Earl Aelfheah

That's a case of a murder, precipitated by a road range incident. It's interesting that you think the fact that they rode a bike is what makes them dangerous, as opposed to the fact that they were a murderer. If a murder wears shoes, does that make shoes dangerous? I think I may have been spiked.

The idea of a 'war' between motorists and cyclists is ridiculous. As Chris Boardman put it "You?ve got 2% of vulnerable road users versus 98% in two tonnes of steel. How can you possibly have a war? I think that?s called a massacre. What could a cyclist possibly do to somebody in a car??.

Loz - there are not multiple threads about dangerous driving though, (despite the potential harm represented by a motor vehicle being significantly greater than that posed by a small, light, relatively slow, self propelled bicycle, as I already stated). The vitriol aimed at cycling, a relatively benign form of transport, is ridiculously disproportionate. This may be why some people get very defensive. After all, if you repeatedly single out a relatively small group of vulnerable road users in an entirely disproportionate manner, it's a natural response to be defensive. The number of threads talking about 'dangerous bikes', or 'reckless cyclists' is just silly and belies something quite dark imo.

Sounds like a non-story to me. I don't imagine for one minute that anyone is going to be stopped from doing a paper round.

^this. But also, let's do stop having these threads - it's clear that some people have a pathological dislike of cyclists and are convinced against all evidence to the contrary, that cycling poses a huge danger to other road users. We get it. there are plenty of threads on it. Let's stop now.

Whilst sitting alone in my Volvo XC90 in traffic, the engine rumbling, I noticed a person on a small push bike cycling past the line of cars. It annoyed me. I don?t know why (I didn?t think deeply about it), but I felt a small jolt of annoyance. It felt wrong, like they were skipping the line and no doubt feeling smug about it. The git! Later on, there were two of them and I had to slow down to pass. Get out of the fecking way! Honestly why are they even on the road? I?m really starting to hate them. The next day, I saw one of them move slowly forward at the lights - they looked, saw nothing was coming and then crossed on a red! The sh*t! That is so dangerous? not actually dangerous, but illegal and definitely, potentially dangerous? had there been someone coming. I started making a mental note every time I saw a cyclist do something inconsiderate. Each time I saw them breaking the rules, I felt reassured in my original view, that an adult travelling around on a bike is frankly weird and definitely dangerous. I probably did also encounter some bad behaviour by other drivers and occasionally pedestrians, but it didn?t stick out as much as I wasn?t specifically looking for it. There have always been bad drivers on the road after all, it?s just something you have to get used to. Just people being people. I?m a driver and I?m very careful, so the behaviour of that guy in the van doesn?t tell you anything about driving generally, it?s just some guy being a dick. Anyway, I?ve notice more and more of this recently, how cyclists seem to ignore all the rules. I searched Google until I found some stats that suggest the number of people hurt by bikes could be higher than people think. Again, it all confirms my initial impressions. I suspect that we?d all be better off if they were banned! I saw this really funny rant on Facebook, where this guy was saying how they should all be run off the road- LOL. There are loads of threads about it on the local forum too (which again, just proves what a problem they are). If they all got in car, we?d all be much better off.

I am a car owner. I am not 'anti car'. But anyone with any sense can see that the potential harm represented by a motor vehicles overshadows that posed by a small, light, relatively slow, self propelled bicycle... and by a significant order of magnitude. The fact is that the amount of 'concern' expressed about the 'carnage' bikes cause, is ridiculously disproportionate. The number of threads talking about the 'dangers of bikes' is getting silly.

Cycling isn't benign you're right... its net effect is actively positive, in terms of health benefits, reductions in pollution and congestion. Sure people can get hurt whilst cycling, but that is true of any and every activity. It's just crazy, actually pathological how people focus their disgust on this most innocuous of activities.

.. To argue otherwise is ridiculous

It is relatively benign when compared to motor vehicles.

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Oh come on. I see cars jump red lights to, but > to > > suggest it's because of cyclists is really > jumping > > the shark. > > perhaps so (but I think you mean 'jumping to > conclusions' - shark-jumping is something else > entirely) but the basic problem is the mindset > that, when in a car, behaves like a selfish arse, > and when on a bike, continues to do so. > special pleading, e.g. for cold wet cyclists, just > doesn't cut it. > > of course there are pedestrian arses too e.g. > wandering along with earphones in, getting in the > way of well-behaved cars and bikes. > but that, Best Beloved, is another thread. Yeah I may have misused the idiom, what I meant by it was that the whole 'bloody bikes' manifesto really has run out of ideas when it resorts to blaming car-light hopping to cyclists.

The reason people get defensive talking about cycling indiscretions however, is because of the quite disproportionate amount of ire directed towards this most benign form of transport

Oh come on. I see cars jump red lights to, but to suggest it's because of cyclists is really jumping the shark.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So if it's OK for cyclists to cautiously go over > red lights on pedestrian crossings when nobody is > about... it's OK for me to do the same in my car, > yes? It's not 'OK' for anyone to break the rules, but at the same time, we cannot entirely ignore context. There is a difference between a one and a half ton car jumping a red light, without slowing, in rush hour traffic say, and a bike cautiously and slowly crossing a quiet street (and vice versa). That's not to say either are strictly 'right', but clearly there is a massive difference in terms of degree of recklessness. I don't generally see lot's a accidents caused by dangerous cycling and the statistics suggest that it is not common place either. Fundamentally, the capacity for a light weight bike and a 1 and a half ton car to cause carnage are not the same. So whilst I don't condone cyclists breaking the rules anymore than I would anyone else - what is clear is that bikes are a relatively benign form of transport. They do, despite this however, seem to come in for a disproportionate amount of criticism.

Fosters is the devils own work

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not really a fair comparison rrr... the > Iceland ready meals are cheap. For instance, their > "pizzas" are enormous, thick, bready monstrosities > which will fill two bellies, and cost just ?1. > It's not hard to understand why people might buy > them (in fact, most things in there seem to cost > ?1 or ?1.50)! > > Ready meals... we usually have a couple in the > freezer, for those times when there isn't really > time to cook and wash up. Nothing to do with > "knowledge of food", simply practicality (but yes, > quite high in salt and fat). It is a necessary comparison when discussing a preference for one or the other. I prefer what M&S offer, although I'm not massively enamored with either.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Castle? Pretty much unchanged despite a bit of a > facility a while back. I liked the Castle, but the introduction of TVs on every available bit of wall space post refurb, ruined it for me. Also, there is no proper beer in there, just nitrogen pints.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It just seems a bit strange when so many people > harp on about their readiness to pay ?80.00+ for > a meal in certain local restaurants > which serve fine dining, fine wines and > cocktails... and in the next breath going on about > a new outlet specializing in sugar & salt laden > ready meals... > > Ironic.... but does expose the level of their > knowledge of food.. > > DulwichFox Most fine dining experiences involve a fair bit of salt, sugar and fat. That's what makes them delicious. I must admit, I'm not much of a fan of M&S's food offering, but that said, it beats the frozen donner pizzas of Iceland.

I joined for the 5% as well. It's good and I've not had any issues with them (mind you I do everything online, so don't know what their customer service is like as such).

It's actually been there so long, it appears on Streetview:

There are two 'advert cars' which have been dumped on the road outside Goose green playground for a very long time. Both have flat tyres and adverts covering the windows. Fairly sure they can't be MOT'd. Ironically, one of them is advertising rubbish and removals.

Love kippers as well. On toast for breakfast. When I was a kid we ate a lot of fish. My dad would buy a crab on a Saturday and spend the morning dressing it.

That's a shame. I never made it here with my kids. The workshops sounded good, but only seemed to be during the week.

Looking at the crime map it appears that for burglaries, ED is above the Borough average and the Village significantly so. I agree with James that the stats used in that article are dubious, but it does still seem that burglary is a particular problem in this part of the borough.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Those irritating and attention seeking posts on > social media where someone puts a sad face emoji > or a comment along the lines of "ONG can't believe > A or B just happened", and then half a dozen > people jump in saying "hope you're ok? Xx" or such > like, and then the initial attention seeker > doesn't even reply - so most of us are still non > the wiser! > > Louisa. You OK hun?