Rockets

Uh-oh...now the teachers are upset.....

I would challenge anyone who spends any amount of time walking around the Dulwich area - especially Dulwich Square - not to have had incidents with cyclists. If they haven't then they clearly aren't spending much time in the area at all or they are choosing not to see things. To be fair there is probably cognitive bias on both sides - some of us see it more frequently because it grabs out attention and confirms our position whilst others will choose not to see it because by doing so it confirms their position that it is not happening. It is happening and by pretending it isn't some are making a rod for their own back.

What does everyone think of the relaunch? Is it an admission things have not gone well?

Earl - you didn't jump to a conclusion did you.....where have we seen that before, seems to be a lot of folks partial to bit of knee-jerking ;-)

I didn't say there was any issue - I was actually commenting on what a god idea they are. You seem to have had a bit of a knee-jerk aggressive Pavlovian reaction and seem to think anything I post is having a go at things. Calm down...I was agreeing that they were a good idea......

Does anyone have any realistic ways of making that happen? Great to say it, much harder to do it. Legal e-bikes are limited but that doesn't mean they are safe - accidents happen (with any vehicle) and speed is not always the sole factor for an accident - clearly the faster the speed the higher risk of accident and the bigger the negative impact. If a vehicle is being driven badly or a bike being ridden badly then the risk is still high. Interesting article in Cycling Weekly on the illegal e-bike market. https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/it-seems-to-me-that-no-one-who-buys-one-of-these-electric-bikes-is-planning-to-pedal-very-much

Well we do. You don't Still no response to my question I see....what a surprise.... BTW let me answer on part of the question on what the Highway code says about cycling on pavements: Rule 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129

And on this? Just remind us, what does it say in the Highway Code about cycling on pavements?

Malumbu, any response?

Malumbu, absolutely nonsense. You can support active travel measures but oppose a specific implementation of an active travel measure. Stop viewing the world as a binary one - a lot on the pro-lobby really struggle to see that there can be a middle ground and this is why so many think their behaviour can be a cultish - it's their way or nothing else.

The problem for DullVileRes is that they think anyone who objects to any of the active travel measures is doing so not because they object to them but that the objections are politically motivated.

We really really need Spitting Image back, they would have had a field day with the previous lot and this lot... I agree that laughing and ridiculing politicians is one of the ways we hold them accountable and our cultural heritage is laced with great examples, Private Eye, Spitting Image etc etc

What a great idea that it is, very clever - a win/win! I had wondered what they were when I saw them when they were first put in.

Or promote them to be a member of the Cabinet.....;-)

I think this story will run a bit - Labour HQ has said she went because "further details have come to light". Which is political speak for "what is about to come to light was not something we were aware of so don't blame us". i.e. casting her adrift politically and suggesting she did not tell them the full story to cover their own backs. Clearly the police must have thought something unusual was happening to charge her with that - we will probably find out over the weekend. The problem is when you preach that "we're not like them" and then you act like them then it makes you look like hypocrites. In isolation this could be managed but it's another example of Labour saying one thing and doing another - Cash for Access, the clothing debacle, MP punching constituents etc etc etc. It casts all politicians in a bad light.

Yes, to a many I am sure it underlines the difference. But to many it will reinforce the similarity. That is the bigger risk of the two. They will be hoping the Assisted Dying vote drowns out her resignation and that becomes the focus.

Jumping to conclusions again Earl - you don't actually know it was a push bike do you.....;-)

Yes that is absolutely right but when Keir Starmer has said (during partygate) "lawbreakers cannot be lawmakers" you have to question how she ever got appointed to the cabinet. Was anyone doing any due diligence? The fact she resigned so quickly might also suggest as more details of the case come out it may become more damaging to both her and the party. Wasn't it someone switching the phone back on again that triggered the police to get back in touch with her? Yet another massive own-goal.

Could be an interesting few days for Louise Haigh.... BBC News - Haigh admits pleading guilty to 2014 criminal offence https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2l95750v08o

Yup I am looking at you Snowy....;-)

Did I wake up in some parallel universe - listened in to Keir's press conference today and he was saying immigration was out of control, the Tories had been running an Opens Borders Experiment and his party were going to get on top of it.....sounded very much like a right-wing Tory pitch....;-) Also, does the ONS not have an element of responsibility - these are, after all, their figures that are being continually revised - is their data collection/analysis robust? Or is the suggestion that there was political interference in the numbers that were being published by the Tories?

Good grief - the Foundation for Integrated Transport put money up to fund this research....why is it when it comes to anything active travel or the anti-car lobby that people are happy to fritter money away.....the world has gone utterly mad....? The author who received the money is a "freelance journalist, author and speaker specialising in cycling and urban transport." Of course they are....

Clearly there is going to be no election but it was interesting listening to the Rest Is Politics this week where they discuss this and they did a really good breakdown on the risk to Rachel Reeves and this budget and that is a lack of growth and no clear plan on where growth is going to come from. Rory Stewart breaks down, very coherently, why Labour have a huge battle ahead and how their policies and budget could become a problem and echos much of which has been said on here (but without the raw emotion!!! ;-)) They also said, and this is a big issue for Labour, that Keir's approval ratings are now at -38 (and those are Liz Truss levels) and, at the same point in his tenure Tony Blair was at +68. Well worth a listen, especially if people want to hear balanced discussion around a variety of subjects.

DKHB.. I am not the one fixating on the use of the word accident! 😉

If only people spent as much energy on solving problems instead of fixating on the use of the word accident....very reflective of how completely bonkers the world we live in has become. Because the very point is you do not know that the accident was caused by poor driving. You're jumping to your ideologically driven hopes and conclusions. Again. It was dead until someone took umbrage about the use of the word accident. And I checked the dictionary again and the word still works really well for what happened here: accident /ˈaksɪd(ə)nt/ noun 1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury. "he had an accident at the factory"