Earl Aelfheah

... apologies for my inability to type btw.

The reality of course, is that cars cause a much bigger problem than cyclists in general. They kill a lot more people, which is about as antisocial as one can get. So perhaps uniquely, there is something about the mode of transport itself that is problematic. In terms of people travelling by bike, there are some that act like asshats, but they probably act like asshats even when they're on foot. These threads always bring out claims of almost constant misbehaviour by huge numbers of people, specifically when they're travelling by bike. Who was really, nearly runover three time in a week on the pavement? I've never had it happen to me, (except once, as it happens, by a car cutting across the pavement as it careered at speed around a corner) - these are rare occurrences. The point is that the people who behave like idiots in their car, probably also act like idiots when they're on their bike. I think the real problem with the perceptions of cyclists is probably more subtly psychological. It's seen as 'out of place' and a bit other. Like I say, when we see a car speeding down a quite road (which is incredibly dangerous) we think 'what a prat', not 'bloody car drivers'. The same is not true of bad behaviour witnessed of someone on a bike.

@sue - it's a fair point about 'complimentary' medicine. I used the term 'alternative' because I was responding to another post which had used that phrase. As a compliment to traditional medicines it is likely that other 'remedies' are likely to do little harm (other than making you a little poorer). That said, I do think that any effective treatment should be capable of passing the standards of a clinical trial. I don't have an issue with people taking placebos if they wish. I do still feel uneasy about people who make a living selling compounds off the back of unproven claims of efficacy.

I like Voodoo Rays. Nice pizza, by the slice

Let's be open about what 'alternative medicine' means. It's an alternative to evidence based medicine. Does that sound good anyone? Why would someone want to sell you a product that they claim will make you better, but not present robust evidence that it will do what they say. If the substance works, why not prove it in a clinical trial.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe everyone has a responsibility to use the > road in an appropriate manner. Drivers should > exercise due caution, pedestrians should not > dawdle or walk out unexpectedly, and cyclists > should not jump red lights or ride on pavements. No one would disagree > My unscientific observation is that many cyclists > when politely challenged on clearly breaking these > rules become exceptionally aggressive and > offensive from the off, even though they are > utterly in the wrong. This is not my experience. I have seen plenty of 'road rage' drivers. It is probably more often that cyclists are confronted about their behaviour, simply because they are not sealed off in a car. Clearly it is wrong to behave aggressively however one is being transported. I just don't get the point in these types of threads. Clearly no one is going to defend criminally irresponsible behaviour, but how often do we see cars tearing down the road at speed, or accelerating through red lights? We don't think 'bloody car drivers', we think 'what an idiot'. Why with bikes, uniquely, do we associate the transgression with the mode of transport?

Maybe linked to the drop in the value of the pound?

hellosailor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My point was very much about adults > who balance kids on their bikes without seats > which is not an uncommon sight Really? This fells like a very uncommon sight to me. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?

If people want to take sugar pills in the belief that they will cure all sorts of ailments then that is up to them. But thos selling such ?treatments? to others, profiting from their deception, should rightly be condemned. It?s cynical and manipulative.

tomskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've often wondered why there are such strict laws > around the safety of children in cars and yet > there doesn't seem to be the equivalent for > children being transported on cycles. Because cars travel at high speed.

There is some debate about whether helmets are actually a good thing or not https://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe

For the record, I still like to listen to The Smiths even though Morrissey has some pretty awful opinions.

There are lot's of great works of art (I'm not suggesting this is one), which have been produced by people of questionable character. There is nothing about the Pellat Mural that is itself racist. It's an interesting question about whether a work of art should stand apart from the actions of the artist.

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is Southwarks view on CPZ'S > > The council is actively supporting car clubs as an > alternative to car ownership, every car club > vehicle removes the need for our residents to own > a car or own a second car. Zip Car and DriveNow > have a contract with Southwark Council and they > have purchased virtual permits for their vehicle > fleet which allows them to park in any permitted > parking bay in Southwark. > Kind regards > Joanna Redshaw A roundtrip in a Zipcar is ?33 a day. It's cheaper and easier to get an Uber.

A CPZ will not magically free up the space in front of your house. It won't address the fact that there are more residents with cars than there are spaces. You'll simply be paying to park a street away. Whilst it may not be unreasonable to want to park in front of your house, it may be unrealistic. What might start to make a difference is improved public transport, cycling provision and some 'last mile' options.

... currently, they're asking that you vacate the park by 5

Info is on the Southwark Website, here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parks-and-open-spaces/parks/opening-times

Ampersand Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your concern for ?our lovely and > unique high street? reeks of diesel. Oh come off it. Do you really think a CPZ will lead to less pollution on the Lane? It's more about residents wanting to be able to park right outside their houses.

Why would people in Kent not drive to a local station and get a fast train into central London, as opposed to struggling through morning traffic for an hour or more, just to get on a bus or train from ED? It make no sense and in so far as this may happen, it cannot account for many vehicles. I suspect that the vast majority of parked cars which appear during the day are people who work in the area - shop workers, doctors, school teachers etc.

The problem is that there isn't enough room for everyone in a block of flats to have a car, or for many households to have two cars and for people who work in the local shops, schools or other businesses to travel here by car. The answer is better public transport, not putting higher and higher costs on car use. People have little choice but to absorb the extra costs unless we provide adequate alternatives.* If we had a reliable, tube frequency train service, I suspect many people would give up their cars. If we had better 'last mile' transport such as hire bikes or electric scooters, people would be less likely to keep a car. If we had secure, covered bike parking at Brixton, then people would be less likely to have a car. If public transport deteriorates and at the same time car use becomes more expensive, people just get poorer. *cue peeps saying everyone should get on their bike.

What evidence is there that commuters are using the side streets off Lordship Lane? I can't believe that people drive to ED from outside the area in order to park up and then get on our 'amazing' public transport services into central London. It is much more likely that those parking here are either working in the area or visiting friends, family or the shops. This idea that only residents should legitimately park in the area is nonsense. The idea that the streets are full of people shunning fast commuter services into the Capital from further out in order to drive part of the way and then take over an hour on a bus from ED, is even more fanciful imo.

Is the Peckham Liberal Club still a thing?

A Victoria Line Extension will only happen if it can be used to transfer public money into the pockets of property developers / speculators. Benefits of transport projects to local communities are not considered to constitute a business case... only public investment for private profit. Apparently

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think it is as simple as comparing PM2.5 > emissions between a stove and cars. > > The key comparison to me, is what source of energy > the wood burning stove is displacing. The > previously posted link makes this point: The net > benefits or dis-benefits from using biomass as a > fuel depend on what fuel it replaces. > > If, in winter, the wood burning stove is > substituting for an electric heater, it is likely > displacing power derived from a coal fired power > station - which in winter is the marginal power > source. As such it is likely no better or worse. > If it substitutes for gas powered central heating, > it is likely producing higher PM2.5 emissions. If > it is replacing an open fire, it is likely > producing less PM2.5 emissions. I think this is more to do with overall impact in terms of greenhouse gasses, rather than local particulates pollution. It's the latter that the OP was raising as a concern as I understand it.