Huguenot

Yeah unfortunately Narnia, there have been three machine posters on the site that I've seen in the last couple of weeks. Posting similar kinds of stuff. Sometimes they're commercial, sometimes malicious, and sometimes just sad nerds having fun trying to see who responds and thinks they're human. If people think they're human they win geek points and passe exams. Either way, just blank it.

I'd think it's probably a bot. File under 'machine pretending to be human'. :)

The variation in lunar proximity is so small that the impact on gravitational forces affecting the sea will be marginally less than someone farting as they walk on the beach. Since we don't feel this introduces sufficient uncertainty to enter our daily list of items to panic over, there seems no reason to add the perigee to them either.

"Many studies have shown that removing street furniture and road markings (rather than swamping roads with them) actually leads to better driving and a better pedestrian experience, as both drivers and pedestrians have to rely on their own observation and care rather than making assumptions about other's behaviour to given constrictions and signage." It's a few, rather than many, and mostly to be found in European countries with a sense of social responsibility that isn't often demonstrated by London drivers. This is supported by your own arguments about poor parking around bus stops. In Singapore you can leave your front door open and not be burgled, it doesn't mean that if you leave doors open in the UK you'll reduce burglaries. I haven't seen any arguments on here that say much more than 'I want to go faster, everyone else is to blame for congestion, and I have no data to substantiate any of my fears'. However, I did particularly like the one that goes 'We can't make the roads more welcoming to pedestrians because bus drivers are so bad'.

And what the wind-up merchants didn't show was.... unemployment in Aberdeen is only 1.6%. At that level, they could probably offer 2x or 3x minimum wage and still not fill the vacancies. At that level, I'm guessing house prices are high and they're struggling to get low paid workers to relocate.

I can't find the story Tarot, can you give us a link?

WhyBoilerWhy is perpetuating myths regarding national debts abd banks that suit people who simply cannot believe that we are ALL responsible for the financial straits we're in. First - we need to move the debate on from the taxpayer bail out of the banks. The principle expenditure by government (i.e. the taxpayer) on the financial crisis was just over 40 billion quid in the 2009/10 tax year. Over 95% of this was spend on recapitalisation of banks including RBS, Lloyds, Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley. This wasn't 'lost' money - it means that taxpayer retains equity in these banks that can be recouped at an appropriate time. Only 400 million was 'lost' on the financial services compensation scheme, more than made up for by the additional value obtained in banking equity. That's 0.5% of national annual expenditure, so is not responsible for the state we're in. So if that isn't causing the problem what is? In the private sector, banks had been lending out more money than they could seriously expect to recoup. This undermined their ability to trade, and the subsequent belt tightening made it more difficult for business to borrow money. This isn't a catastrophe caused by the banks - it was caused by all of us borrowing more money that we could afford and spanking it on houses and cars. There are those who said the banks must carrry some of the blame for this, because they allowed people to borrow too much. Whilst there may be an element of truth to it, it sounds like an obese sweaty ingrate with failing health blaming his mum because she didn't lock the biscuits away strongly enough. So what has this to do with Public Service cuts? Public Service cuts are actually about the fact that the government is spending almost 800 billion quid every year, but only gets just over 600 billion quid in tax income. This means that they're borrowing enormous sums of cash (about 150 billion a year) from international money markets. In total we currently owe almost 900 billion. The banking crisis has made this cash more diffficult to come by, and made the interest costs higher - currently we pay out 40 billion a year in interest! Downgrading our debt would make it more expensive too. We don't want that. Secondly, we mainly reassured the money markets that we could pay the debts back because we stupidly claimed that our country would get richer and richer in the future. This turned out to be a load of bollocks when we realised we only appeared richer because we borrowed it. It's like taking a thousand pounds out on your credit card and claiming you earned it. So what does this mean? There is no current plausible alternative to cutting public spending. Huge windfall taxes on financial organisations won't make a dent in the debt. so why are we criticising the banks? Partly because they're a symbol of failure, but mainly because the government wants someone else to blame. If you look at our neighboring nations, you'll see they're not as messed up as we are. QED.

There's no evidence that this narrowing will increase congestion at peak hours, when the traffic moves at a crawl anyway. These arguments remind me of people who concocted hugely elaborate scenarios in order to prove that seatbelts shouldn't be compulsory. It will however reduce speed, near misses, noise and pollution outside of peak hours. It certainly makes it easier for pedestrians to cross, and will aid local commerce as a result. It may not have a significant impact for singel adults in the prime of life, but it makes a big difference to families and the ageing. Most car drivers think it's more reasonable that a pedestrian should have to walk an additional 10 minutes to cross the road, than their own journey should have to be reduced by 10 seconds. This is what I mean by the arrogance of car drivers - they've had it their own way for so long that they genuinely believe that this is a reasonable compromise. If you just stop and think about that for a second, you'll realise how shocking that is.

In the last 10 years I totally agree that policy has changed to favour cyclists and pedestrians. It's a strategy I fundamentally support. Private car owners are by large blind to the destructive impact of the their vehicle, from killing town centres to preventing pedestrians from going about their business by hurling a tone and a half of metal around at 30mph barely a few feet away. If you were starting with a blank piece of paper today you wouldn't invent something so clearly destructive.

I'm not trying to make you do anything boomerang. I'm just highlighting that your attitude to your commuting problem is that you should inconvenience other road users, rather than inconvenience yourself by moving. It's entirely selfish. I've made no assertion that people can walk or bicycle everywhere - I have merely pointed out that pedestrians and cyclists use the road too, and that road design should take into account their needs. Roads are currently organised for the comfort and convenience of private car owners when they are minority users. It is entirely appropriate that decisions on road design should take into account the needs of other people. It is somewhat ridiculous to claim that pavement widening causes 'chaos' for pedestrians. Southwark also are not trying to dictate anybody do anything, they simply have a strategy which is in place to incentivise the use of roads by non private car owners. Car owners simply cannot see that, because they're too self-obsessed.

The only point that I'm trying to make is that Southwark's transport plan is put in place to benefit all road users. It's a comprehensive strategy that take into account more issues than whether it's currently advantageous to private motorists. It's been through consultation that it seems you didn't attend, but you had your chance. This invariably needs compromise on everyone's behalf. However, previous strategies have benefitted motorists to the point of fracturing communities and shutting down high streets. Now that there's more effort to balance the needs of everybody, the motorists are getting all stampy-footed about it. It's typical of the blind arrogance of private motorists that they try and lay the blame on other people. The fact is that the roads are congested because there's too many private vehicles, not because there's a pedestrian friendly road narrowing at Grove Vale.

Car users only know what's good for themselves. I think your point about your journey is an example of this. You don't want to help out other road users because you've organised yourself a 22 mile journey to work and you want the roads to be arranged with this in mind. My recommendation to shorten your commute would be to either get another job or move. It'll be more effective than trying to get everyone to fit in with you. I also don't know why you think roads were made for private car owners? Vehicle excise duty (not road tax) pays into central taxation, it's not for roads. More pedestrians, cyclists and people on public transport will use that road than private car owners anyway, so in a 'democratic' society, car owners would lose. Roads are part of an integrated transport system that takes everyone's needs into account, including pedestrians. Southwark's stated policy is to increase the use of the roads by pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, and decrease the use of private cars. The reasons for this are extremely sound, practical and socially responsible: current road use is unsustainable, unhealthy, damages the environment and impractical. If you don't agree with this then you need to elect councillors who will overturn this policy. I don't think you'll be able to because you'll be in a minority. Car owners think everyone is out to get them. The truth is less palatable - that car owners are selfish and indulgent, and like a greedy kid, no-one feels that they need to keep going out of their way to prioritise your wants.

Although LPG is half the cost of petrol, it actually requires 30% more fuel to drive around, so the final saving is about 25%. They're about 15% kinder on the environment. Boris has currently proposed that LPGs up to a certain emmissions level don't pay the congestion charge, which is nice. You'd need to check whether your proposed vehicle is green enough. There's a filling map here, which suggests you'd need to go to Camberwell, Peckham or Forest Hill to fill up.

Only in your opinion Penguin68 "Everybody wants to be in charge and think that their needs are the most important ones" shocker... You could probably be a little better informed if you really want to make transport decisions. Here is Southwark's 2011 transport plan. In their own words, the transport plan contains the following information: * A snapshot of transport within the borough and the challenges we are seeking to address * Our transport objectives covering the period 2011 to 2014 and beyond * Delivery plan including a costed and funded plan of interventions, covering the period 2011 to 2014 and beyond * Performance monitoring plan which will identify a set of performance indicators and locally specific targets which can be used to assess whether the plan is delivering its objectives and to determine the effectiveness of the delivery plan There was a two month consultancy period on this. If you didn't get involved that's your look out. ;-) Interestingly the road user hierarchy is: pedestrian, cyclist, public transport, freight, taxis, motorcycles and then private cars. It's a hierarchy I'm both impressed by and perversely proud. It's quite different to other average car driver hierarchy, which tends to be 'my car', and f*** everyone else.

You do Moflo ;-)

I'm always impressed by the number of local residents that suddenly reveal they have a PHD in Road Traffic Management when the local council want to improve safety and prioritisation for pedestrians. I fail to see how taking advice from opinionated but poorly-informed local residents on traffic management is going to help them make a better decision than traffic counts and educated expertise. I also fail to see how relentless and endless 'consultations' to satisfy the needs of attention hungry local commentators is delivering good value for taxpayer money. The comment about democracy is completely wide of the mark. We elect councillors according to their manifesto pledges to oversee council activity on our behalf. Democracy isn't about giving a say on every decision they take to local nimbys. That would be a farce. Local services controlled by every tom, dick or harry with a big mouth.

Oh don't take it harshly, I was only teasing.

Sure I can see that derbyean, and if you don't want tea and biscuits don't take up the offer. However, there are people for whom being on TV and having a small part of their life and views documented and televised would be a fun way to spend a day. Why should they be prevented from or abused for doing so? There are plenty of people who would pay a TV company to follow them around making a documentary. Either way, I can't see any justiifcation for being rude to the researcher. Same applies to the natmags thing - take the piss if it's a bit low rent, but rude?

Which only goes to reinforce my point tllm2. Now I'm beginning to doubt your motives.

I can understand your anxiety tarot, but you don't need to be an eminent scientist to understand the LHC. It's the most basic form of physics: if you want to know what something is made of then break it up. Science has brought much to humanity: agriculture, medicine, tools to build our houses and plough the fields. None of these we're created by people who knew exactly what they were doing. Our future will not be secure in some rural idyll, singing in meadows and sharing superstition. We need to continue to develop technologies and knowledge that will feed, clothe, shelter and usefully engage humanity. The LHC is a vital component of this progress. Your resentment would be much more usefully directed at people who tell you lies and half-truths to keep you in a constant state of fear. They only want to control you.

I really don't understand why polite journalists and TV producers get so viciously attacked when they post perfectly reasonable and polite enquiries on the forum. It brings out a particularly nasty streak in this forum. I actually feel ashamed and embarrassed to affiliate with ED when it happens.

Ha ha, sometimes it's comforting to be reassured what a complete nut job tarot is ;-) All the Large Hadron Collider does is break things up and then look at the pieces afterwards. It doesn't open a gateway to another dimension, unleash primal evil, suck the brains from children or contact aliens. It has less likelihood of causing an earthquake in Japan than tarot dropping a plate.

I too think the OP's response to Mark sounds spiteful and churlish. If you're offered an olive branch one should accept gracefully rather than try to rub someone's nose in the muck.

That's spectacular! I can't remember why we didn't join you walking there last year.

It is indeed a terrible tragedy, but I guess the BBC are quite rightly avoiding inflaming and trivialising this disaster by reporting speculative non-official figures. The full picture will unfold over the next few days, but I do hope that the media don't get into competitive death tolls to turn this into disaster porn.