rendelharris

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Me Aggressive ? > > I'm not the one telling you to accept a discomfort > or mental abuse. You are however the one who's called those who have courteously disagreed with you (deep breath) "thin skinned," "really sad," "blinkered," "odd," "morally [un]acceptable," "defeatist," "sad" (again), "odd" (again), "complicit," "insulting," and "naive." Which is quite aggressive. I'm genuinely sorry that aircraft noise causes you such discomfort, but it's really not mental abuse.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nonsense > Heathrow doesn't need to exist > We could easily find another location > > The problem is some landed lord would need to free > up the land > > So it'll never happen ! > > Little people under the ruling class as ever have > a look on google earth if you think I'm wrong. > > > > You're so naive. > > > Fact is there's plenty of land That's right, I'm naive, whereas your expectation that any government would spend maybe ?100 BN on a new airport outside London, plus maybe another ?50 BN on rail and road infrastructure connections, plus make 76,000 people working at Heathrow redundant because you're bothered by aircraft noise is entirely realistic. I do believe it's a genuine problem for you though, as your posts on here prove it does make you unnecessarily confrontational and aggressive.

The thing with a lot of major American cities - Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco etc - is that they're right on the seaboard and so can bring the planes in and send them out over the ocean, with airports right on the edge of the sea, and of course a lot of the cities in the heartland have so much open space around them they can afford to have the airports well out of town with space for massive highway infrastructure to whisk passengers swiftly into town, not a privilege we have on our little island.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Really OH well no solution then. > > Just noticed the flight path has moved a mile > north from earlier this evening still getting on > my nerves! The only real solution, I fear, is for people who can afford it to take responsibility for their environmental footprint and not continue to regard half a dozen continental or inter-continental holidays and mini-breaks a year as a natural right, but I'm not holding my breath!

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There's good reason Croydon airport was closed why > should Heathrow be any different? Croydon closed because there was no room to lengthen the runways, nothing to do with noise. The Thames estuary airport would be totally impractical for myriad reasons, some of which are that it's three times more likely to suffer from fog than Heathrow, that flight plans would be next to impossible given the proximity of Schipol, that it would destroy environmentally sensitive sites, that there would be a massively increased risk of bird strike...oh and there's the small matter of the wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery, which has been lying there since 1944 with 1400 tons of explosive on board, which nobody has yet worked out how to remove! I personally choose not fly and would rather, for many reasons, air travel was more severely rationed, but TE airport really won't work.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You have a very blinkered odd way of justifying > things if you believe what you have written to be > morally acceptable. I'm sure old Dogger is proudly immoral in many ways but I can't quite see what's immoral about taking a pragmatist view of aircraft noise, even if you disagree.

Black Books or Waterstones - no contest! Old bookstores which actually sell things you can't get on Amazon are one of the treasures of any high street. Preferably with a proprietor who wears carpet slippers, doesn't take debit cards and frankly regards any sale which forces him to stop reading Proust as an imposition.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Calling them 'Penthouses' is a bit of an over > statement.. > > A small steel framed box on the roof of a super > market / offices does not IMHO constitute a > Penthouse. > > DulwichFox > > > Actually, in architectural terms, the definition > of a penthouse is 'In architecture, the term > penthouse is used to refer to a structure on the > roof of a building that is set back from the outer > walls. These structures do not occupy the entire > roof deck. High-rise buildings often have > penthouse structures called mechanical penthouses > that enclose mechanisms such as elevator > equipment.' > > On that basis, and on architectural plans, the > definition is acceptable, even if, in estate agent > marketing terms, they would be a pudding well > over-egged. English nerd with "interesting" fact alert, I remember from undergraduate Middle English that "penthouse" used just to mean "attached building," i.e. basically a lean-to, so some texts refer to Jesus being born in a penthouse. It's only with the advent of skyscrapers that the "attached building" has taken on any glamour. ETA In the unlikely event anyone's interested have now looked it up to check my memory: Middle English "pentis" from Old French "apentis" from Latin "appendicium" to hang on. Changed to modern form (didn't know this bit) penthouse in 16th century after becoming associated with French pente (slope) and house.

Lois Pallister Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wrote this reply only because you asked me a > direct question and I don't like to appear to be > rude but please don't ask me any more. Just put > your opinion forward and answer the questions > yourself, which you have proven yourself more than > capable of. > > Over and out. Shame you couldn't come up with any actual factual evidence that 20MPH zones increase danger, despite saying melodramatically "they will be made 20mph for years possibly causing more deaths" - and despite the fact that the accident with which you started this thread, implying that it was somehow being covered up to conceal the deficiencies of the 20 MPH system - "This left me wondering if there is a ban on reporting serious accidents that occur on the roads that have been changed to a 20mph speed limit" - wasn't even in the 20 MPH zone. I've offered you a plethora of statistics proving that 20 MPH zones do work - 70% reduction in KSIs, for example - which you've been unable to rebut with figures of your own, relying solely on anecdotal evidence. Oh well, cheerio, drive safe.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Average person now walks 181 miles per year, > compared to 244 in 1986. > > > Half a mile a day. That's pretty ruddy poor, for > the average adult. My two year old does more than > that. Lazy so-and-so's. Seems incredible, doesn't it? Then you look at the obesity stats and think, well...

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah, journeys - but if you walked to a bus stop, > would you class this in a survey as a bus journey > or a walk? If you go jogging, is this a journey. > This is the whole problem with survey based > information, you only get answers to the specific > questions you ask. This doesn't tell me about > pedestrian miles walked for any reason. It just > tells me about primary intentional movement from a > to b. Average person now walks 181 miles per year, compared to 244 in 1986. No data I can find on walking in the 1960s/70s but given the rise in private car ownership, the changes in shopping habits (driving to supermarkets rather than walking to local shops etc) it's not exactly a stretch to assume that walking in those decades was far higher: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/28/britain-grinds-to-a-halt-with-average-person-walking-half-a-mile/

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most importantly, the number of pedestrian miles > walked has decreased enormously over the decades - > far fewer children walk to school, far fewer > people walk to the shops etc - so in simple terms > fewer pedestrians are being killed as there are > fewer out there to kill. > > Unless you have figures for this, I am not sure > you are right - (1) the population itself has > risen (2) many more journeys are now made on > public transport - and thus many more people have > to walk to/ from bus stops or train stations > (outwith those driving to a station and parking) - > (3) leisure walking (and particularly jogging) is > on the increase. Although you are clearly right > about school journeys, I suspect that the loss of > these is outweighed by these other factors - > indeed I see little evidence that people do not > walk whilst shopping - other than those driving to > DKH etc, locally. And even those may well walk to > some shops. The 'close shaves' I have seen > recently have been those in LL jaywalking across > the roads without looking for oncoming traffic - > however slowly it now proceeds. > > So I think that the fall in pedestrian fatalities > is a function of life being safer, not of fewer > opportunities for disaster. I'll see if I can find figures if I have time but from the article I linked to above, DoT figures: "The steepest decline has been in walking, with Britons taking a third fewer journeys by foot than they did 18 years ago, falling from 292 trips in 1995 to 203 last year." ETA re children walking to school: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/only-25-per-cent-of-children-walk-to-school-alone-compared-to-86-per-cent-in-1971-what-went-wrong-8452266.html 25% of children walking to school alone compared to 86% in 1971

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's difficult to find data from the 60s and 70s > about the numbers of pedestrians killed on the > roads, presumably because the specific data were > just bundled in with all other road deaths. The > earliest reliable figures I can find start in > 1994-98 where, on average, 1008 pedestrians per > year were killed. In 2014 this was down to 446. > Given the overall trend of road deaths decreasing > since the mid-60s, despite the massive increase in > the number of vehicles on the roads, it's not too > much of a stretch to suggest that pedestrians are > safer nowadays. There are a lot of other factors to be taken into account beyond vehicle improvements - for example the huge decrease in drink driving. Most importantly, the number of pedestrian miles walked has decreased enormously over the decades - far fewer children walk to school, far fewer people walk to the shops etc - so in simple terms fewer pedestrians are being killed as there are fewer out there to kill. And of course, as stated previously, in the 200 20MPH zones in the UK KSIs have been reduced by 70%! ETA: Interesting data on this here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10998536/Britain-becomes-sedentary-nation-as-people-give-up-walking.html and that's just compared to 1995, one imagines a comparison to 1965 would be shocking!

Lois Pallister Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- And Lewisham are > telling the public they will get away with > ignoring the new limits on their web site! Any chance of a link to that please? I can find only this: "We do not expect everyone to drive within the 20mph limit from the outset, but over time, we expect compliance to increase." which isn't exactly saying they will get away with it, it's just saying they acknowledge that not everyone will start obeying the new regulations immediately, though it could have been better phrased: "We realise that not everyone will immediately comply..." rather than "We do not expect..." But if there's something else I've missed I'd be interested to see it.

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You'll forgive me if I say I think we should be > > more concerned about cars not hitting > pedestrians, > > rather than how safe they'll be when it happens. > > > I'd be prepared to bet it's a lot safer to be > hit > > by a 1970s car at 20 MPH than a brand new one > at > > 30 MPH. > > I agree that reducing the chances of cars hitting > pedestrians is the priority. But from a purely > safety point of view, the best way to achieve that > is to remove the cars. And that's not going to > happen. > > As to your wager, I think you'd be surprised. Car > design back in the 60s and 70s still followed the > school of thought that making the car as strong > and rigid as possible would be the safest path. No > crumple zones, no thought to dissipating the > kinetic energy of impact, no thought on points of > impact. Modern cars have to consider all those > things. For example, the major cause of pedestrian > death is not the initial impact which is typically > where the bumper hits the legs of the pedestrian. > The secondary impact, where a pedestrian's head > hits the bonnet or windscreen, is usually what > causes death. So modern cars have a crumple zone > built into the bonnet to absorb some of the energy > where the pedestrian's head hits the bonnet. They > also have much more pedestrian-friendly bumpers > which help to absorb some of the initial energy of > impact. Some even have pedestrian airbags (Volvo > V40 for instance) which cover the bonnet and > windscreen in case of a collision. > > I doubt the data exist to prove the argument one > way or the other. But if I'm given a choice, I'll > take the modern car at 30 mph please. Especially > if it's one with a collision-avoidance system > built in :) Yes, collision avoidance is certainly to be commended. But for all the crumple zones etc, which are to be applauded, I wouldn't agree that the pedestrian is safer overall, due to the increased size of vehicles and particularly the proliferation of 4x4s, which are 25% more likely to be involved in an accident than a saloon car (Churchill insurance) and twice as likely to kill any pedestrian they hit (New Scientist).

Sorry to be the old stuck record here, but I really fail to see why the fact that some people won't respect the law is a reason for changing the law. I agree that aggressive driving and breaking the set speed limit has increased since the 20 MPH limits were introduced, that is an argument for more stringent policing and heavier penalties for such behaviour, not for changing the law. Take a different example: when the smoking ban came in, if a sub-section of smokers had decided they just weren't having it and had continued lighting up in pubs, on trains etc, would everyone had said oh well, if they're not going to obey the law there's no point in having it, we'd better change it? As I said a while ago, if a child is hit by a car at 20 MPH "only" roughly 2.5% will die. At 30 MPH, 20% will die (and there's a corresponding rise in the severity of injuries for survivors). That's enough to me to say that 20 MPH is a perfectly sensible limit for urban roads (excluding certain ones which are totally segregated from pavements and pedestrians, e.g certain sections of the A3).

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Advances in car design and technology have not > just benefited occupants of the car. The NCAP > ratings specifically look at how a vehicle will > impact on a pedestrian (both adults and children) > in an accident and this is factored into the > overall safety rating for a vehicle. Crumple > zones, energy-absorbing zones, height of grilles, > shape and rake angle of bonnets etc. are all > important things to consider and changing these > can all improve the chances of pedestrians > surviving an impact. You'll forgive me if I say I think we should be more concerned about cars not hitting pedestrians, rather than how safe they'll be when it happens. I'd be prepared to bet it's a lot safer to be hit by a 1970s car at 20 MPH than a brand new one at 30 MPH. Yes traffic lights should be phased for the optimum traffic flow - the optimum traffic flow for the speed limit, not just as fast as is humanly possible.

Applespider Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If someone is driven over the edge by potentially > arriving a minute later (appreciate it's not you > Lois), then why are we letting them take control > of a one tonne plus potential killing machine? > Driving is a responsibility not a right. > > People in general have got used to driving much > faster as cars become safer with better brakes, > suspension and soundproofing. Which is great for > those in cars and less good for other road users > and pedestrians. Until lights etc are phased to > encourage slower driving so that you don't feel > like you are waiting, people will still feel > frustrated. Plus if there is no incident, it feels > like a victimless 'crime' and since we probably > all feel like we are better than average drivers, > it is easy to argue against. And I suspect there > are very few drivers who could say they have never > ever broken one (caught or not) so we excuse a > crime of which we have all been guilty. > > Back in the 70s/80s, drink driving was so common > that it was the norm. It has taken decades to make > it feel wrong and I suspect making speeding seem > antisocial will take a similar time. Unless of > course driverless cars catch on before that and > make both issues irrelevant. Very well put, thanks.

So what I'm getting from your post, Lois, is that some drivers feel a sense of entitlement to drive at 30 MPH when the speed limit is 20 MPH and so get frustrated, "lose their sense of calm" and so decide it's OK to break the law? Is this really a good basis on which to base traffic safety measures - that some people break the law because they regard it as too frustrating to stick to it? An example: as a cyclist, I never run red lights. Ever. Lots of cyclists do because they feel frustrated that the law is telling them to do one thing when they want to do another. Should the law be changed because of that? No. ETA: Sydenham Hill is 1.3 miles long, so driving it at 20 MPH instead of 30 MPH means you'll cover the distance in 3.9 minutes instead of 2.5 minutes. As you say you're in favour of 20 MPH limits on "most" roads, are you sure you can't save that 90 seconds somewhere else in your day without getting too bored and frustrated?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When I used to walk through the cyclists used to > 'ride' > with one foot on the floor one on the pedal - > technically > they were not riding. Yes I've seen that (didn't do it honest - though I would ride through at 6.30 Sunday morning if it was completely empty) - not recommended, just as dangerous as riding but with way less balance and ability to brake in a straight line.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow - if only we could have a more sensible and > proportionate approach elsewhere eg - there are no > pedestrians at the lights, you can cycle throughh. > That will get you Daily Mail readers all angry. Hornets' nest...poking...but agree. They're doing it in Paris now - cyclists can turn right on red and go straight on at T-junctions against the lights - and according to my mates there (both drivers and cyclists) it's working very well. Though oddly enough, given the reputation of French drivers, when I cycle in Paris I always find them much more courteous than London drivers. Lots more room on the boulevards of course, and their system of cycle lanes is way ahead of ours.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "these results were not statistically significant > when compared against national trends." = > Inconvenient? Not really, no, particularly when set against a 15% overall decrease in accidents. Firstly, it would only take one serious accident to skew figures for a year (Portsmouth was averaging 18-19 KSIs per year, so one serious crash with five people in the car could change those figures up or down by 25% at a stroke), and secondly there's no indication as to how many of the KSIs were in any way attributable to 20 MPH zones, how many were drunk drivers etc. And as quoted above a 70% decrease in KSIs nationally is fairly statistically significant. KSIs in one particular town will never be large enough to extrapolate any significant data, but national figures are. The Portsmouth figures are oft-quoted by opponents of 20 MPH schemes as they're the only ones which even marginally support the contention that 20 MPH schemes can increase KSIs. A report on this was much quoted some years ago, a report about which Professor Stephen Senn, an expert in statistics at the University of Glasgow, said: "The design of the report is very bad. Various statistical terms are used incorrectly and they've probably used the wrong statistical test. "They haven't got a control group, which is pretty basic, and without which it is pretty naive to jump to conclusions." Don't understand the point about gearboxes, sorry, can you explain?

In the first two years of the Portsmouth 20 MPH scheme, average KSIs rose from 18.4 to 19.7 per year. As the DfT report on the scheme notes: "these results were not statistically significant when compared against national trends." In the same period accidents fell by 15%. Rather than bandy "this is what I feel and assume" arguments about, I can only repeat the facts from the TfL report I quoted above: A national study of two hundred 20 mph zones in Great Britain was carried out by TRL in 1996 for the DfT, which showed that 20 mph zones were beneficial in reducing speeds and accidents. Speeds within the zones were reduced by 9 mph, traffic flows were reduced by 27%, injury accidents (all categories combined) were reduced by 61% and fatal and serious accidents (KSI accidents) were reduced by 70%. I did ask if you could provide evidence of a 20 MPH scheme which has, as you dramatically put it, caused more deaths - as you've quoted Portsmouth, let me reframe the question in the light of what I've quoted above: can you give me an example of a 20 MPH scheme where the amount of KSIs has risen above what might be expected from standard statistical fluctuations? I certainly can't find one.

Sorry Lois but your spirited, if slightly patronising, defence doesn't hold up. You tried to claim that the accident you witnessed might not have been not been reported as it was in a 20 MPH zone: "This left me wondering if there is a ban on reporting serious accidents that occur on the roads that have been changed to a 20mph speed limit." As you now admit, the accident wasn't even in a 20 MPH zone. "But instead they will be made 20mph for years possibly causing more deaths" Please can you offer any evidence of 20 MPH zones causing more deaths? I've offered lots and lots of evidence based studies, above, showing that 20 MPH zones reduce both accidents and KSIs. Where's your evidence to the contrary? " I am bored or frustrated at having to drive at 20mph along Sydenham Hill " Sorry, your emotions at having to arrive at the end of that road approximately thirty seconds later than you did before shouldn't really play a major part in road safety decisions. "I have had so many near misses on that road since it became a 20 limit and don't think I had any before that and on 4 occasions now I have witnessed pedestrians, including children, have to quickly jump out of the way of cars overtaking several vehicles driving at the speed limit at 40mph or more." So we should not have laws because some people choose to break them?

Ampersand Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I live just by where this incident happened and > saw the police activity when I arrived home at > 6.45pm. I was quite curious that there was nothing > on the EDF or in the Standard as from the state of > the bike, the yellow accident markers and the fact > they had a police van doing skid tests I assumed > there had been a fatality. There's nothing anywhere about it, so hopefully there was no fatality. Possibly the motorcycle crashed while being pursued by police, in which case the police would have to make strict records to absolve themselves from culpability? Just a guess, it's certainly odd there's nothing about it in the press.