Blah Blah

That whole strip is problematic. Hard to share a space when some cyclists think they have right of way over pedestrians. I have seen some shocking behaviour by cyclists on that shared pavement, and I say that as someone who uses it as a cyclist. Total idiocy too to leave no overtaking room on the tarmac. I know why they did it, because of cyclists contraflowing a one way stretch, but not sure the solution has made things better at all.

'Jet packs haven't been invented' Are you sure? They also use jet packs in space during space walks.

Cats do get colds from time to time. Innoculation is against the most dangerous form of cat flu. A bit like humans really who regualrly get colds and think they have flu!

The mobile cameras are not being banned though, but their use restricted to things like bus lanes. Totally agree though regarding pre-election populism. We can only expect more of that. But having said that, I now know whom I'm voting for because of it. Things like mobile cameras don't get my vote. Policy on min wage and tackling our low paid economy do. It's all very well having 1.8 million new jobs, as Cameron likes to boast. What he forgets to say though is that in spite of that, tax receipts are still dropping. The reality is that those jobs are mostly low paid, part-time, zero hours even. There has been no replacement for decently paid full time jobs. But those at the top are funnily enough doing better than ever. Still at least if I park in a bay, instead of paying for an hour when I'll only probably use 40mins, I can now at least pay for the time I'm likely to be parked. That has always been my gripe with parking bays, the 'not transferable' command at the bottom of the ticket. The fear of a parking ticket being issued for 1 second past has meant that in reality LAs get more than the real cost of parking. Now they can't screw us over quite as easily.

Thieves have no conscience sadly. Won't have given you or your business a second thought. Hope you can get things back together quickly.

The borough charge is revealing though. Had no idea LA's had to pay a fee to have it in their borough.

Good response coco.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisa Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's what the middle classes do. Vent. Moan. > > Mostly about stuff that wouldnt bother anyone > > else. I hate what this area is becoming. > > > > Louisa. > > > Must say, I find myself in agreement with Louisa. I agree too. Don't know if it's what the area is becoming but it's certainly a key feature of EDF. Like many forums, seems to attract the slightest hint of inconveniance over common sense.

Greed is good and profit before people and all that. The government today sold it's 40% stake in Eurostar (a profittable business btw) to the French and Canadians. And we wonder why we have poor tax receipts and our economy is nose diving? Why don't we have the power to stop a government, that never had a public mandate to govern, from selling of what little is left to foreign shareholders?

That's why I love the dog show at the Peckham Fete every year. A great opportunity to pet lots of dogs :)

Agreed first mate

It's about give and take rahrahrah. It's a shared space. Everyone needs to make the best of it. Dogs will run about because they need to exercise. They will occassionally pinch a ball or try to play with others. Dog owners should apologise if offence is caused, but similarly others should stop instilling fear into their kids, when there is no need of such.

I broadly agree with that rahrahrah. Just that the op was asking for more than that from the owner to me.

No but the reaction is not the best reaction for dealing with percieved fear. That's my point. Dogs often sniff bags because they are looking for food. It's what dogs do. At no point was the dog actually interested in the child clearly. So in that scenario I would still engage with the dog and let the child see there is nothing to be afraid of.

I agree MadMoo, and they then take their cues from that over protectiveness, and the result is an exaggerated fear of all sorts of things. For example, in the same scenario as the OP, I would grab the dog (if it has a collar), and play with it. Then the child learns instead that the dog wants to play, and not harm him. Not always possible I know, but I've done that before. We seem to have this impression that the country is full of unruly man eating dogs and bad owners. It's not. The overwhelming majoirty of dogs are properly socialised.

Well read the op again and then ask who is reinforcing the child's fear there? The answer is the parent by picking the child up and isolating it from the dog. The result is that the child learns that every dog the runs towards him is a threat. Edited to say, so I would question the parents fear/ attitude towards dogs, before that of the child.

It's the shared space thing again isn't it. Shared space needs give and take by everyone using it. I do think that as a society we've become over protective, of everything from our kids to our rights over others. If the worst that can happen to your child, is a hapless payful dog running about, then you should be thankful imo. Most of the things we fear are learned from our parents/ peers anyway. If a child is frightened by a playful dog, then all the more reason for the child to engage with dogs as soon as possible to overcome the fear.

I just think that if we removed them, very little would actually change. The monarchy does publish all their accounts online and I guess whether or not we think they are worth it/ good value depends on the price we place on the Queen's role as a ambassador. I think she is still very much respected among world leaders.

The sovereign grant is around ?30million per year.

The establishment would still exist without a monarchy. Every country that is a republic still has a class system, with public schools they can send their kids too (to shape the next leaders to keep the status quo) while everyone else scrambles in the state provision. Monetarism is the only ism that defines class and every system in the world operates under it. The Queen is clearly an ambassador, especially to former colonies and the commonwealth. I don't know if that has any benefit in trade or public relations (I'm guessing it does), but politically no. And when a royal, like Charles, does get involved in controversial or political debate, it's frowned upon by even his own family. They may be heads of state but the Queen has never exercised the constitutional power she supposedly has. Puppets of the government come to mind. Definitely outdated but a nice tourist attraction all the same. They do own a heck of a lot of land though, and the armed forces swear an allegiance to them! So not so easy to get rid of either.

That is my view too mako.

Completely agree with all your points Mako and when tfl do publish the data for 2014 we can looks at the figures for Islington and the two other boroughs to see if and what difference a blanket 20mph limit made to their annual casualty figures. Just on speed cameras. The council can't just erect speed cameras as they please and where they please. Speed cameras are not the same as cctv that is used for giving out parking tickets. The DfT says that; For selecting potential camera sites, it is recommended that analysis of collision data should be undertaken over a minimum period (e.g. most recent 3 years, or preferably 5 years) to determine whether a camera is an appropriate solution to reduce speeds and/or collisions at that site. Average (mean) and 85th percentile speeds should also be collected so that the data is not more than 12 months old. This will help to demonstrate the level of non compliance with the speed limit, which itself should also have been constant over the same minimum period. The local partnership is fully accountable for these decisions and should be proactive in communicating information on the deployment of cameras through the usual channels, including the Local Transport Plan process and local Speed Management Strategies. So clearly from that, the council has to wait at least three years and then have evidence and good cause for erecting speed cameras.

No Dave, I said I have a view of what the data may show but you will see that I make it clear it's a wait and see scenario because we don't know. I swear some people only see what they want to see when reading others posts. The issue really is about how we change the behaviour of some poor drivers. Sticking 20 mph signs everywhere won't do that, unlike speed humps that (for better or worse) force some kind of alternative action by the driver.

Bravo DaveR! Interpretation of data is open to debate. We all know that. And that includes your interpretation as much as anyones. You are speaking to someone with a Phd in psychology here btw ;). But hard data on number, type and location of accidents can not be interpreted in any other way than it is. Accidents have fallen, but the rate of decrease has fallen too. The reasons will be numerous, but it's also not unreasonable to assume that in the absense of accident blackspots to traffic calm, roads with less risk become traffic calmed. There is no hard data as yet on the impact of making all roads in a London borough 20mph, of which only comparison to previous data of existing 20 mph zones can give any conclusion of impact. I don't see why that's so hard to understand or why you felt the need to post an academic paper on the nature of data and bias.

It's worth noting the decresed reduction, and that may well be due to the spurt of fitting speeding humps between 1991 and 2000 on roads that genuinely needed them, like outside schools, and dealing with rat runs through residential streets. Then it became fitting speed humps on every residential road used as a through road and so on. The lack of evidence of migration to surrounding areas/ roads shows how traffic calming in the right places is effective, and kind of proves the lack of need of 20 mph blanket limits. There as yet is no data for the impact of a blanket 20 mph policy as (I've pointed out above) the first borough to introduce that did it in 2013/14 and tfl has published no data for 2014 yet. So I expect the data to not be convincing in boroughs where accident rates were average. I fully expect there to be no significant change or benefit. I would like to see the cost of enforcement too. I'm willing to bet it's prohibitive. I like Lowlanders point about some cities turning off traffic lights at night. Not sure if that could work in London but see the sense in it.