Angelina

you're missing the point and come across as just being disagreeable. I'm therefore just going to close this - as it;'s not a debate or an argument DRIVERS - please pay extra care as there are cyclists who are very low visibility and without lights or suitable clothing CYCLISTS - Put lights on your bike - front and back - and reflective strips at the very least. Consider other road users and pedestrians. EVERYONE - Be safe

You are again misinformed. The Highway Code is also clear about clothing. It is here. Section 59 Section 59 of the Highway Code explains the appropriate clothing cyclists should wear in order to make it easier for other road users to spot them and help to keep them protected in the case of a collision. Cyclist clothing: Helmet – Your cycle helmet should conform to the current regulations, be the correct size for your head and be securely fastened. Appropriate fitted clothing – Your clothing should be tight fitted to prevent it getting tangled in the chain or wheel of your bicycle. Light clothing – Light and fluorescent clothing will help you to stand out in daylight and poor light. Reflective accessories – Strips on the helmet, as well as armbands and ankle bands will help you be seen in the dark. and Section 60 This section of the Highway Code is all about cyclists’ lights and reflectors. At night cyclists must have their white front and red rear lights lit. Their bicycles must also be fitted with a red rear reflector and amber pedal reflectors. White front reflectors and spoke reflectors can also increase your visibility to other road users. Flashing lights are permitted but cyclists riding in areas without street lighting should use a steady front lamp instead.

Earl A…… You are misinformed. There is a legal obligation for cyclists to have front and rear lights. Rule 60 of The Highway Code

Lime bikes have lights at front and rear and reflectors. Cyclists are required to be roadworthy before cycling on the roads. They are expected to know that cars cannot easily see them if they have no lights and especially wearing dark clothes.

It was normal cyclists, in rush hour traffic, in the dark, in the rain. Just really want people to realise it’s that time of year even more careful and to get kitted out.

If a pedestrian gets hit by a bike, it can be very serious. All it takes is someone not spotting a cyclist coming up at speed. Clearly, no one wants a collision. so let’s just make it easier to be seen and for everyone to be safe. Bike lights (front and back), helmet lights, reflective strips on your backpack, high visibility clips on the ankles, wrists, lights on your spikes… it’s not hard and it shouldn’t be expensive. I’m just wondering if cyclists haven’t yet adjusted to the darker evenings and don’t actually realise. Perhaps cyclists don’t drive but would benefit from doing so and seeing what it’s like from a drivers point of view. All cars had lights on. One of the Boris bikes didn’t, it must have been broken as I thought they were automatic.

That’s right, we could see them passing us at the stops and then as we overtook them. There was one moped without lights doing about 30mph. Stupid is one word, but when it puts pedestrians at risk, it’s a different word. We’ll be raising it and hopefully get some publicity about road safety awareness

The number of cyclists that are not wearing front and rear lights, or high visibility clothes is unreal. Add to that dangerous weaving in and out, especially on this weather. So selfish, irresponsible and dangerous. We’re just tracking a bus route through Camberwell and have seen too many cyclists inadequately dressed and breaking the law.

They clearly don’t. I would expect better from the council. Rather dismally, it sounds like any complaints or requests just fall on deaf ears.

I completely agree with you . Its as if they have their foot in the door and are just pushing and pushing. It's ridiculous. It's not the right space. they clearly do not give any regard to the environment or they would move it.

Who?

All the more reason to support the BBC. The last thing we want is a news service controlled by the likes.

My point is exactly that, cutting spending isn’t the answer, reducing wasteful spending and improving financial management is. They are not the same.

we actually need growth. It may be counter intuitive, but we need investment. my example is about poor financial management, be it personal or central. I'm referring to poor government financial management.

There is a vast difference between cutting costs and not being wasteful. We cannot have the equivalent of not having the money to insure your car, while buying lunches in Waitrose everyday. You can have all the money in the world, and be a fool with how you spend it. Now, it's completely out of control. It has been for a long time.

or cut costs. The cost of debt is a huge burden, it cannot be increased.

try thrifted, gumtree, vinterior - lots of places

does seem to take up a width of the pavement that could be better used (i.e. we have to walk around it) and I'm not sure we need advertising on the pavements. Perhaps there are benefit's I don't know of.

Benefits include free phone calls, wifi, charging points, information etc. What's the problem?

They should take responsibility collectively, as united team. Constantly blaming someone else, excuses. It's lame.

I was going to say I have experience of working with the ombudsman, but seems you're covered now

It's not really though, is it. It's practical. At least we're allowed Christmas lights.

So what is the issue? You want compensation for the loss of value, or you want to expedite the matter?

Legal matters are notoriously slow. There is no rule that communication has to be via email, fax or letter. If the issue is that you want to claim damages to the property because of poor practice, you would have to lodge a complaint with the ombudsman, but surely the one to suffer the most is the “gold digger” beneficiary? If that is not the wrong that needs righting, what is?