Earl Aelfheah

You think the Deli was expensive, check out Molly Meg.

I don't get the single bangers going off randomly all night. presumably kids- how do they get hold of them so easily and why aren't they in bed? If it's adults, then really, what is going on?

This is a bargain... http://www.mollymeg.com/shop/toys-gifts/fancy-nulle-soft-toy-duplicate/

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CPR and Adys Road are already a nightmare in terms > of traffic rat runs. This proposal ain't going to > help matters. A rat run for cyclists? What do you mean? I don't get how a cycle route would increase motor traffic?!

"To respond initially to the thoughts on building on backland sites or back gardens. Whilst some of the precedents shown in our design and access statement show different types of property they do bear similarity to this site in many ways and they were not included to mislead. In all cases the proposals show examples of designs that have been approved by Southwark Council in areas where no residential building previously existed, on sites located very close to neighbouring buildings. I draw your attention to the site behind nos. 16-20 Hindmans Road which proposes four new dwellings. The new property to the front of this site is a single storey property with basement, which sits very close to the rear of the properties facing the road. There is also the redevelopment of the Police Station site which has planning permission for the development of five new townhouses behind the original building which is being converted into flats. All these buildings are very close to each other and the density of this development far exceeds planning guidance." This sounds a bit like saying "Southwark have been pretty remiss in the past and this provides a precedent which can be exploited". Basically, a call to compound the negative effects of previous bad decision making.

Opening tomorrow, for those who weren't sure.

There used to be 6 trains an hour. I would hope that as part of any future franchise deal Southern would at least be required to get the service back up to what it was 6 years ago. I say at least, as considering the increase in passengers numbers in that time, you could reasonably expect them to offer more trains.

I hope Evans will do well there, but I'm kind of surprised they've chosen to open up in that location. Usually they're located either in areas with high footfall (near stations, or busy shopping areas, or else near / on a major cycle route. Seems like a big store in a kind of out of the way location to be honest. Fingers crossed there's enough business to sustain them.

Looks like you can get the train from ED on Saturday. It takes 23 minutes and you need to change at Tulse Hill: http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/details/EDW/WIM/081114/1530/dep?id=5&fareId=4&return=false&callingPage=tf&realtime=false&alternatives=false&offpeak=false&offpeakReturn=false&fastestTrains=INCLUDE_CHEAPER&url=&saved=false&responseId=2&fareDisplayId=5

Yeah, if you see a load of armed police, it's pretty natural to wonder what the hell is going on. It is undeniably a notable event...and so hardly surprising that people will note upon it.

There are some direct trains from ED to Wimbledon, but don't know whether they run at weekends

Boris is a clown shocker.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I reckon if you're the type of cyclist who'll > bleat on about how you don't need a helmet, you're > probably far enough in that a mandatory law won't > make a difference. I'm not sure Chris Boardman was bleating on about not needing to wear a helmet. He simply wasn't wearing a helmet. If anything, the 'bleating' was from those demanding that he should and feigning outrage.

Jeez, sorry you had to witness that davidk. Glad the victim wasn't killed. Depressed that something like that doesn't even make the local news. Suggests that this stuff is all too common.

I struggle to see how a cyclist wouldn't be safer wearing a helmet, but then you could probably say the same for a pedestrian - I guess it comes down to how dangerous cycling really is - which I'm not clear on. Most of the studies talk about cycling generally, which is not the same as cycling in London specifically.

Hmmm - yes, they have overstretched a little there, but *on average* it is true. A small decrease in cycling, resulting from the introduction of mandatory helmet laws would likely see an increase in 'early death'. There is quite a lot of research evidence that this is the case - that the health benefits of regular cycling far outweigh the risks. But that is to do with the introduction of mandatory helmet laws and doesn't really tell you anything about whether or not (as an individual) you would be better off wearing a helmet.

Loz - which bits are an affront? From what I've seen the central claim (that the health benefits of regular cycling far outweigh the risks) is a pretty robust conclusion. So is the evidence that introducing a legal requirement to wear a helmets significantly reduces the numbers cycling. So I'm pretty clear that laws to force individuals to wear a helmet are probably not in the public interest. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that for any individual it is not a good idea to wear a helmet.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/britain-hoping-for-bumper-tower-of-london-opium-crop-2014110392342

So this is the CTCs view on helmets: http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf.pdf Nearly all this I agree with. That said, any individual cyclist must be safer wearing them?

I think he's saying that cycling is a normal and relatively safe activity (compared to other modes of transport). Due to the fact that 'safety gear' (hi viz and helmets) give the impression that cycling is high risk (that in turn puts people off) and that the health benefits significantly out way the risks - it's not something he wants to promote. It's a question of what is the real level of risk. If you accept that cycling is not significantly more dangerous than other modes of transport (and that you wouldn't call for pedestrians or young male drivers to wear helmets), then he has a point. I'm not sure about the risks, or come to that, the effectiveness of cycle helmets. I know that there is research to suggest that drivers are less careful around cyclists wearing helmets. I also know that cycle helmets are ineffective in a large number of accidents and that cycling is not as dangerous as it's sometimes perceived to be. But clearly helmets will help in minor falls etc. and I can't shake the feeling that if they're going to help, then you may as well wear them. That said we're all very bad at estimating risk (read Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow) and so I tend not to trust my instincts on these things, but to look at the evidence. The research I've seen is very mixed and so I'm a bit of an agnostic, but I do admire Chris not being bullied into putting a helmet on if he doesn't believe their promotion is productive.

I'm not sure that is what he's saying Jeremy.

Not directly on topic, but whilst trying to find some evidence which actually puts the whole thing into context, I found this interesting analysis of the relative risks of cycling: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0050606

*PING*

Administrator Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People are complaining that they want to read about East > Dulwich Picturehouse and Caf? but are just reading > a discussion about childcare and pay. Who are these narcs?

Chris Boardman has prompted a deluge of complaints and vitriol after appearing on BBC Breakfast not wearing a cycle helmet. He's released a very clear statement explaining why he chose not to wear a helmet. Interested in people's thoughts. http://road.cc/content/news/134586-complaints-over-bare-headed-chris-boardman%E2%80%99s-helmetless-bbc-breakfast-bike-ride