Lowlander

Been talking about regulating them for years..still nothing. Yes, some are vultures - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23588742 Who uses them? Those most vulnerable.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DulwichFox Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Jeremy Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Where can you get fish and chips (eat in) > for > > > > under ?6? > > > > > > Harry Ramsden Bluewater ?5.95 Cod & Chips + > > 99p > > > for large soft drink > > > > > > DulwichFox > > > > Googling "Ramsden's Bluewater" shows it's > around > > 1hr 30 by public transport - bit of a trek to > get > > fish and chips (+ cost of getting there)! > > The Question was -- Where can you get fish and > chips (eat in) for under ?6? -- and I answered > it.. > > I go Shopping at Bluewater 40mins in the car and > free parking all day. > A lot easier than shopping in the West End and > carrying stuff on the bus. > > DulwichFox OK, fair answer!

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Where can you get fish and chips (eat in) for > > under ?6? > > Harry Ramsden Bluewater ?5.95 Cod & Chips + 99p > for large soft drink > > DulwichFox Googling "Ramsden's Bluewater" shows it's around 1hr 30 by public transport - bit of a trek to get fish and chips (+ cost of getting there)!

aquarius moon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They shouldn't do. > Chip shop chips are supposed to be vegetarian. You're lucky being so young - 20 or so years many places still used beef dripping, and it's only a handful of places that use it now. It was the traditional way of cooking before oils became cheaper and more widespread - so if you're concerned you should ask. Also ask about those free-range pickled eggs and if the fish is sustainably sourced :-)

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have to agree with this last comment - I don't > think I often see people driving too fast, but I > see someone on their phone pretty much every time > I get in the car. I would also like to see some > kind of clampdown on cyclists after dark with no > lights and no hi-vis, you get a lot of this around > Peckham. > > I'd be intersted to know how good it is for a car > to be driven in 2nd or 3rd gear for 15/20 minutes > at a time. Most cars are at their happiest being driven at a constant speed between 50 - 60mph on a smooth motorway. Town driving with its constant gear changing and braking is incredibly wearing no matter what gear you are in. Which is why a three year old car with 100k on the clock is often in far better condition than a three year old car with 10k on the clock.

You don't use any fuel when going downhill (as long as you don't accelerate)! Sticking it into neutral would use up fuel.

Oh that place. Worst chips I've ever had in my life from a fish and chip shop. Indescribably bad. Any places around ED that still use beef dripping for frying?

What fancy fish and chip place?

I don't get the speed camera debate: 1. You get a warning side by the road a mile or so in advance 2. There's a great big yellow box at the site itself (usually with the word "GATSO" in big capital letters 3. There's lines in the road where you would be photographed if speeding How on earth do you get caught in one?

It's very rarely unavoidable. The rule is clear - do not enter a yellow box unless your exit is clear (i.e. there is a full car's length sized space to get into on the other side) or if you are turning right and your exit is blocked. The only time it is unavoidable is if you are cut up in the box, i.e. someone overtakes you - either side - and takes the space directly in front of you.

When you start mixing Overground / National Rail fares there is the (very) odd occurance like this. Shoreditch is in Zone 1 Essentially the National Rail only fare z1-2 is ?2.60 An Overground fare for z1-2 is ?2.90 This journey is, unusually, covering London Overground as a NR journey Covered here - http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=76272

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If that's your view, you're entitled to it. But > resorting to insults is a bit childish, you could > > try a little harder to articulate your side of > the argument. > > I've not made an argument - merely asked you to > back 'facts' you've asserted with some actual > proof. Which you have consistently failed to do. > > > > Exactly the sort of response I'd expect from a > wannabe boy racer in his 1.1 Astra and cheap > tinted glass, really. > > Because resorting to insults is a bit childish, > isn't it? As it happens, I don't own a car. It's interesting that you don't own a car, I would have assume (wrongly it seems) that non-car owners would have been in favour of this. You learn something every day.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Your point (4): In the links I've posted. My > case > > is rested and you are entitled to your opinion. > > Well, considering your links did not back up your > assertion that "20mph seems to be the equilibrium > in terms of cost/benefit" with any actual > evidence, the only real conclusion is that you > are, indeed, talking out your bottom. If that's your view, you're entitled to it. But resorting to insults is a bit childish, you could try a little harder to articulate your side of the argument. Exactly the sort of response I'd expect from a wannabe boy racer in his 1.1 Astra and cheap tinted glass, really.

mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lowlander, why do you presume that kford drives at > 35-37 in a 30 just because his car isnt suited to > driving at 20mph? Because he has trouble driving at 20? My car protest violently coming down a hill in 2nd gear but is quite happy going up. It depends on the gradient.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In fact, this useful site shows that even > > car-loving America has some low limits as low > as > > 10mph in residential areas > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_U > > > nited_States > > > > Shall we go there? > > Floundering more a little, LL. And, I think, > avoiding the question. Let's rewind a little... > > 1) Back a page, you stated, "Generally the > consensus seems to be 20 seconds per mile. So the > question is are people thinking that time savings > outweigh the life savings?" > > 2) I said, "Where does that line of thinking stop? > Is 15mph even better? 10mph? 5mph? What is an > 'acceptable' number of deaths/injuries?" > > 3) You said "20mph seems to be the equilibrium in > terms of cost/benefit." > > 4) I said, show me the evidence. Show me where > there are actual scientific evidence or stats to > back the cost/benefit ratio, comparing it to, say > 25mph or 15mph? > > Since then, you have a) said you'd already posted > the links (you hadn't), b) told me to google it > myself and c) posted links that don't show this at > all. Full on floundering. > > I assume therefore, you have absolutely no > evidence whatsoever that 20mph is the "equilibrium > in terms of cost/benefit" as you claim. And no > evidence that the number of deaths at 20mph are > deemed acceptable, but those at 25mph are not. > And that the 'life savings' between 15 mph and > 20mph are seen as unworthy of concern, but the > 'life savings' between 20mph and 25mph/30mph are. > > In other words, you are talking out your bottom. Your point (2): Realistically? I would say 15mph with universal speed cameras and Finnish penalties (i.e. linked to your salary). Personally? Take everyone who breaks the speed limit, confiscate their worldly goods and hang them. Your point (4): In the links I've posted. My case is rested and you are entitled to your opinion. Personally, I would say that a speed limit of 20mph for the proposed injury / lives saved is pretty good. If you think not, well that's up to you and we can only agree to disagree. As a fully paid up 'motorist' and Southwark council tax payer, I'm delighted with the 20mph limit (and would happily pay more council tax to enforce it). If you're not...well, I should run for councillor, or mayor, and change things!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is really a moot point. There will be no > enforcement and it will have no impact whatsoever > on the dick that comes down my road in his van at > around 50. True, but the majority of people will slow down somewhat (i.e. to around 25) and injuries will fall. Small price to pay - council waste far more money on other projects, all this effort into questioning 20mph limits could be better diverted.

In fact, this useful site shows that even car-loving America has some low limits as low as 10mph in residential areas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States Shall we go there?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Loz Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Err, read the links I posted! > > > > > > Which one/s? I can only see the City of > London one, which doesn't cover that question. > > > > You could google "20mph cost benefit analysis" > > Well, I could have, but you claimed you had > already posted the links. > > > But I've done that for you, found the link and > point you towards pages 57 - 61 > > > > http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ > > That doesn't answer the question I asked at all. > That starts and ends with the assumption of 20mph > - it doesn't analyse whether 20mph is the correct > speed to use based on any cost/benefit analysis as > you claimed. > > My original question was, "So is there any actual > scientific evidence or stats to back the > cost/benefit ratio, comparing it to, say 25mph or > 15mph?". By your flailing around, I suspect the > answer is 'no' then. So we still don't know > whether 15mph even better. Or 10mph? Or 5mph? Or > what is an 'acceptable' number of > deaths/injuries? > > There is no cost/benefit analysis as you claimed, > is there? This is my take - the Government say that any local authority can lower speed limits to a minimum of 20mph without consulting them. They based this on a whole bunch of studies (please learn to use google) that give cost benefit analyses for various speed limits. For your benefit: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cost+benefit+analysis+15mph https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cost+benefit+analysis+25mph They decided (as have many European countries) that 20mph (or 30km/h) was a decent benchmark. I believe some countries/states do have 15mph limits, so perhaps you should consider yourself lucky. You could spend a whole load of time and effort getting this all from Google - or even an FOI request to Southwark - or just accept, like many people have, that actually 20mph is a reasonable speed and won't really affect them - apart from reducing road noise and accidents. So yes - the cost benefit analysis is there.

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But one does, David, I tried it last night. You > soon creep up to 25-27, especially in an auto with > a quiet engine. I'd rather my concentration be > spent on looking out for danger, don't you? And I presume in 30 mph zones you drive around 35 - 37???

Put ground cinnamon in the affected plant(s) - simply sprinkle liberally over the top of the soil - don't completely layer and cover it up though. It poisons the eggs. Be careful not to get it on the plant leaves. It can burn sensitive ones.

The report also goes on to say that the cost/benefit model for casualty reduction is not a solid science (as others have said, where do you stop 10mph anyone)? What you do have is a sort of halfway house with red routes at 30mph and everything else 20mnph. Really easy to understand and much better than a piecemeal approach. If you're still whinging because you're losing 25 seconds a mile in time or can't drive a car at 20mph, I think you may have bigger things to worry about!

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or you can use any contactless card and get the > Oyster price. I don't think you can get capping, > though. Contactless is better than Oyster as you benefit from capping on the buses. Odd but true.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > So is there any actual scientific evidence or > > > stats to back the cost/benefit ratio, > comparing it > > > to, say 25mph or 15mph? > > > > Err, read the links I posted! > > Which one/s? I can only see the City of London > one, which doesn't cover that question. You could google "20mph cost benefit analysis" But I've done that for you, found the link and point you towards pages 57 - 61 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/20-mph-zones-and-road-safety-in-london.pdf

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Loz Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Lowlander Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > 20mph seems to be the equilibrium in terms > of > > > cost/benefit. > > > > > > You have a source/reference for that? > > > > Yes - it's burgeoning adoption by councils UK > wide > > and public acceptance (~60% in favour). > Haven't > > seen any mainstream arguments for above or > below > > 20mph. > > Councils are hardly known for using actual > evidence. "Something must be done, this is > something, let's do it" is more the usual > approach. And public acceptance is entirely > dependent on what question you ask! > > So is there any actual scientific evidence or > stats to back the cost/benefit ratio, comparing it > to, say 25mph or 15mph? Err, read the links I posted!

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whilst attempting to drive at myself constantly looking down at my speedo to > check my speed > thus taking my eye off the road... > > It is much easier to judge 30 MPH.... been doing > it for 40 years > > Just a thought. > > DulwichFox Shouldn't take you too long to adjust. I can tell by engine noise alone when I'm doing 30.