Blah Blah

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.

ok so they were in a police car, and so what? Does every parked Police car have to find it's way onto a public forum? Nonsense.

Yeah. Police doing convert surveillance or protection. OP asks why they're there and is told nothing to worry about. That would be enough for most of us but not the OP who feels the need to advertise it on a public forum and blow their operation. Soome people really are stu..., no I'll stop there :D

He pays his tax, and he pays insurance. That's all that matters. If you don't want a van or otherwise to park outside your home, then buy a house with a private driveway.

Johnjohn, if the vehicle is taxed and insured, it can park where it damn well likes and for as long as it likes. If you want a guaranteed parking space outside your home, buy a house with a driveway.

I think that's true ????. There's no doubt that those who create and run the system take full advantage of it too. And all MPs of all political parties are equally guilty of that. It's abit like awarding themselves a massive pay rise whilst everyone else is limited to either 1% or have had their salaries frozen. Politicians do have a poor image and they only have themselves to blame.

Thirded. It's a public highway. He can park there for as long as he likes as long as the vehicle is taxed and insured.

Try contacting Southwark's Adult Social Care team as a starting point, as they will make an assessment and feed into available local services for you. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200407/my_support_choices/2370/contact_adult_social_care_southwark You could also try speaking with her doctor too, who would be able to refer her to local agencies for support. There is a local Community Mental Health team on Lordship Lane, to whom her doctor could make a referral.

Looks like an upmarket bachelor pad. The kind of place American Psycho would reside at!

I am impressed that a helipad can be constructed in just one weekend. A weekend of traffic chaos is a small price to pay for the lives that might be saved by this.

'So it pervades the tory Party but not the Labour party?...only one of them's had a female leader* and that was 40 years ago, which kind of illustrates your point minus the partisan line.' Thatcher was hand picked by Airy Neave because he wanted Heath deposed. Thatcher didn't come from some great liberal drive to advance equality for women in the Tory party. She was the pawn in a clash between those two politicians. No Neave, no Thatcher. I disagree Loz. It's not chicken and egg at all. It's life. Women go through pregnancy, give birth, and some breast feed and they already have a relationship with a new born child that men can never have. And there's nothng men can do about that. Babies have a unique relationship to mothers. Nowhere in my comments can you draw the conclusion that most children being raised by women means that men don't want to be fathers. Men do not do the bulk of childcare. But nor does a man have to in order to be a father. It's true that the law favours the mother in custody cases (unless there's a good reason why the child can't be looked after by the mother), but children can't be split down the middle. It's the whole thing of pregnancy etc that gives women the edge in that repsect and yes it's crap for men who want to be custodians, but maybe it's the price you pay for having a child with a person you aren't really compatable with? (cruel thing to say I know). 'Why not? If someone brings a child into this world, is it not too much to ask for them to actually look after it?' In an ideal world yes but the fact remains that most men still expect the mother to do it all. Look at the number of absent fathers out there. Do you think all the guys at a Millwall match changed their kids napppies? It's up to us guys to pull our socks up if we want anything to change, not criticise those who say it like it is.