malumbu

Funnily enough the first thing i thought when I saw the thread was FFS. And I rarely use any suggested profanities on this site. I'd actually thought of going to the US for the World Cup. STFAGOS.

Strange comment at the end. Government wants to encourage people to cycle, and any restrictions such as compulsory helmets and clothing will put some people off. Some drivers will not take notice of lights as they are driving on autopilot hence my comment that is it not just boy racers that are responsible for my many close passes (ie less than 50 cm gap), other near misses and the two times drivers actually knocked me off. One hit and run, the other a hire box van. The decision to wear hi vis is up to the individual. At night I have some, but not in the day as I expect drivers and other road users should use their eyes. @exdulwicher thanks for the link

Vehicles left idling is a wider problem than one private school. Action is rarely taken, some authorities have campaigns, but you never get critical mass. I used to be vociferous about this, and would have shared views in the old days on the Lounge, but eventually knocking on car doors and asking them to turn their engine off just got too much. The police were some of the worse offenders, I videoed a police car with the doors open and four cops eating takeaway with the engine running on summer's day in central London. That is the "I give up moment". It's totally daft but indicative of how, for some, behaviours are entrenched. I was therefore pleased that on the one occasion Alleyn's did take action. If you have any answers to addressing this across the country then I would be most interested. I responded to a motoring journo once, who said when he was test driving a car, the first thing he did was turn the stop start off. Probably considered by some, and maybe the masses, to be "woke nonsense". Back to the 'war on motorists' populist rubbish. Oh, I deleted that post on another thread.

Deleted

Not sure why this thread has mutated to e bikes. Here's a thread I posted last year with BA interest. Meanwhile as said before if it quacks like a duck..... As I've posted before for most of the population it is easy to distinguish an illegal e-bike - speed and no, or limited, pedaling. Many don;t even look like a conventional bike. Really don't understand how you can confuse a legal bike with a powered two wheeler. The legislation above didn't go through. Not really sure why the Tories bothered in their dying days. What is Reform's position? If you have free time tonight it would be better spent reading around the subject eg in the Lord's debate: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-06-10/debates/3C570E41-D69F-43B9-8789-02449033FDCB/ElectricCyclesIllegalUseOnRoads

Disagree, they took action. I've regularly walked past there when the coaches are parked and only seen one idling in recent times. As said I phoned them and they came out to speak to the driver. More effective than going onto social media It is an offense under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Regulation 98 of the Road Vehicle Regulations 1986 to leave your vehicle's engine running unnecessarily while stationary

Why don't you start your own thread on cycling in Amsterdam?

Most of them are not aggressive drivers in the conventional sense, they are unaware or oblivious, the speeding ones are doing what many do, exceeding the 20 mph limit. The anklets because they are moving may attract more attention. As can reflectors in the pedals

You've avoided my points, yet again!! Anyway, to move on, and returning to the point of this thread, evidence reviewed by Cycling UK is interesting: I've highlighted key points If wearing hi-vis helps people feel safer when cycling and more willing to do it, that is only to be welcomed. It is, though, hard to prove whether hi-vis makes any significant impact on cyclists’ safety, and there is very little convincing evidence to support the argument that it does. Research suggests that hi-vis may help drivers spot cyclists more readily, but it appears that spotting is one thing and driving safely around them another. One academic study, for example, found that whether a cyclist is wearing hi-vis or not makes very little difference to how closely motorists overtake them. On the other hand, research suggests that retroreflective accessories designed to make you more conspicuous in the dark – especially anything that moves when you pedal (e.g. ankle straps) – are probably worth the investment. Overall, Cycling UK believes that improving cyclists’ safety is best served not by making hi-vis clothing compulsory, but by improving driving behaviour, lowering speeds, reducing traffic volume, and providing high-quality facilities. We also believe that all road users, including cyclists, should behave legally and responsibly, which includes obeying lighting regulations. Rather than dismiss the above please do read the reports first: News item: https://www.bikeradar.com/features/tech/hi-vis-is-not-silver-bullet-for-cycling-safety Cycling UK briefing: https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2023/08/21-03_ca_hi-vis_brf_1.pdf And Written parliamentary question https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-01-10/23174/ Government has no plans to introduce compulsory wearing of hi-vis I cycle maybe 250 days a year, mainly in Lewisham and Southwark, and experience several near misses a week, mostly in daylight. The drivers simply make no effort to give you space, and I expect that many do see me, Something that particularly annoys me is those coming towards you when space is a little tight. Neither party has priority, but some rather than do the sensible and courteous thing and slow down to ensure we pass each other safely do the opposite. someone coming at you at 30mph on a narrow road with parked cars on either side isn't fun.

Perhaps have a look at the review first before making such a judgement. Maybe you could do better, please do contact Number 10. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf

It does surprise me that you are so supportive of the above as most of your posts give a very different image. Looking at three of the above; cyclists' visibility - you seem to have used this as a stick to beat cyclists; school streets - perhaps I am confusing you with others but there is a narrative here that this is all about Southwark ripping off the poor driver, with poor signage, inappropriately placed; 20 mph, I love the prefix 'pragmatic' - I recall you complaining about some 20mph roads rather than championing them.

Not sure how you define overtaxing, I expect most of the population would like to pay less tax. One of the panel on Kuensseberg, not the young influencer, nor the unreconstructed old man (the opposite of 'new man') Piers Morgan), was fairly knowledgeable and explained that measures to improve growth such as an improved deal with the EU and trade agreements, are done elsewhere.

So because he said something you believe isn't the truth he shouldn't have introduced measures to improve air quality, and reduce deaths and ill health associated with pollution. Odd logic.

Not sure why this thread was started. @mitchiner do explain.

What worries me is all the talk of these foreign architectural styles. Art Deco (French) and Art Noveau (Belgium - can you even name ten famous poeple from Belgium), Thank heavens for good old British Arts and Crafts, harking back to previous times. What do you think those who are asset poor and cash poor may think? Don't you feel there is a case for evening things out? Get real. There are numerous anti-Labour threads and a few of you who clearly hate everything Labour, no doubt going back decades. Not everyone of course who have posted on this weird thread has such strong views. For balance there are a lesser number of threads on other political parties and a former prime minister, but they attract far less traffic, and one person seems to go out of their way to defend Farage

There is a possibility that poor air quality leads to adult onset asthma. The Lancet did not confirm this and stated that more work was required. 10,000s of deaths are linked to poor air quality. Surely it is good that our Mayor wants to further improve air quality. That is the important aim, rather than pick holes in what he said.

And accommodation for servants too. Grouse shooting? Sorry, it's easy to take the Michael. I've been peering at a hole in the ground on Woodhall Drive a private road in West Dulwich. There used to be a £2million house there but expect something far grander. Although it's been a big hole for some time now. I have a legit reason to be on that road and always wave to the CCTV.

This thead smacks of "I hate Labour", similarly recent posts on the Khan thread, for some of you.

I phoned them up a year or so ago, a coach was idling outside school, they helpfully had their number on the board by the entrance, and they took immediate action. Please go direct to the responsible organisation, rather than resort to social media in the first instance.

Because some in the medical profession consider it is. This recent study published in the Lancet concludes that the link is not confirmed and that more work needs to be done: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(24)00279-1/fulltext And the coroner in a landmark, and sad case, included poor air quality as a cause of death: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/10/ellas-law-rosamund-kissi-debrah-air-pollution-death-london

No no no and no again. Pay per mile will hopefully be brought in for all vehicles. Governments will continue to decide whether we raise revenue (general taxation) from road vehicles. Similar to the way we raise money from CGT, inheritance tax, fags and booze. The last few governments have sadly overseen a reduction in the revenue from motorised transport due to freezing, and then a (supposedly temporary) reduction in fuel duty. That is 2.4 billion less to spend on hospitals, schools, or whatever. If you want a low tax, low public service, economy, then you should not live in Western Europe - apart from the odd tax haven although you'd need to sell your £2million house to afford to do this. And that will buy you a shed in Guernsey. Fuel prices are loosely similar across Europe. The exchange rate is an important factor. Fuel was around 28 p a litre in 1980 (after the Tory government, yes the Tories, added 10% in the budget, yes 10%), that is about £130 a litre nowadays, although the price of crude is the main factor which has been volatile in the last twenty years. A pint of beer should be around £2.30 a pint in London based on 1980 prices. It isn't.

I last visited Amsterdam over 20 years ago. I made the mistake of walking into the cycle lanes a few times without looking. The cyclists alerted me to my mistake. Id didn't blame them, or the Dutch government. It was my own fault. I'm not sure hi vis would have made things any better. This was me not being used to the cycle infrastructure. As great as the Netherlands is for bikes, Denmark takes it further. All credit to both countries.

No they are not ordinary houses. None of the ordinary people I hang around with live in £2m houses. Many people I work with will never be able to afford any house in London. Most people's kids will not be able to afford a house, unless fortunate enough for some serious inheritance. So on your formula a £2m house is around four times the average price of a house across the whole of London. Back to my 1970s prices, £20k (not £68k) that would be equivalent to £300k based on inflation or £800k based on wages in today's prices.

??? Average London house prices in 1970 (from land registry) = £5190, £72,000 in today's money. London houses were getting on for 5 times the national average wage in 1970, if we used that as a formula that would be around £200k for an average London house today.