rendelharris

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alan Medic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why is that bit called East Dulwich Road? Isn't > > the main road also ED Road too? > > Yeah, it's a bit confusing. Let's change it. Any > suggestions? West East Dulwich Road should clear things up nicely. Or, cartographically, how about Pearsall Road after Phyllis Pearsall, the creator of the A-Z, who was born in Court Lane Gardens?

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you could even take your bike on a train and cycle > around somewhere new - and less busy. So rather than cycle round our local park - to which after all we do contribute as council tax payers and in which cycling is fully permitted - being courteous, aware and respectful of other park users and hoping for the same in return, we should take a train elsewhere? Hmm.

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Will not be difficult to see them and walking my > dog each day I cannot remember seeing dog leads > stretched across the park road. > > Horror story that really does not exist. > > If you cannot manage this park road with > confidence you should not be on the road. It's not a "horror story" by any means, that's just silly nomenclature, but it's the honest truth that today I had to come to a complete stop as a lady walking a Jack Russell was doing exactly what I said, walking on the outside of the road with her dog on the bridlepath the opposite side with the lead stretching the width of the road - and it's not the first time. That's kind of what inspired me to write what I still maintain was merely a polite suggestion that some people could show some more consideration to fellow park users, however much some people have chosen to be offended by it. Sue, good luck with your lessons and don't let the naysayers put you off, you'll get there. I've been riding round the busiest parts of London for almost thirty years and never had a serious accident - just stay aware, make strong signals and the second something feels wrong just stop and get off the road.

Ruffler Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The signs about keeping dogs on a short lead are > for the inner parts of the park only. No such > signs around the outer perimeter. Fair enough so, maybe that's why so many dog owners do stick to the road. I think that's a shame though, obviously there are issues with dangerous dogs and so on but I can't really see why responsible owners of well trained dogs shouldn't be allowed to let their pets off the leash over those lovely acres (a lot of them do anyway and it doesn't seem to do anyone much harm).

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bottom line, it's a small park so activities on > foot will always take precedence, annoying if you > want to cycle but cannot see cyclists ever getting > right of way, even voluntarily. Dog walkers may > prefer to walk dogs on lead in tarmac for a > variety of reasons - to avoid other dogs that are > off lead on the grassy areas, to reduce > distractions of smells on grass, to avoid > distraction of football and other games, to avoid > picnickers; sometimes tarmac feels more > comfortable to the human foot and in some level we > may just automatically follow roads and paths. Fair enough, it's lovely cycling there anyway - I was just trying to make a suggestion which I thought might benefit all parties!

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rollerskates, skateboards, tricycles I do not work > that well on grassland etc. Dogwalking works pretty well though, in my experience. Of course I welcome all the little 'uns on their various contrivances and watch out for them. But why, for example, as I saw today, feel the need to have a football kickabout on the tarmac when there's all that lovely grass available?

Don't be silly Rupert, I said that I too cycle sedately in the park, but even at slow speeds, dogs and kids ducking about in front of one can be dangerous. If you choose to regard a perfectly politely phrased request for people to take more care as a hissy fit that says much more about your attitude than mine. If parents/owners want their kids and dogs to play on the tarmac that's their right, but I really don't see why they want them to. "An avenue to wander on"? Acres of beautiful grassland, wooded areas etc and you want to walk round on the tarmac?

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I only know the original meaning of the word which > means something very different. Indeed, I was, I assure you, using it in its secondary sense. From the Latin incubare meaning "to lie upon", which accounts for both meanings, I suppose.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Incubus"???!!! "A cause of difficulty or anxiety."

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seems like you're asking for right of way rather > than courtesy. Nope, I think pedestrians should have right of way at all times in the park, and I cede it to them, always. However, I fail to see why it's such an incubus for pedestrians not to walk down the middle of the road, is there some special joy in this compared to walking over the grass or on the pavement that eludes me?

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Ever since I can remember going back many many > years the park has alway been used sensibly. > > Why should this question have been raised? > > The road was closed many years ago to allow people > to amble in safety. > > You said in an earlier post you have lived in the > area for a while, why did you not know this? The road was not closed to cyclists, was it? Cycling is still permitted in the park and indeed, as there is a cycle hire facility within the park, it's encouraged. All I have suggested is that certain people (a small minority), particularly dog walkers, might improve their safety and that of cyclists if they used the road less selfishly, i.e. not completely blocking it or allowing kids/dogs to run around from side to side. Why not use the vast green spaces available instead? I've lived in this area for more than twenty years, and I know you like to think your opinion on local issues is more important than other people's because you've lived here longer, but that is in fact utterly irrelevant.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wasn't arguing with you: I just take a more > pragmatic view. Hard to imagine all the > pedestrians walking in single file on the narrow, > sloping pavement, dogs on short leads, while > cyclists have the road to themselves! Didn't think you were! The pavements are eight feet wide...when we walk in DP we use them or walk on the grass. The signs in DP actually indicate that dogs should be on short leads at all times, which I think is daft, but I can't understand why dogwalkers, and other walkers, don't enjoy the grass when it's as dry as it is at the moment, instead choosing to walk round on hot hard tarmac.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry, with NX on this. In my view too many fast > cyclists in parks already, anything that deters > them is a plus, dedicating tbe 'road' in DP to > cyclists would be a disaster and encourage speed > cycling. I do however agree about those pesky > extension leads. I absolutely agree, in most parks it's ridiculous the way cyclists speed - along the canal towpaths as well. In my opinion Dulwich is unique in having a wide road as well as plenty of room for pedestrians so could easily be sensibly and safely shared. Apparently this is not a popular opinion, so be it.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do know what you mean, RH, but Dulwich is a very > safe, flat, child-friendly park so it's slow going > at this time of year, and I'm not sure it's > reasonable to ask people to stay off the road. If > you want to improve your fitness, you'd probably > enjoy Peckham Rye, Nunhead Cemetery, Belair and > Brockwell parks more, and you can loop them > together with back roads that will be much quieter > than negotiating Dulwich Park. Thanks for the suggestions, I personally ride hard on the road for fitness, Dulwich Park is just for pottering with Mrs H. None of those other places you mention have a wide road with a wide pavement as DP has - I would feel people would have every right to complain if we were cycling round those places on the paths, where pedestrians should definitely have priority. All I was pointing out that Dulwich has plenty of space for both groups if shared sensibly, so why don't we share it sensibly? There's plenty of room there to paint in a dedicated cycle lane, but with a little common sense and common courtesy (on both sides) it shouldn't be necessary.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would be logical if it was a public highway - > but it's not so it's meaningless to say because > there's a pavement there pedestrians should > confine themselves to this. There are many > streets now pedestrianised that still have the old > pavements but pedestrians are not expected to > restrict themselves to walking on the pavements > only. All I am suggesting is that as there is no disadvantage to pedestrians in walking on the pavement it would be courteous of them to use it rather than block the road and force cyclists continually to slow to make sure their dogs and/or children don't dart in front of us. If you find being asked for that courtesy is too great an imposition, fine, I'm not saying it should be obligatory.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not a road in the conventional sense as it is > not open to public motorised traffic, only to park > access vehicles. Methinks you want to turn it > into a velodrome whilst saying otherwise. No, I don't. It just seems perfectly logical that when there's a pavement and a road that the cyclists stay on the road and the pedestrians stay on the pavement. That's not making anyone a second class user, it's just common sense. By the way, when you say "There are also far more pedestrians that use the roadway in the park than cyclists," today at midday, with lots of people having hired bikes from the facility there, I'd say it was just about 50/50.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I hope its 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?" > > Far, far too presumptious, when I was growing up > the park-keeper would clip your ear if you cycled > in a park! Of course things have changed since > then and cycling is rightly encouraged for both > health and environmental concerns. However, this > cannot be to the detriment of those park users who > walk which would relegate them to second class > users and would prevent them from using the park > in the way they have done since the park opened > over 100 years ago. There are also far more > pedestrians that use the roadway in the park than > cyclists. You and your other half just need to > show some patience for other users or use one of > the many cycling only routes that have been > appearing recently in Southwark which I have to > say are making even me think about taking up > cycling (though probably not). Besides, fewer > pedestrians will encourage even more cyclists you > consider jerks to charge around at 25MPH. > > I do agree though regarding dogs being walked on > extendable leads which I think should be made > illegal as they have caused serious injuries both > to cyclists and to the dogs themselves. I think you've missed the point a bit in Dulwich Park: it's a road, not a shared path, running round the perimeter,and it has a very wide pavement by its side. How is it relegating pedestrians to second class users to ask them to use the pavement instead of the road? P.S. Just curious - why have you edited the bit of my post you have quoted to take out the absolutely correct apostrophe in "it's"?

Afternoon all, 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. But...Mrs H, who doesn't like cycling on the roads, and I have recently taken to cycling laps of the perimeter road in Dulwich Park for exercise, and very pleasant it is too. We keep to a sensible speed and always slow down for other park users. I would like to ask though, when there's an eight foot wide pavement on one side of the road and a ten foot wide bridlepath on the other, if it's really necessary for people to walk three or four abreast down the centre of the road, letting dogs and/or children merrily gambol across from side to side. A particular joy are those dogwalkers who walk on one side of the road and let their dog explore the other side, the two joined by an extendable leash. There's rather a lot of grass in Dulwich Park, which I'm sure both children and dogs prefer to play on...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? That way we can all enjoy this wonderful amenity without getting in each others' way. Cheers, Rendel P.S. There are a few cyclists, I know, who treat the road like a velodrome, charging round it at 25mph. They're jerks, and we are definitely not of their ilk!

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and how many days like today do we get each year. > 15 ? 20 ? > > DulwichFox That'll be where the heated element might kick in, I'm thinking?

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Very impressionistic - glancing at the first page > of The Lounge I can only see one similar thread > and that wasn't started by Lordship!" > > "When 50% by volume* of the posts on a particular > day..." > > Posts by volume is different from numbers of > threads - that's why I said it. > > Ultimately, everyone on here does whatever they > want, subject to very light touch regulation. I > just have an aversion to big blocks of dense text > econ analysis with confident accompanying > conclusions. I can get that any time at work. Sorry, I genuinely don't understand - what do you mean by "posts by volume"?

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When 50% by volume* of the posts on a particular > day in the Lounge are this kind of analysis it > gets a bit wearisome, particularly when half of it > is in danger of being overtaken by events within > the following 24 hours. > > *An impressionistic rather than mathematical > conclusion. Very impressionistic - glancing at the first page of The Lounge I can only see one similar thread and that wasn't started by Lordship!

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Next time you feel like opening a thread can it be > something other than re-hashed Bloomberg plus econ > consultancy wonk product? For all our sakes? I like reading L516's posts - as an economic ignoramus I find them interesting. If you don't like them why not just not open them, there's no need to be rude about it.

Thanks for that explanation. Interesting. I have the innocent/ignorant man's view of these things in general, which is that if there's a reason foreign investors want it, that's the same reason we should keep it! Allowing ARM abroad now seems shortsighted to say the least - it's not as if the world's going to be needing fewer microchips in future, is it?

That's superb, don't really watch TV so would have missed it, thanks for the tipoff.

Why is the sale of one of our few outstanding success stories, in fact our only remaining one, in the technology field, ARM, to a Japanese multinational, seen as a cause for celebration? Part of the new PM's pitch for leadership was that she would intervene to try to prevent foreign companies stripmining our profitable industries, today she proudly announced she had called the president of SoftBank to congratulate him on his purchase. Last year ARM made ?414.8M pre-tax profits...next year those profits will be pouring into Japanese banks. Can someone explain why this is desirable please?