JohnL

When driving a car I find cycle lanes mean you will find at some point a cyclist not in the lane for reasons given below - I actually take extra care when there is one now. Id like a separate network of cycling roads - that would get me cycling - but its not going to happen :) howdood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Re Anybol's "cycling can and should be made more > safe by way of creating seperate lanes etc where > possible". I have to say that separate cycling > lanes are the most dangerous thing on the roads. > One: they mean that drivers don't feel they have > to defer to (or even look out for) cyclists who > are turning right - as now the cyclist is > "changing lanes" rather than the driver > "overtaking a vehicle signalling a right turn" as > would be the standard Highway Code interpretation. > > > Two: they encourage cyclists to pass stationary > traffic on the left, which (as he points out) is > generally more dangerous than overtaking on the > right as motorbikes, mopeds, and sensible cyclists > do. > > Three: given the dodgy quality of the roads in > Southwark, the last thing you want is to be riding > on two wheels over a pothole which you've been > forced into because the cycle lane leaves you > nowhere else to go (I nearly came off my bike in > moving traffic last week on a 6-inch deep pothole > in the middle of the bike lane going East from the > East Dulwich Road/Peckham Rye junction.) > > Four (and finally): every cycle lane ends > somewhere, and however many cycle lanes there are, > we all have to ride on the open road sooner or > later. The more cycle lanes there are, the more > people come to believe that bikes "don't belong on > the roads" and drive accordingly. I've had enough > abuse from motorists over the years to know that > the biggest problem is the number of drivers who > sincerely believe that bikes shouldn't be on > roads, full stop. Cycle lanes are a short-sighted > concession to such bigots!

Good that it's oyster rates. I noticed 'don't keep your credit card and oyster card together' :)

I noticed the Croydon & Crystal Palace overground trains started off as pretty quiet when first implemented but seemed to take travel from the DLR and other transport - now those overground trains are often packed. Wonder if the Clapham Junction link will be similar.

Changing at Canada Water between 8 and 9 is a nightmare - there's a bottleneck at the escalator. I'll use Peckham Rye to Clapham/Chelsea and Shep Bush though.

Definitely something going on - lots of engineers on the track and timetables being changed through 'unexplained' delays to leave big gaps then 3 trains in 10 minutes (this is the Luton-Seven Oaks line). ELLE ?.

All these pubs are welcome to come and open on Rye Lane. Nobody will hear a peep from them over the commotion of cars, buses, lorries, planes, hustlers, cops, robbers, firemen, circus performers et al. I am used to it now after 5 years. giggirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Meanwhile, at a pub in Lambeth > > http://www.slp.co.uk/News.cfm?id=28146&headline=No > isy%20bar%20loses%20late%20licence%20after%20outcr > y

What's that 'sale by retail of alcohol to be consumed off the premises'. Does that mean you can drink up in the street ?

Ironically someone will be trying to sell flats in That building above the soon to be betting shop, and I live above another. My hope is the bottom end Of Rye Lane and Peckham Rye change gradually. ( The rye hotel is a good neighbour). But GE is a much quieter area I know (partial to a pint In the Actress). Can't really see what the The GE gains From disrupting the neighbourhood there - hope it doesn't Intend to go he way of the old FHT. DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The difference between Rye Lane and the GE John, > is that one is a retail area and the other is > residential. > > The council can only consider objections in > relation to four catagories, none of which would > be relevant to a betting shop situated in retail > high street, opening normal retail hours. It's not > that the licensing committee ignored those > objections, but that they felt they had no merit > given the location and nature of the application. > > With the GE however, there is a very good case to > argue that extension of hours will have a > detrimental impact on neighbouring residents > within the criteria of the four catagories allowed > for objection. Personally (and given the history > of licensing committees) I can not see the GE > application being successful in it's current form. > The GE will however be able to make ammended > applications in the future if this one fails, so > unfortunately it may well be an ongoing issue for > local residents.

We in Peckham Rye made a large number of objections to new betting shops in Rye Lane and Peckham High Street recently, it was ignored. Knocked the community spirit back somewhat Unfortunately. Hope you do better with the Council. bsand Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You'd think given the strength of local opinion > and the amount of objections that seem to have > been officially lodged that GE should publically > and gracefully withdraw.

Did you see the program on the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. As soon as Something happens anywhere somebody records it on their mobile phone. I'm also sure a police chief constable once released photos of a decapitated Motorcyclist, just googled it and he claimed it was a closed meeting and leaked, Still horrific. Growlybear Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree Caroline, but I don't think it's as weird > as taking the pictures in the first place (unless > of course you were involved in the accident in > some way and needed photographic evidence). > > Caroline_S Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Am I the only one to think it's a bit weird to > ask > > for photos of a horrible sounding crash to be > > posted, let alone post them and look at them? > > Takes rubber necking to a whole new level. > > Fortunately the driver sounds as though he was > > okay, but what if he wasn't? Would you post > photos > > then?

I'm a lower level belt in Shotokan Karate and we are expected to be able to take a blow - sometimes hard enough to knock you off your feet - supposedly shows you that if someone hits you it's not something that hasn't happened before. We don't wear pads, and to hold back on a female is seen as disrespect (she'll thump you) Relevent here is it certainly helps my confidence on the street but even our instructor who I consider a bit over the top sometimes, says run away as your first option and don't fight unless you can't do anything else. mishadreams Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have to agree re self defense classes, esp for > ladies. In my experience they give a false sense > of security. The real world isn't like a nice safe > class where every body wears pads and says sorry > if they hurt you, however unintentionally. In > reality most people, and I include men in this, > have never been hit by anyone with intent to cause > real pain. The shock of actually being punched in > the head/face/groin etc causes the person to go > into shock. They stop thinking. This is why the > military train so hard, to stop one going into > shock and keep oneself thinking. Best adive is to > be aware of your surroundings and if one feels > uncomfortable in any way either head for a > shop/cafe etc where people are or in extremis make > a lot of noise, no one likes noise, and use > anything that comes to hand, aiming at groin, > eyes, throat. > be safe people.

Just a comment from a user. In my experience with some forums where threads are often deleted (not this one) is if legal action gets mentioned a thread goes, sometimes followed by bans of varying periods. civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've recently been involved in a discussion on > this Forum about a certain cafe on LL. There was > an exchange of views, in which some forumites > reported their personal experience of eating there > or working there. > > I now find that the relevant thread has been > deleted, never to be seen again. > > But at the same time, I see very critical posts > about other ED businesses, many of which I would > recommend on this forum. These posts are also > based on reported personal experience. But they > are allowed to remain. > > Could anyone, possibly even an Administrator, > explain - preferably in words of three syllables > or less - what we can and what we can't discuss on > this forum?

But the majority of people in ED (and Peckham) haven't been attacked. I'm male so can't comment on this specific type of attack, but I'm out alone 3 times a week at least, walk back down Rye Lane or up East Dulwich road. I tend to stick to main roads and have lost my smile because that doesn't work (I feign a look of determined hardness). Ms B Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Nobody is suggesting a curfew. A curfew is a > > mandatory/imposed order to return home at a > given > > time. I'm suggesting women try not to put > > themselves in a situation where they have to > walk > > home alone at night. And if the situation is > > unavoidable, then take sensible precautions. > > Have to say I agree with Jeremy. If we're talking > generally, the best way I've heard it put is that > sometimes there's a choice between being right and > being safe. > > That said, of course it's not right that women > should have to fear being attacked; I'm so sorry > for the poor girl who has been assaulted, but we > don't know the circumstances so for all we know he > might have been hiding on her doorstep, which > would be hard to avoid.

It's the Kingston incidents that seem more scary. Press reports from back in May say it was a man and woman. Edit. Although seems now they weren't linked https://www.sutton.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=16262 clux Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Similar happened about 4 months ago at a lewisham > school... Again a year 6 pupil, on her way home.

I tend to here the police use IC1, IC2, IC3 etc as a primary part of their descriptions of criminals. LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not saying that race doesn't belong in the > description. Race along with all distinguishing > characteristics do. All I am saying is that it > only belongs with a full description that is > actually able to apprehend someone. > > In the hypothetical scenario I mentioned, if the > only thing someone saw was that the assailants > were young, male and white, they would likely say > they didn?t get a good enough look at them to give > a description. The same should apply regardless > of the race of the attackers for the reasons I > have already mentioned. > > Jimmyay, I don?t think its racist to acknowledge > that a disproportionate amount of the crime is > committed by young black men but was that the > point of the post? Is that the discussion we are > having? > > *Edited to reflect the right name

meister Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No one mentioned the ethnicity of the female > victim. Point made. I think that not mentioning ethnicity could be more racist, as that would assume one if not specifically mentioned as the other depending on statistics. Why do we want to identify the victim.

Wasn't that New Cross Or was that another terrible incident Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 45 minutes it was going around for. I get > concerned when they are near because when I was > young a crim on the run opened our back gate , ran > through the garden and over the back wall pursued > by the police. It was exciting at the time because > we were all indoors but when you think what could > happen given the deperation of junkies..... > especially since that awful business in Peckham > when a man was tied up and tortured

I like running around Peckham Rye, but to run 4 or 5 times a week the treadmill helps as they are Designed to absorb impact. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > peckman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > regarding gyms... never understood why someone > > would pay to run on a treadmill... esp when you > > have lovely peckham rye park to run around. > > Running on a treadmill is a lot easier on the > joints. And you can mix it up with other low > impact stuff, e.g. cross trainer. I usually end up > injuring my knees running on the pavement or in > the park.

is it just me that sees the law getting much more strict in the last few years. Be careful muggers we might be losing a little bit in 'due process' but your ability to get away with it is not what you may think. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because otherwise it doesn't protect, it just > allows you to watch the 'highlights' afterwards of > an unrecognisable person wearing a hoodie mugging > someone. Muggers might be complete barstewards, > but they're generally not stupid.

You'll find yourself taking a photo of a dodgy character that shows him taking a pic of you.

I'll vote for Waitrose if they have an espresso bar (see Canary Wharf Waitrose). I so much want any coffee chain in Rye Lane. :(

I think Civil offense means you have to go to a lawyer. Police won't help. Pam50 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogs Act 1871 > > It is a civil offence if a dog is dangerous (to > people or animals) and not kept under proper > control (generally regarded as not on a lead nor > muzzled). This law can apply wherever the incident > happened. The dog can be subject to a control or a > destruction order and you may have to pay costs.

Strange how the west is so often wrong and aboriginal people's right. Taking a photo DOES steal your soul. Husker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You could "demand" as much as you like, but they > won't have broken any law if you're in a public > place. > > Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like it either, but > if you're in a public place there's no law being > broken if a complete stranger takes your > photograph.

If it gets worse go to A&E anyway. I held back when it turned out I needed an op. KCH told me I almost messed up my kidneys through dehydration (I still thought I was getting water down - so totally misjudged the seriousness) and to always go in if something doesn't clear.

I was helping my friend build a shed in his garden once when his wife asked him to take his children to the park - I went too. While he played with the children on the slide, I was left standing rather embarrassed at the edge of the playground. AbDabs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's dodgy and there's dodgy. A young man > hanging around a playground may be doing so > because he knows there will be lots of distracted > mums not keeping enough of an eye on their > handbag. Let's take heed of the warning and watch > bags and children but also remember that there are > some terribly lonely people out there with limited > social skills and whose attempts to make contact > with the rest of the human race may come across > badly at times.