rendelharris

Does your A&E friend also genuinely despair that parents have risked their kids walking on the street when children are brought in having been knocked over as pedestrians? Or when they come in injured from an accident caused by them riding in a car? Because those are both more common scenarios. The obvious extension is to say that nobody should ever cycle because some idiot might knock them off.

> heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > As for bringing politics into whether art/music > is > > acceptable is a whole can of worms and asks the > > question how far back in history one goes. > Wagner, > > Ezra Pound, TS Elliot and yep....Morrissey. > Maybe > > it would be a better use of people?s energy to > be > > concerned about and fight against the worrying > > rise of the racist and anti Semitic far right > > across Europe. Indeed - and part of that would be opposing virulently antisemitic murals being allowed, no (The "Freedom of Humanity" one, not the ED one)? Art and literature are not separate from society and politics, they are intimately intertwined with it; giving an antisemitic work of art a free pass on the grounds that it's art is nonsensical. In terms of antisemitism in the art of the past (Wagner, Eliot - even George Orwell), well, we can interpret that in terms of the culture of the time and so forth and make our decisions. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be opposed every time it rears its foul head in our own time.

colville09 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It seems very simplistic and wrong to accuse the > painter of being 'the antisemitic artist' and 'the > racist artist' rather than the fact that once in > the past someone interpreted a small part of one > of his works as being open to misinterpretation. > Actually I like this mural and can't think of any > way this particular image could be said to be > racist so I don't understand the 'ignoring it on > your own doorstep' bit. I agree the rise of the > far right here is the real concern. The whole of Mear One's "Freedom for Humanity" mural was staggeringly antisemitic - it wasn't a "small part of it" and it wasn't "open to misinterpretation", it was virulently and horribly antisemitic (and I speak as a pro-Palestinian, Israel back to pre-67 borders person) - even Jeremy Corbyn said after initially objecting to its removal: "I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic." I don't see anything antisemitic in the ED mural, but to deny the antisemitism in the "Freedom for Humanity" mural - now that's "simplistic and wrong".

You appear to be a cyclist-hating cyclist, an uncommon breed but I've encountered them before. Firstly, why are you venting your ire against parents carrying their children on bicycles, which according to you is highly dangerous, instead of the authorities and motor vehicle drivers who are making the roads so highly dangerous? Secondly, do you have any evidence or statistics as to the dangers represented by carrying children on bikes? I can't find any - which would in itself suggest that there aren't hordes of children being killed and injured every year by being carried on bikes. It would be very interesting to know how many children are KSI when being carried on bikes as opposed to when being driven in cars. 99.99% of parents I see carrying/towing children on bikes do so extremely responsibly, use proper approved equipment (despite your nonsense about "homemade plastic carts"), and take extreme care. To be fair to drivers, 99.99% of them are very cautious and respectful around bicycles carrying children as well. You've basically got a massive bee in your bonnet (enough to make almost identical posts two years running!) about a non-issue that you have made up in your own head, for heaven knows what reasons. You are the first person I can ever recall calling for carrying children on bikes to be banned. I would suggest that your outrage would be more profitably directed at the real dangers children face on the road, whether on bikes, in cars or walking, the overwhelming majority of which are caused by motor vehicles and incompetent town planning.

Time for this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35363991 Love dogs to a soppy extreme: despise irresponsible owners.

jenny pink Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > at rendelharris...Why not do your own > research.... In other words, you can't offer a single peer-reviewed scientific paper "proving" homeopathy works on animals. I could do my own research from now until Whitsun and I wouldn't find one, because there isn't one. However your response is telling; you know that if such a paper did exist you'd be shouting it from the rooftops, but as it doesn't you have to fall back on the utterly lame "look it up yourself" defence. > Me,my dogs & other pets,have been taking them for > years,where pharmaceutical drugs failed...& it > cured various conditions.......... The plural of anecdote is not evidence. I had rotten 'flu last week, and the drugs I took from Big Pharma didn't seem to make any difference. However, I did wear my purple dressing gown all week, and lo and behold this morning it's gone. Therefore wearing purple dressing gowns cures the 'flu. > Why is Prince Charles the patron of Homeopathy,if > it is a placebo.... If the best you've got is that Prince Charles, who has no scientific credentials nor intellectual credibility (best education money can buy and he managed two A levels (B&D) and a 2:2 in Archaeology!), supports you then you really are in trouble. > The NHS has taken them off,like other holistic > approaches,as there is no money to be made by big > pharmas..... The NHS stopped providing homeopathy treatments after a long and intensive review of their efficacy which proved beyond doubt that they had a placebo effect at best. The NHS is, as we all know, strapped for cash, and desperate to save money; they frequently reject the provision of "Big Pharma" drugs on cost grounds. If homeopathy actually worked they would jump at it. Your statement implies that the doctors and other staff who run the NHS are deliberately rejecting effective treatment in order to boost the profits of pharmaceutical companies, which is not only tinfoil hat territory but also utterly contemptible. > & all their drugs have side effects,which means > you have to take pills for ever,to manage said > side effects.. > if THAT is not a money spinner,I don't know what > is There are indeed many problems with the large pharmaceutical companies, but at least they're selling drugs that have been peer-reviewed, tested and shown to work. I'm sure they wish they'd thought of homeopathy; selling people bottles of water without a single trace of the original element in as a cure, that's the ultimate moneyspinner. > Show me cases where people have died from > Homeopathy alone............ Nobody has ever died from homeopathy alone and I didn't say they had. It's impossible to die from consuming tiny quantities of pure water. There are, however, numerous instances of people dying, or causing other people (particularly children) to die, by rejecting real medical treatment that could have saved them and using homeopathy instead. Here's a particularly harrowing example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/28/homeopathy-baby-death-couple-jailed (warning, upsetting content)

alex_b I entirely agree with you, I should have expressed myself better: I meant I would be delighted if the police had the resources to address it as well as all the motorist transgressions you mention, not that I'd like to see them specifically focus on it at the expense of more serious issues such as speeding etc.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is some debate about whether helmets are > actually a good thing or not > https://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman > -helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe And it's a very valid argument - but it's not one about the efficacy of helmets, rather than they've become an overblown issue. The thing is, Boardman (who I think is fantastic) likens telling cyclists to wear helmets instead of addressing making roads safer is like telling someone being shot at to wear body armour instead of stopping the shooter. A fair point. But until the roads are made safer, the "shooter" is still there, so it makes sense to carry on wearing the armour until you're not being shot at, no?

dirac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rendel > All good points and taken on board; I do indeed > wear a helmet. I just get tired of the high > jacking of practically every thread to do with > cycling with the old "you lot all jump red lights > and don't wear helmets etc" and the hissing you > hear from members of the public chastising people > they don't know for something that doesn't affect > them. > > FWIW I don't think motor bike helmets are rubbish > because they are fundamentally and structurally > different to a bicycle helmet that offer > considerable more protection than the small bit of > foam on the top of my head. Perhaps I should get > a full face helmet? I entirely agree - unless and until cycling helmets are compulsory (something I don't feel is desirable simply due to the fact that it would cause numbers to fall) ain't nobody's business but the rider's, however apparently some of the good people on here feel it's fine to criticise cyclists for doing things that are perfectly legal! Of course motorcycle helmets are far better, and cycle helmets are absolutely useless in high-speed impacts, but they still have their place for impacts at lower speeds and they do protect the face a bit - 33% reduction in facial injury with normal helmets. I do wear a fullface one for downhill forest trails on the MTB, but a bit overkill for the streets - plus I'd look like (even more of a) twat.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > > > Can we please stop calling cyclists dangerous > when > > they add no danger to the environment at all; > the > > only thing that makes the roads dangerous and > > unhealthy is motor vehicles. > > I'm a daily commuter cyclist and I would never say > that. There are plenty of nutters amongst all > road users and pedestrians that cause danger to > others. How about the guy who knocked down and > killed a woman at Old Street ? > https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/ > 18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-o > ver-death-of-pedestrian Fair point (though although Alliston is a prick I think that case was extremely dubious) - I meant lawfully used.

dirac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The whole helmet wearing thing is rubbish anyway. > One of the most common form of injuries in a car > accident is head injuries, which can easily be > prevented wearing a helmet. Do you wear one > though? Do the general public get all high-horsey > and preach to people they don't even know who are > not wearing them? No. Same can be said for > walking down the street. If you make it up to the > most vulnerable to protect themselves then we'd > all be wrapped in bubble wrap. Wearing a helmet reduces the risk of serious head injury by 69% and fatal head injury by 65%. That's enough to keep me wearing one. If you don't want to that's fine and your legal right, but that well worn "argument" about not wearing one ("Why don't you wear one in the shower" etc) is just silly. You could be injured falling out of your armchair watching TV, yet you don't wear a seatbelt in your armchair; by your logic, then no point in wearing one in a car either. Presumably, you think motorcycle helmets are rubbish as well? Cyclists are easily the most vulnerable group in the road environment, and that's why many/most choose extra protection.

?The supreme task is to organize and unite people so that their anger becomes a transforming force.? ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendell, you know I generally see eye to eye with > you on most things, but I?m going to say this. > > Several times now - I?m not exaggerating - I?ve > encountered cyclists at the junction of East > Dulwich Road and Peckham Rye jumping red lights, > sometimes also taking the corners at dangerous > speeds. One of them nearly hit me and my then > 6-year old as we crossed on the green man, and > then swore at us when I challenged him, and I?ve > had others be similarly responsive. I?ve seen > similar behaviour on other junctions but do some > reason that one seems particularly bad; perhaps > it?s the wide sight lines that make cyclists feel > ok about it, but red lights are the rule of the > road. > > I fully agree cyclists overall are far less > dangerous, and maybe I?ve just been unlucky in my > encounters, but my personal (and I stress > personal) experience is that the cycling community > could maybe benefit from reminding it?s more > overconfident members that red lights are not > optional. This could be the end of a beautiful friendship...except I entirely agree with you, I hate cyclists jumping red lights, I honestly never do it myself - I'll sit at a junction with no traffic about at 1AM rather than jump a red. I regularly shout like the mad old person I am at other cyclists if they ride through reds when I'm waiting at them. I would be delighted if the police would focus more on stopping this sort of behaviour and fining those who do it - such cyclists (who are a minority) just give the anti-cycling mob a free stick with which to beat us (it's rare to see a light turn red in these parts without three or four cars running it of course, but that's another matter). Thing is the OP and all those joining in on this thread aren't having a go at cyclists for illegal behaviour, apparently they have the right to criticise perfectly legal behaviour...

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As cars are so dangerous, it is only sensible and > prudent that cyclists protect themselves and their > children appropriately. It makes no sense at all > to point your finger at cars and say ?they?re > dangerous? with the attitude that this entitles > cyclists to behave in a way as if the cars weren?t > there. Good job I wasn't then. What gives motorists the right to castigate cyclists for behaving perfectly legally on the roads?

Annie5 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have never driven a car. But I find this kind > of cycling behaviour very dangerous; people > cycling without helmets, children perched on > crossbars, children in flimsy carts behind the > cyclist (which means the cyclist has no view of > what is happening to the cart). If they are so > worried about pollution and the environment why > don't they walk to school? Much safer and less > exposure to exhaust fumes. Also means the children > will be fitter and stronger. My mother walked us > to / from school for years. Cycling without a helmet is not dangerous; being knocked off by a car without a helmet is dangerous. Having a child on your crossbar with a proper crossbar seat is not dangerous; cars knocking your child off is dangerous. Having a child in a trailer is not dangerous; cars threatening your child's safety is dangerous. Can we please stop calling cyclists dangerous when they add no danger to the environment at all; the only thing that makes the roads dangerous and unhealthy is motor vehicles. How do you figure a child walking along the side of a road gets less pollution than one in a trailer? That kerb hasn't got magic properties you know - and as noted above, a child in a trailer will spend a lot less time amongst the pollution. Walking to school's great, but when a parent has several children in widely dispersed schools, has to get to work etc etc it's not always practical. The alternative then is to drive or cycle. Let's have a go at those who cycle and do no harm whatsoever, not those who drive Timmy and Molly in their diesel 4x4!

niall Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > those little trolleys cyclists pull their kids in > are ridiculous. lovely and vulnerable, low to the > ground. kids love a bit of exhaust fume too. > > get in. Actually trailers are probably a lot safer than carrying the kid on a bike, for lots of reasons: they're more stable; if the bike and rider fall the kid remains safe; their wider profile makes it less likely drivers will try risky close passes; when brightly coloured and with a flag on they make the unit far more visible to drivers. Yes, kids are at exhaust level - just as they are when walking along the side of the road. At least in a buggy they'll be out of the pollution quicker. In forty years of cycling I've never heard of a child being injured or killed riding in a trailer - I sure there must be instances but they must be very rare. I know you're a cyclist but as I mentioned above, your comment is very car-centric: why "Oh people are ridiculous trying to cycle amongst poisonous exhausts and dangerous cars"? Why not "Aren't we ridiculous allowing these dangerous vehicles that belch poison dominate our environment"?

Some of the comments demonstrate exactly the sort of arse-about-face thinking Chris Boardman and others have been campaigning against: "The roads are dangerous, cyclists shouldn't be on them!" How about "The roads are dangerous because of cars, what can we do to stop them being dangerous?"

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually the CPZ is about Southwark trying to > drive cars out of Southwark, by reducing parking > spaces and increasing the costs of car ownership. > This is a stated aim. You've said this before Penguin, and as before I'll ask you: where have the council stated that their aim is to drive cars out of Southwark?

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you saying then Rendel that this is both good > parenting and good cycling practice? No, I'm saying the apb is notoriously pro-car and anti-cyclist and is now repeating him/herself. If the woman in question had a proper crossbar seat and trailer or rear seat, that's perfectly acceptable - whether she was "wobbling" is down to apb's perception, which I suspect is not unbiased. I find it rather amusing that a person can look at "heavy traffic" - which as we know kills thousands of people prematurely in London each year, contributes to the ruination of our planet and so forth, and doesn't ask why that's there, instead choosing to whine about someone cycling their children to school. By the way I've never seen anyone cycling with children round here in a "homemade plastic cart".

Change the record, APB! I am continually amazed by the plethora of Earth Mums and Dads in DV wobbling through heavy traffic on bikes with their small children stuck in front (or behind) in flimsy, home made plastic carts, presumably doing their misguided little bit to save the planet. I have even seen one tiny child perched on his father's crossbar, without even a helmet! "Elf and Safety" should surely take an interest, or even the schools?? - apbremer, January 25th, 2018

That's OK, if that's what you believe I think we're done on this one.

So you believe that the primary cause of unhappiness is always a person's thoughts about a situation and never the situation itself. Fine.

> It may not be helpful to somebody experiencing > grief or depression. > > But that doesn't make it untrue. And it doesn't > make it unhelpful in other circumstances. > > I say that as somebody who has experienced both > grief and severe depression. Sue, that's exactly my point which I've tried to make several times above, obviously inadequately: yes it can be helpful in some circumstances; it's the smug certainty of the "never" that makes me angry.

ETA this in response to Sue Gosh I'm sorry, I thought it was the Lounge, the place anything could be discussed. If people don't want trite nonsense criticised, don't post it. If it discourages others from posting trite nonsense, good. And come on Sue, I like you but you're hardly backwards in criticising what others say when you don't agree with it, are you? Your example shows that yes, sometimes the primary cause of unhappiness can be your thoughts and not the situation. That doesn't alter the fact that to say " The primary cause of unhappiness is never the situation, but your thoughts about it" is rubbish.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why would people in Kent not drive to a local > station and get a fast train into central London, > as opposed to struggling through morning traffic > for an hour or more, just to get on a bus or train > from ED? It make no sense and in so far as this > may happen, it cannot account for many vehicles. > I suspect that the vast majority of parked cars > which appear during the day are people who work in > the area - shop workers, doctors, school teachers > etc. Annual season ticket ED-London ?770, Dartford-London ?2560. Personally, I'd pay the extra and take the train, but I guess others see it differently. Not just the costs, either, given the unreliability of some train services the security of knowing your car is just a few miles away if all the trains are cancelled must be a factor. I can only say that in my experience of walking to/from the station at commuter times there are a significant number of people who park in the streets near the station and get the train from there.