henryb

Yeah Christ, where we would be without all those aluminium cans. Every year the world throws away more aluminium in cans than is used aeroplane manufacture. But even so if fossil fuels are necessary for some processes then that is even more reason to try and save them as much possible and not waste them on energy use that does not require them. Micro solar generation could potentially provide 80% of household usage with macro wind and tidal production, better recycling and energy efficiency there is no reason to think that fossil fuel usage couldn?t be cut to a fraction of what it is currently. The fact there may be shortfalls at peak times and in the winter with renewable isn?t a reason not to use them at all. It would a be lot better if the money being spent on shale gas was spent on renewables and energy efficiencies. It is not as if the gas is going anywhere. If gas prices are going up then it makes even more sense to wait.

I have lived all over London and now in ED. I regularly see cyclists on the pavements but never cycling in a particularly a dangerous way. This perception born out by the actual number of people killed or seriously injured by cyclists on pavements which is very few. Yes cyclists should not jump red lights but about 16% do. People should not speed either but on average around 50% break the speed limit. Plus speeders kill hundreds every year yet cyclists don't. One action doesn?t excuse the other but the reaction should proportionate to the actual danger. A mother cycling to school slowly along the pavement with her child giving way to pedestrians should be encouraged not frowned upon. Far better that and less dangerous to pedestrians than doing the school run in a car. The antipathy towards cyclists in general is cultural. It isn't there in other countries yet cyclists behave the same. Just been cyclisng in France and the difference is amazing.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Manda, > Though you might think you are being all 'laid > back and whatevs' and therefore a nice person, do > think about the elderly, the hard of hearing, the > blind, the deaf, the mentally handicapped and then > reflect on whether cycling on the pavement is > something to be discouraged. Well car drivers kill and seriously injure more people walking on the pavement than cyclists do so the problem needs to be put in perspective. The reason it is disallowed is mostly cultural rather than any genuine Health and Safety grounds. Many countries allow it, Japan for example, and there is no noticeable difference in pedestrian cyclists accidents and it can be shown to encourage cycling especially amongst the elderly and children where it is allowed. I have been living in London 20 years and have never seen anyone cycling dangerously on the pavement. Mostly there are going slowing and give way to pedestrians. Yes reckless behaviour that endangers others should stopped but that should apply to all forms of transport and be proportionate to the actual risk rather than the perceived risk.

When the foot tunnel was shut I used to take the ferry - very pleasant way to start the morning.

I go the Greenwich route. It is quite quiet and mostly back roads so not so much traffic. The only busy bits are Brockley and Deptford and they aren?t too bad. It takes me about 35min. I used to go the Tower Bridge route but it is busier and about a 1 mile longer. I have never considered Rotherhithe Tunnel ? doesn?t sound good.

http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/Pages/Category.aspx?IDCategory=dc00cc1e-3e7f-4663-ae9d-e27e315c11e9 "Oak and hornbeam demonstrate the ancient woodland heritage of this site"

LWT

LWT should be able to tell you.

If only it was that easy. I think it was a fairly big campaign in the 80s by the LWT and others to get it protected and save it from property developers. Some of it is old Victorian gardens, some of it is older woodland, all of it is protected.

I think is appalling that this is being done at all. There are far better and more sustainable solution to burial then the destruction of these wild areas. At the time there was assurances that an environmental impact report had been done. I would have thought that would mean at least it was going to be done way to minimise the environmental impact to wildlife and biodiversity. Sounds like that was not true. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,899412,page=1

We planted some bulbs the autumn before last in our garden. We didn't pick last summer but there were lots of leaves and flowers for picking this year so have taken about half. See how it goes next year.

I lived in France for a year and didn't notice children behaving any better. The main difference other peoples attitude to children: here children are mostly considered an irritant to be avoided and at best tolerated and if a child misbehaves you get sneers and tuts; there families are always welcome, children are considered part of community and if one misbehavse people are understanding and helpful. Yes children do eat better in restaurants but that is probably because the food is better.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But its not for cyclists or motorists to interpret > the law Tell that to the 50%+ motorists who break the speed limit.

Annette Curtain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm with Applespider pretty much. > > INMV 1st enforce the existing laws for cars & > bikes. Do it in a way that sees infringements > treated seriously. > > Why don't some cyclists stop at lights ? > > a.Because most are too lazy to stop/get going > again. > > b.Because they don't reckon on getting caught. > > c. Well everyone else seems to get away with it > > > Laa Laa La Dave-fingers-in-my-ears-R cant see > there's a bike problem, maybe he works for BoJo > See here for Dave's Uri Geller style answer > bending: > Yes it is true some cyclists jump red lights. A TFL study showed that about 16% of cyclists jump red lights. However DFT report showed that 58% car drives break speed limit on 30 mph roads. As speeding is a contributing factor in 14% of fatal accidents and cyclist jumping red is a contributing factor in around 0% of fatal accidents - it is unsurprising people think that with limited resources focusing on dangerous drivers is the best approach. The reason cyclists jump red lights is because stopping and starting takes effort and they think it is safe to proceed. Of all collisions with a bicycle, only in 2% is red light jumping a contributing factor - so it is a danger but a small one. The police do give out ticket to cylists for both jumping lights and cycling on the pavement - however they do not currently enforce 20 mph zones or ASZs.

Yes would go along with that. > I'd like motorists > who are clearly going over 30mph in a 20 zone to > get tickets. The limit is 20. People going over 20 should be fined. I would be more than happy for it to be run by TFL or the local council if the police do not have the resources. Currently they are not enforced at all.

Everyone should have a webcam strapped to their heads so these fascinating human interactions can be uploaded for everyone to judge in a web based kangaroo court. There could a website www.WasTheyBangOutOfOrderOrNot.com or just use YouTube for the quality abusive comments.

Either way it doesn't excuse a driver not checking their left mirror well enough to avoid hitting someone when turning left across a lane. Very sad. My heart goes out to the families involved.

There is no such thing as "Road Tax". There is vehicle excise duty which is based on the vehicles emission levels to discourage polluting vehicles. The revenue from VED is not specifically used to fund roads nor is it a fee entitling road use. The cost road maintenance funded out of general taxation and an order of magnitude greater than what raised from VED. Everyone has the right to use the roads.

Can't you put a metal grid over the pond? That will stop people falling in.

So can you provide a link to thread about a child being hit by a bicycle and then someone brings up cars? I couldn't find one. Found plenty about dangerous driving where you or DJKillaQueen or Loz bring up cyclists...

Loz Wrote: > I'd be more than happy with that. I don't want to > see anyone breaking the law. I hate to see > drivers OR cyclists saying 'boo hoo, you should be > hassling someone else'. Well as this is a thread is about a little girl who was hit by a car whose driver was by some accounts driving recklessly it would be good if you took your own advice.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: > At the end of the day, irresposible cyclists are > on a par with irresponsible drivers, and equally > capable of both having and causing an accident, > which leads to death or serious injury. Well that?s your opinion and I respect that. The difference seems quite clear to me but if the compromise position is that for the police taking more action against speeding drivers, drivers stopping in ASZs and drivers over taking cyclists too closely then they also give out more tickets for cyclists jumping lights then I would go along with that.

I am very careful when I driving. Especially when there cyclists around. They always fecking jumping red lights... nutters. Oh wait a minute.

I do. I meant in terms of my own personal safety.

Yes because car drivers breaking are law killing and injuring lots of cyclists. There aren't car drivers killed by cyclists. To me, when I am cycling, cars being driven dangerously is a great concern to me. When I am driving, cyclist's dangerous cycling isn't of much consequence.