rendelharris

Sounds good - but where are the specialist gritting firms that are primed to go for a once or twice a decade event? What do they do for the other 3,000 odd days they're not required?

Can it just be noted that snow like this - which will probably be gone by the weekend - occurs about once every five years or so these days? If Southwark kept fleets of gritters and staff to man them on standby throughout the winter, ready for a once-in-a-lustrum weather event, how would that sit with the "Southwark waste so much of our money" brigade?

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All your questions answered > https://www.local.gov.uk/your-winter-weather-quest > ions-answered-0 > but given Southwark's penchant for neglecting > front-line services when the Tories are in power- > that is probably the real reason for no > grit....'government cut-backs' as they quote with > monotonous regularity. Monotonous regularity? Oh the irony...

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > > When you pull on to the A3 from any > > side street there are signs saying you're > leaving > > the 20mph zone and entering a 30. > > Not from all. I guess this must have contributed > to my confusion. > Eg there are here: > https://goo.gl/maps/JmSVQboELx12 > but not here: https://goo.gl/maps/yEss1bU3jBu > > Anyway, my bad - I was wrong on that road being > 20mph, not much to debate there. To be really, really nerdy - that photo without a warning is in 2015 - Lambeth (where Kennings Way is) didn't go 20mph boroughwide until 2016, so there probably is a sign there now! I'll get me coat.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The A3 between Brixton and Elephant and Castle, > well, I simply assumed it was 20mph because the > councils have implemented 20mph limits throughout, > and there are no 30mph signs (I have just reviewed > the whole Oval from Kennington stretch on street > view). My bad, then, but possibly TFL (which > controls red routes) could have put a 30mph sign > because it?s not ******* clear at all I haven't seen any signs on the road (but then you don't usually get signs on 30mph roads, do you?) - I guess it's deducible from the fact that there are no 20mph signs (which I believe are compulsory?). When you pull on to the A3 from any side street there are signs saying you're leaving the 20mph zone and entering a 30. Long stretches of the A23 (Kennington Road) are actually not much wider, if at all, than a standard residential street in terms of the space available when the bus lanes are in operation - 20mph seems perfectly reasonable along there. I agree there are sections of it that would be suitable for 30mph, but then you'd be changing speed limits every couple of hundred yards which would obviously lead to confusion and accusations that it was all a trap.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am very familiar with the part of the A3 around > Oval and Kennington : perfect example of mostly > straight road, with excellent visibility, limited > number of pedestrians (no real high street, > schools, etc.). In roads like this, riding my > motorcycle at 20mph can actually be dangerous, as > car drivers get angry and aggressive and often > attempt dangerous overtaking. Well I'm not surprised - because the speed limit there is 30mph.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As for RoSPA: > > "RoSPA does not believe that 20mph? > speed limits are suitable for every road in a > local authority area. They should be targeted at > roads that are? > primarily residential in nature and on town or > city streets where pedestrian and cyclist > movements are high (or? > potentially high), such as around schools, shops, > markets, playgrounds and other areas. Roads which > are not? > suitable for 20mph limits are major through > routes. "? Which is exactly what I said, and somewhat different to your disingenuous presentation of it previously. What roads around here don't their criteria apply to? Sections of the South Circular, maybe - which aren't 20mph anyway. Oh, and if you're going to quote RoSPA: "A large number of evaluation studies have demonstrated a link between the introduction of 20mph zones and a subsequent reduction in casualties. The size of the reductions and the consistency of results over a wide number of areas are further evidence for this link. There is similarly strong evidence showing the benefits of traffic calming measures, which are used in 20mph zones."

We won't revisit our discussions about the efficacy of 20mph limits DL, as we (ironically) argued each other to a standstill! Though I will point out that when you say "RoSPA, for example, don't recommend setting 20mph limits throughout 100% of a council" - they say they don't recommend 20mph for trunk roads with no significant residential buildup, shopping areas, schools or high pedestrian footfall. Not that many roads of that description in ED. But I still can't get this argument about it being difficult to drive at 20mph. Surely anyone who can't cope with sticking to any set speed on the road is somewhat lacking in the necessary skills to pilot a vehicle safely? When I rode a motorcycle I didn't find it difficult to stay at 20mph when required, and I certainly wouldn't make any claims to having been a particularly skillful rider. In modern vehicles with digital speedometers I really can't see an excuse beyond incompetence for being unable safely to adhere to the posted limit.

It's a bit of a faff but I've had good results using a good masonry bit, drilling a hole (with another bit) in a scrap of 2x1, tacking the wood onto the wall with long panel pins and letting that guide the drill in at 90 degrees. Trouble is one then has to touch up the wall where the pins have gone in, but it does get a good straight hole. Also helps to have the drill on ordinary settings to start then switch to hammer once it's part way in.

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Enough words said Rendel, e.g. shameful, > unimaginative, uncommitted, boring. > > Didn't know you could say that about a game of > rugby! I would offer you a riposte but unfortunately I can't understand what your comment means.

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Like Sue, I had some kind of questionnaire from > the Mayor of London at least a month or so ago put > through my letterbox about cleaner air but for one > reason or the other I put it in my recycling bin! > > > As usual, rendelharris seems to know better, but > oh yes, he's a cyclist! I don't make any claims to know better, Sue asked for an explanation so I offered it. Not sure why that's a problem.

OK squire, there was no offence meant.

Said with no sarcasm at all, believe me, I know what it is to plumb the depths, you keep reaching out on here but all you will get is vague expressions of sympathy; have you thought of calling the Samaritans https://www.samaritans.org/? They are wonderful. Take care.

Well played the Scots! Thought England were shameful today, really shameful, unimaginative, uncommitted, boring...thoroughly deserved to lose.

Jim1234 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com > /uk-news/2017/nov/23/thameslink-rail-completion-de > layed-london-december-2019 > > Just found the above link. If I'm not mistaken the > southeastern services will be upped in 2019. I > assume this could include trains from Denmark > Hill? I'm finding it all rather confusing to be > honest... As far as I can figure from the revised timetables on journey planner sites (it's a bit off that Thameslink can release the timetable to these sites but have yet to make one available to the public) a lot of the new capacity will be trains running straight through from King's X and London Bridge without stopping, good for Kentish and Sussex travellers, and those from the north heading south, but no extra trains for us - indeed a reduction, as noted above, in the crucial 8-9AM period. It'll be interesting, and possibly frightening, to see what a 30% reduction in trains at prime commuter time does to the already severe overcrowding problems at Denmark Hill.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > Your petty ridiculousness leaves me speechless rh Hurrah! Long may it last. You claimed that the works in Oval/Kennington were obviously part of Southwark council's end of year road spending spree, if you object to it being pointed out they're in Lambeth try getting your facts right in the first place.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As the OP said in the last post London regularly > breaches the air pollution limits...AND we are > regularly FINED by the EU for this...I would guess > that many EU lorries that come here are polluting > and good look with tracking them down and fining > them...not to mention the VW emissions scandal. Yes it's all those damned immigrants as usual! Weren't you accusing others just the other day of turning any thread into a vehicle for their own hobbyhorse? If the ULEZ is extended there will be teams carrying out spotchecks and imposing instant fines on all major arterial routes, so those pesky Europeans won't get away with coming over here and polluting our air, don't you worry. Furthermore, all HGVs in the EU already have to comply to Euro IV and VI emissions standards and have done for nearly three years, so they wouldn't even get here if they didn't, they'd get pulled on their way - we in the UK have, I believe, been the slowest of all EU countries to comply.

Not trying to provoke anyone, just giving an opinion, but I cycled through here today for the first time since the works have completed (I assume they're completed now?) and I have to say I think it's a great improvement. I was sceptical as to its efficacy before but now one can see the whole plan I think it works well. The road surface is massively improved (obviously this could have been done anyway), which is a great boon for cyclists, and it's much clearer now who should be going where and when. The previous ad hoc, go when you fancy and line up where you want, arrangements for cars turning right off DV have been replaced with clear markings which allows cars going straight on free passage, the phasing of the lights seems much better - I rode through at 11AM and there were only half a dozen cars maximum queuing at any of the five entry points, when on Saturdays preworks, as I recall, the traffic would often be backed up to the chapel roundabout and the Red Post Hill junction in either direction. This may of course be contributed to by the fact that people have been avoiding the area and previous traffic levels have yet to resume, but on the whole it all seemed to be functioning very smoothly. The only danger in fact was a mummy and daddy who decided the best way to teach Timmy, Maisy and Daisy (one in a pushchair!) road safety was to run across the road against the red man in the path of a large accelerating cyclist! Fortunately I have good brakes. Just my tuppenceworth and personal observation!

Not sure about the brain cells but it's simply asking opinions on whether the ULEZ (ultra low emissions zone) should be extended to include virtually everything inside the north and south circulars; that would mean all HGVs which don't comply with Euro IV and VI standards for nitrous oxide and particulate emissions would have to pay a heavy charge for driving in the zone (?300 and ?100 respectively) and that older private cars (lists and specifications on the TfL website) that are the most polluting would have to pay a ?12.50 daily charge for driving in the zone.

28th February!

Nice pick AM - I was off by three, damn those unadventurous French - Blanco and Sella wouldn't have kicked a penalty in the 71st minute when leading by 15!

Except for the fact that Kennington/Oval aren't Southwark, Uncle, but don't let the facts get in the way of a rant.

Golly, quite right. I hang my head in shame.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No need to repeat it then. My ID has been stolen > Twice in the last 2 - 3 years. > > Action Fraud suggested it could of been through > Social Media. Someone who knows my name and where > I live. I'm no expert but I think you need a bit more than that, one can obtain any number of names and matching addresses by simply looking in the 'phone book.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don?t worry mate, there?s enough clues in your > posting history for anyone to work out exactly > which one your house is! 😉 I was going to say that Foxy, you've given away your exact location at least once!