ED - NAGAIUTB

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It should be a 20 mph limit along there. The > frequency and severity of these accidents would be > reduced. Hope the man is ok. Copy. Paste. Every bloody thread......

Is there still a (small) Boots in Forest Hill?

All clear now.

Not sure what is going on but the road is closed and traffic diverted. Emergency services on scene and it looks like tape up outside Plough Homecare. Best avoid the area if possible.

I have to admit, henryb looks a lot butcher in the first picture than I gave him credit for. Not sure about the orange headband though.......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/24078247

Holy thread resurrection, Batman!

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rule 206 > > "Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the > pavement" > > Did the driver do that? No. He was t-boned by the cyclist. How do you give way to someone approaching at a right angle? Warp drive, perhaps?

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Wouldn't apply in any way shape or form, as > > described by the OP. > > > > Cyclist approaching on the pavement at speed > > wouldn't give the most careful of drivers the > > chance to stop creeping forward, brake and then > > reverse. There's more to the Highway Code than > > just reading it. > > We don't know how fast the cyclist was going. The > car was on the pavement and clearly the driver > hadn't looked carefully either way before driving > on to it - otherwise they would have seen the > cyclist. I am not saying the cyclists wasn't at > fault too. However not being able to see is not an > excuse for hitting someone - especially if you are > driving on the pavement. The cyclist rode into the side of the car. The car didn't hit the cyclist. The cyclist was on the pavement. Cyclist 100% to blame.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The car driver was at fault too. He should have > checked more careful. Highway code is quite clear. > > > https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care > -204-to-225/pedestrians-205-to-210 Wouldn't apply in any way shape or form, as described by the OP. Cyclist approaching on the pavement at speed wouldn't give the most careful of drivers the chance to stop creeping forward, brake and then reverse. There's more to the Highway Code than just reading it.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ......but I am willing to throw > the towel in on this one IF > > A - the smoked salmon isnt too expensive and > doesn't have patronising terms on the packaging > like organic, smoked in beech wood etc > > > Louisa. So, just for clarity, as long as you eat mediocre quality food, that isn't ethically produced, is nutritionally poor and of dubious origin then you're a middle classed ponce? So as well as the middle classes, you don't care about animals either and the quality of life they are afforded (see what I did there?) even though they are ultimately part of the food chain? What is the acceptable type of potato for a working class chip on the shoulder? FWIW I'd consider myself working class and find your posturing repugnant in the same way as I do racism. You're really no better. EDL - East Dulwich Louisa. Coincidence......?

Not quite local, but worth the hop onto a bus, is http://www.mildreds.co.uk/ in Soho. As a card carrying carnivore, I can honestly say it is one of my favourite places to eat, regardless of the meat-free menu! A vegan's delight.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh I'm not saying people are wrong to get wound up > with you Lou, just wondering why you do it and why > some people like you doing it > > As things stand I'm only wound up about you not > replying to my PMs post Barry Barry 'cos PM's are soooo middle class? Private bourgeois conversations rather than proper salt of the earth forum posts.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Excuse me ED? > > Reverse psychology does not work with me. People > eating the smoked salmon are the snobs. I am just > a normal person eating my normal breakfast. > > LondonMix. Poached eggs are delicious, if they are > put on top of a slice of toasted and buttered > bread and eaten as is. Otherwise it's just > snobbery. Cyclemonkey I'm happy with branflakes or > a slice of bread and marmalade some mornings too- > but poached eggs and smoked salmon is a step into > the extremities of outrageous snobbery. > > Louisa. Passive aggression is still aggression. Reverse snobbery is still snobbery. You're taking the moral high ground on people that YOU (and generally, only you) perceive as being middle classed. And for what? Their choice of breakfast? Or they like a burger that is more meat than arseholes and eyelids? You're no better than someone who says "I'm not racist, but...". They're still racist, whether or not they realise it or acknowledge it. You turn EVERY thread into class war. And not even with a hint of an intelligent argument. Like it or not, you're a snob.

Christ Louisa, you really are an epic snob.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Right. Here's my take. > > Burger from van on retail park = fine > Burger cooked at home from any source = fine > Burger from fun fair/kebab shop/McDonald's/pub et > al = fine > Did you miss the recent horse meat scandal? Jeez..... They're moving to Melbourne Grove, where I'll be happy to continue using them.

I moved to ED in 1995, but for the life of me can't remember what the Odeon building looked like just prior to being demolished. I have a ghost of a memory of it but if anyone has a photo from that period, I'd be grateful if you could post it!

You are Louisa AICMFP.

I really thought that DB&B had hit a new low in human evolution but henryb, you take it to a whole new (lower) level. You can lead a blind man to water, but you can't make him think.........

So when someone gets hit by a car (regardless of fault) going 20mph, then what? And as I said before, this isn't a good place for a crossing. There are two within spitting distance already.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The difference is when car drivers make a mistake > it is other people end up seriously hurt or worse. > That why the limit needs to be reduced so those > mistakes don't end up being fatal. So if a pedestrian runs out in front of a car, it is always the drivers mistake? Regardless of speed? Utter tosh. Let's just go back to having someone walking in front of our cars with a red flag then. I really despair. If main roads have a 20mph limit, then in 5 years time we'll have you back on here bemoaning that and saying it should be 10mph. Then what? Back to horse drawn carts? We've clearly peaked as a species and you represent the slippery slope we're now on.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Telling pedestrians that they should just add '2 > minutes' to their journey rather than cars be > expected to slow down at an island crossing, fuel > my perception of car drivers being selfish, > arrogant and lacking in an ability to see the > direct and indirect harm their attitude causes to > others. > Wilfully misquoting does little to help your argument. I never said that anyone should add 2 minutes to their journey so drivers don't have to slow down. I said they COULD, if they so chose, add 2 minutes to make their journey safer. Common sense is, sadly, no longer that common. As a car driver, cyclist, commuter, motorcyclist & pedestrian, I find it quite disingenuous that you call car drivers arrogant yet somehow you think cyclists are somehow beyond reproach. When crossing the road this weekend on a crossing with a red light with my 6 year old holding my hand, a cyclist whipped through the red light and nearly clocked us both. Thankfully, I yanked him back out of the way. Unfortunately, this meant that I missed the opportunity to take a swing at the cyclist. Do I therefore think all cyclists are scummers like this one? No. Do I tar you with the same brush. No. So do the majority of car drivers the courtesy of doing the same please.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote: > > > At last, a voice of reason on this thread. > > Why is it reasonable? Because it doesn't blame the > driver? Were you there? Another witness on this > thread has said they thought the driver was going > too fast. Presumably you think their view was > unreasonable because it was "anti-car"? > > If you are driving a ton of metal through a > populated area then the onus is on you to do it in > a way that means you don't hit anyone. If you > knock down a child crossing the road then you are > going too fast. Blaming it on the pedestrian is > unacceptable. It is like throwing a brick into > crowded room then blaming the person it hits for > not ducking. > > 30 mph limit is too fast for residential areas and > it needs to be reduced. Utter cobblers. Firstly, the other witness comes across as having an agenda, whereas the rest of us haven't. The only people on here giving it the pro-car/anti-human beings spiel are the anti-car mob. DB&B has a meltdown at the thought of crossing a road so hardly comes over as being rational, yet alone a credible witness. I have been in the gut wrenchingly unenviable position of having been in an accident involving a child running out into the street and me hitting them. Was speed a factor? No. Was there ANYTHING I could have done to avoid the accident? No - the opinion of the witnesses and the Police who attended. Was the child 100% to blame for running out from behind a bus stop while larking with his mates? Yes. Did I hold that against him? No. I was in far worse shock than he was despite knowing that (1) I wasn't speeding (2) I took my foot off the accelerator and covered the brake as I approached the bus stop as there was a crowd of children (3) there was not a thing the I could have done to avoid what happened. Your analogy about slinging a brick into a crowded room is not only moronic but deeply insulting to someone who has been in this situation. 30 mph is not too fast if you teach children to cross the road safely. DB&B et al are the problem as they abdicate all responsibility and make everyone else the bad guy. If we did make the speed limit 20 mph, then we'd have threads complaining about the increase in pollution. What we need to do is realise that ALL of us need to take an equal share of responsibility. And that, sadly, accidents do sometimes happen in life.

V511 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I saw the accident and it was just that - an > accident. Luckily, the driver was not going > particularly fast and managed to scrub off some > speed by braking. At last, a voice of reason on this thread.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But there ARE safe places to cross...controlled by > lights often. Pedestrians though often don't want > to walk the extra metres to use them. Now if this > is a poorly designed half hearted crossing point > then there is a valid cause to lobby for a better > crossing. What I don't buy is this idea that cars > have made our city no go zones for pedestrians. > That's just nonsense. The real issue is that we > are a city crammed full of people who all want > things their way. We need roads and cars and > tranport, just as we need safe places to cross (as > many as are needed). Vehicle drivers need to do > their bit to avoid accidents but so do pedestrians > too. This. Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Moving vehicles of all types The road > > Pedestrians The pavement > > Crossing the road. Eyes left and right and common sense from all. Pedestrians and vehicle owners. > > Not difficult to understand And this. uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do some people drive like idiots? Is it > because they cannot assert themselves in other > areas of their lives? But definitely not this.