redpost

Great idea abe, becauase as we all know bus crews are immune to covid and pingdemic whereas train crews are not

Passengers float through the ether, just like the displaced parked cars

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SUV as a term covers everything from Hummers to > 'small' SUVs which effectively replace (and indeed > many are smaller) than standard people carriers, > formerly the go-to car for those with families - > and much smaller then large estate cars. They have > a very similar profile to vans, including driver > height. For older people they are much easier to > get in and out of (which believe me is an issue) - > and they are also much easier to take move babies > in and out of. There are luxury (and big) SUVs of > course. If a 'proper' SUV they may have some off > road capability (less use around town perhaps, > although I have been grateful for 4WD on the few > snow days around here). But I had to park up in a > muddy field recently and 4WD was a boon. As it was > recently on motorway driving in intense rain. > Their rather stately profile additionally probably > discourages 'boy racer' mentalities, which hot > hatches certainly don't. 'SUV driver' is > increasingly a short hand for 'people of a class I > don't want to associate with' - and such a usage > is a lazy shorthand for the class warriors that > occasionally lurk on these pages. "I had to park up in a muddy field recently and 4WD was a boon" Or buy a normal car and park on the road? Perhaps buy an 8 tonne hummer with balistic armour pack, just in case someone places an anti-tank mine on lordship lane?

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nonsense and hyperbole again from rahrah. > > For a long time now as a matter of law cars have > had to accommodate collisions with > pedestrians/cyclists. > > Most fatalities and serious injuries were caused > by the pedestrian's head impacting a hard solid > part of the car. More often than not this was the > engine block where the head would bend the thin > sheet of metal that was the bonnet and then hit > the immovable top of the engine. > Sometimes it was other parts under the bonnet such > as the tops of the suspension. > > To minimise the number of serious injuries caused > to people outside the car it is obligatory to > build in crumple zones that protect people from > the hard parts. > > The only other option employed is to fit an airbag > under the bonnet that is triggered in a crash and > pushes up the bonnet to protect the pedestrian. > > All of this adds bulk to the engine compartment. > > None of this is employed on military vehicles. > > It's Also worth bearing in mind that the chances > of being killed in a traffic accident in the > boundary roads of our LTNs are practically zero > because the traffic barely moves. Yes of course, despite breaking all the laws of physics, making a car/suv 3 times heavier than a city runaround and thus requiring 3 times the stopping force is for the benefit of pedestrians. range rover sport = 2539kg vs nissan micra = 635kg

It would be good if there was some legal provision for an "active travel only" clause in planning permission, unfortunately I don't think this can be done.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Each device that accesses the internet is > allocated a seperate and unique IP address (not > just the router that is acting as the gateway) so > unless the flatmates are sharing the same device > then each device that logs-in is uniquely > identifiable. > > Anyway, there are plenty of people on here who > have expressed pro-LTN views and haven't been > banned so your banning is obviously for something > else. Sorry to break it to you but admin doesn't > ban people on the basis of pro-LTN (or-anti) views > and if they have barred your IP address then you > have clearly breached the rules of usage for the > forum. > > Getting banned in little under a day is very > impressive! - that must be some kind of record! Rockets - I'm amazed by your ability to make assertions on subjects with such concrete certainty & absolute authority, but in reality you know absoluely nothing about. There are not enough ipv4 addresses available, that's why we have NAT and the prospect of ipv6. Unless you explicitly request a static IP address (most ISPs don't support this) you will be allocated a leased address from DHCP that someone else on the same ISP could have been using yesterday/last week/last year.

If the council can drive around enforcing parking restrictions, why can't they proactively look for potholes (and indeed fly tipping) at the same time?

I thought gails was owned through private equity? https://riskcapitalpartners.co.uk/portfolio/bread-holdings-plc/ If true, I will let you all imagine exactly how much corporation tax was paid

I think we have saturation point on hipster street markets/street food Why anyone would pay ?7 for some street food and then having to find somewhere to perch down uncomfortably and eat it, when there are cheaper cafes with table service (and a toilet!!) is beyond me

As they said, I doubt the conservation area status applies to the area. Legally, there is no compulsion to repair a fence only remove it if dangerous, you don't even need to put up a fence at all. I guess your only option is to ask them if you can pay for the wall, adopt the old one, rebuild and then it would be your responsibility to maintain.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, I agree that the rubbish aspect has to be > improved on but that is not a reason to deny new > housing. Who knows about car ownership - perhaps > those who move in won't have a vehicle anyway, or > not be that bothered about parking on street? Some > developments are egregious but I don't think this > is, at least not with tweaks. The planning application includes rubbish and cycling storage They're adding 2 storeys which I don't think is excessive at all for a main road Although I would like to see a clause forbidding car ownership for occupiers

Looks like things should be back to normal from monday, copied from EE website: Step 4 General COVID measures that we are undertaking from 19th July: We are delighted to hear we?ve now reached Step 4 on the ?Roadmap to Reopening?. 2020 and 2021 so far have proven incredibly challenging for us all and has put things into perspective for many of us. As an industry and a business that has been hard hit by the pandemic, we are extremely grateful for the ongoing support from all our customers and local authority partners. Without you, we wouldn?t still be here striving to keep the nation active. The latest government announcement is a welcomed message for us all and it means that as of the 19th July we will start to make some changes to the operation of our centres over the coming weeks. Please see below the changes you can expect: Activity numbers will return to pre-covid numbers for all activities. Our booking systems will be automatically adjusted to reflect this We may have moved activities and equipment to accommodate social distancing. In most cases, these will return to their original locations As prior to the pandemic, gym members will now not be required to book their session before visiting the centre. However, the gym will remain bookable for ?pay as you go? and junior members via our app and website Swimming sessions and most other activities should still be booked online and via the app COVID one-way systems will be removed within all areas of our centres Hand sanitiser will remain available in all our centres and we will continue with our increased cleaning regimes. Please continue to support us in maintaining a clean and safe environment for all Changing rooms will be open for those that want to use them. We no longer advise that you arrive ready for your activity More than one person can now attend with a child for their swimming lessons

A pro-LTN mayor gives cover & support to pro-LTN councils and people have been known to register a protest vote ie. vote tory for a single issue. Most people in london don't drive and welcome LTNs and this will be reflected in the local elections next year.

Exactly, in the mayoral elections last year, Sean Bailey campaigned on having the LTNs removed, the result? a measly 1% swing from labour to tory Most people see the need for LTNs and support them

I would put it out of its misery with a brick, instantaneous and humane.

Everyone active are totally useless, even more so during the pandemic. They still have activities on their booking system which don't actually exist, I've complained a few times but nothing happens. Old pre-pandemic PDF timetables are still on the website. The website booking system is a confusing mess, no one answers the phone and they don't have a clue when you visit in person. Hopefully, when lockdown ends, bookings won't be necessary and they will be back to their normal level of incompetence.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They have far more correlation than the figures > you have quoted for the whole of UK. haha, you're joking right? I'm lucky to see 5 black cabs a day in east dulwich I've never seen a national express or green line bus in East Dulwich there are literally 100's of bus routes passing through central london please engage your brain

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Redpost your accusation is completely out of > order. > > UK wide transport data is incomparable with > Southwark data. > > Come back with some relevant facts yourself > instead of accusing people of making things up. UK wide data has a much much tighter correlation to southwark data then central london data

oh boy, here we go again Rockets you made no mention of what emission you were banging on about, I assumed co2, my bad when in fact you were quoting PM10. I've looked at rockets 2018 report and it refers to *central* london, you may be aware that we live in *suburban* london. In central london there is a huge concentration of terminating and through bus routes plus black cabs touting for business. In *central* london, private cars and commercial vehicles are also discouraged by the congestion charge, whereas buses and taxis are not subject to the congestion charge. Therefore in these *central* london figures we see huge contributions to pollution from tfl buses, non-tfl buses (ie. national express) and taxis. The figures you quote have very little correlation to the situation in *suburban* East Dulwich.

Yet more fiction from rockets: "buses and taxis are contributing far more." truth: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1233533/transport-ghg-emissions-sources-united-kingdom-uk/ passenger cars are 55.4% of UK transport emissions buses are 2.5% furthermore, these are aggregate figures. If we were to base on per passenger km, there would be further order of magnitude in difference

exdulwicher - too true, usual libertarian drivel from boris what is needed is road charging that's broadly revenue neutral (ie. remove fuel duty and recover revenue through road pricing), this government doesn't have the balls though for such a progressive move

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who was Editor at that time > > "As editor of the Daily Mirror, Morgan apologised > on television for the headline (rendered in upper > case) "Achtung Surrender! For You Fritz Ze Euro > Championship Is Over" on 25 June 1996" > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan I'd rather he apologise for the phone hacking, bribing police and insider trading from his spell as the editor.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Redpost - sorry to be the one to break it to you > but I am not making things up....pre-pandemic > cycling levels in London had levelled > off/declined. > > Rather than Wikipedia or (ahem, cycle lobbyist) > Rachel Aldred I am sourcing my (up-to-date) info > from TFL. In fact, your Wikipedia link actually > shows when the plateau started after 2017 - you'll > notice the Wikipedia figures declining from 730 in > 2016 to 721 in 2017. There had been a big increase > prior to 2017 but growth had levelled off and even > declined (despite more cycle lanes and routes > being installed). > > Many, including TFL, have acknowledged that cycle > usage in London had, pre-pandemic, stopped > increasing. In fact, in their last Travel in > London report TFL reported that cycling had, in > 2019, decreased by 3% year-on-year (but they did > suggest this was down to the counts being done in > bad weather). But there again in autumn 2020, 7% up in inner london, 22% in outer london A statistical aberation does not make a trend https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2021/january/outer-london-sees-22-per-cent-rise-in-cycling-as-new-data-further-highlights-vital-role-of-active-travel It's very clear that pro-active travel policies increase cycling.

Rockets Wrote: > > London already has a significant network of > dedicated cycle lanes and a huge amount of road > space has been dedicated to cycle lanes over the > last few years "but not, apparently, (pre-pandemic) > with a reciprocal increase in cyclists doing the > daily commute. Does anyone know why?" > Rockets - can you please stop making stuff up, there's been a steady increase in london cycling over the past 20 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_London#Statistics

What's happened over the last couple of decades is that the council gets a nice better homes grant to upgrade the properties for its tenants, because it's a grant there is very poor value for money in oversight/spec/contractor selection and leaseholders get saddled with a massive bill.