BrandNewGuy

Losing contestants on The Apprentice saying, "Thank you, Lord Sugar" when they've just been fired. Don't bloody thank him, he's just fired you! Tell him he can stick his job up his a*se and f*ck off while he's doing it, then march out of the door.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some research suggests UK roads are sufficiently > scary to current parents such that children are > much less indepedently mobile. UK is worse than > the European average for children involved in > crashes. Although you'll know that the number of children killed or seriously injured on the roads has been in decline for years. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2011 Scariness may have less to do with the facts and more to do with cultural change ? and spin.

Hmmm "target", "vision" ? and according to the NYTimes: "Zero. It is the number of people permitted to die in Swedish traffic, according to national law." Fine words, but do you really think they're going to 'make that happen'? At last count there were 254 road deaths a year in Sweden, 17 years after this was introduced, which is very creditable, but not zero. Nor will it ever be.

From National Rail: "From 20 December 2014 to 4 January 2015 Southern services will not call at London Bridge." And then there's a revised timetable from 5 January. Here's a summary of the weekday 'rush hour' times from 5 Jan 2015: East Dulwich - London Bridge 07.30 07.50 08.10 08.20 08.30 08.51 08.57 09.10 09.19 Losing: 07.40 service 09.01 four mins earlier, 09.20 one min earlier London Bridge ? East Dulwich 17.01 17.10 17.30 17.41 17.51 18.01 18.10 18.28 18.40 Gaining: 18.01 service 16.57 four mins later, 17.25 five mins later, 17.40 one min later, 17.57 six mins earlier, 18.30 two mins earlier

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Sounds nice but I can't see a few signs helping > to prevent drivers running over cyclists. Paint > doesn't do very much either. > > > Exactly - if they're not paying attention enough > to notice another human being, what makes anyone > think they'll notice a sign. Probably too busy > playing with their phones. Based on what evidence? None. > @BrandNewGuy, cyclists have been hit at this > junction - at least three recorded incidents > (injuries serious enough to need a hospital visit) > since 2006. And with more & more kids cycling to > school in the area, the council should be doing > everything in its power to prevent a reoccurrence. The Council should be doing everything in their power to assess the risks, assess the costs and act acordingly. They are not there to ensure no accidents occur. Otherwise they'd shut all the roads to any traffic over 10 miles per hour. You can't engineer a physical solution to a human problem. As I've said, it's a complex issue, but reducing it to 'They should do whatever they can to ensure the absolute safety of cyclists' is impractical and unhelpful.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think Chez Nico was in Queenstown Road > (Battersea) by 1979 - I hadn't known (WikeP apart) > he had ever operated in Dulwich - we then lived in > Prince of Wales Drive just round the corner Foxy's right. Nico's first restaurant was where Mr Liu is now. Talk about a brave location back then...

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course it does. No right turn for vehicles!

So why weren't you campaigning for these changes before these proposals were made, if it's so dangerous? Talk of 'too many cyclists and pedetrians are dying' does not help us one bit to decide what to do.

Dopamine1979 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Your presence on our special day will be enough > of a gift in itself...' You can stop reading right there. Turn up, hoover up the food and booze, job done.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Near misses shouldnt be ignored. Classic H&S > pyramid. > Lots of near misses, a number of slight injuries, > a few serious injuries and the thankfully > occassional death. > If you can reduce the near misses then you reduce > the occurences of more serioues events. Nobody's ignoring near misses. I just don't want to see them craftily morphed into 'cyclists being run over'.

Yeah, of course we do [sarcasm emoticon] Near misses are not 'drivers running over cyclists', which is not happening now, so doesn't need to be prevented. As I said, hyperbole.

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dadof4 said "Just Re-phase the lights, put in a > couple of signs reminding right-turning drivers > that oncoming cyclists take priority, maybe even > paint the cycle route across the junction. That > would be (a) safer all round (b) cheaper" > > Sounds nice but I can't see a few signs helping to > prevent drivers running over cyclists. Paint > doesn't do very much either. Really, there's no need to exaggerate. No cyclists have been 'run over' here. I'm keen to hear all arguments about this tricky junction, but hyperbole is unhelpful.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just to put James Barber's figures in > perspective: > > For the period 2000-2010, at that junction or > immediately next to it there were around 20 > "slight injury" collisions serious enough to have > been reported (via STATS19), with one motorcyclist > seriously injured. Financial cost to society? > Nearly ?0.5m. > > (source: > http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interacti > ve/2011/nov/18/road-casualty-uk-map ) > > Suppose this redesign lasts 25-50 years as stated > above, it doesn't have to reduce casualties much > to pay for itself on that one measure alone - over > 50 years the current layout is likely to cause > ?2.5m+ in economic damage from collisions. > > If a better design increases walking/cycling and > decreases car use even slightly, the economic > benefits are likely to be much bigger again. But by the same argument, one serious and one slight injury over 50 years would also make a ?200,000 junction alteration 'economic'. I wonder how many junctions in London that would cover. Most of them?

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When we wanted to do the junction reconfiguration > back in 2008 (without the banned right turn), the > cost was ?60,000... so you can see how much costs > and other parameters have risen by faffing. So as far ar you're concerned, the roads and pavements could be reconfigured to include the current right turn?

red devil Wrote: > seems groups like the EDL have done the same with > the English flag. I'd argue the opposite ? that the BNP's 'ownership' of the Cross of St George has slipped, and very welcome that is too. I don't think I'm being overly optimistic in hoping that the flag can simply be a symbol of one of the groups to which you are attached. It's interesting that in Germany for the World Cup in 2006, most Germans were nervous about hanging up the German flag ? whereas their victory this year by contrast saw much flag-waving. I'm happy with that.

adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BNG, on what, precisely,do you consider yourselves > middle-class? > Residency in E.D.? > Highly educated? > I do not ask in a contradictory manner, I am > genuinely interested as I posed the question > previously in another thread some while ago. I consider myself middle class because I'm not working class :-) My family history going back at least three generations is broadly clerical and professional ? and I'm senior managerial. And as with being 'highly educated', I don't wear the badge with either pride or shame, but just state the fact.

Of course not, but only a few years earlier it would have been an unequivocal sign of one's political 'allegiance'. I'm glad that over the last ten to fifteen years its power as a political symbol has diminished.

When our lads were smaller, they hung England flags in our windows during the World Cup and the Euros. And we live in East Dulwich, are highly educated and are utterly middle class. Should we vote Islington Labour or UKIP? I'm confused.

Saying goodbye to old toys is/was always surprisingly emotional. I blubbed like a baby during "When She Loved Me" in "Toy Story 2". But then again, Randy Newman's a bloody genius.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm very strongly in favour of banning the right > turn - ... it will also greatly reduce the > amount of rat run traffic on Calton Ave. Why is Calton Avenue any more of a rat run than, say, Townley Road? Just looking on the map and less than a fifth of its length has houses on both sides of the road. And it has speed bumps. What you're proposing is that all ED-bound traffic from Woodwarde Road and Court Lane (never mind Dulwich Village and Turney Road) gets pushed through Dulwich Village onto an already busy right turn into ED Grove.

So as far as you know, who's paying for it?

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had rather thought that was a significant > trigger for redoing the road layout. Safety. We could do all sorts of things to improve safety, such as banning all cars... But we don't do that, we prioritise spending ? and there is scant evidence that this junction is particularly unsafe.

I didn't say there wasn't *any* danger to cyclists. I was pointing out that the statistics show that there isn't a significant safety issue at that junction. So making it 'safer' is a never-ending argument for never-ending expenditures with rapidly diminishing returns and huge repercussions with regard to congestion, journey times and increased use of rat runs. As a a matter of interest, I'd like to know how much these changes will cost ? and why they weren't carried out the last time the junction was expensively re-engineered just a few years ago. And given the large number of schools in the immediate vicinity, there's no way you can re-engineer the junction to make crossing patrols redundant. They are part of the safety of the junction and always have been.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > However, in my experience it's not true that > cyclists only have a problem going straight across > or right from Greendale. For example, if you turn > right out of Townley Rd on a bike (having either > woven your way around the waiting traffic that has > blocked the cycle lane or taken your chance > stopping in the middle of traffic with impatient > drivers in front, beside and behind you) you tend > to get crowded or pushed out to the left, which > causes problems with traffic coming out of > Greendale. Drivers waiting to turn left don't > always seem to notice cyclists in the current > cycle lane who may be going straight on. Many > drivers also sit in the cycle box at junctions. That's pretty much an argument for banning all right turns, isn't it?

James, with respect, when the safety figures are in your favour, you quote them, when they're not you ignore them. You can't have it both ways. And drivers jumping red lights is not relevant to whether or not those lights are desirable.