showboat

I sent that PM before I posted that. Check the time stamps. Nice that you think it's ok to quote PM's. You've totally - and intentionally - missed the point which I happen to think shows you to be the one up their own arse, and I reckon a few people on here agree. Worst type of Internet troll you are. Bye...

You know what LadyDeliah? Forget it, you're not worth it. (Edited because I won't sink to LD's level anymore)

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And for every step closer to equality of provision > we take, I'll be smiling, thinking of your > increasingly frothy keyboards. And still refusing to accept that the cyclist needs show manners too. Me and two other cyclists have openly said that on here - yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Why? So the views of others only count if they fall in with your mantra? Of course we need a city that welcomes bikes in same manner as others round the globe, but it means the bike riders have to show the same courtesy to pedastrians that we demand car drivers show to everyone else. Seriously, what part of that do you have a problem with? Where is that unreasonable?

Of course you can't. You only engage in browbeating others when you feel like your moral point is unassailable. Henryb had responded, makes done good points and accepts that there are arguments on both sides. As soon as people rebut with coherent arguments that undermine your unique and frankly prejudiced view of the world as it relates to cycling you can't engage with them. Other cyclists call you out, and what do you have? Well, who knows, because apparently now you can't be arsed. Have to go now and open a window; the stench of your hypocrisy is leaking out of my computer and fugging up the room...

Henryb - ok, fair enough. LadyDeliah - your turn now.

Nice one henryb. Nice attempt to deflect the argument and find something to blame cars for. Whatever this thread started as, it's turned into a 'heated debate' about the manners of some cyclists. Yourself and LD seem unwilling to admit a person on a bike could ever be in the wrong. No one is disputing that cars are bigger, more dangerous and too often driven recklessly (or worse). It's just that we object to being told no cyclist is ever able to be ill-mannered, inconsiderate or even...gasp...dangerous to pedastrians! But guess what? Some (not all) of them are. And then LadyD tries to say that our opinions don't count because of Syria and you make a post which has no relevance except to try and remind people that cars are dangerous (newsflash, we know), and it just looks like you can't concede that others might have a point.

All very true LD. What does that have to do with this discussion? Looks to me like when a bunch of cyclists don't adhere to your 'party line' you try to divert the argument. Of course there are terrible things happening elsewhere, but why does that invalidate our opinions? You haven't responded to the points made by Monkeylite, Katanita or myself, preferring instead to try and deflect the argument by saying (I'm paraphrasing here, just to be clear) that none of this matters because of worse things elsewhere. But that's the reaction of a schoolchild who's lost an argument, and you've always stood your ground before. What's changed? Is it because there are other bike riders actually disagreeing with your stance that cyclists are immune from criticism? It's easy to just shout "car bad, bike good!", but the debate is more nuanced than that. I ask again, what's your position on the posts by Katanita and Monkeylite? You can't have it both ways!

bob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Go to the new web site the menu and prices are all > clearly displayed I can not find any mention of a > service charge to be added so should they be > allowed to add it to your bill in retrospect. > Bob S By law it must be clearly displayed. It needs to be on the menu's - not sure if it has to be on the website, but it's certainly good practice on the part of the business. Any decent restaurant states it clearly online. The old website is from when it was a different company, so it has no legal standing - that is, they can't point to it as evidence of the policy. SJ - just because a lot of places do it isn't reason to ignore it (if it's happening at The Herne, we don't actually have proof of it).

I'm actually not convinced the whole thing is totally legal. Certainly if true it's incredibly immoral, almost unheard of in this day and age. Any owner who tried that with my staff would discover very quickly what discontent means...

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And it does say that it's discretionary, meaning > you don't have to pay it? No one is EVER required to pay a service charge. They are completely discretionary, and if the business tells you otherwise invite them to discuss the matter with HMRC, who take a very dim view of such things.

monkeylite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't see generalisation against cyclists in > this thread. Only holiar than thou attitude by > militant cyclists who somehow takes criticism of > *some* cyclists as a general attack. I am a > cyclist myself and I feel offended by the way > militant cyclists on EDF like to deflect every > single blame to other road users. Totally agree. As I said, I don't have a car (or even a licence) and I do some cycling and am a fervent believer in an integrated public transport network that allows for wide and safe use of bicycles BUT... Just as cars need to recognise that they share the road with cyclists, cyclists need to recognise that they have to share any pavement they use with pedestrians, and I'd go further in saying that I believe pedestrians take priority on the pavement, so cyclists should remember that (and yes, pedestrians need to remember that responsibly ridden bicycles are allowed on pavements). Lady Deliah, every time you dig in and refuse to recognise that any cyclist anywhere could possibly be wrong about anything you undermine the very argument you're trying to make. I get that you're passionate and that's great - but tell me, what should be done about a cyclist who comes whistling down the pavement during morning rush hour through a crowd of people at a bus stop in Honor Oak nearly hitting a number of us, and not for the first time, as I've witnessed recently (an adult wearing no helmet or reflective gear, not announcing himself, just racing on through)? Despite the fact that cars are of course more dangerous, more polluting and often handled more recklessly (no one's arguing that, at least not me), irresponsible cyclists still exist. When are you going to wake up and at least acknowledge that fact? Stop behaving like just because you're on a bike anything you do is permissible.

Eloquent...

Galev Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In 2012, the vast majority - 98% - of serious or > fatal pedestrian injuries in urban areas (i.e. > where pedestrians are most likely to be) - were > due to collisions with motor vehicles; > From 2008 to 2012 (inclusive), out of the total > numbers of pedestrians killed in single vehicle > collisions with vehicles in any location/area > (i.e. in the road or on the footway, urban and > rural), cycles were involved in about 0.4% of > fatalities and around 1.4% of serious injuries, > while cars were involved in about 68% of > pedestrian fatalities, and 81% of pedestrian > serious injuries: > http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_pub > lic/pedestriansbrf.pdf And this has what exactly to do with cyclists who behave badly or irresponsibly when on the pavement?

"responsibly without harm to anyone" Ah! But there the rub...who defines it? We are a rarity in London, a family without a car, who use public transport for most stuff, bicycles sometimes and the occasional lift from my mum! I'm with LD on the fervent desire for this city to be made much more cycle-friendly; one of the reasons I don't use the bike so much if my wife's fear of me being in an accident. But I do have a problem with adults cycling at speed on pavements. I don't see it that often, but when I do it makes my blood boil. I also don't think one should try and cycle through a crowd, something I've seen before. My feeling is that pedastrians get priority on the pavement, and so long as both walkers and riders are respectful there's no reason we can't share the space if a bike needs to go on the pavement.

Of course I can only speak from personal experience, but Kings have seen my mum through two bouts of cancer and also performed an emergency operation which required the use of three top surgeons to save my wife's life after the birth of our first child. On each occasion everyone found the quality of care throughout to be excellent. I myself had to spend two nights in Guys last year and they were indeed bloody good. I got talking to one of the nurses and he said he loved the NHS because it did "far more good than harm", pointing out that a) no organisation is perfect and b) he'd spent time in the private sector and would not have his dog treated in a Harley Sreet clinic, let alone a human. The stories he told were pretty horrendous. Is Guys better than Kings? Maybe. But then Kings has a massive, over stretched A+E dept situated in the middle of a high crime area. And a lot of people go there when they shouldn't, stretching its resources further. Something to also remember is they have different specialities. If you need Ear, Nose and Throat, for example, Kings will transfer you to Guys, whereas the Gynaceology treatment at Kings is world-renowned. If we have wide experiences of this hospital or that, then of course we should let people know. But these things have to be seen in context - the govt. is doing it's best to dismantle the NHS by stealth, all hospitals are fighting for resources, and in the final analysis we still have access to first world medicine that doesn't cost us any more money than we've already paid out in tax. A lot of people ain't got that!