Blah Blah

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 Definitely outdated but a nice tourist attraction all the same.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.

This is correct Mako. And for those who drive all day as part of a living, the time impact is greater. And then what about at night, when there is no-one about and you are the only car on the road trundilng at 20 mph? Even the police objected in Southwark's consultation but the cabinet member who drove it through ignored the seven objections, in favour of the two for - both single interest groups it has to be said. So defintely politically motivated, based on a manifesto promise, that had no interest in the findings of consultation, or objections. And pretty soon drivers will realise there's no way of enforcing it and enough of them will revert back to 30 to increase the dangers as they overtake the slower moving vehicles. And btw, Islington who were the first borough to introduce a blanket 20 mph limit (as it was the borough with the highest number of accidents in the entire UK in 2013) are now looking at ways to enforce it, as most drivers don't adhere to it. A recent police operation to monitor driver speeds caught just under 1000 drivers breaking the 20 mph limit in one session. TFL haven't published figures for 2014 yet, so as I said above, there is no real data available yet to show if 20 mph borough wide zones in London have had any impact on accidents.

Got half way down and got bored Lee, you don't half go on. 'Blah blah, pace our earlier EDF discussion about the Rye path, I rejoice you now see the value of works which PRE-EMPT casualties.' No, you are putting words in my mouth. Read what I wrote again. I doubt that making anything but residential roads (that are already 20mph) will make any difference to accident figures and their severity. But neither you or I will know that for 12 months. There is no data to prove anything as yet, just theories of what might be the impact. That's the difference between you and I. I prefer to wait and see before concluding anything. I like hard evidence, not conjecture on what might happen in a worst case scenario. So just as I don't think anyone is going to be hit by a runaway cyclist on a sparkly new path, I don't think accidents on main roads are going to drastically reduce because of a 10mph drop in the limit. You are after all the person that tried to make out that kids playing cricket in the park with a soft ball were a serious threat to the public. So your perspective on all these things is seemingly alarmist. Lowlander, in all cases, alcohol reduces reaction time, so any driver drinking and driving IS adversely affected. Not having an accident while driving over the limit does not equate to being able to drive while p*ssed. Most drivers driving at 30 mph however, are not adversely affected by driving at 30 mph. That's why it's a poor comparison. It's also why 30 mph remains the limit on the majority of urban main roads. That a handful of boroughs have chosen to blanket down to 20 mph is a local choice.

Yeah but my point is that most people drive perfectly safely at 30mph. Most people would not be able to drive safely over the drink driving limit. They are two different things. So the analogy was a poor one. As I said on the other thread on this, there are roads where it makes perfect sense to have a 20mph limit. I just don't accept that making all roads 20mph is necessary, and I'd be interested to see accident figures after 12 months of it in place. I wouldn't be suprised if there is little difference in the number of collisions/ accidents. People who drive poorly or wrecklessly with a 30mph limit in place are still going to drive badly at 20mph so the key figure will be seriousness of injury. Again I won't be suprised if there is no significant difference. But we shall see.

lol uncle.

Not the same thing lowlander. Drinking and driving has far more serious consequnces than driving at 30mphr, which is why people lose their licences if caught.

There was another thread on this but yes I agree with kford. Improving road safety is about weeding out careless drivers and most road safety measures do nothing to address that. You shouldn't have to be ten times over the limit or kill someone before you lose your licence. Any collision caused by carelessness or poor driving (no matter how minor) should lead to at least refresher driving lessons.

I think Louisa is really funny at times. I've not been around that long so might forgiven for only just figuring out what other's know already.

That's the spirit lousia :D

ha ha :D

I also supsect that Louisa is just an internet character. Not a real person at all. Too many contradictions in writing style. Louisa I think is probably a middle aged bloke in reality, trying to be a comedian but not consistant enough to fool anybody.

Surley the name doesn't matter. This is about addressing anti-social behaviour, something that impacts in many ways. If the Police do nothing they are criticised. When they do something which sounds like sensible community policing, everyone focuses on what they name the exerise.

Last weeks dispatches was on private parking companies and the culture there definitely is to issue as many tickets as possible. A common sense aproach would be to have a designated drop of/ collect point outside things like stations, with a 5 min waiting time limit. The same dispatches program made the point the the law was changed by this government so that it is no longer necessary to prove who was driving the vehicle. We have the most cctv cameras in the world and most of them are trained on drivers. So obviously a cash cow.

Vans are the reason you have goods in your shops. They are the reason you can get a plumber when you need one or a builder. Descriminating against a type of vehicle because you don't like the look of it is surely just as unreasonable? The owner of the vehicle has explained why he can't move it. So not inconsiderate at all. There may be a hundred and one reasons why he can't get it fixed as quickly as others would like. His insurance and tax do however buy him time to sort that out when he can. I really don't see a problem here.

I was responding to the post prior to mine. Can't be arsed reading through some of the curtain twitiching tripe found on this forum.

Ok so now we are at 'park outside someone else's home not mine!' What next? Don't want yellow cars parking outside? Older cars? Motorbikes? It all amounts to the same thing. Trying to claim ownership of the public highway outside your home. It doesn't belong to you.