Applespider

Oddono's peanut butter and their hazelnut are lovely. I found their salted caramel a little too sweet caramel and not enough salt. Their pistachio is OK but Gelupo's on Archer St in town is the best.

Spotted some scare-sheep today too... next to the main gate in Dulwich Park.

Suspect they send it out to those who live nearby or those who use their Oyster cards on bus routes likely to be affected. It was only two years ago that the road was entirely closed for several weeks while they worked on that stretch of road. I wonder if this is an entirely new instance or a poor repair job. Suspect the traffic will be nasty from the Plough onwards at peak times until it's fixed.

One loomed out of the dark at me tonight on Wood Vale; and I spotted a few at Dulwich Park earlier. Glad to know that we're not being invaded

TK Maxx quite often has them too.

That Dutch roundabout scares me. I can't entirely believe that cars are going to pay a blind bit of notice to the zebra crossing for pedestrians/cyclists. I suspect it will end up being a slow route around the roundabout for bikes (if you have to stop to check that the cars are going to stop) at each exit/entry and non-novices will take the 'normal' route unless it's particularly narrow/busy.

While you haven't yet explained how you see the logistics of it working cost-effectively or not... Anyhow... can we take the cyclist registration chat elsewhere and get back to the topic of how to normalise cycling in ED? The registration idea is so de-normalising that I think it probably should be split off and leave this thread to more positivity.

Loz - I am insured as a cyclist via my membership of the LCC and through my household insurance. I've done my Bikeability training and I have a driving licence. I'd have no objection to being registered. BUT, I can't see how registration would practically work nor how cost-effective it would be. Do you register each bike? Or each rider? What about kids - do they need to be registered or insured? If the requirement is for the bike to have a registration capable of being seen and noted by cameras/public, what form does it take? Given the propensity for anything attached to a bike to be nicked (I've had the plastic rear light mount (not the light) unscrewed and nicked in the past), how do you ensure that it remains in place while being able to be transferred reasonably easily? Where do you put it to make it visible enough to be seen without negatively impacting riding the bike in terms of wind-resistance? Given that the policy appears to be to encourage cycling, this puts another barrier in the way. The cost of implementation, administration and then policing it would likely cost more than all the claims put together given that the amount of damage a bike can do is far lower than any larger vehicle. And while two wrongs don't make a right; registration and compulsory insurance hasn't stopped bad driving. Good drivers abide by it but there are still bad drivers out there illegally without licenses and/or insurance. I suspect the bad cyclists out there would still ignore that law just as they do the ones re traffic lights and using lights at night.

susiq Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > perhaps cyclist could pay something towards road > tax or pay for some sort of road tax. There is no such thing as road tax; it was abolished in 1937. Roads are paid for from general taxation which cyclists are just as subject to as every other citizen. The current actual terminology for what motorists like to call 'road tax' is vehicle excise duty which is based on emissions. Cyclists (unless they're refuelling on beans) don't emit toxic fumes so their VED would be nothing. The other zero-emission vehicles (electric cars etc) are also heavier and therefore more likely to damage road surfaces than cyclists. The other key thing mentioned in that report is the health benefits if you get more people cycling and therefore the money put into cycling infrastructure should be seen as an investment in future lower NHS costs for obesity/heart disease/diabetes.

Most likely, it's now a paperweight - particularly if it was on when it landed in the G&T since it's probably short-circuited. You can try drying it out by putting it into a bowl of dry rice and sticking that on a radiator for a day or so but it's most likely toast. My sister tried that with her iPhone but three days later admitted defeat and bought a new one. Good luck!

davidh - possibly worth a separate thread. But here are two... cost/process of implementation (do you license the cyclist or the bike and since virtually everything on a bike is nickable, how do you force display etc?) Secondly, forceable testing/licensing/insurance still doesn't work with cars... those who are law-abiding do it, those who aren't don't. Suspect you'll find that most law-abiding cyclists are those who already have driving licenses, have insurance via household cover or via LCC/British Cycling and have lights because not to have them is stupid. That will still leave the idiots on the road.

There's a new Premier Inn directly across the road from the North Terminal now (walk up the travelator and you are at the shuttle station) and rooms were ?55 a night when I was there in Jan.

Ah... just reading this thread brings back so many happy ecumenical thoughts... I've automatically started singing 'My Lovely Horse' with a big grin... People who don't like Father Ted aren't normal. Be very careful - you may find that one day, her true colours are revealed and an alien will burst from her stomach and rip your head off!

I do hope that we get the wider southbound cycle lane on Vauxhall Bridge sooner rather than later. And that it's the bus lane option rather than forcing cyclist up onto an already crowded pavement. The pavement option might work for those who want to go straight over on CS5 but anyone wanting to go around Vauxhall will have real trouble filtering across unless they get to the other side as the lights are on red.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Better cycle parking. Research shows cyclists > don't visit places as much when cycle parking is > close or over 20m away from the destination. It's not so much the distance away that bothers me about parking my bike further away. It's the fear that it (or bits of it) won't be there when I get back. If it's within 20m or so, you've got some chance of keeping an eye on it. I'm far less likely to stop 'en route' in the winter when you have to remove all your lights etc and then put them all back on again to get to the next stop. I had the light mountings nicked a few weeks ago. Looking at the Guardian's datablog from the 2011 census though showed that ED was quite a bright spot for cycling. It wasn't as high as Hackney but substantially more than other bits of London. I doubt it's a mere coincidence that the areas without the Tube had higher cycle usage! Less narrowing of roads would be helpful for cycling. I realise that some of it is for traffic-calming but it does make it feel more dangerous for cyclists since you have to take the lane when going through to avoid being squeezed against the kerb - and it's harder to filter when traffic is heavy. My friends who don't cycle generally cite fear (of traffic), hills and weather. The first is one of those 'bark worse than bite' - most drivers are pretty aware and reality isn't as bad as perception once you start cycling. The second, there's not much you can do about except look for the flattest route and practice... they get easier, the more you do them and even Dog Kennel Hill is hardly Alpe d'Huez. And the weather isn't generally that bad either - you just need to wear the right clothes. And cycling along is definitely warmer than standing at a bus stop or a train platform.

Excellent news! Looking forward to it!

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think if someone turns their front garden into > parking space but doesn't pay for the required > amendments to be made to the public highway to > access that space as such, then people are > perfectly free to park there. As mentioned above, it's not always because they don't want to pay for a dropped kerb. We applied for one but can't have it because there are speed bumps too close to where the dropped kerb would be so it would be a hazard apparently. The fact that currently people park across our 'drive' and across the speed bump now (which is a hazard) is irrelevant. It's one of those things. I don't have a car so not really affected. But if there are other spaces available, it would always seem sensible to not block in someone's car - and if there was really no choice, to leave a note on their windscreen so that if they need to get out, they can contact you.

As rgutsell says there are more good drivers out there than bad - and more good cyclists than bad. But just as the police can pull over a motorist with faulty lights, why shouldn't they be able to pull over a cyclist without any lights? Reflectors can be simulated by clothing etc so a bike can conform to the spirit of the law even if not the letter. There are rights and responsibilities for cyclists - if I want to claim my right of motorists passing me with sufficient room (as the Highway code says), then it's only right that I give those motorists a fighting chance of seeing me by using lights after dark. That's not saying that drivers shouldn't be driving sensibly enough that they are able to see ninja cyclists in time to avoid collisions but equally, cyclists should be riding sensibly enough that they don't put themselves in danger. While many cyclists do have driving licenses and so should know the rules of the road, it is quite bizarre that people who can have no clue on British rights of way etc, can just hop on a bike and share the road with cars who will expect them to follow the rules. I don't think there's any sensible way of licensing it but I do believe that any one getting on a bike should have some duty of care to other road users to follow the rules of that road.

Kailyn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a theory. I am going to hide and lock all my > luggages. But I guess it will not prevent the > robbery :( Nope - if there's no luggage handy, they strip a sheet off the bed and pile their loot into that. Perhaps you could lock your bedding in the suitcase? ;-p

It's probably also worth a mention to any other cyclist reading this thread that checking the batteries in your lights regularly is a good idea. They can look reasonably bright when first turned on but fade to a very dull glow that can only be seen from a few feet away as the batteries get low - particularly the rear one which it's very easy to just turn on/off rather than actually go behind your bike and check.

I'm on Wood Vale and the College SNT have been out and about recently. Although I wasn't in when they called around, they spoke to a neighbour and left us a leaflet warning us about recent burglaries and advice on keeping things secure.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm > sure once upon a time cycles had to have lights. Legally they still do - although I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone ever being pulled over for a lack of them. Drives me batty when I'm on my bike. If I come up next to a ninja cyclist, I generally make a cheery comment that their back light must have gone out since then they tend to get a little less defensive that telling them that they're a complete idiot for cycling around without them. Personally, I veer to the other extreme - three lights on back (one on bike, one on my back and one on my helmet) and three on the front (one flash and one solid on the handlebars and one on the helmet). The other day I went to put them on the bike to discover that a little toerag had nicked the brackets for my two brightest lights. So... despite me still being left with two front/rear, I stopped by the bike shop to get new brackets. Pretty sure they have to have reflectors too (front/back/pedal) although that might just be at point of sale. I admit not having pedal reflectors since my clip-in pedals don't allow for them. I do however have reflective flashes on my bike shoes/cycling trousers so much the same effect.

The bit of Burbage Road from the Village to Turney Road is done and open again (Tues evening). The next section from Turney Road down to Half Moon Lane is scheduled to be closed Weds/Thurs

I hate to throw water on a promising theory but every other bike in London has a flashing red light on the back at this time of year. It's worth keeping an eye on bkshd.com - it's a site that collates all the bike listings on ebay/gumtree etc so hopefully you can find a stolen bike if someone puts it up for sale. Good luck.

I think the first couple of times you do it, it's rough. Remember to keep drinking though and I find it much harder if I don't allow myself a tea or coffee. Strangely, there are evenings where I think I'm going to be desperate for breakfast and then I get up, cycle to work and still don't feel hungry. Odd! My mum has been doing this since last August (when the Horizon show was on) aside from breaks for a holiday and for Christmas. She's lost 16lbs in total, her cholesterol level has improved and her GP has now decided to join her after seeing her results!