rendelharris

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3716.html That's not a study, that's the opinion of a pro-motoring organisation and as pointed out in the article, it's based on complete nonsense: of course if the number of 20 MPH zones is increased then the number of accidents on 20 MPH roads will increase. It's like saying 50% more roads have street lighting, the number of accidents on roads with street lighting has gone up by 30%, therefore street lighting makes roads more dangerous. What's just occurred to me is that the place where the OP saw the accident, where Underhill Road joins the South Circular (it's not actually Lordship Lane at that point, that ends, as far as I'm aware, at the Grove Tavern junction), is on the section run by TfL where the Southwark 20 MPH limit doesn't even apply!

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Drivers have quickly learned where the few cameras > are and speed up and slow down accordingly. Those > who do not want to drive at 20mph can become very > aggressive in their efforts to make drivers in > front of them speed up or if that does not happen > they overtake in a risky way. In my experience > this is the reality and I do not feel that the > roads are safer. Please note the issue is not > speed per se but unpredictable driver behaviour, > oh and that includes motorbikes and some cyclists. I entirely agree - we've seen a selection of insane behaviour around the 20 MPH zones, especially on Champion Hill and round Brockwell Park, where the favoured method of dealing with those who have the impertinence to stick to the law seems to be overtaking around the outside of traffic islands, often into the face of oncoming traffic. But again, the fact that some people refuse to obey a law is not a reason to remove it per se. Personally I'm in all in favour of extensive APNR systems and timed in and out zones... If anyone can find a study proving that 20 MPH zones have increased accidents, or even just failed to decrease them, it would be interesting to see them, but I've looked quite hard and can only find evidence to the contrary.

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are you assuming this is speed-related? It > could've been caused by the far more common cause > of accidents - not paying due care or attention. It is a bit strange - if an accident happened when it was a 30 MPH limit that wouldn't be blamed (by some parties) but when one happens in a 20 MPH zone, which all figures I can find show have fewer accidents, it must be the fault of the speed limit!

For interest, a slightly old report (2003) commissioned by TfL and the LAAU (London Accident Analysis Unit): http://www.eltis.org/sites/eltis/files/case-studies/documents/review_of_20_mph_zones_in_london_boroughs_full_report_3.pdf Some interesting facts: 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%. and ...allowing for background changes in accident frequency on unclassified roads in London, the installation of 20 mph zones in London has reduced the frequency of injury accidents within the zones by about 42% and reduced the frequency of accidents involving fatal or serious injury (KSI) by about 53% (78 zones)...little, if any, accident migration has taken place from the 20 mph zones (38 zones).

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gloves fine, but if people are ignoring it then it > is possible the risks increase. We need to see RTA > data for particular roads since 20mph introduced > and also look at the whole issue of enforcement. > If the data proves that accidents have reduced > since 20 mph introduced on certain roads then > fine, but my perception is that the roads in some > places feel more hazardous not less, because many > are not adhering to 20mph. Just my perception > though. But if that is the case it's an argument for stricter enforcement, not relaxation of the law - if laws were made on the basis of what people feel like they're entitled to do we'd be in rather a lot of bother, I feel. In terms of studies there are quite a few out there - Portsmouth, for example, experienced 15% reduction in accidents after introducing 20 MPH limits on 94% of its roads, Brighton 12%, Bristol 16%.

Sorry if you're bored, Lois, though one would have thought a professional driving instructor should be able to maintain their concentration at all times? However keeping drivers entertained isn't the main purpose of speed limits, they're there to cut the appalling toll of 3000+ people killed and seriously injured in London each year. 20 MPH limits in other areas have been proved to reduce accidents by up to 60% and, incidentally, only slowed average journey times by 1-2 MPH. As I'm sure you're aware, 20% of children hit by cars at 30 MPH will die, those hit at 20 MPH almost always survive. How do you know the accident you witnessed wasn't caused by excessive speed? I've tried to think of ways in which a 20 MPH limit could make roads more dangerous, the only way I can see it would is if people ignore the limit. One last thing: you say your pupils are less attentive on 20 MPH roads? Well the average traffic speed in London is lower than 20 MPH, does this mean they're less attentive most of the time?

They've got a website with loads of contact details: http://www.saltashconstruction.co.uk/

Just mentioned this on another thread but thought it worthwhile bringing it to wider attention (apologies if it's old news, I only noticed when I rode through there last weekend): Greenwich foot tunnel, where cycling was previously banned, now has a very funky new system in place which automatically counts the number of pedestrians in the tunnel and allows cycling when it's relatively empty. If it's allowed the new sign reads "Please consider pedestrians," if too crowded "No cycling." One can still push a bike through at any time, obviously. Could be of interest to those commuting to Canary Wharf and environs? I must applaud this common sense shared use approach from Greenwich council, very refreshing instead of the usual divisive them vs us approach.

Kitschenette Wrote: > Ian R... If you want to be miserable and negative > about others? posts, at least get your facts > right! Oddly Ian helpfully posted a link for voting for this specific award back in July when it was introduced... Well done anyway, it'll be a great asset if it's built. On a side note for those wanting to cross the river, I believe Greenwich have started, or are about to start, the system they've been talking about for years of allowing cyclists to ride through the foot tunnel when it's not crowded. Apparently there will (or is, difficult to find info) be a system counting the number of pedestrians in the tunnel and signs will advise cyclists accordingly - when I went through last Sunday (very early morning, it was completely empty) the new signs said "Consider pedestrians" instead of "No cycling."

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So we voted to leave Europe, on part because the > masses rejected our faith in the free market and > the inequalities that this led to. > > Yet pubs, many of which we should value as > community assets and should have some sort of > protection, are run to maximise profit beit > turning into trendy restaurants or selling > off/knocking down as they are more valuable for > other uses. > > Scores of successful or what could be successful > beautiful pubs have been ruined across London - > those on the Dulwich Estate, the Dulwich > Woodhouse, many lovely pubs in the Youngs Estate. > > This is not defending pubs where there simply > isn't enough demand. Although it is a shame where > you have development of warehouse style or duplex, > developments such as the Oval Quatier or more down > market lower Sydenham that there will be no demand > for treasured pubs yet a Pret, Costa or McDs will > be packed. > > Good to see that Antic are bucking the trend in > the Elephant probably recognising that with the > large developments coming on line and some good > brand awareness it can work. > > Back to my whinge - the Dog was a popular pub. > Why not leave it that way? Hear bloody hear! ?When you have lost your inns, drown your empty selves, for you will have lost the last of England.? I cannot imagine moving into any area where there wasn't a decent proper local within striking distance.

JennyCee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've reported the crime to the police/mobile phone > company/insurers and I also feel stupid for not > being more vigilant/allowing my phone to be in > plain view outdoors, but at least I'm not harmed. Sorry to hear this, glad you're unharmed and no you're not in the least stupid - 100% of the blame is on the perpetrators.

New twist on slipping a sausage under the grill, I suppose...

No, slow/slower/slowest are adjectives, so that bus is slower, that bus is slowest. Slowly is an adverb, so that bus moves more slowly than the other is fine - it's not using an adjective as an adverb, it's an adverb in its own right and listed as such in the OED. You wouldn't say "The bus moved slow down the street" (you might have in the C19th), would you, you'd say it moved slowly, so if you're comparing another bus "it moved more slowly" is fine. Fowler's Modern English Usage (pedants' bible): "The normal adverb for general purposes is slowly, not slow. However the comparatives and superlatives slower and slowest are as acceptable as more slowly and most slowly." ETA this a reply to Malumbu not RPC

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apologies if there's already a thread on this. > > I'm overcome with embarrassment. Couldn't find the > teabag after I poured boiling water into the cup, > but mysteriously contents of cup were right > colour. I looked into the kettle: contents were > the same colour. I'd put the teabag in the > kettle. > > If you have a senior moment or any other example > of absentmindedness that might make me feel less > bad, please do share it. Carefully unscrewed blocked trap full of water under kitchen sink. Carefully pulled it out with both hands, holding it very steady so as not to spill a drop of dirty waste water. Carefully poured contents directly down the plughole from which I'd just removed the trap... Or my Christmas Day triumph last year, after simmering a pan of vegetables and herbs for over two hours to make a delicious stock for gravy, grabbed a sieve (drink may have been involved by this stage of the cooking)and drained off all the liquid straight into the sink, leaving me with a pile of soggy veg and ultimately, a gravy made with granules...

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How dare she wear a bright green top. Cow. It was the "cigarette drooped from her mouth" that told me she was a wrong 'un.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So why do I always add salt to make water boil > faster? > > Because as well as lowering the freezing point, it > also lowers the boiling point. Of course, your > veggies will then take slightly longer to cook as > the water temp of the boiling water is slightly > lower. Actually salt in fact raises the boiling point of water from 100 to 102 degrees centigrade, so a dash of salt means water will take longer to boil (this is boiling point elevation, and occurs whenever a non-volatile solute is added to a solvent). The myth that salt makes water boil more quickly comes about because if you add large quantities of salt to water it will boil more quickly, but only compared to the same quantity of pure water. So, if you take two pints of pure water and two pints of 50/50 salt and water mixed, the mixture will boil much more quickly; this is because salt has a very low heat absorption capacity, so nearly all of the energy applied is absorbed by the water. So effectively, you're only boiling a pint of water compared to two pints, which will naturally come to the boil faster. If you took two identical quantities of water and added a lot of salt to one, the salted one would take longer to boil. Really must get out more...

ratty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Begging patches in soho used to sell for up to > ?300 an hour. Orwell notes in Down and Out in Paris and London that the press loved to tell stories of beggars found with thousands in fivers sewn into the linings of their coats, and, as he noted, "They are, of course, all false." Watch any beggar anywhere in London and see if s/he pulls in a fiver a minute (and that would be before s/he made a penny in profit!). Urban myth I fear.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I once saw a beggar in the tunnel near Vauxhall > station. My first thought was that if I gave him > any money, he'd probably spend it on booze. Then > I considered the fact that, if I kept it, I would > probably spend that quid on alcohol too. > > On the logic that he probably needed a drink more > than I did, he got the quid. Love it. If I have spare change for beggars (genuine homeless, unlike the well dressed guy who approached me near ED station the other day with a story about needing a train fare and then pulled out an iPhone!) then once it's handed over that's the end of the transaction, what it's spent on is none of my business. I do get fed up with the sanctimonious "Look, they're homeless but they've spent money on tobacco and drink" comments - if I had to sleep rough I'm damned sure I'd need it.

DovertheRoad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've had ?1000 of premium bonds since birth in > 1975...quite a lot of money back then....but not > won any return on that in 41 years. However if id > invested that in a bog standard low fee FTSE > tracker.... That's extraordinarily unlucky, with normal luck you should have won between one and two grand by now - I've had ?50 worth since birth in 1968 and won ?300 with them (two separate prizes). Might be worth going on the Premium Bond website and checking your numbers against the unclaimed prizes, if at some point a change of address hasn't been notified then they'll still be holding your prize for you.

dirac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree too, it's so much more relaxed and means > when I get home I don't need my 'chill out' > because of the stress of cycling near cars in rush > hour. Really great to see people of all types on > it too, and not just a racetrack for the lycra > clad folk! Loved it so much, it's made me happy all day. Thinking, as a freelancer working from home, of doing a little morning "commute" to Blackfriars and back every day, just to set myself up for work!

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am glad they are there, even if I had to suffer > as the buses ground to a halt around E and C and > on B'friars Road but it really gets my goat when I > see cyclists (at least one every time I am there) > choose to cycle on the pavement/use the pedestrian > crossing. Talk about ungrateful. A hard stare from > you to such transgressor would be worth more from > you than a mere pedestrian or - gasp - motorised > vehicle user. I shall stringently scold anyone I see stepping out of line - did have a wee go at a chap up near Tower Hill the other day for jumping the light - I pointed out that when we've finally been given something this good, it ill behoves us to abuse it - and he agreed (in the end!).

It being incumbent on me to go and feed a friend's cat early this morning, I thought before getting back to work at home I'd have a quick potter round and see what the new segregated superhighways are like at rush hour (the ones which are, according to lobbyists for motor transport, unnecessary and underused). The answer is, absolutely wonderful. Little trickles of riders from the backstreets become streams which meet at Elephant and explode into a vast river of cyclists flowing up towards the City. All types of cyclists present, from lines of lycra racers pacing each other on carbon fibre to grannies on sit up and begs with baskets on the front (there were a few grannies in lycra on carbon fibre too, easily overtaking me!). The most astounding thing was, in contrast to the snarling and hooting traffic alongside, I rode ten miles in a packed mass of cyclists and didn't once hear anyone shout, swear or indeed do anything bar politely ting a bell to let slower riders (me) know they were coming through. Turns out, if you remove the reason for people feeling jumpy and aggressive, they stop being jumpy and aggressive. Who knew? Didn't see a single rider jump a red light either, even when the way ahead was completely clear. It really felt like being part of something big and rather special. The wind's at cycling's back at last! Here endeth the panegyric, just felt like sharing something positive - and to say to those thinking about using them, give it a whirl, you won't regret it.

3 o'clock in the morning... Spike Milligan's dad: Son? Son! Wake up! Spike Milligan: What is it dad, what's the matter? SMD: Son, I've never shot a tiger. SM: Fine, why are you waking me up to tell me? SMD: Well I had to tell someone...

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who thought up some of the more stupid cycling > events? Some are excellent (elimination race, > points race) but some of the rest are just silly. > Riding really slowly before sprinting as fast as > possible? Following a motorbike around for six > laps?. Kicking a pig's bladder around a field trying to wallop it into a net? Hitting fluff-covered rubber to and fro with paddle shaped frames covered in catgut? Chucking a piece of leather at some bits of wood while another chap uses another bit of wood to try and stop you? All sports are absurd if you reduce them to their essentials - it's part of what makes them such fun and so life affirming, they're basically just silly buggers for the pure unnecessary hell of it!

Phlox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is this considered as trespassing? What can the > police do? If they were caught with people's personal details (bank statements etc) I presume they could be charged with conspiracy to defraud? Big ask for a street copper though, I imagine the best that would be done is just to have them moved on.