rendelharris

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Waterlink Way > https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/inmyarea/sport/get-act > ive/walking/Documents/WaterlinkWayMap.pdf Hi Malumbu, quick question if you don't mind before going out to explore this with Mrs.H at the weekend - is the whole route suitable for a road bike or are there bits only suitable for crossers/mountains?

Assuming the hospital is King's what Seabag says is quite correct - or at least it was last year. Some NHS trusts have a policy of sterilising and testing used mobility aids then reusing them, King's is one of the ones that say it costs more to sterilise and check them for safety than it does to issue new ones. So not poppycock at all. OP: UCH A&E take back crutches, might be worth dropping them in there if you're ever up that way?

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe toughen up a bit. It wasn't aimed at you or > disparaging your capability to feel empathy with > the situation. I'm tough as old boots thank you, doesn't mean I can't find some things annoying. If when people say "as a parent I feel..." they're not implying some superiority of empathy conferred by parenthood then why bother saying it at all? Why not just as a human being I feel...

I once taught at a school in the west country which had a small but ever changing proportion of Traveller children, some stopping for a few weeks, some for a few months. They were generally well behaved and their parents took an interest - they were certainly no worse than the "regular" parents and children. However they did mean a lot of extra work as they'd almost inevitably been learning in different ways/learning different subjects at their previous schools, and the extra work needed to bring them into the class inevitably meant a diminution in the amount of attention available for the more settled pupils. It was also very frustrating, as a teacher, to feel one was making good progress and then with virtually no warning to lose a pupil. So, do I support Travellers' children's right to access education - absolutely, would I deny that it can be disruptive to a school, no I wouldn't. Just my personal experience in one school...

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Odd as it may seem, as the father of no > children > > I'm also horrified when children starve to > death. > > Sorry to distract from the topic in hand but do > you mean you are a father of adults? I'm not sure > you need particular qualifications to be horrified > when children starve to death. No, I've never had children, sadly, I was just having a gentle dig at the comment one sees so often, "as a parent I..." as if the ability to procreate in some way gives one a special empathy, especially where issues involving children arise. It's the same thing we had a while back with the lovely Leadsom implying May would make a worse PM as she's childless. I'm sure the OP's heart is in the right place but it does grate somewhat.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We could also stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia. UKGov's attitude in this always reminds me of the great Tom Lehrer song about Werner von Braun: Don't say that he's hypocritical Say rather that he's apolitical: "Once the missiles are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department," says Werner von Braun.

Odd as it may seem, as the father of no children I'm also horrified when children starve to death.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Waterlink Way > https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/inmyarea/sport/get-act > ive/walking/Documents/WaterlinkWayMap.pdf That looks great, and virtually joins the quietway at Greenwich - cheers (I know it wasn't me who asked it in the first place, but cheers anyway!).

Not exactly that much off the beaten track, but for weekend exercise we have a nice loop: Surrey Canal path from behind Peckham library, through Burgess Park, up Portland Street to New Kent Road and on to Elephant, then on the brilliant new cycle tracks up Blackfriars Bridge road, turn right onto Webber Street which is the start of the new and stunning quietway which takes you all the way to Greenwich. Go through the footunnel (where you can ride now if the sign is green and reads "consider pedestrians," otherwise push), follow the Thames path round the river to Limehouse, join the Cable Street cycle path which takes you to Tower Hill and the start of the east-west segregated superhighway which takes you back to Blackfriars. Then you can go home (it's about a 20 mile circuit) or push on up to Westminster, Horseguards, the Mall, Constitution Hill, through Hyde Park and up to Lancaster Gate, that bit is particularly brilliant on Sundays when the Mall and Constitution Hill are closed to motor vehicles but not bikes (though this Sunday there's the Royal Parks half marathon so those roads will all be closed to all traffic). It's a terrific route and with the cycle tracks and the quietway it's very safe as well. Enjoy - let us know if you find any good ones, won't you!

Wow - from where in Peckham Rye do you have that view? Jealous, with or without ugly cranes!

Grok Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Posters that are so full of themselves that they > have to post on every thread going. No matter what > the subject they have to get in. They cannot shut > up. Over 13000 posts! Non-stop. Give it a rest. > Take a break like O did, be discerning. Know what > I mean j? I'd sooner read 13,000 of Jeremy's posts than 13 of yours, which are almost without exception simply spiteful and trollish. Do you get off on just being as unpleasant as you can to people? The evidence would certainly seem to point that way.

I think the "lumps of tarmac" are just temporary ramps for wheelchair access and will be removed when the job's completed.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're wrong on this as the stats show that > survival rates on a pedestrian-car collision at > 20mph are far and significantly higher than at > 30mph. Basically , in layman's terms, if you're > hit at 20mph the chances are you survive, if > you're hit at 30mph the chances are you don't. Quids and me agree shock! At 20MPH 90% of pedestrians survive, at 28MPH+ 50% die. That's a plain fact which is rather difficult to ignore.

Or maybe asking the motor vehicles to drive a little slower (losing a whole two minutes on the average London car journey) for the safety of all isn't hatred, just common sense.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- There is no sense in any of any > councils' thinking. They just want money. There's just one problem with that - and with anyone saying the Met Police are just trying to raise money - all monies from speeding fines go directly to the Treasury, the only money councils can claim is for the installation and maintenance of the cameras. Parking fines go to the council, all speeding fines to the government, so it's ridiculous when people say "revenue stream" for the council, it's not. You might not agree with the enforcement (though as always, if you don't want to get fined, don't speed) but the only reason Southwark has to install speed cameras or take other enforcement measures is for safety reasons.

vandam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On another note I've noticed how annoyingly a lot > of cyclists are not making use of the cycle lane > system at Elephant and Castle and this is causing > problems. Really? Not doubting what you've seen but when I ride through there at rush hour I see no cyclists anywhere but in the cycle lanes - except for the stretch between the tube and the Strata building, where there's no lane. I have seen a few twats still insisting on timetrialling down the Embankment instead of using the lane...the new lanes are brilliant, can't understand why any cyclist would choose to mix it on the road when they're available. ETA though of course cyclists do have every right to use the roads if they choose - odd choice in my opinion but they are allowed.

I'm sure most people know about this, but I didn't - and apparently 3.6M of 4.2M eligible couples are missing out on it, so I thought it worth sharing. Basically, if you earned less than ?10,600 last tax year (2015-16), or are going to earn less than ?11,000 this year (2016-17), you can transfer ?1,000 of your tax free allowance to your spouse or civil partner (provided they earn less than ?43,000), which could mean saving up to ?432 in tax. Not a dodge or anything, fully legit - because I took a large part of last year off as we were moving house and I was doing the old place up, I came under the threshold, gave Mrs.H ?1,000 of my allowance and HMRC have just (very promptly!) come up with a backdated ?200 odd rebate for us. This article tells more about it: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/marriage-tax-allowance - five minutes to apply online, all you need is both your NI numbers and your passport number (the person who earned below the threshold has to apply). Hope that helps some people, it's certainly brightened my week! Cheers, Rendel ETA: What happens is, by the way, is that your partner's tax code is changed so they get an extra ?1,000 allowance for this year, but it's backdated, so once they've notified your partner it's been changed they can give HMRC a ring on 03002003300 and claim last year's rebate as well, they'll pay it straight to your bank account.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly, it's only going to impact those who drive > long journeys across 20mph zones in the quiet > hours. For everyone else the impact will be zero, > or up to a minute or two at worst (an extra minute > to travel 1 mile assuming you can keep to 30mph > for that long). > > People who oppose the 20mph limit would be better > served arguing for certain traffic lights to be > switched off during off-peak hours. Although be > activated temporarily where pedestrians press for > a green man. That's a great idea - does anyone do that at the moment?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > South Circular is predominantly lined with > housing > > Red routes (including South Circular) will > actually remain at 30mph, I believe. Ironically, > I'm not sure I've ever reached 30 at any point on > the south circular.. Well indeed, a lot of the arguments are somewhat theoretical!

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My point mainly was that Lowlander was referring > to the results of a survey specific to roads > "around schools, in residential streets and in the > centres of villages, towns and cities." While this > may apply to probably all of ED, IMO it doesn't > apply to all of Southwark IMO. I take your point, but it has to be considered that nearly all roads round here are residential - even the South Circular is predominantly lined with housing - and also we need to consider the effect of just having a few roads or stretches with 30MPH limits and the rest 20MPH, surely it's easier for drivers to focus on one speed limit than for it to be continually changing?

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I really have no idea where you came up with that > question. Is an interest in Human Rights a > particularly British thing? I presume they're referring to the fact that the government wants to take us out of the ECHR as being some nasty foreign concept (even though we were instrumental in drawing it up) that allows terrorists to live in taxpayer subsidised penthouses in Mayfair.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > trefford21 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Mark Rylance getting out of his G-Wiz on > Choumert > > Road on Sunday. > > Does he live in the area? This is the best celeb > spot yet IMO Lives over Herne Hill way I believe - often to be seen jogging in Brockwell Park.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps by the same token pedestrians and cyclists > should up their game and take notice of their > surroundings, before crossing roads and making > turns. Not being distracted using phones, drinking > coffee etc etc > > It is a 2 way street. Certainly that is also true, but given that inevitably some pedestrians will be small children, the intoxicated etc etc who will not pay proper attention then drivers need to be fully attentive at all times. I don't know about you but if I knocked down and killed someone it would scar me for life whether or not it was 100% their fault.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As regards pedestrians being safer in 20mph zones, > I noticed that whilst driving in 20mph zones I am > distracted whilst poodling along, and will look > around more often, and take less notice of the > road. I have lived around here for 35 years and > there are many things I have noticed that I have > never noticed before. Then with all due respect you need to up your game and take some more training if necessary - if you can't concentrate properly at 20MPH it's you that needs to change, not the speed limit. You should be giving your driving full attention at all times, whether you're doing seven or seventy - you're in charge of half a ton of lethal metal!

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 5. The RAC found that 80% of people support a > > 20mph limit in residential areas - which all > parts > > of ED are - > > > http://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/driv > > > ers-support-20mph-limits-poll/ > > 20mph should be the limit on narrow, predominantly > residential roads... if anything it still seems a > bit fast. But major routes and 'A' roads away from > busy shopping areas? I think they should still be > 30. But as Lowlander notes, there's no real advantage to doing thirty anyway, you're only getting to the next stop quicker. On my bicycle going at an average of about 15mph if there's any sort of traffic about I find I keep up with cars for miles on end - they get away then I catch them at the next lights. The important thing to remember is that a 20mph limit is not for the convenience of car drivers (though it's not a "revenue stream" - as Lowlander rightly pointed out, if you don't want to pay, don't break the rules) but for the safety of those not in cars: as often stated, at 20MPH 90% of pedestrians survive a collision, at 28mph+ 50% die. These limits are not there to annoy drivers, nor to raise money, they're for the safety of vulnerable street users. If 20MPH limits get you really irate, consider this: 2/3 of London car journeys are less than three miles in length (and half of those are less than two miles and a third less than 1.25 miles). 20MPH roads (in clear perfect conditions, how often do you get those in London?) are slower by a minute per mile than 30MPH roads, so the vast majority of journeys will be delayed by a maximum of three minutes. I don't regard that as too high a price for massive and proven safety benefits.