rendelharris

"Not trying to be funny but..."

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Help-Ma-Boab Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > a Gents Magazine (special interest) > > > > I actually got collared nicking a similar style > mag, and the absolute bastard called my mum. I'd > have rather it had been the police.

Rosetta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Try Southwark highways. Get email and send a > picture. Also contact councillors. Cheers, just have (contacted Southwark).

adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would usually be a good idea, Sue, but that is a > scottish dialling code, so probably old livery > signage and the vehicle has changed hands and > possibly wouldn't reveal whom/when they sold it. Yes, just tried that number (thanks Sue, a sign of how internetted one's become that I searched all over for an email address without even thinking to use the obvious telephone number!) and "number not recognised." The lack of email on the coachwork probably does reveal it's getting on. May have to give Southwark a bell...

Delightedly rushing home, aged ten or so, when a Macfisheries (what happened to them?) cashier accidentally gave me a ?20 note instead of a fiver in change when running errands. Unfortunately my criminal career shuddered to a halt when I was silly enough to tell my mother, who made me not only go back and return it but personally apologise to the cashier. I always check my change assiduously nowadays, which makes cashiers think I'm suspicious of them, but in fact I'm checking they haven't shortchanged themselves. Shows what an early influence can do...

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That sort of parking won't happen much more when > we get our famed 10 metres of coble yellows at > every junction. If t=here are squaling brakes > thatn the drivers of those vehicles are also at > fault for not driving at an appropriate speed for > the conditions. Well indeed, but unfortunately not everyone is careful - if someone gets knocked down because a driver didn't see them emerging from behind the coach the question of who's at fault will only be secondary! I know there's much debate about the need for 10m of yellow lines, but this chap's stuck this damned great bus less than a metre from the junction, which would be absurd for a private car, let alone this behemoth.

ponderwoman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You may find this is privately owned ( it is quite > elderly for commercial use). Perhaps someone is > planning ahead for Glastonbury next > year................. It's a thought, but as another (brown) coach with the same branding (sorry, in my OP I should have said "coaches have") was parked there on Monday and Tuesday it seems this particular company have just decided this is a convenient place to stash their coaches when not in use. I suspect they're dropping their passengers in central London then coming out here to avoid parking charges. Fortunately no accidents as yet but several squealing brake incidents, feel it's only a matter of time...

Morning all, All this week a large coach has been parking in Soames Street, right on the junction with Copleston Road; as you can see from the pictures attached (sorry for the poor quality, had to scale down massively to fit), not only is it taking up a lot of parking spaces but by parking right on the junction it's completely blocked the sightlines, creating a hazard for pedestrians and road traffic alike. I've emailed the company asking them if they could park elsewhere, but they haven't responded. I haven't seen a driver or anyone else getting on or off otherwise I'd have had a word directly, does anyone happen to know why it's parked there (there can't be that many Japanese tourists desperate to get a picture of me, surely?)? Maybe if it's being used by a local institution they could suggest to the driver that this is not a safe place to park? The alternative, I know, is to contact Southwark Parking Enforcement, but I'd sooner not get people into trouble or fined if a polite word would suffice. Cheers, Rendel

How utterly silly you are becoming, you've hooked onto to the word "segregation" with all its emotive connotations and just keep repeating it ad absurdiam. So anyone who asks if a little courtesy and common sense could be shown is demanding segregation? Only if you have a strangely confrontational view of society. ETA: Having just returned from a delightful morning ride, I realise this thread has become an utter waste of time. What began as a perfectly polite request (ironically beginning "I'm not trying to annoy or offend anyone, so I'd like to start by saying that I'm a lifelong dog lover (only the smallness of our garden stops us having one) and am also very fond of children and love seeing them out playing in the open air.") has degenerated into foolishness. Anyone who had anything sensible to say disappeared pages ago (and there were some, who disagreed with me but managed to express their disagreement in a perfectly rational and courteous manner - thank you, those people) and we're left with those who are not interested in debate, just argument and point scoring. After being accused of being overly entitled, selfish, segregationist and God knows what else, after having a rather peculiar passive-aggressive threat ("I'd hate for you to have a heart attack" - thank you, Rupert James) and most unforgiveably being obliquely compared to Tony Blair, that's enough for me, I'm out. See you all in the park, you'll be able to recognise me, I'm the one time-trialling at 25mph wearing a jersey reading "I hate children and dogs" and "Segregate all park users now!"

keane Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Erm, you asked for pedestrians - ie the majority > of people in the park to use the pavement, grass > or bridle way, so sort of a bit like segregation > and before you say that obviously i don't cycle, > yes I do, as well as walk. I can't believe I have to say this again, as I've already written it in my original post and requoted it to you in a reply above: I hope it's not too presumptuous to ask that > pedestrians use the pavement, bridleway or grass > (or even just stick to one side of the road rather > than the centre) and leave a clear passage for > cyclists? "Just stick to one side rather than the centre." So, "erm," no I didn't, unless you categorise politely asking people to leave a little room for others as segregation. When you go on the Underground, do you object to signs asking you to walk on the left as segregation?

kbabes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i like cycling in the park and also on the local > road's for that matter.. pedestrians, children on > hired mini trikes, dogs, cats & other grown up > cyclists both speedy and slow all form a hazard > that we all should be wary of imho.. but more > interestingly whatever happened to that > apostrophe? ...Maybe it's ended up here in this > post somewhere? I see it, wondering where it had got to - is there a prize? Spot on, everything's a potential hazard...for everybody...and so if we all look out for each other we'll all be the better for it. All I ever asked for, no "segregation," no abrogation of responsibility on the part of cyclists. The funny thing is that I'm at heart a frightful lifetime socialist old eco-hippy who believes fervently in community and the goodness therein, it's been very amusing to be accused of claiming undue entitlement, of demanding segregation, even, forsooth, of being determined to break up the natural free-flowing organic ideal of a park.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sure it wasn't this they were reading? > > http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Pokemon-Guide-Book-Pokem > on-GO-TipsTricks-and-Cheats-Discover-How-to-Play-t > he-/272315436211 Don't shatter my illusions! I didn't get close enough to see titles but I'm hoping it was a little more serious...

If you want to save a few bob and don't mind a bit (not much) of extra effort, get a night bus to Victoria and National Express run coaches to Heathrow at 3AM, 4AM and 5AM for just ?10, 40 minute journey time. Don't know how full they get, might be wise to book.

I wouldn't say sudden joy, but certainly quiet amusement, that a thread asking for joyful moments managed to go six posts before diverting into an argument. Oh and sudden joy - three teenagers sitting on the grass in Peckham Rye park yesterday, all absorbed in books - not just eBooks either, proper hardbacks! A sight to gladden an erstwhile teacher's heart.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But we already do share, and in your words it's > 99% successful. There is no segregation as such, > nor should there be. In your OP you specifically > asked for a form of segregation... > > I hope it's not too presumptuous to ask that > pedestrians use the pavement, bridleway or grass > (or even just stick to one side of the road rather > than the centre) and leave a clear passage for > cyclists? > > It's a hideous idea for a park, which is supposed > to be a natural, free-flowing, organic space and > environment. Humans aren't automatons. Have you > considered moving to Stepford?... Oh for goodness' sake. More pointless insults for a perfectly innocuous suggestion. Yes parks should be organic, natural and free-flowing - how does a damned great piece of tarmac fit into that description? Cyclists are just as much legitimate users of the park as anyone else, can they be free flowing and organic and ride wherever they like? You'd soon be complaining if they did. Never heard such nonsense. Asking people to politely leave a bit of room is hardly segregation. Ridiculous. It's fine, if it's too much for you to share and show a bit of common courtesy to other park users, so be it. We'll still look out for you and be polite and accommodating to where you want to go, shame you can't do the same.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's life rendel, where/when in life do you ever > get 100% consensus? There's far more important > things in life to rub your worry beads about... True indeed, all I did originally was post a polite request that we could all share - but when people answer, one tends to reply...especially if they start accusing one of being/doing things which are anathema to one's true viewpoint!

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Hadn't noticed that - well it should say all > > cyclists, I wouldn't dream of riding amongst > the > > throngs around the pond and caf?, that > certainly > > would be wrong. > > There are other paths that circumnavigates those > areas, with much less pedestrian traffic, so a > total ban would be silly. > When it comes to cycling in any park, IMO it comes > down to common sense and reading what's ahead of > you. If you see a throng of people ahead of you, > get of your bike and walk for a bit, or take one > of the alternative paths etc etc... We most certainly would, all I asked initially and have been repeating ad infinitum (or nauseam, if you prefer) is that on such a wide carriageway as in DP perhaps if walkers see cyclists coming towards them they could just make sure, as far as possible, they/their kids/their dogs don't stray in front of them - which 99% of people do. There are just the odd one or two, as exemplified by certain posters on here, who don't think cyclists should be allowed anywhere, who either carelessly or defiantly don't show any courtesy or inclination to share even when there's plenty of room for all.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > There are also lots of > > nicely paved paths away from the perimeter road > of > > course, round by the lake and the caf? and the > > lovely American garden where bikes are (quite > > rightly) not permitted. > > The sign I've seen said hire bikes weren't > permitted, nothing about everyday cyclists... Hadn't noticed that - well it should say all cyclists, I wouldn't dream of riding amongst the throngs around the pond and caf?, that certainly would be wrong.

micky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > its hard for a dog walker to walk in dulwich park > at weekends with organised running events and > cycling events. Every weekend. Cycling every weekend? I don't go in for organised events, but Googling I can find the London Cycle Sportive starting in the park June 26th and nothing else.

haselbury Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've just been on holiday and I think was badly > stung by Europcar's (and the others') excess car > insurance. On the net I can see it's possible and > immensely cheaper to buy an off-the peg-policy > before I go from an independent provider like > Travel Supermarket. Anyone got experience of this > please? and advice? We bought insurance for ?40 when we moved (because we were hiring a van for a couple of days) which covered us for excess up to ?500 for a whole year, in the UK and Europe. We made more than that back just by being able to accept a ?500 excess from the van hire company, no matter what we might save on car rental for the rest of the year. Can't remember the company at the moment - it was the cheapest on confused.com. Well worth it.

Shaila Shah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One reason why I prefer the road rather than the > pavement: the road is far more evenly surfaced. If > you have any mobility issues, walking along an > even surface is not only easier but also safer. For sure, of course it's better for that and wouldn't dream of asking people with those issues not to use the road - but then I haven't asked anyone not to, just asked if they could leave a little gap for cyclists! There are also lots of nicely paved paths away from the perimeter road of course, round by the lake and the caf? and the lovely American garden where bikes are (quite rightly) not permitted.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sadly the case, due to a number of incidents > involving poorly trained and supervised dogs, > which chased or attacked the horses. Quite a nice > surface for running on though - makes a change > from endless unforgiving asphalt and concrete. Yes, Mrs.H's favourite ride from Dulwich stables, Gracie, was badly injured when in foal by a dog attack there. Re the running/walking on concrete business, I entirely agree, this is what somewhat confounds me about the desire of people without tricycled kids or buggies etc to walk on the road anyway, when we go to the park as pedestrians the first thing we want to do is get the feel of grass under our feet!

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > aerie Wrote: > > RH you don't happen to have a large black > stallion > > you cherish and sleep heavily? > > Straight over my head that one - explain? In the cold light of day I now get it - good one. I don't have a black stallion, I do have a small black rabbit, I have increased security around its hutch in the face of these veiled menaces!

aerie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rupert james Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I would hate you to have a heart attack and > not > > be > > > able to post any more. > > > > Tasteful. Enough now. > > > RH you don't happen to have a large black stallion > you cherish and sleep heavily? Straight over my head that one - explain?

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would hate you to have a heart attack and not be > able to post any more. Tasteful. Enough now.