rendelharris

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd read the Guardian article and love the line > "...starfucker of thermonuclear pretensions..." That was the one which instantly caught my eye, I'm not the biggest fan of Ms.Hyde but that one definitely fell into the "wish I'd written that" category.

Cripes - my dreams of creeping into the top two or at least ending up reassuringly average seem to have gone for a burton! Proud possessor of the wooden spoon... Well done Quids and many thanks Alan M for organising, lent an extra interest to the competition, it's been fun. See you next year? Quote of the day, Brian Moore in the fifteenth minute of overtime, "Well I suppose after all the peculiar things that have happened in the last year this is just another one of them..."

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Except for this, the compromise between Earlsfield > and ED seems quite clear: the former has almost no > high street but way better transport links, the > latter the opposite. Tough one! Live to work or work to live - no contest! And if you have weans the schools must surely tip it, stay here if I were you, squire.

'Night Elph - if nothing else "This thread is so off topic it might as well be in Balham" is one of the best lines I've seen on here for some time!

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some people who bought here 15 years ago are > always telling me how rough it used to be, but, to > be fair, their definition of 'rough' might simply > be a working class area where no one sells > overprice organic kale juice :) When I lived in Brixton in the late '90s ED was a place one came to occasionally for a nice relaxed quiet night, curry and a civilised pint - in fact I can recall the cool lads (of whom I most emphatically was not one!) describing it as "sleepy suburbs"!

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Woolwich. Now there's a thought. Since Deptford > and New Cross started to go upmarket I though > there was nowhere left. A mate was buying a house in Plumstead last year (complicated, fell through as she and her partner decided to stay together!) and it was stupid cheap (for London) - something like ?280K for a good sized Victorian two bed with a decent garden. It's alright there too, some nice parks, easy access to the countryside and no distance to Canary Wharf if one works there.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I understood it to mean that some people's sense > of self-worth seems to be indexed to the value of > their property. Personally I thought they had a > point, but then I rent so I guess I would. > > Where are the non-gentrified areas of London > anyway? That is doubtless true for many, but I'd say generally the more someone's invested in their property the more they're invested in wanting the area to be "nice," not wreck it. I dunno, all I know is I didn't let children in my care pick the flowers when I had nothing and I don't now I've reached the heady heights of owning a one bed flat in ED! Non-gentrified areas...Woolwich, it's fearsome.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > . On > > the radio recently someone mentioned how the > boom > > in house prices has given rise to 'attitude' in > a > > way that didn't exist in areas like this twenty > > years ago. Maybe the two are related? > > > Yes because areas outside gentrified ones are > beacons of civility and courtesy - sounds like > another Guardian reader talking upper crap to me. > Middle class guilt crap. Not often Quids and I agree but I've lived on rough council estates where a sapling or a flowerbed wouldn't last five minutes before being torn up - there are inconsiderate arses (and wonderful people) in every social and economic strata.

When one voice rules the nation Just because they're on top of the pile Doesn't mean their vision is the clearest The voices of the people Are falling on deaf ears Our politicians all become careerists They must declare their interests But not their company cars Is there more to a seat in parliament Than sitting on your arse? The best of all this bad bunch Are shouting to be heard Above the sound of ideologies clashing Outside the patient millions Who put them into power Expect a little more back for their taxes Like school books, beds in hospitals And peace in our bloody time All they get is old men grinding axes Who've built their private fortunes On the things they can rely The courts, the secret handshake The Stock Exchange and the old school tie For God and Queen and Country All things they justify Above the sound of ideologies clashing... Billy Bragg, Ideology

I never quite understand why these incidents are not more widely reported - if I wasn't on the EDF I wouldn't know they'd happened, nothing on BBC local news etc. Admittedly I don't have children myself but I always pass the info I see on here to those friends who do, and they always ask why it hasn't been in the local media.

Well well. Perhaps you should write a book Louisa, along the lines of Sherlock Holmes' monograph on the differences between one hundred and forty different types of tobacco ash!

I'm being distasteful here but I have a sort of horrified fascination: how does one distinguish visually between human and dog excrement?

Guys is easy - go up the Blackfriars superhighway, turn right onto Quietway One at Webber Street, follow that to Tabard Gardens, Pilgrimage Street, cross Long Lane and turn up Kipling Street (no entry except for cycles) and that brings one to the back of Guys. I agree though, coming south options suddenly run out round Elephant, there's a choice of going down the NKR or Walworth Road before one can join a quiet route again. A better cycle path on the NKR between Elephant and Rodney Place would help there. Alternatively Southwark could have made the developers of Elephant Park run a cycle path across to Rodney Road, but probably a bit late for that now (and they let them get away with murder in other respects so presumably would have done in that as well, unless there is one I haven't heard of).

Elphinstone's Army Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH the mayor should employ you as the Cycle Czar > (or is there something you are not telling us?!) I wish - I'd do it for nowt! DL - Balham's certainly much nicer than Earlsfield, but you'd need a really substantial extra wedge to exchange like for like with ED (obviously that goes double the closer to Clapham Common one looks). Have you thought of Brixton? I lived there years ago and liked it, and you have tube and train...don't know what the prices are like though these days. I often cycle through Josephine Avenue at the top of Brixton Water Lane and think what a lovely street it would be to live on.

Bugger, I do believe you're right. I could have sworn there was a central reservation there. I concede my error (about that, not about the general goodness of cycle lanes!). Having enjoyably dragged the thread off topic a bit, back on topic Earlsfield is a total hole, soulless, terrible traffic, crap pubs...yes the rail is good but moving somewhere just for the rail is a bit like they used to say about Birmingham, the best thing about it is it's easy to get out of.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- The examples I > made were of clear cases in which the bus lane was > removed to make way for a segregated cycle lane, > which has two effects: buses waste time entering > and exiting the bus lane (when the bus lane ends, > they have to move to the right into another lane, > and this wastes time), and of course they no > longer have a lane to themselves. This is the case > from Oval to Vauxhall, and on Vauxhall Bridge > southbound. I think they're doing something > similar along Hyde Park, between Marble Arch and > Bayswater, too. This is exactly what I mean about people misremembering what was there before. Have a look at Vauxhall Bridge on Google earth, the satellite image is pre-cycle lane. You'll see that there are four traffic lanes and a bus lane heading north. There never was a bus lane heading south. Vauxhall Bridge still has four lanes and a northbound bus lane, exactly as it did before, plus now it has a cycle lane. The space for the cycle lane was achieved by removal of the central reservation and narrowing the existing lanes slightly. You see, you're so convinced that the cycle lane has "stolen" a bus lane you've imagined a bus lane where one never was! Look, I'll save you the trouble: Pre-cycle-lane: http://i.imgur.com/1kgqKic.jpg?1 Four lanes and a northbound bus lane. Post-cycle-lane: http://i.imgur.com/pepEZOe.jpg?1 Four lanes and a northbound bus lane and a cycle lane.

Dulwich Village Infants' School I'm guessing.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But if a cyclist has been > stupid/wreckless/impatient (cycling down the > inside of a large vehicle indicating left at a > junction) then irrespective of how distasteful it > is to call them so, it could well be that they are > stupid (and/or wreckless and/or impatient). > > None of those points you've made about extenuating > circumstances above would stop a cyclist from > waiting behind a large vehicle until it had > turned. Nearly all large vehicles now have a > large, bright yellow sticker on the back warning > cyclists not to cycle down the inside in those > circumstances. Agree with your first paragraph, not so sure about the second - of course cyclists shouldn't ride up the inside of stationary lorries, but when one of these awful accidents occurs we do tend (or I do anyway) to assume the cyclist has done just that whereas it often later comes out when the lorry driver has been prosecuted that they overtook the cyclist and turned across them (in at least one case last year without signalling). There was a case last year where it was proved that the driver of the fatal truck would have had the woman he killed in his vision in front of him for over twenty seconds, but he still turned across her. Sometimes it's the cyclist doing something stupid; often it's not.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My gripe is not with people cycling, but with > priority given to cyclists over bus users (bus > lanes removed to make way for segregated cycle > lanes), because it benefits a minority to the > detriment of a majority of users, as all cyclists > can take a bus, but not all bus users can cycle. I see what you're saying, but I think perhaps that overlooks the purpose of the cycle lanes, which is not just to make life nicer and safer for cyclists but to attempt to engender a cycling culture to help fight the pollution which is choking London (literally, in the case of 9,000 people a year) to death. There are a mass of other factors which also affect traffic flow - the huge rise in delivery vans (especially as people are apparently now taking to having Amazon deliveries made to their offices instead of homes), residents demanding that ratruns are cut off, massive increases in building work etc etc. Cycle lanes are somewhat to blame, but they're only one of a multitude of factors. Just noticed something quite interesting: on Google maps, the satellite images of Blackfriars Bridge Road are pre-cycle lane and the Streetview pictures are post-cycle-lane. Interestingly, apart from one thirty yard stretch outside One Blackfriars, the roads are exactly the same: there were four lanes on the bridge before, there are four lanes now, yet sit on a bus in a jam on Blackfriars and it won't be long before someone says "If that bloody cycle lane wasn't there..." Of course I'm not denying that cycle lanes have increased congestion in places, but I think there's sometimes a disconnect between what people perceive their effect is and what the true effect is.

Hear hear.

Deleted - cross posting with Otta's above.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Everyone is aware of the existence of walking and > cycling. It's irrelevant to a discussion about > whether or not public transport is adequate > however. Why is it not relevant, on a thread which was started by someone saying they were thinking of moving out of ED because they were sick of the poor transport links, to point out that there are alternative means of transport available? The OP has fully joined in that discussion...there seems to be a form of Godwin's law on the EDF that a thread can't get past a certain length before someone feels it incumbent upon them to complain about going off topic. It's a discussion board, discussions develop!

I'm obviously not going to change your mind so I won't go on too much, but... Yes I agree speed limits should apply to bicycles but that would be difficult to enforce - I guess it would have to be made compulsory to carry a speedometer for a start. That link you posted doesn't mention speeding, just dangerous and aggressive cycling, and I'd fully support any plod initiative to stamp that out along with red light jumping etc - those cyclists are giving us all a bad reputation. The differences in safety between a cycle and a motorcycle are hard to quantify (ETA though obviously I agree that if you do have a crash it's preferable to be wearing motorcycle gear!). I'd say that properly and defensively ridden it's a six and two threes. I personally feel slightly safer cycling as the comparative lack of acceleration makes it more difficult to get into trouble, plus it's more manouverable in tight spots. Regarding braking, well I wouldn't be cycling at 30MPH on a wet road, but generally cycles have shorter stopping distances than motorcycles (20MPH motorcycle 36 feet, bicycle 20 feet (all very subjective though as there's so much variation between bicycle tyres, treads etc)). Of course motorcycles have far better brakes, but that's evened out by the fact that the machine they're stopping can be up to twenty times heavier. Regarding mirrors, I've tried them on a bike and couldn't get on with them, too small, too juddery and too hard to position on a race bike. I prefer constant lifesavers...nothing to stop you using them though (I've heard the ones that can be mounted on a helmet are good) so as a safety objection it wouldn't really apply. With the route, if I'm going to Mayfair I take the same route to Blackfriars then it's totally segregated tracks all the way to Park Lane. Admittedly that's seven miles as opposed to five going the most direct way, but it's all exercise. So for that seven miles, 10% would be on quiet traffic calmed roads and the rest completely separate from motor traffic. Anyway, you're not going to change your mind, clearly, but I hope others might. Ride safe. Oh by the way, if you're near the Soho end of Mayfair, or others work there and are thinking of cycling, check out H2 Bike Run on Dufours Street - for ?50 a month you get a secure place to park your bike and use of showers, for an extra ?10 a month you can rent a locker to store your gladrags. Great idea, hope it spreads.

Not at all Jeremy, you were right to point out my over-optimistic estimate, and yes there is no need for geobz to be rude and ageist. Goose Green to Elephant is 2.86 miles so an hour would be about spot on for most.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ED station to the closest edge of the city in 20 > minutes would mean an average speed of 12 mph, > faster than the average speed of traffic in London See my explanation above. Also, next time you're on a bus or driving in London at rush hour, observe the cyclists (the law abiding ones) - you'll notice they travel significantly faster than motorised traffic as a) they have their own tracks in many places and b) they can nearly always get to the head of tailbacks at lights etc.