rendelharris

Just to answer a couple of your points, Dulwichlondoner (by the way I said nothing about leaving an hour earlier and I'm quite aware of the pressures of childcare): - from my door to St.Paul's is 4.05 miles. I cycle at around 20MPH, which is not difficult for any moderately fit person on the flat (and apart from Blackfriars Bridge it's all flat), so that's 12 minutes cycling plus eight for waiting at lights etc (and believe it or not I never jump red lights and shout at cyclists who do). I actually only face six sets of lights between home and the city, by the law of averages half of them will be green anyway, at the ones that I know have a long hold I sometimes dismount and push my bike over the pedestrian crossing. I'm going into some detail as you appear to be calling me a liar. When I had a motorcycle I generally found I was slower than on a cycle in any sort of traffic. By the way speed limits do not apply to bicycles anywhere except in the Royal Parks, which have their own regulations: the Met police recently confirmed that speed limits apply only to motorised transport; - Segregated cycle lanes do not just cover a small portion of the route from East Dulwich to the City, in that four miles I have to ride 0.75 of a mile on road (all quiet and traffic controlled), the rest is segregated cycle routes, and once I reach Blackfriars I can get all the way to Limehouse in one direction and Lancaster Gate in the other without ever sharing space with motorised traffic (apart from a tiny section alongside St.James' Park which will very soon have a cycle track); - If your office is full of cyclists and shower provision is inadequate, lobby management for better provision. Alternatively, join a gym near work with the money saved from paying rail fares and shower there. Another option would be simply to cycle more slowly: at 10MPH you'll be using less energy than you would walking and you'll still cover four miles in half an hour and be way less sweaty than standing in a packed train carriage would make you. With a little planning cycling is a perfectly good safe alternative to public or private motorised transport. If you don't want to avail yourself of it, fine, but don't call people who perfectly truthfully set out its advantages liars, it's not polite. Interesting, by the way, that you're happy to ride a motorcycle but think cycling's too dangerous in London: cyclist fatalities in London 2015: 9. Motorcyclist fatalities: 36.

KK - in the cold (and sober, I admit - was at a mate's birthday last night so maybe a bit over the top!) light of day perhaps my comparison was a bit useless. But still, I do find it incredible that people talk as if there's no alternative to the train and say they'll have to move...yes there should be a clean, efficient and cheap mass transit system, but there isn't and even if we started building it now it wouldn't be in place for a decade or more. If someone has to face "bosses looking at them coming in late for work day after day and week after week," they should get a bike! If they're too unfit or unwell to ride four miles, get an electric bike. With the new cycle infrastructure the "it's too dangerous" reason has been removed, why not, instead of putting up with ridiculous delays, insane fares and the damage that does to one's psyche and family life? I know it shouldn't have to come down to such a choice, but it does.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Walk from ED to the City in an hour? Don't think > so. You might get from Goose Green to Elephant in > an hour... True, bit optimistic, sorry. Still it's only four miles, so a bus ride and a two mile walk in an hour well doable...

KK - we live in an area where one can cycle to the City of London in about twenty minutes. One can walk to the City in about an hour. It befuddles me that people would rather stand on a platform whining about the trains rather than do that. Of course there are the elderly and disabled who can't do that, and better provision should be made for them, but it astonishes me that able-bodied people insist on the government providing them with mechanised transport to get them three or four miles - there are alternatives! Looking forward to being told how wrong I am...

God almighty. Sorry, I'm going to go off a bit on one, but in response to the OP, we live in just about the most privileged city in the world, yes transport isn't all it might be but there's virtually nowhere in the capital that one can't reach in an hour or less - much less if you use a bike - if you don't like living in ED then stop whining and go somewhere else. Good heavens. I work with charities trying to cut down the journey to get water from five hours walk to three! Life is not perfect, get over it.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 30 to 40 minutes door to door in London is a pipe > dream unless you live in zone 1 or live right next > to a station, surely? I don't know, the only place I habitually catch a train to is my snooker club in King's Cross (because it involves a few pints so I leave the bike at home) - ten minute walk to Peckham Rye, twenty-five minute train to St.Pancras International, breaking off exactly forty minutes after locking the front door. Admittedly I don't usually go in rush hour, but then again it is an N1 postcode...

As a mad keen cyclist it pains me to say - tossers. Apart from one half mile stretch (which you could always push) it's now possible to ride from Peckham Library to Blackfriars, Tower Bridge, Canary Wharf and Parliament Square without ever sharing the road with motorised vehicles, if you ever fancy it!

Sally Eva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Very good quiet routes seem to languish unknown. I > don't know what to do about that. The best route > around the Surrey Canal Path closure is via > Colegrove Road and Glengall Road but as far as I > can see no one is taking it. Somewhere in the USA, can't recall where (somewhere near a seafront), I've seen a signpost for cycle routes with two arms, one said "Fast and dangerous" and the other "Safe and pleasant" - everyone was choosing the latter!

turtle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No need to have a pop at Singalto, you should be > well aware that is not what he/she meant. Yes, > certainly have a go at GG, he fully deserved it > although he could have very well been on a 'wind > up'! > > There have been some very good suggestions for the > problem, hope some were helpful. I wasn't "having a pop," Turtle, rather trying to point out that sometimes some people, like Goose Green, make "nastiness" inevitable by saying things so unpleasant it's impossible to let them pass. If he was on a wind up then the sort of person who thinks it amusing to wind people up about cruelty to animals is a pretty crummy individual, no? But his previous posts are of much the same sort - he's just a nasty bit of work, I'm afraid.

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here we go again! A simple question turns nasty.. As one of the noted animal lovers of this forum, singalto, would you suggest that we just let it pass when someone suggests illegal maiming of wild animals?

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would be disappointing if you hadn't responded > as you just love being judgmental and besides, you > always take any bait that passes your nose. Yeah, it's terrible the way I don't like people who advocate illegal maiming of wild animals, I feel really bad about it.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was wondering just how long it would take you RH > to give us another of your Liberal judgemental > contributions. > > You bang on about the Wild Animals (Protection > Act), so may we assume you are sufficiently > motivated to campaign against the humble mouse > trap that uses a spring to crush the little > critters? > > GG Glad I didn't disappoint. It's not actually my liberal judgemental view though (though unlike your ilk I don't regard it as an insult to be called a liberal) but the law of the land. It's not illegal to set a humane trap that kills instantly, to set a trap such as you suggested which has no other purpose than to maim a wild mammal is against the law. Sorry if not being allowed to maim wild animals upsets you.

To add to what Robbin said, I can remember my barrister sister advising me that any such self defence measures can land you in a heap of trouble if it's shown that you were carrying the object for self defence - i.e. if you haven't a good reason to have been carrying a can of hairspray, you can be charged with carrying an offensive weapon - it's the intent, rather than the weapon, you can be done for. And anyway, as sensibly said, spraying hairspray in the eyes of one of four attackers would very much be waving a red rag in a bullring.

RRR's suggestion is excellent, should you follow the rather unpleasant suggestions of GG please make sure that your insurance is sufficient to cover third party claims when the milkman, postman and other visitors get carpet tacks in their feet, oh and be prepared to take time off to appear in court for prosecution under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which makes it illegal to "inflict unnecessary suffering, to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate any wild mammal." I'm sure you, katgod, wouldn't dream of following that advice anyway - with a few lengths of scrap lumber, a couple of hinges, some nails and a catch should be easy enough to knock up into a rough foxproof box, or there are plenty of "milk safe" products available online. ETA or just a poundshop waste bin with a brick on the lid!

(ETA reply to Bobbsy) Fair enough. I'm sure there are tweaks to phasing and layout that will need to be made over the years. All I can say is from my point of view as a London cyclist and motorcyclist for more than thirty years it was one of the very few junctions in London which actually worried me to the extent that I would ride out of my way to avoid it, whereas now I find it a pleasure. Just a suggestion but if I wanted to go to Borough I'd follow the cycle lane round, left up St.George's and immediate right onto CS7 and a nice quiet route, rather than mix it all the way down Borough High Street. But each to their own!

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rendelharris, that makes complete sense to me - > do you think that route could be made clearer for > cyclists? Given the number I see getting tangled > up in traffic on Newington Butts, I'm not sure > that many people are aware of it. Yes you're right - as I think I noted above in response to Sally Eva, the little grey cycle markings on the pavement showing this route not only don't let those unfamiliar with the layout see the route but also they don't do enough to let pedestrians know it's a shared space, so they get het up and shout at cyclists who are perfectly legitimately crossing the plaza in front of the Strata. Clearer markings would be a most welcome, and hopefully also inexpensive, way of improving understanding for all.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One thing I have noticed (as a bus user who goes > round E&C) is how difficult it seems to be for > cyclists to get from Walworth Road, round > Newington Butts to St. George's Road. There may be > an approved cycle route which I don't see but > turning right from Walworth Road and onto the > segregated cycle lane outside the Metropolitan > Tabernacle seems really difficult for cyclists to > do. > > I've lost count of the number of times a cyclist > has either cut in front of or been cut up by a bus > as they are both trying to use the bus lane on > Newington Butts. It's really bad there because > the traffic gets very snarled up and the buses are > trying to pull in and out of the stops there and > there is a real temptation for cyclists to try and > cut into traffic rather than across to the > segregated lane. The thing to do is hop onto the pavement outside the Strata Tower (permitted) and cross Newington Butts at the Toucan crossing and join the cycle lane there. I know some people think this adds time but a) thirty seconds to be 1000% safer is a fair exchange in my opinion and b) this actually allows one to bypass the lights outside the Strata and the ones at the end of Newington Butts, so eight times out of ten time is actually saved.

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I find the new E&C a bit odd. Yes, before the > roundabout was very busy, but traffic flowed, and > cyclists (I think) had plenty of room. > > Now the traffic backs up along Walworth Road. With all due respect Bobbsy this is what I find a bit odd about people blaming cycle lanes for congestion: before the lanes were added, coming from Walworth Road into Newington Butts traffic went from two lanes into three, and it still does. The only difference is that going north up Newington Butts traffic is no longer hampered by traffic coming in from the right from NKR, which is an advantage, isn't it? On the rare occasions I go through there on the bus it seems less congested to me than it used to be. I think too many people are just seeing new cycle lanes, seeing congestion, and saying there you are, cycle lanes are causing congestion - even when, as round Elephant, the lanes are on what was pavement and haven't taken lanes away from the road.

Second Decathlon, the odd bit of gear is poor (steer clear of their lower priced cycling mitts, for example, unless you like shelling out for a new pair every 100 miles) but generally it's very good and their bikes are extraordinary value: in the past year I've bought three B'twin bikes, a carbon forked/Sora equipped hybrid for Mrs.H, a similar one for me for shopping/trails and a gorgeous carbon front and rear Tiagra equipped road bike; all of them are just streets ahead of the quality available for the same price elsewhere. Definitely the first place I recommend to all who ask for bike buying advice now. They often have branded gear at massive discounts too.

Not to argue malumbu, but because you obviously know your onions, what's your objection to a NKR cycle lane? I personally am more than happy with the excellent well surfaced bus lane there at present, but I can see why nervous/slow riders might benefit from an improvement to the pavement track currently in place.

LJC56 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've spent the last year commuting to Vauxhall by > bus from East Dulwich and it is often quick and > reliable. I don't understand the comment about the > segregated cycle lanes causing congestion as these > cover just a small part of the journey for the > Oval to Vauxhall - where I have occasionally got > off and walked from the Oval (it's not far). The > real problem with buses to Vauxhall and Victoria > is the lack of a bus lane in the first part of the > Camberwell New Road. Extending the bus lane back > to Camberwell would make a real difference but > presumably would impede cars too much..... Thank you, it's nice to see some people can see the actual evidence instead of what they want to see! From Peckham to Vauxhall is 2.8 miles up the invariably jammed Camberwell New Road: the segregated cycle lane runs for 0.3 of a mile from Archbishop Tenison's School to Vauxhall Cross. Two things to note there: one is that motor vehicles still have two full lanes of traffic going one way there, so there could be a bus lane if wanted, the other is that I can confidently say, having worked at ATS for many years, that that stretch of road was always badly jammed before they built the cycle lane, in fact if anything it's less jammed now than it was ten years ago. But that won't stop some people seeing a cycle lane and immediately starting to froth that it must be the cause of the congestion - not, apparently, the motorised vehicles causing the congestion! Despite the claims by the Daily Mail and certain rather similar people on here that segregated cycle lanes are "all over London," less than 2% of roads in central London have lanes (and incidentally they've encouraged an explosion in cycling which can only be good for air quality, the health service, etc etc etc). Traffic congestion in London is caused by motor vehicles, and it's about time some people faced up to that and accepted that something needs to be done about it instead of whining about a few miles of cycle tracks.

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I realise I'm repeating myself, but I'm gobsmacked > that ?1 in ?5 of council tax goes to councillors > pensions. That's not quite the case - 20% on average (it differs between councils) goes on staff pensions but that's for all council staff - roadsweepers, park staff, administrators etc. Councillors are permitted to sign up to the council's pension scheme and some think they shouldn't be allowed to, but they only account for a very small proportion of the employees in the scheme.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Like sheep. And Pokemon :) > > Why is sheep lamb when you eat it? And why is cow > beef? I know this one...it's because of the split between the Anglo-Saxon peasantry and the Norman aristocracy, so when the animal was alive it was referred to by its Anglo-Saxon name as it was they who looked after them, so cow and sheep, but when it was killed it was the Normans who got to eat it, so as prepared meat it was given its French name - bouef, mouton, and the distinction remained as the two languages merged into modern English.

Only a minority of the population can ride a bicycle? Rather undermines your argument to say something which is demonstrably untrue in your first sentence. Cars are a private form of transport to which almost 50% of London's population have no access, and there are nearly three times as many cyclists as car drivers in central London (180,000 vs 64,000), so why don't we ban private cars to make way for buses? Perhaps that would help prevent the 9,000 premature deaths motor vehicles cause each year. Odd that on the one hand you think cycling on the road is incredibly dangerous but on the other don't want any segregated cycle lanes. No bikes at all would seem your ideal city.

Yes - instead of moaning about "idiotic" cycle lanes, use them.