henryb

We moved here from near West Dulwich four years ago after our first baby. Really love it here. There is definitely more a of a friendly community feel and lots more to do for young families and adults for that matter. West Dulwich always felt like a suburb of Dulwich Village to me.

Yes but what is "reasonable grounds for annoyance"? Kids skate on our road - no problem with that at all. Bellenden Rd is a residential street after all. But I agree he shouldn't have run off.

It is not illegal to skateboard on the road. On what grounds do you think he would be liable? He fell off. I guess it would depend how closely the motorcyclist was following.

A cyclist died at Elephant and Castle yesterday. Collision with a HGV. So sad. The sooner that junction is redesigned better. Best to avoid it completely if you can. http://www.london24.com/news/cyclist_dies_after_lorry_crash_at_elephant_and_castle_1_3598805

Perhaps Southwark should start a community toilet scheme. I am sure most pubs wouldn't mind. http://217.154.230.196/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Transport_and_streets/Street_care_and_cleaning/Community+Toilet+Scheme.htm

There is the risk Weil's Disease but the incidents are very low plus other annimals carry that. The whole plague carriers thing is a myth. I wouldn't want them in my house though.

It's EDF Basic.

Or you could turn left and cycle through Burgess Park after the Canal Path then go down Portland St or Thurlow St to Elephant & Castle if you wanted to avoid Old/New Kent Road.

You mean like the upward sloping stream?

Sorry to see the old hut go. Nice to have historical buildings/features about. What is exactly wrong with it?

I can take a while. You should have midge larva at least. Does it have oxygenator plants in it?

Yes a local income tax would be better. Although there would some problems with that as well - rich councils getting more money than poorer ones.

Yes but all taxes do. Some people pay more, some less - it is not related to how much you use local services. The Poll Tax was very unpopular I seem to remember.

Many years ago I saw this one. Not on this car though. Not sure what would possess someone to buy it.

Council Tax is linked to an address not a person. So if you don't have an address you don't have to pay. Paying it doesn't give you any more rights or entitlements than anyone else. Same goes for much you pay of any other tax. Otherwise people who pay more income tax could claim they contrubute more to society so they deserve xzy.

I saw some goldfinches at the weekend. I tried to snap a picture but they flew off as soon as they saw the camera. I haven't seen any in London for years. Apparently they like thistle and dandelion seeds - so my half-arsed weeding is all for the better.

I thought this might worth posting here. Seems the AA are being more pro cycle safety

Kids with footballs, parents with prams, dogs off leads, cyclists on pavements, people eating in public! When will the horror end!

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My point was simple and > correct - henryb was complete wrong to say that > 'cyclists don't kill' I clarified this a couple of pages back to a post to showboat. Yes I was wrong to say they don?t kill - it was an over generalisation. http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestriansbrf.pdf I fully accept that in London 2% of pedestrian collision injuries on the pavement involved cycles. I also accept that in the UK there are roughly 2 deaths every year (or ~0.05% of total road deaths) from pedestrian/cyclist collisions.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This thread isn't about car drivers, No it is about a someone seeing a tail end of a public barney on the street that possibly involved pavement cycling and then thinking it would be a good idea to drag on to the internet. A lesson for us all maybe.

showboat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And still refusing to accept that the cyclist > needs show manners too. And your posts are an example of showing manners are they? They seem incredibly rude and abusive to me. > Of course we need a city that welcomes bikes in > same manner as others round the globe, but it > means the bike riders have to show the same > courtesy to pedastrians that we demand car drivers > show to everyone else. Really? According the RAC 84% of drivers admit to speeding a regular basis. Yet 93% think they are law abiding. http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/rac-says-%E2%80%9Cdrivers-need-help%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-and-they%E2%80%99re-right According to government data at any given point nearly half of car drivers are speeding in 30 zones - no doubt much more in 20 zones. ?Forty seven per cent of cars exceeded the speed limit on 30 mph roads in 2012, with 16 per cent travelling at 35 mph or more.? https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209104/free-flow-vehicle-speeds-2012.pdf The respect, you claim, ?we demand car drivers show to everyone else? ? certainly isn't shown in either the data or your posts or other's posts on this forum. Even on the link I and others have posted it clearly states that: ?In London (1998-2007), just 2% of pedestrian collision injuries on the pavement involved cycles; the other 98% involved motor vehicles.? How is that consistent with your view that drivers are behaving in a safe and respectful manner? Come on then - lets hear you condemnation of the 84% of drivers who think it perfectly acceptable to break the law on a regular basis! If can?t then, I think, as you put it, will ?Have to go now and open a window; the stench of your hypocrisy is leaking out of my computer and fugging up the room...?

> Why would you? I see no > reason - either cycle safely on the road or cycle > in the park if you have kids with you etc. > What if you are taking them to school?

showboat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nice one henryb. Nice attempt to deflect the > argument and find something to blame cars for. > > Whatever this thread started as, it's turned into > a 'heated debate' about the manners of some > cyclists. Yourself and LD seem unwilling to admit > a person on a bike could ever be in the wrong. No > one is disputing that cars are bigger, more > dangerous and too often driven recklessly (or > worse). It's just that we object to being told no > cyclist is ever able to be ill-mannered, > inconsiderate or even...gasp...dangerous to > pedastrians! > > But guess what? Some (not all) of them are. And > then LadyD tries to say that our opinions don't > count because of Syria and you make a post which > has no relevance except to try and remind people > that cars are dangerous (newsflash, we know), and > it just looks like you can't concede that others > might have a point. Well I was actually replying to e-dealer post about driving on the pavement - but if you would like me to clarify yes I think some people cycle irresponsibly and dangerously and break the law, some also cause injuries to pedestrians. It is just a matter of degree and proportionality. The data collected ctc http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestriansbrf.pdf seems about right on the matter. If the OP was about how someone was bombing down the pavement and had run into someone then they would rightly deserve condemnation and a fine or worse. I certainly wouldn?t have defended them. However it wasn?t though was it? In regard to cycling on the pavement - then no, as general rule, cyclists shouldn?t do it, however the home office?s guidelines to the police suggests that there is some grey area about it: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required." I am cyclist and car driver and a pedestrian. When I am a pedestrian ? I really don?t mind sharing the pavement with a cyclist as long as they go slowly and do it responsibly and with consideration. For example jesska's post sounds pefrectly reasonable to me.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But I'm not a cyclist. Maybe I would Allow cars on > the pavement too if they are empty. Wasn't the last thread started by someone witnessing a collision between a car and cyclist on the pavement? Presumably the car wasn't built in situ. No one actually witnessed what happened this time... hasn't stopped 3 pages of rants about it though.

monkeylite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't see generalisation against cyclists in > this thread. Only holiar than thou attitude by > militant cyclists who somehow takes criticism of > *some* cyclists as a general attack. I am a > cyclist myself and I feel offended by the way > militant cyclists on EDF like to deflect every > single blame to other road users. When/where has anyone said cyclists were never to blame always cycle responsibly? As it stands no-one on this thread actually witnessed the incident that led to the argument.