Lowlander

Has been there since at least 06.00 - have just called 101; not a priority for the Police as it's not causing an obstruction, and not reported stolen. They will send a unit round to look at some point today.

Sorry to hear that - ignore the person you spoke to at your insurer though and report it to the police asap - the insurer call handler may just be woefully naive. There may be a nugget of intelligence the police could use. Or at the least it will show up in statistics and highlight the problem...

Looks like Silverlink - been defunct for a while now https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Station_sign_at_Kensington_Olympia_-_Silverlink.jpg

No water here since 7pm 4th March near the top of Dunstan's Road. Big problems across London (for a change not just Dulwich). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43279633

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > PS Oh, and also the environmental efficiency of > British homes is a joke by European standards. In > many cases double glazing is not even allowed. The > Dulwich Estate doesn't allow it, for example, > because of course the "charity" must fleece > homeowners by policing the beauty of the houses > and overcharging them so that money can be > funneled towards posh independent school attended > mostly by overpriviliged kids - a most charitable > endeavour. > > (No, I don't live in the Dulwich Estate area - > heel will freeze over before I do). Err, in most cases Dulwich Estate do allow it: http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/som/policy-guidelines/8-replacement-doors-and-windows

Evenings are better but a strange 15-17 minute gap both ways late in the peak (morning 08:38-08:53) London Bridge to East Dulwich/North Dulwich: 17:01 17:14 17:22 17:31 17:44 17:52 18:01 18:14 18:22 18:31 18:44 19:01

Is there an end in sight for this madness? A zone 2 station with one train an hour in the peaks?

Overground to Canada Water for Jubilee line (one stop to Canary Wharf eastbound). 20-25 minutes tops from Peckham Rye in the rush hour - you may have a 5 minute change at Canada Water if it's really busy (around about 0800-0900) If Jubilee has delays then stay on until Shadwell and change to the DLR. Overground is therefore your weak link but it's very reliable in my experience (as are DLR and Jubilee line). Interestingly (or not) I as once asked by a DLR guard if I was changing at Shadwell late one evening, and he advised me not to. I've changed without incident during rush hours though and never felt unsafe.

London Bridge station is open tomorrow from 0500 according to Network Rail

Thanks for this - deadline is 25th May. Whilst I think most people would have enough information to respond, bear in mind that the DfT can't provide all the info. From the website: "We are currently unable to publish this information due to restrictions in place during the pre-election period"

I think it's standard practice amongst phone operators these days; Vodafone did it to me a few months back. You should get the best deal by switching every year using a comparison site e.g. https://www.mobilephonechecker.co.uk/sim-only I've been with each operator about four times each since 2000. Easy to find unlimited minutes, texts and at least 4GB of data for less than ?10 a month.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One cause (I know cos I fixed a 2yr seemingly > unsolvable niggle with it recently) that is > possible, but by no means definitely the cause, is > the kitchen (or other) mixer tap washer is eroded. > This can cause shocking sounds in the pipes. When > I looked into cost of ordering a new mixer tap > ceramic washer specifically for my model, I just > went and got a new tap. Guess what, problem gone. > You could ask upstairs to work with you on it, > bring them down to hear the noise, and once you've > identified which device is causing it then fix / > replace it. > So that's one possible way out of this. > > ETA: if we turned on either shower or bathroom > taps it would start the banging, which was caused > by air being sucked in through the kitchen mixer > tap due to the eroded ceramic washer allowing the > draw of water on other water outlets to create > that suction. This - we ad exactly the same problem and solution (although lasted about 6 months before it drove us crazy enough).

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > > > I can help you - attached. > > Thank you. Do you work in the biomedical field? > Can you get access to the other article I found on > PubMed, too? > > As for the BMJ article, I honestly struggle to > follow it. Maybe you can clarify some of my > doubts. > I would have expected an analysis of 20mph limits > to be similar to the analyses of a new drug vs > placebo: you compare two similar sets of roads, > one with 20mph and the other with 30mph limits, > and se if there is any statistically significant > difference. Or, similarly, you analyse the > accident frequencies on a set of roads the year > before and the year after the introduction of > 20mph limits. > > Of course the set of roads must be large enough to > have a meaningful number of events to compare; > there is an inherent variability in this phenomena > which makes them ahrd to study unless they are > frequent enough. For example, in 2015 there were > ca. 2000 fatalities and serious injuries in London > ( > https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2 > 016/june/road-casualties-in-london-continue-to-fal > l-but-concerns-remain-about-motorbike-collisions > ); if you drill down into too much detail, you'll > be left with not enough data points for a > meaningful analysis. These are some of the reasons > why the DfT (see my previous links) said the > evidence on 20mph is inconclusive. > > Anyway, I would have expected these two kinds of > analyses, but it is not clear to me at all that > this is what was done in the BMJ article. The > authors have information for 385 of the 399 20mph > zones introduced from 1991 to 2007, but that's too > long a period for this kind of analysis, because > all kinds of trends and factors over such a long > period of time may contribute to a change in the > number of accidents: safer cars, stricter driving > tests, more speed cameras, dramatic changes in the > population of motorists and road users, etc. > The authors say they reach similar conclusions > when they analyse the most recent years only, but > it is not clear to me what was compared over the > last few years: how many 20mph zones were > introduced over that period? How comparable are > they to the non-20 mph zones? Table 1 gives some > indications on these points over the entire period > (which, as I said, I consider too long). One thing > that jumps out is that, over the entire period, > they analyse 2006 kms of 20mph roads, vs almost > 14,000 kms of non-20mph zones. My main > objections/doubts are 2: > 1) how comparable are the 20 vs non-20 zones? E.g. > to what extent are there fewer accidents in the > 20mph zones because there is less traffic flow > anyway? > 2) even if they are comparable (and it's a big > if), the mere fact that the vast majority of the > dataset relates to the non-20 zones makes the > results for the 20mph zones much harder to > interpret and less statistically significant, > because we are basically comparing a large vs a > small dataset. > > > > > Essentially - "Commenting on the Department for > > Transport figures, Grundy told the BMJ. ?We > can?t > > tell anything from the raw numbers alone.?" > > Makes sense. Just like I struggle to make sense of > their analysis without clarifications to my two > points above. > > Also, I note that the data of the Metropolitan > police, which classifies collisions in London by > main cause, was not used. I can't find the link > now (I'll try to refine my google skills later...) > but that would be useful to look at, because > clearly some types of collisions would be reduced > by lower limits, but not all, e.g. drunk driving, > low-speed collisions at dangerous junctions with > limited visibility, etc. > > Finally, I can't help but continue thinking that > there must be something wrong in either the BMJ > study or the DfT's; we're not talking about small > differences, we are talking about a 40% reduction > vs inconclusive results. One of the two must be > hideously wrong! Look, I just signed up for the free 14 day trial to access the publications. The reason it's not for general public consumption is that it is just an article with some free-form opinion. It is not a study. The evidence is there - I posted BMJ and Oxford as they are impartial. Your DfT study has been debunked by independent statisticians - see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8038821/20mph-limit-has-not-made-roads-safer.html "Professor Stephen Senn, an expert in statistics at the University of Glasgow, said: "The design of the report is very bad. Various statistical terms are used incorrectly and they've probably used the wrong statistical test." Here are some more studies suggesting that 20mph limits reduce casualties from road safety charities: http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speed/20mph-zones-and-limits/ http://www.brake.org.uk/assets/docs/Whatshappening/Influencegovernment/GO20_campaign_briefing-Oct12.pdf Those against the 20mph limit are using questionable data and processes. Those supporting 20mph limits are using the proper processes consistent with those used in medical studies.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You've obviously missed my AA link above. > > 20mph roads and CO2 emissions > Lower limits can increase fuel consumption and CO2 > emissions > > Here's the link again > http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/news/20mph-roa > ds-emissions.html > > Lower speeds do not necessarily protect the > planet. 20mph limits would seem like a formula 1 > race track to many a flatulent grazing cow but > that doesn't stop scientists blaming them for > global warming. > > Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 > from cars > http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c > hange/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-c > o2-from-cars-427843.html The main - proven - argument for 20mph limits is based on fewer physical injuries and deaths caused by vehicles hitting humans at lower speeds. There is a secondary environmental concern regarding the environment, which as you state in your two links is unproven.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be seen to be politically correct? On message? Carry on, elaborate; how is a 20mph limit "politically correct"!? Does it offend you? Do you feel marginalised? are you from the snowflake generation?

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > For example, in another article on the BMJ, the > same researches are called to defend their > conclusion because, well, practical experience > seems to show the exact opposite, ie that > casualties have * cough cough* increased after the > introduction of 20mph limits! > http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e5580 > I can help you - attached. Essentially - "Commenting on the Department for Transport figures, Grundy told the BMJ. ?We can?t tell anything from the raw numbers alone.?" You are right - why are councils - including Wandsworth, arguably the most conservative and Conservative council in the UK, with the lowest council tax - implementing a costly reduction in speed when there is no monetary benefit?

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As you say, every car is different, but on the > cars I've driven, trying to keep them to 20 > involves either signifantly overrevving the engine > in 2nd, or borderline stalling it in 3rd. > > I, and plenty of other people I've spoken to about > this find that driving at 20 is actually far more > distracting to the driver than driving at 30 > because it paradoxically adds more work to monitor > the car than would be the case at 30 where you can > keep it in 3rd and not worry to the same level. I > fully appreciate everyones experience is > different, but as someone who has driven for 20 > years, I'd say that I find 20MPH limits more > challenging than 30MPH limits to drive safely in. > I would be very interested to see the stats on > accidents - ultimately if a driver is more focused > on the speed he is doing and processing the cars > speed, he is not able to focus to the road to the > same extent. > > As a driver I don't speed, don't break posted > speed limits and drive defensively and anticipate > likely changes to the road - but I still find > driving at 20MPH more challenging than 30MPH > because of the extra workload involved in managing > to keep the car below the limit and not be done > for speeding. Personally I think 25MPH would be a > far more sensible half way house. And I find it much easier to drive at 20, as do the only people I know who I've asked :-) You'll get used to it. I've tried using cruise control myself, but am only able to keep to a max speed for 30 seconds or so in Dulwich before having to slow down again for lights, junctions or traffic. Anyway, stats? How about some evidence from the British Medical Journal showing a 40% reduction in injuries: http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b4469 Or Oxford University: https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/37/3/515/2362676/Go-slow-an-umbrella-review-of-the-effects-of-20

No, it has never been mandatory - is only a courtesy that some places offer. There is a drinking up time (i.e. the time between last orders and closing time); this used to be a mandatory 15 minutes but I believe is now specific to the premises since the licensing laws changed years ago.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Biggest problem that I have with the 20MPH limits > is that I find myself spending more time > monitoring the dashboard than the road to make > sure I don't break the limit. > > Its a very difficult speed to keep the car at - it > naturally wants to be going a bit faster for the > engine to justify going into 3rd gear - 20 is for > my car the point where its struggling to keep in > 2nd, but struggles to stay in 3rd - its also a > speed that, particularly with cameras, has low > tolerance for even a slight excess (e.g. a slight > over revving by accident means you can easily > breach the 10% + 1 rule) and find yourself fined / > points on licence. > > Consequently, I find that when in 20MPH zones, I > have to spend a lot more of my driving time > focusing on the speedo for fear of breaking the > limit than I do in a 30MPH zone where the car is > comfortably driving along and where you don't need > to worry to the same level about going over the > limit by accident. > > I personally think 20MPH zones are more dangerous > because drivers who want to drive within the law > have to spend more time focusing on their speed, > and not on the environment around them. Oh come on - firstly, every car is different. Secondly, East Dulwich is not flat, so 20mph going up Dog Kennel Hill or Lordship Lane will be quite different to going down. Thirdly, you get used to it. Fourth - going at 30mph is usually at the change between third and fourth gear.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > > > Try in a car. I've come close to 35 or so > before > > the lights change or I hit more traffic. Never > > 40mph. > > I don't need to try in a car: seeing all the cars > and lorries riding at my same speed, if not > higher, is sufficient proof that 40mph are very > feasible there even on 4 wheels. I've no doubt as I'm often being overtaken there - personally, I've just never felt comfortable enough to reach 40mph with the amount of traffic.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I've never in my 30 years of driving managed to > > reach 40mph on Park Lane, and am lucky to hit > 30! > > ??? Are we talking about the same road? The one > from Hyde park corner to Marble Arch? I ride my > motorcycle there very, very often. I almost always > manage to reach 40mph (on the northbound lane, the > southbound lane has a 30mph limit), even during > the morning rush hour. In fact, speeding there is > so easy that police motorcyclists very often hide > there to catch speeding motorists, especially at > rush hour! > > > In East Dulwich, there are so few places you > could > > get to 30mph for more than a minute - or two at > > the most - before having to slow down for > > lights/junctions. > > Yes, but if driving at 30mph lets you spend less > time at red traffic lights, then you'll be > polluting less. Also, small differences add up, > once multiplied by the number of drivers in > London. Try in a car. I've come close to 35 or so before the lights change or I hit more traffic. Never 40mph. There is zero evidence to suggest either way that driving at 20 instead of 30 increases pollution. I could argue that I pollute less at 20mph because I accelerate less - and can better anticipate. Driving at 20mph instead of 30mph takes one minute longer per mile - so a ten mile journey across London will take 10 minutes longer - assuming 30mph non-stop from start to finish. Most of my journeys in London are through 20mph zones now anyway - Wandsworth is going 20mph in May - and I can only see a benefit.

I've never in my 30 years of driving managed to reach 40mph on Park Lane, and am lucky to hit 30! In East Dulwich, there are so few places you could get to 30mph for more than a minute - or two at the most - before having to slow down for lights/junctions. As a driver, 20mph is a nice speed to drive at - less stressful and I'm able to take in a lot more of what is going on. Less stopping and braking needed too - just seem to cruise along as you can anticipate what's going to happen at junctions and traffic lights.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Try 'butterfly' cavity wall rawl plugs, B&Q sell > them, expect Dulwich DIY will too. I've used them > in the past for those Ikea floating shelves that > always sag with conventional plasterboard rawl > plugs... > http://www.diy.com/departments/rawlplug-cavity-fix > ing-pack-of-6/254620_BQ.prd?ecamp=Seapla&ppc_type= > shopping&ds_kids=92700017269565308&gclid=CMbLiPmio > dMCFdZAGwodhLkCtg&gclsrc=aw.ds.ds&dclid=CKSfqfmiod > MCFQ0j0wodNloI0Q I've used these butterfly fixings with great success on hollow old lathe and plaster, which is very hit and miss depending on what is behind it (lathes, stone, mortar, brick etc.) Everyone else has give sound advice - the screws and rawlplugs provided are usually a bit rubbish; take the hook into a DIY place like Plough and they should be able to sell you some decent screws and rawl plugs with good change from a fiver.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > Surprised you don't find the new layout easier > for > > changing to Charing Cross - under 2 minutes to > > walk down the stairs, across the lower > concourse > > and up the stairs to the Charing Cross > platforms? > > Surely that's quicker than the old layout? > > The footbridge had a lot fewer steps. There were > no lifts before though, so obviously not great if > you had a pushchair. Fair point; I just remember the old way being slow and grotty but maybe no difference in time. Definitely easier now with luggage/puschairs...

And unlike wasps they will not sting unless you really provoke them! If you must move them follow lavender27's advice