rendelharris

No comment required: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/every-flat-in-a-new-south-london-development-has-been-sold-to-foreign-investors

Not sure that opinion is universally shared round these here parts Johnie, but very kind of you to say so! Ride safe and enjoy!

The National Cycle Route network is generally pretty good - never ridden quite that way myself but looks as though 21>20>22 would take you pretty much there (there seems to be a strange hiatus just before Petersfield but only a few miles out). http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map?lat=56.54737192673878&lng=-3.142090281250036&zoom=5&route-type=all-routes&filters= Have a good ride, would love to hear if it's a pleasant route to ride if you follow that one, always on the lookout for new ways to go.

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How many of those 2000 people are KSId by private > cars, as opposed to buses, delivery trucks, > construction vehicles, taxis etc. which will still > need to use London's roads even if you were to > entirely ban the private car? No figures available that I can find, be interested to see them if anyone else knows. My subjective impression from reading the news is that around 75% of serious accidents seem to involve private drivers, but that is entirely subjective and may be wildly wrong. > How much of that air pollution is caused by > private cars, as opposed to diesel buses, diesel > trucks, diesel lorries, diesel taxis etc. which > will still need to use London's roads even if you > were to entirely ban the private car? I would guess that's actually impossible to estimate. I did say that there were other measures necessary, such as banning HGVs at peak times, encouraging offloading of goods outside London onto smaller, greener vehicles, using the river etc. The mayor's plans to penalise diesel vehicles are already a huge step in the right direction, as are plans for hybrid buses etc. The new zero emissions taxi is quite exciting: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/revealed-londons-new-green-black-cab-ready-to-hit-the-capitals-streets-a3453026.html

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it is the stated aim of Southwark council to stop > people owning cars altogether Rendel. That's part > of their 'kerbside' program. I've just skimmed the kerbside policy document Abe but oddly was unable to find anywhere where it stated an aim to stop people owning cars altogether. Could you kindly point me to the relevant text?

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most of those houses (even the ones divided into > flats)have front gardens in which those much lower > cost and much more space efficient bike storage > sheds could be placed, but that wouldn't achieve > Southwark's aim of stopping people from owning a > car. An aim I would thoroughly support, but actually there's no sign of that at all - not letting people do whatever they want whenever they want with their cars and trying to stop them owning them are two different things, you see.

In my experience most council flats don't have adequate storage spaces for bikes and the design of the flats themselves means there isn't really room inside either. Bike storage funding should, I think, be targeted at that sort of estate rather than on street bike hangars which in my opinion are often just saving middle class Victorian house/flat owners (like me) inconvenience rather than actually answering a real need. Mrs.H and I keep three bikes inside our one bed flat: with the wealth of clever storage options available nowadays they're not much of an encumbrance. I certainly wouldn't feel justified asking for scarce cycling funding to be spent on decluttering my hall. James, you were recently offering motorcyclists ?500 of free ground anchors to lock their machines up, and good on you for that; secure bike storage sheds which can store three bikes can be had for less than that, wouldn't it be better to offer those rather than bike hangars, thereby providing storage for thirty bikes rather than half a dozen for the same price? I'm all for money being spent on cycling infrastructure - I'd love to see funding diverted from supporting motor vehicles into cycling, the more the better - I just don't think bike hangars are necessarily the smartest way forward.

You stick with your mindset old chap, as I said, I'm out. ETA: "When did I talk about a conspiracy by TFL?" Here: "Has TFL counted how used they are throughout the day, how motorised traffic has changed, etc? If they have, they have kept the results well hidden."

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Without the cycle lane on Westminster Bridge the > recent outrage could not have developed quite as > it did - there are quite good security arguments > in favour of jammed (or at least slow moving and > queuing) traffic in areas where otherwise there > would be vulnerabilities. Oh Penguin, I'm really surprised at you, who's normally perfectly sensible, coming out with that argument, it's such a nonsense that one or two silly people came out with in the immediate aftermath but fortunately has gained no credence. If the cycle lane wasn't there (in the last fifty yards between the end of the bridge and Parliament Square) the attacker would have driven down the road that would have been in its place, or the pavement. He didn't drive down a cycle lane on Westminster Bridge for the very good reason that there isn't one there yet, works were planned to start around March 30th but I imagine will have been delayed by the aftermath of the attack. The murderer drove down the pavement and that's where he collected his victims, apart from the poor police officer. If we're really concerned about security, how about closing Parliament Square to all but emergency traffic? That would make it highly secure and also a paradise for pedestrians and cyclists. ETA Oh and if there's a genuine concern about vehicle attackers using cycle lanes, it's very simple to block them with a couple of sturdy bollards which would still let cyclists through - for example I noticed yesterday that at the top of the new cycle lane on Constitution Hill there are now large yellow arches which allow cyclists to pass but would block any vehicles. Security concerns are absolutely no reason not to have cycle lanes, they really aren't.

It's most amusing that you demand FACTS - BIG CAPITAL LETTER FACTS! - and studies from me and yet your own post is full of "I believe" and "I am not so sure..." Where are your FACTS? Hilariously you say you've seen no studies relating to the benefit or otherwise of cycle lanes, then go on to assume that if there were they would favour your argument, and then even hint at a conspiracy to hide such studies by TfL! Brilliant. You're clearly rabidly anti-cycle-lanes (CYCLE MADNESS!) and nothing will change your mind, so I think I'll leave the debate with you there, if your answer above is all that's going to be offered instead of proper discussion. As a Parthian shot, here's a Google search bringing up studies that show increased capacity leads to increased traffic volume, take your pick: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=study+shows+extra+road+capacity+doesn%27t+relieve+congestion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=ORTuWKDmCYP38Ae73rKwCw "I don't think it takes many studies to understand that, if there are additional lanes on a road, then journey times are likely to become shorter." It doesn't take a lot of thought to figure out that if journey times become shorter more people start using a route. Cheerio.

DulwichLondoner, no, I don't find it OK for buses to be stuck in traffic but the clue's in the phrase, they're stuck in traffic - motorised traffic. You have an interesting hierarchy, you think public transport should come first (quite right), then motor vehicles, then bicycles last of all. For me, motor vehicles should come last of all, which can be achieved by extending the congestion charge zone, increasing the congestion charge, limiting HGV sizes and access times and cutting off access to central London for motor vehicles. Vauxhall Bridge is a case in point, you're complaining buses are stuck in traffic because a cycle lane has taken the bus lane. Well, there's a bus lane heading north and four other vehicle lanes on the bridge, why not take one of those for a bus lane heading south? You look at this situation and say why should cycle lanes take one vehicle lane, I look at it and say there's room for six lanes, why should cars get four of them and cycles none? It never ceases to amaze me that people can look at a traffic jam of a thousand cars and say that's xyz's fault and never actually think it might be somehow the responsibility of the thousand drivers who've chosen to bring their vehicles to that place. You're correct that few private vehicles drive into the congestion zone, but that doesn't affect Vauxhall Bridge where people are running through town and up towards Edgware and west towards Chelsea. The westward extension which Boris scrapped so as not to upset the Tory voters of Kensington would have helped enormously. Deliveries are a massive problem but that can be eased by encouraging night time deliveries, offloading from juggernauts onto smaller, greener vehicles outside London, even encouraging the use of the river for transport. I'm not putting words into your mouth but anyone reading your posts can see that you clearly believe that "cycle madness" (your own words) is massively increasing the congestion problem in London. The primary problems in London are building works (not only the HGVs delivering but also the road closures and contraflows often entailed) and deliveries - apparently there's been a massive increase in people having Amazon etc deliver to their office instead of their homes. The argument that cycle lanes aren't heavily used outside peak times and therefore have no place is utterly redundant. At Christmas I was walking back from a party down Park Lane at 4AM and there was virtually no motor traffic on it - does that mean it shouldn't be there? I then caught a train from Victoria which only had about ten people on it, should that service be abolished? Nobody is claiming that cycle lanes are a zero sum solution, they're there to encourage people to cycle to work and for leisure, to decrease car use and take the pressure off public transport (and to improve public health). 32% of all vehicles on central London's roads at rush hour are now bicycles - on some main roads up to 70% ( http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/the-utterly-amazing-growth-of-cycling-in-london/019317 ) - a number which will only increase as more proper segregated cycling provision comes online. Cyclists pay their council tax and income tax just like everyone else (and many pay vehicle excise duty as well) and yet are expected, by a vocal minority, to be content for their contribution to the exchequer to be spent on assisting polluting lethal motor traffic. It wouldn't particularly help congestion to remove the cycle lanes anyway (can I just restate, only 2% of roads in central London have cycle lanes, yet allegedly they're responsible for up to 100% of congestion); there might be a temporary increase in traffic flow but studies have shown that any extra capacity quickly gets taken up, as soon as drivers saw it was quicker/less congested they'd start using those routes and you're back to the status quo. The solution to London's pollution and congestion problems is not to make it easier for motor vehicles to use the roads. The only feasible solution is to make it so awkward, time consuming and expensive to use a motor vehicle in central London that people stop doing so (alongside improvements in public transport and, yes, cycle provision). Many people will hate this suggestion, which is up to them. I hate that around 10,000 elderly and ill Londoners die prematurely each year due to air pollution, that children living near busy roads grow up with lung capacities 10% smaller than average and that over 2,000 people are killed or seriously injured on London's roads each year. Sorry for the long post, just a few things I feel need stating.

Funny that as today Mrs.H and I cycled up to Blackfriars, on to Hyde Park Corner then down to Greenwich between 10AM and 1PM and there were plenty of people using the cycle lanes. We get it, you don't like cycle lanes. What was really causing the traffic jams? Too many motorised vehicles. To hear people like you talk one would imagine there were no traffic jams in London before cycle lanes. Oh, and along Grovsenor Road (the Embankment between Vauxhall and Chelsea) the cycle lanes aren't segregated, they're just the blue paint type, approximately one metre wide. They haven't taken a lane away from any motorised traffic, there were never two lanes there in the first place, unless people started driving metre wide cars. Yet another example of you seeing congestion, seeing a cycle lane and saying there's congestion and a cycle lane in the same place, cycle lanes must cause congestion. I can remember the Chelsea Embankment was always massively congested forty years ago - but do go on blaming cycle lanes if you want. Fortunately you've conclusively lost the argument, cycle lanes are here to stay, get over it and stop blaming them for traffic congestion caused by motor vehicles.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We have already put in an application for listed > status. > > This is now just parked pending a formal planning > application that puts the building at risk. > > Another application from someone else might help. > > John K Good luck and I completely support your cause, though it doesn't affect me as I live quite near the Peckham office, but I can't really see this forcing Royal Mail to change their minds - they can't be forced to keep it open because it's listed, and even if it obtains Grade II listing (the highest it could hope for) that, as I understand it, only means alterations by new owners would have to be "sensitive." But hope I'm wrong!

Fellbrigg Josh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Not to worry, I have emailed Cineworld head > office. I think they agree with me. The only > bullshit here is you and your attempt to deny it. > > I cannot wait to cross your picket line and speak > to your managers. Rest assured I'll be doing all I > can to see that you lose your jobs. Before anyone bothers replying to this spiteful little troll, he's been "deactivated" - good work Admin!

Fellbrigg Josh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I sometimes wear my hood up in the extreme > sunlight and heat to protect my head from sunburns > which I am woefully susceptible to. Scary to think > that some people here would jump to violence the > second they feel they are threatened. > > Is it just balaclavas people are adverse to? What > about people who are a different colour? In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement. P.S. The word is averse, not adverse.

> > geobz Wrote: > mr Greenpeace of ED! What a lovely compliment, thank you!

The Cherry Tree opposite East Dulwich station has a lovely garden and decent if pricey food.

geobz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fortunatelly I am very good at my job. Hope your job doesn't require the ability to spell. Or be modest.

Food and food waste, basically. Keep both well covered and they'll soon leave (if you leave the door open for the dim buggers, they don't seem to have much memory of how they came in).

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes singalto me too....there was a student I > taught in the gcse year. She was barely literate > and was hopeless at maths. She asked for her > parents' evening reports to be sent home as her > parents couldn't attend...the reason was that they > were buying a new Merc...I thought of only they > had spent some money on a tutor for her (she was > not statemented or anything)- still she probably > has 10 kids and all the designer gear by now! What has this got to do with benefits? Presumably even in your fevered imagination people on benefits don't buy new Mercedes?

Some friends just had their kitchen done and had this sort of thing: https://www.beautifulhalo.com/1-tier-industrial-foyer-chandelier-rustic-iron-pipe-ceiling-fixture-with-6-light-p-265338.html?currency1=GBP&track=PA_G_dGBPL&gclid=CKOSrPCmk9MCFQoo0wodtZAO5w Not to everyone's taste but I thought it looked superb.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But, in a agreement with Jaywalker's game theory, > Assad will probably now be wary of using nerve gas > on kids....and on a continuum, of which all of is > degrees of ghastly, that is less so. So well done > Trump. Really? You think he didn't know he'd be found out? The US attack has only had the effect of strengthening Assad in that Russia now say they'll boost Syria's air defences. Just like Saddam or Mugabe or...too many to name, this $%^* won't react in a normal, rational or civilised fashion.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think at that time there wasn't as much support > in the country for more foreign adventures. Plus > some were starting to ask who or what would fill > the vacuum if Assad left. Certainly Lybia and > Eygpt were not seem as resounding successes. Tory > MP's had their reservations too. > > If we were going to hit Assad it should've been at > the start, hard. That time has passed and with it > our ability to influence the future of Syria. I > have no trouble pulverising those responsible for > what happened, I just don't think in the grand > scheme it will help. Sense as ever Joe. Nobody who saw the pictures of the gassed children could avoid the natural desire to take revenge on the perpetrators. However, this has been going on for years and nothing's been done - Trump's justification for a complete reversal of his avowed policy of non involvement seemed to be that he'd seen pictures of "beautiful babies" being killed. If the President of the USA is going to risk conflict with Russia on the basis that something he's seen on TV has upset him we're in for a bumpy ride. It looks decisive and strong - only a cynic (me) could wonder if he's decided it's time for a distraction from the absolute dog's breakfast of a presidency he's managed so far - but it's no basis for a coherent foreign policy.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > staggered school holidays are a great idea. Wouldn't there then be massive complaints from parents with kids in different schools who found they'd have to find three weeks' childcare instead of two? Not to mention the problems for teachers whose children's holidays didn't coincide with theirs. I agree it's a nice idea but it could be problematic.

geobz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rednharris why dont you put your money where your > mouth is? > > Go sell your house and split profits with the > picturehouse workers lol.. Well...no, just too pathetic to warrant a response.