rendelharris

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are forgetting 8mph mobility scooters. The > phrase "further excluded" is about looking to the > future and how change can benefit a broader cross > section of society. I accept that in the short > term it may not be possible to include mobility > scooters on cycle lanes but it should be weighed > in the balance in future. BTW there is a view that > 4mph scooters on pavements are as risky for > pedestrians as are cyclists on pavements. The > width of pavement on Blackfriars is unusual. > > I note that your argument for limiting cycle lanes > to cyclists only seems to be about maintaining a > certain speed.. I thought the 15 mph was just > about pacifying aggressive and frustrated car > drivers on the open road? It doesn't seem like > pootling along in dedicated cycle lanes really is > an option then. > > I am not anti cycle lanes or anti cyclist, but I > am concerned that major changes to infrastructure > are well thought through and as inclusive as > possible. Agreed re Blackfriars pavements, though the same applies along Victoria Embankment as well. If/when cycle lanes are put in narrower streets then more consideration may have to be given. 8mph scooters are banned from doing 8mph on the pavement, they have to have a switch to conform to 4mph. Though such is human nature... No, pootling is more than possible in the cycle lanes, as they're wide enough for 15mph cyclists to overtake 10mph or even 5mph ones, and from my experience, even at rush hour, there's a lot of courtesy shown between cyclists of different speeds (partly because unlike car/cycle interactions, both parties are at risk of damage). They're not wide enough to overtake a mobility scooter taking up the space of three or more cyclists.

stephent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I fully support the UlEZ extension, but it's not > very helpful to quote the 10k deaths number whilst > debating an extension to the south circular. The > 10k number covers 2 emission types and covers the > whole of London, so the extension would impact > only a fraction of these 'years lost'. > > Also it doesn't seem like a very sensible policy > to extend the ULEZ whilst also building a new > runway at Heathrow... Totally agree about Heathrow (though I don't really know how much influence Khan can have on this, nobody listened to Boris, did they?), but "only a fraction" does represent some parents or grandparents not dying early, doesn't it? Also, the deaths figure is often quoted as the most dramatic, but there are also the figures for childhood bronchial diseases, asthma etc (if that's not a tautology), and the extension of the ULEZ will have a direct impact on the number of high-polluting vehicles passing/stuck outside schools. So the impact's going to be pretty positive, even though you're right about the figures not being as focussed into one area as some imply.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH, > just an observation, and I don't think it is > really surprising that where significant changes > are mooted for transport routes abd infrastructure > that questions are asked as to who will benefit > and who might be further excluded. Mobility scooters aren't being "further excluded" though, the new cycle lanes took space from cars, they have every bit as much access as before (rather better in a lot of cases actually as the pavements have been relaid at the same time). If there is a necessity at some point (which I frankly don't see at present) for extra provision for mobility scooters then that will have to be looked at, but why should it be taken away from cyclist provision? I haven't noticed when new roads are being built anyone suggesting cars will have to concede space to mobility scooters, but when cyclists finally get some small provision it's immediately suggested we should give up at least half of it (which is what it effectively means) to other users - it's absurd, frankly. As I said before, where the current new cycle lanes are there is more than ample level and fully accessible pavement space for 4mph scooters safely to co-exist with 3-4mph pedestrians, rather than them having to share a lane with cyclists travelling five times or more faster.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've read mobility scooters also use cycle lanes > in Copenhagen. Still on this FM? Tell you what, give us what they have in Copenhagen - 400+KM of fully segregated cycle lanes, with a minimum width of 1.7m, crucially all one way running on both sides of the street, and there will plenty of room for mobility scooters. With what we have at the moment, there isn't; it would be dangerous for cyclists and dangerous for mobility scooter users. It's funny that the minute there's a small amount of provision for cyclists in London people immediately start saying we should share it with other vehicles - many of them the same people who holler "foul" when it's suggested the almighty car should give up any of its provision for anyone! Next time you go up Blackfriar's Bridge Road, check out the pavements on both sides, at least a dozen feet across and a very good surface, that's the safe place for 4MPH mobility scooters, not sharing something specifically designed for 15MPH cyclists.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I draw from this that London streets are not > designed (or are capable of retrofitting) for this > style of mixed transport economy and that cyclists > in London approach cycling itself in a very > different way from Copenhageners. Agreed, Copenhagen is a very different case, but it's worth noting that Copenhagen is to an extent a "retrofit" - the length of available segregated cycle tracks has doubled since the 1980s. It will take an immense effort and much ingenuity to "retrofit" London but the east-west and north-south superhighways, and also the splendid first Quietway, show that it can be done. It may mean losing some capacity for cars but given the carnage (not being melodramatic, 10,000 premature deaths per annum) traffic accidents and pollution impose on our city that is not necessarily a bad thing. The difference in attitude between London's and Copenhagen's cyclists is very much chicken and egg: as previously mentioned, if one wants to ride on the road in large parts of London it's necessary to be able to keep up a quite respectable pace if one doesn't want to suffer aggression from frustrated drivers - which requires a decent bike and probably a change of clothes when you get to work. If there were a network of cycle lanes where pottering safely was possible, you'd see a lot more of it - slower bikes and less lycra reflect the opportunities available rather than a diametrically opposed attitude.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Boring? When you see a whole pack descending > an > > alpine pass at 70mph+ within inches of each > other > > with sheer drops on every bend...each to their > > own. > > > That sounds great. Unfortunately my one experience > of "spectating" at a cycling event was when the > tour went past my office in Newham a couple of > years back. We all rushed down to line the side of > the road. Waited about half hour, only for a flash > of colour to zoom past (I admit the speed is > impressive when you see it live) as the pack went > by. Oh yes, it's definitely a sport for TV. Also one you have to know a little about to really appreciate what's going on - "a game of chess played over 2000 miles" as one commentator described the Tour. I know quite a few people with no interest in cycling who just watch it for the scenery...

Jeremy Wrote: > I am neutral in Wiggins' case, as I've not read > much about it, and cycling is boring anyway. But > still disagree with the sentiment that if your > illness cannot be controlled by common-or-garden > medication then that's just tough luck. Boring? When you see a whole pack descending an alpine pass at 70mph+ within inches of each other with sheer drops on every bend...each to their own. Anyway, the question with Wiggins is that it would appear he's not really just been taking common-or-garden medication, i.e. he's not been using a puffer every day to control asthma, he took three massive doses of asthma medication years apart, each one just before a big race, including the Tour de France win.

Otta Wrote: > I seem to remember that, ironically, some were > questioning whether his inclusion was fair to the > other athletes, as they felt his "blades" may have > given him an unfair advantage. I think it was pretty conclusively decided that they did give him something of an advantage in a straight line once up to speed, but that the disadvantages at the start and on bends more than outweighed them. There was also a kerfuffle about him being in the 4x400M team as others were worried they could be cut by the blades unless he ran the first leg (where they have to stay in lanes). Interestingly his main advantage was/is simply having no legs below the knee then blood returns to be oxygenated more quickly and also no lactic acid build up in calves which is what slows 400M runners in the last quarter - Pistorious was able to maintain far more consistent splits than a normal 400M athlete.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting point.... > > Oscar P once asked to run in the "normal" Olympics > and was refused > > There is no automatic right in top class athletics > to bring everyone up to the same level. He was for a brief time told he couldn't compete in the main Olympics but he went to CAS and had the decision overturned - he competed at London 2012, making the semi-finals in the 400M as I recall.

You do have to remember that Wiggins and Froome absolutely hate each other...

Dog duck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Guess you say that the Vauxhall Tavern is > frequented by village people? DD wins the forum this week.

Actually, LadyNorwood, it wasn't me who mentioned pollution, it was another poster. I'm sorry for your health problems and I can empathise with them having arthritis and an autoimmune disease myself. Other than that I can only say that, in my experience, fury at others only eats at yourself in the long run. Peace, R

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Same reason we don't have a national identity card > to stop things like benefit fraud, infringement of > civil liberties Yes, but cars are already constantly monitored on the road by ANPR cameras, speed cameras, CC cameras, so it wouldn't be something new, it'd just be being done better.

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why not chip people at birth? Yes that's exactly the same thing.

Bit off topic, but re monitoring, I know many people would say Big Brother etc but why isn't it made compulsory for every vehicle to carry a tamperproof GPS transmitter so that it can be seen to enter any chargeable zones - which could also be used to enforce speed limits, prove red light jumping, track stolen vehicles, stop hit and runs etc etc. I know, loads of people will hate the idea, but at the moment traffic laws are a joke, broken by most people some of the time due to lack of traffic police. I'd accept one on my bike to prove I don't jump reds if that would help!

Interesting - though of course a lot of that high percentage of diversity is due to Middle Eastern and Far Eastern parents sending their offspring as boarders to the UK; in those regions the top public and private schools still have enormous cachet and are also seen as the best route into Oxbridge (and they have the money to pay the fees!).

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I already said on average what the picture looks > like. > > My point was that its not universal and some state > schools are relatively 'exclusive' and vice versa. > Judgements on this ideally should be done school > by school. There are some (very few) independent > schools where the vast majority of their intake > are poor / on full bursaries. There are some > state schools that have no poor children at all. I'm not doubting you, but for my own curiosity could you given example of an independent school where the "vast majority of the intake is poor/on full bursaries"? I can't find one and I can't honestly see how such a place would survive ? the Dulwich foundation, for example, is pretty well off but still has to charge the vast majority the (very high) full fees. I'd be very interested to know of such schools.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think some private schools are more socially > inclusive than some state schools but in general I > agree that on average that's not the case. > > At JAGS for instance, 15.5% of the pupils are on > significant bursaries (which have very low income > caps as previously discussed) while at the Charter > school in SE24, its 17% That's a bit of a slanted comparison, taking a state school that's nearly in the heart of Dulwich and surrounded by some pretty prosperous areas. A fairer comparison might be with Southwark as a borough, where 36% of pupils get free school meals. Also, when you say 15.5% of JAGS pupils are on "very significant" bursaries, how significant are they (I'm not being challenging, I'd just be interested to see the figures)? A 50% reduction in fees would certainly, in my eyes, be "very significant" - at JAGS a 50% bursary is available for those with an annual net income of less than ?40K (so approximately ?55K gross). If they're part of your comparison they don't really stack up alongside free school meals, which kick in below about ?15K.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Having said that - no university should take > children from private schools on anything other > than proven ability as compared to state pupils - > the entrance criteria must be a level playing > field - by whatever means is available at hat > time, be it A levels or entrance exam or interview > to assess so far unproven potential. > > The fact that what's gone before may not be a > level playing field is irrelevant and to be > resolved by long term government policy, but not > by reverse discrimination. Given the massive advantages a public/private school has in terms of educating pupils - tiny class sizes, far better resources, longer access to pupils etc - saying that suddenly at university selection time "it's a level playing field now no matter what went before" is like starting a hundred metre race with one runner at 100m and one at 50m, then saying, even if the 100m starter loses by just a metre, we're only having a level playing field at the finish line, no matter what happened before.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ???? Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > To suggest that > > the > > > state system entrenches privilege to the > degree > > > public schools do, is wide of the mark imo. > > > > > > I agree, > > > Everyone would agree - but no one actually > "suggested" it in the first place. LondonMix did: "I think private schools play there part in restricting social mobility (except for the poor students who get to attend via bursaries). I think that the state school system does the same via distance based admissions. Using your financial resources to avoid bad schools entrenches privilege and reduces social mobility as much as private education does." And I believe it was to that rahrahrah was replying.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think there is any difference. Dulwich > College and Alleyns are both public schools. They > were originally the same school - One was the > upper school and the other was the lower school. > > I think you have made up your own classification. That's fine by me, if you believe they're both public schools by all means call them public schools - as I said, there's no legal definition of what a public school is and I freely admitted that the definition I gave was my own opinion. It's all absolutely subjective, I'm sure many Alleyn's alumni would describe it as a public school, conversely I used to know an Old Etonian living round here who thought it was hilarious that Dulwich had the cheek to call itself a public school - for him, public schools were Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Rugby, Westminster, Charterhouse and a couple of others. The term really has no meaning and anyway, as I said, schools are disassociating themselves from it now - if you look on either Dulwich or Alleyn's website (or Eton's for that matter) you won't find them calling themselves a public school.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is your definition of a private school then? > > > Why is Alleys private and Dulwich College public > in your opinion? Originally there were seven public schools by Act of Parliament back in the Victorian era, then the Headmster's Conference was formed with about forty extra schools, which were pretty much considered public schools...nowadays the HMC has 200 schools but not all of them would be considered public schools. There's no absolute rule, it's pretty much down to tradition - there's not as far as I'm aware a legal difference between a public or private school. Basically I'd say a public school is one of the most exclusive, most expensive, has an ancient foundation and takes boarders, but there is no hard and fast definition. Interestingly even schools which one would say are indisputably public schools, like Eton, now don't like the term - too synonymous with snobbery, Flashman, fagging etc - and refer to themselves as independent schools on their websites. So there isn't a clear definition, I'd say as Alleyn's probably historically caters for a lower strata of society than Dulwich, isn't as expensive and doesn't take boarders that makes it private rather than public.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Public schools emerged from charity schools > established to educate poor scholars, the term > "public" being used to indicate that access to > them was not restricted on the basis of religion, > occupation, or home location, and that they were > subject to public management or control,[1] in > contrast to private schools which were run for the > personal profit of the proprietors.[2] OK, but that is no longer the case - as I said above, close to half of the private schools in the UK are now nfp.

It's very difficult to find out what schools are offering what as bursaries - they're pretty quiet about it, which leads one to suspect there are a lot more households near the ?60K threshold of Dulwich College being helped than people who can't afford the fees at all. What can be discovered is that only 1% of pupils in public and private schools which have charitable status have 100% of fees paid by bursary. Someone mentioned earlier that public schools are not for profit and private schools are for profit, that's not the case. For starters there's no clear distinction of what is or isn't a public school - certain places like to consider themselves public schools when other people say they're not. "Public" school originally simply meant a school where pupils were educated in public rather than in private, i.e. at home by tutors, so in the strict sense of the original term all schools are "public schools." Anyway, nomenclature aside, of the 2500 or so private and public schools in the UK, over 1000 have charitable status and are not for profit. As a local example, Dulwich is a public school, whereas JAGs and Alleyn's are private schools, but they all have charitable status and are all, I believe, "not for profit".

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry - clearly read too quickly and with too > little thought. Not at all, no offence taken!