that are seperate from dangerous traffic flows.

More motorists than that are fined for jumping red lights. Police point out though that motorists are more likely to be fined for that offence than cyclists (who often may just get a warning) and CCTV helps to identify offending drivers too, which I'm not sure is particularly helpful in trying to evaluate the size of the problem and make comparisons. What I would say is that almost 2000 cyclists being caught and fined in a year for jumping red lights in inner London is a big enough number to worry about. And equivalent numbers of motorists and higher is also a big enough problem to worry about. Because for all those caught, there are many more who are not.

I've always found the worst abuse thrown at me when cycling, to have been when riding in central London. I don't seem to find the same level of antagonism elsewhere. It could just be that congestion raises intolerance. But I also think that some drivers behave like idiots so cyclists hate all drivers, and some cyclists behave like idiots and drivers then hate all cyclists. Cycle couriers have a terible reputation for example with taxi drivers..and vice versa. So it becomes a battle of perception and attitude. The problem is how to break that.

Boris bikes might have numbers but thousands of cycles on the roads up and down the country don't so ridiculing the low number of Boris bikes reported as some kind of indication that cyclists don't break the highway code in any kind of significant number is a poor example. However take a look at the number of cyclists fined by Police for jumping red lights.....2008, 536 cyclists in the Metropolitan Police area...2008/09, 1,085.....2010, 1,872.....and those are just the ones caught and fined in Metropolitan London. Or this report that shows around 15% of cyclists on average jump red lights.... http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf

You are right LD regarding anti-cycling rhetoric....but I've never seen the forum as being a benchmark in balanced debate anyway, I think few people do :) (except that is, within the confines of the drawing Room). Raising awareness is a good thing when done effectively.

No-one is disagreeing though that those who cause death and injury on the roads should be punished, and severely. But you are confusing that with some campaign against any driver that overtakes a little close for your liking. Nearly having an accident is not going to get anyone convicted except in serious circumstances. In fact the Police won't be interested in endless compaints about this driver or that driver almost cutting you up or pulling out in front of you, unless there's an accident.

At least drivers have number plates to identify them when things do go wrong......cyclists on the other hand?

Exactly SJ. This is never going to be a balanced debate. This, like last time, is just one person forcing her view on others, a view based on the threory put forward by Amaral in his book. A book that was decided by a judge to be based on no hard evidence whatsoever. When anyone posts anything that reasonably challenges that theory, like for example why cadaver dogs can not be relied upon without supporting forensic evidence (of which none was found following the use of the cadaver dogs in the McCann case)(and look at the use of the same dogs in the Jersey Childrens Home case and the following media reporting - all of which had to be retracted) that person isn't interested in considering any of it. Entirely agree with ratty. Losing their child is the highest price the McCanns could have paid for not having used a babysitter that evening.

That's pretty shocking SJ but luckily the Police got to her before she killed herself smashing into the back of a car she was tailgating at 95mpr that had to brake suddenly! Motorcylists on the whole are better drivers LD because they require better driving skills than the average motorist and because they are aware of the risks associated with making a mistake on their vehicles. Motorcyclists are also taught defensive riding skills. Having said that though, there's another type of two wheeled road user, young moped and scooter riders on L plates who take some alarming risks. As a cyclist though, the vehicles that take the most risks around me tend to be buses. They are especially bad for overtaking in order to pull into a bus stop not far enough ahead to avoid forcing me, the cyclist, to brake. Now that might just be the result of spending a lot of journeys travelling in bus lanes where cars aren't allowed, but all the same, it stands out to me.