Jump to content

Blah Blah

Member
  • Posts

    3,230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Blah Blah

  1. Dangerous driving can mean impatient driving trying to navigate a much reduced road layout. Still remains that crossings that don't bring pedestrians into any contact with traffic are safer - so why remove them?
  2. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/elephant-and-castle-crash-air-ambulance-lands-at-roundabout-after-lorry-hits-elderly-woman-in-south-a3174026.html So much for safety improvements. No pedestrian ever got hit by a vehicle in an underground crossing.
  3. This it what happens when you take away underground crossings. The works aren't even completed and already a needless death. Well done Southwark Planning.
  4. Do the schools provide scholarships and bursaries for some students though? I don't know the answer to that but just wonder that it might wrong to describe all pupils as fee paying at those schools. Having said that, like everyone above, I don't undertand why fee paying schools aren't self sufficient financially.
  5. If it's untaxed then that's different. It probably needs repairs to be moved.
  6. I think no MOT is just a fine, not grounds for towing. But as someone has just posted that it is owned by someone living nearby, why not have a chat with them? This ploy to try and get their vehicle taken from them just because they are parked (legally) somewhere someone isn't happy with, is wrong.
  7. But as a percentage of people who cycle it is a very low percentage.
  8. But cyclists don't hurtle through red lights civilservant - that would just be asking for an accident. Most light hoppers stop or slow to see if the way is clear and then continue. So yes, if it's the middle of the night, cold and pouring with rain and there's no traffic, pedestrian or otherwise, there is no harm done in crossing a red light. You might not like it and it may not be legal, but to suggest anyone doing that is a hurtling cyclist with no awareness of what is happening ahead of him is bonkers.
  9. No-one is saying it is ok. What I'm trying to point out is that if it's the middle of the night, cold and pouring with rain, a cyclist may feel it's ok to keep going if there is no traffic about. A driver would never need to feel like that. They have a warm and dry driving experience. I too dirac have got off a bicycle and crossed a pedestrian green light and got on my cycle again at the other side. It's perfectly legal to do that and at busy junctions may be the safer way to cross too, esp if wanting to turn right.
  10. Yes, those men that just can't let go of their childhood BMX experience :D
  11. That sounds very suspicious. A community warden (as they are properly called) would be on foot. They always work in pairs and as someone has pointed out wear a special red uniform with 'community warden' clearly written on it. But logic would say that only a Safer Neighbourhood Police team would do something like this, as part of an anti-burglary campaign perhaps.
  12. If he's not very sociable or struggles to be so then finding something he's very interested in is probably the only way to motivate him to join something and stick with it. There are lots of activities like politics, the arts, free lectures, etc that he could look at doing. Someone suggested volunteering too. There are all kinds of charities that young people volunteer at. Crisis is a good charity for that, working with the homeless, amongst others. They btw have a volunteering information day this Saturday.
  13. Exdulwicher makes some good points though. Cyling on pavement when there are no pedestrians around doesn't harm anyone. Similarly, cycling through a red light in the middle of the night when there is no traffic around doesn't harm anyone either. Both are technically wrong/ illegal but cyclists are also affected by things, like weather or congestion, which will affect their behaviour sometimes. Cycling on a pavement in a way that forces pedestrians to give way is a conscious act of danger but the vast majority of cyclists would never do this. This is also something I have never seen any cyclist do on Rye Lane either (apart from the shared cycle path at the north end). A cyclist on the road has every right to be there, cycling as fast as the speed limit and conditions allow, but then again, very few cyclists make anywhere near the speed limit. So this is why the OPs question has no merit. Cyclists over 16 can be fined for riding on a pavement, so legislation already exists for this. Just becuse it is impossible to fine everyone that does it isn't a reason for banning every cyclist, any more than banning all drivers because the few that drive badly are never caught, would be a reasonable idea either.
  14. But the psychology is completely different. Children first learn to ride bikes on pavements, and continue to do so. Only after the age of 16 can a person be given a fine for riding on the pavement, by which time the lack of any feeling of illegality about pavements has long gone. No-one ever learns to drive a vehicle on pavements or going the wrong way on roads. So it's not hard to see the psychological difference in attitude.
  15. It isn't a huge wiggle round to avoid the Choumert one way. Sand street is less than 20 metres away and is the correct way round. It adds maybe only 50 metres to the Journey max. Cyclists are just being lazy.
  16. That response sums up perfectly how ridiculous your whole argument is Alice. Cyclists can cycle as fast as the speed limit allows. A cyclist riding at 20mphr (most ride at around 10-12 mphr) would be a potential athlete so the whole speed thing is a non argument.
  17. A petition will achieve nothing. The only way to remove someone through their home is through the court. There are specific grounds for eviction under law. If they are tenants, only if anti-social behaviour breaches a tenancy agreement is there grounds for eviction, and there are specific definitions of what might be classed as anti social behaviour. Keeping a diary for a considerable length of time is part of the process of gathering evidence after you have contacted the landlord and made them aware.
  18. There are lots of homeless organisations that provide food and most rough sleepers use them. It's usually quite obvious when someone is newly homeless, as their capacity to cope breaks down very quickly and eventually they find their way to one of the organisations that can help, usually by referral. If someone is begging, I always ask them what they need the money for. That gives me the opportunity to buy what they need for them. If they won't allow that but insist on having the money, then it's likely for alcohol, drugs or some other reason, and I don't give them it.
  19. That sounds then as though his mental health issue leads to anti-social behaviour. He might not even be homeless. One of the problems with care in the community when it was introduced is that it is far more difficult to monitor behaviour and medication etc in that environment. But targetted in patient treatment is very expensive. The Police do have a procedure for referral, but short of locking someone up (or sectioning them), their power is limited. What often happens is a merry-go-round of exlusion, behaviour orders, overnight stays in a cell etc, If alcohol or drugs are a factor, then it becomes even more difficult (and expensive) to fix. Many people claiming to be homeless for the purposes of begging, are not homeless at all, but need the money to feed an alcohol addiction. Homeless charities and support services do not tolerate anti-social behaviour. He may well be beyond the help of available services to him. It's a difficult one.
  20. Good post KidK. Next weekend we have a family gathering for a parent's 70th in a restaurant. There will be at least six kids, among 10 adults who will all probably be drinking. There will be noise :)
  21. Why did the man throw money at the OP and tell them to shove it up ..... etc? What happened the moment before that? That's why I wrote that it's hard to know what really happened. The OPs own words suggest to me that something else may have happened? Just on homelessness. The number of rough sleepers, and people in temporary accomodation is rising significantly directly as a result of this government's policies. The number of people in need of treatment for mental health conditions is also rising. But there is no increase in resources or central funding to accomodate this. If we don't want people like this 'littering' the streets then some thought needs to be given as to why they end up there, and why there are no resources to change their circumstances. A letter to your MP might be a more appropriate response than criminalising clearly unwell people.
  22. Many homeless people (rough sleepers) have mental health problems. It's one of the reasons why they end up being homeless. He may be known to mental health services, he may not. People with certain types of psychiatric conditions can be very frightening for some people as well. Hard to know what the full story is from the posts above.
  23. Wagon wheels bigger than your hand.
  24. Alice, at some point later last year, a pedestrian was killed by a lorry while crossing no more than ten metres away from the pelican crossing on the High Street. That's what can tragically happen when someone takes a risk. I don't know if you are trolling here or not, but anyone can see how ridiculous your reasoning is.
  25. But I could equally point out that pedestrians don't look before crossing. What must we do to stop them doing that? Cyclists have every right to be on the road and pedestrians need to be as careful when crossing as cyclists should be when cycling. I think you mean the shared path at the North of Rye Lane Sue, the lane on the pavement? Many cyclists have complained about this path too, because even when cycling at walking speed, it's too easy to almost collide with a pedestrian if they are not aware of the path. Having said that, I've had cycle bells ringing at me for cycling to slow along it! The answer to some cyclists riding in a careless way is not to ban all cyclists, any more than banning all cars because of a few wreckess drivers. The same goes for the few wreckless pedestrians too.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...