rendelharris

Some people really need to find something better to do than trolling perfectly reasonable requests with abuse - and going through the classifieds offering people 25% of the asking price...it's sad.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Not to mention that as a cycke commuter, > I find them the one group of road users I'm > constantly justified in giving a wide berth (on > account of random road behaviour). True that - proportionately more dangerous behaviour from black cabs than from any other group of road users in my experience, not to mention the amount of moaning about bike lanes etc one gets as a passenger. On the plus side if you're double punctured with only one tube they are generally willing to let one put the bike in the back! ETA Also, anecdotally, I've seen firsthand with black mates how many cabs will just drive by if a black person hails them...

I buy Sainsbury's reading glasses (about ?8, some perfectly good rimless styles) and have them relensed by CilliaryBlue (online company, just send them the glasses and your prescription (prescription obtained from whatever optician's doing free tests) for ?15 and they last well past the time it's time to get a new perscription. I'm not a cheap person, honest, but I balk at paying ?200 for frames which are, ultimately, a few pieces of bent wire with a logo stamped on them.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > anyone who thinks the Lions could > > have done better with different coaching would > be > > well advised to look at the recent 57-0 mauling > of > > the Saffers! > > Billy thinks they would have. > > http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-uni > on/international/british-and-irish-lions-sean-obri > en-criticism-billy-vunipola-gatland-howley-eddie-j > ones-a7960136.html Considering Billy wasn't on the tour I think that's a bit hyperbolic - not to mentioned a bit arse-kissing to his own coach!

Perhaps Lions lacking a bit in individual brilliance, a BOD or a Robinson type player to really set it alight.

Lucky they may have been but every match was great to watch and an amazing finish. Not saying the Lions were magnificent, but that it was a magnificent series to watch.

Hmm. My opinion more closely matches the opinion piece in the same paper: http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/comment-sean-obriens-underhand-quotes-must-be-galling-to-warren-gatland-36155798.html Just because it's not a permanent team doesn't mean the concepts of loyalty and discretion go out the window - if you wouldn't say it publicly about your club or national setup, don't say it about the Lions, I'd say; sorry but I think it's almost a bit cowardly, you won't say it about your team or country as they're your bread and butter, but as you probably won't go on the next tour you feel free to put the boot in. As the piece points out, pointing fingers at individuals is pretty distasteful too. Rather sours a magnificent tour, I think, and anyone who thinks the Lions could have done better with different coaching would be well advised to look at the recent 57-0 mauling of the Saffers!

I think that sort of criticism is best kept in-house. I haven't seen anything that says he raised these concerns at the time (management says he didn't) - if he did and was told to get lost then it's more understandable that he wants to make it public. I wonder if, aged thirty, he has ambitions to go on the SA tour in 2021? Whoever's coach then might well think twice about taking someone who might turn on them afterwards.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The connection with Greendale could be widened to > improve sight lines. Definitely - I'm very careful now but when I first started cycling down that way from where I used to live on Champion Hill I had a scary near miss, which still gives me the shivers, with a tot on a scooter who came shooting out onto Greendale - it was summer and the vegetation completely hid the fact that there was an adjoining path at all. Better sight lines and/or a warning sign for those unfamiliar with the junction would be a great safety enhancement.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > www.dulwichvillageforum.org.uk. > > Where's the forum part of the web-site? It doesn't have one - it's a real-life forum where people meet to discuss in person (funny ideas they do get down there in the village) then the proceedings are shared on the website.

You're at .org.uk, not .co.uk. Interesting proposals, I like the look of the "triple roundel" design. Not sure how space would have been found to fit the proposed cycle lanes into the existing space though, particularly along the side of the old graveyard and outside the school?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BUT what is the relevance of this debate to this > road junction being changed? > The fact that this was introduced into this thread > shows how anti cycling we all are. Spot on James and sorry if I've hijacked the thread somewhat, but that's exactly the point I was trying to make: one poster was trying to use the case as a stick to beat "London's cyclists," saying we hadn't "learned a lesson" from a case which has no relevance to the matter under discussion. Anti-cyclist is the default position, e.g. last week a motorcyclist pulled out in front of me as I descended Box Hill at 38mph (within the legal speed limit!). Remonstrating with him in the carpark, he said "I'm not apologizing to you, do you apologize to me when you run red lights and ride on the pavement and that?" After much expletive ridden debate (during which I explained that I never do either of those things) he did ultimately admit he was in the wrong, but an interesting indication of the "All cyclists are..." mentality. From my side I find 98%+ of motorists are courteous, sensible and moderate - when I see news of yet another car driver killing a cyclist or pedestrian I don't extrapolate generalities about car drivers.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I know those aren't your figures, but 6.53m at 18 > mph is less than one second. I can't believe he > had time to shout twice in less than one second. > Nor do the 'left-right-left' thing as you > describe. Something doesn't add up here. Yes 6.53m is the prosecution figure based on CCTV and crash investigator evidence. As you say, he would have been travelling at eight metres per second (roughly). The account of him shouting etc is mainly from his comments online immediately afterwards - as I said, he is a prick but he may have been in shock, when people tend to reconstruct an event with a favourable narrative. Don't know. But it does raise the question, barely mentioned in the press, as to why Mrs.Briggs stepped out in front of a cyclist proceeding perfectly legally and at reasonable speed when he was only a few metres away. To clarify the left-right-left business, as far as I understand Alliston swerved to go round Mrs.Briggs on his right, saw she was still moving into his path and so swerved back to go round her on his left; unfortunately at the same time she stopped and jumped backwards into his path. > > > Interesting to note that had she stepped in > front of a car doing that speed at that distance > > there is no way it could have stopped - and on > that basis a prosecution of the driver would never > have happened. > > I suspect that if it was an illegal car with no > brakes, I think they would have. Brakes or no brakes, no car would have been able to stop in that time. The cyclist, incidentally, did not have "no brakes" - the fixed wheel of such a bike is the rear brake. I think he was ill-served by his defence lawyers, who should have had tests carried out on the actual bike in the actual conditions: they just accepted the police estimate that he should have been able to stop in three metres with a front brake. This was based on tests with a police mountain bike with very grippy wide tyres, disc brakes, perfect conditions and, vitally, no reaction time included, just braking distance. The Highway Code indicates that reaction (noticing a hazard) and thinking (deciding what to do about it) take up an equal amount of time to the braking time at 20MPH, but this seems to have been ignored. No account taken either that there are circumstances where it's safer to try and swerve around an obstacle than to brake. From what I have read it seems to me this was a case of at least equal fault, with a pedestrian carelessly stepping into the path of a moving vehicle which was proceeding in a reasonable and lawful manner, which the owner should have had equipped in line with legal requirements. This is an interesting take on the whole sad affair, written by a cycling advocate, yes, but one who also happens to be a Queen's Counsel: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/aug/23/motorist-would-not-have-landed-cyclists-wanton-and-furious-driving-charge

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > (He wasn't on the pavement, incidentally, and he > wasn't speeding, and the woman stepped into the > road in > > front of him, which is why he was cleared of > manslaughter. > > By his own testimony, he had time to shout at her > TWICE ?get the **** outta my way? before he > ploughed into her. So she must have 'stepped in > front' of him at quite a distance. I'm not in the business of defending him, because he's a prick, but as I understand it he tried to swerve one way round her then another as she moved, in one of those left-right-left situations one gets when walking. If she was quite a distance away when he shouted at her why didn't she have time to get out the way? It was reported by the Daily Mail et al as mad cyclist ploughs into (I notice you use the same emotive language) innocent pedestrian - anyone taking a cursory glance at the reports would have assumed that he ran her down on a pelican after going through a red light... ETA looking back at the reports, the prosecution case was that Mrs.Briggs stepped in front of Allinson when he was 6.53 metres away, and that had he had a front brake he would have been able to stop within three metres (this is nonsense as any cyclist will tell you, stopping in three metres from 18mph would throw you straight over the handlebars). Interesting to note that had she stepped in front of a car doing that speed at that distance there is no way it could have stopped - and on that basis a prosecution of the driver would never have happened. However, he was indisputably a prick for riding without a front brake and for his attitude displayed afterwards. That doesn't justify people using this one (incredibly rare, compared to cars killing and injuring pedestrians) instance to tar all cyclists and say why can't they learn a lesson from it. And no people shouldn't be cycling on pavements - but that guy wasn't on the pavement so I fail to see why it's even been raised.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A cyclist at any speed on the pavement is a > menace. You might think London's cyclists would > have learned a lesson from the young man recently > gaoled for killing a pedestrian while cycling > dangerously but it seems not. Any car driver speeding is a menace. You would have thought London's drivers would learn a lesson from the 200+ people killed each year by cars driving over the speed limit but it seems not. I wondered how long it would be before that case was used to wag a finger at cyclists. (He wasn't on the pavement, incidentally, and he wasn't speeding, and the woman stepped into the road in front of him, which is why he was cleared of manslaughter. He was, effectively, found guilty of not having a front brake - which was stupid and deserved punishment, but let's not forget the facts)

Unless you think/know that someone at Southwark is stealing cash from the council coffers - in which case tell the police - any surplus (or "profit" if you want) Southwark gains from CPZs will go towards other local amenities and services. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of CPZs, it's pointless to talk as if Southwark is some big corporation ripping us off for its own benefit, the money comes back into the community.

I don't know, I wasn't there! But as the OP says that was the case I see no reason to doubt them - yes, I presume a receptionist would say "I'll just check with a doctor" or something similar.

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did anyone actually speak to a doctor? > Unless I've misunderstood there's only been > mention of talking to reception... "So the receptionist began typing on her computer chat program to the doctors sat in their offices. After 2 minutes of tapping away, she simply said 'ok, you need to call an ambulance'"

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the first priority is raising revenue from the > queue rather than improving traffic flow. If they're trying to stop cars jumping red lights, first priority is stopping potentially lethal behaviour by selfish motorists.

I'll answer you despite the fact that anyone who says "grow up" and "facts...com" doesn't really deserve a reply. muppet19 said the man was behaving oddly and later clarified this as "lewd stuff." OK, she didn't actually use the words exposing himself. Big deal. Still don't think there's anything amusing about it. ETA What is mildly amusing, when you think about it, is that you're getting het up about the fact that a person who was behaving in enough of a sexually inappropriate manner in the park for the OP to call the police might be slandered by me making a (perfectly justifiable) assumption as to what that behaviour was. Interesting sense of priorities.

Sorry, I don't understand some of these comments - a man has been exposing himself (and reading between the lines a lot more than just exposing himself) in broad daylight, at a time when the park will be full of families etc, to at least two lone females and this should just be ignored or laughed off as some sort of "old school" behaviour? Seriously?

TD Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I managed to get through to the council at around > 8pm and they said they've had so many calls and > had been out there several times but they can't do > anything. They were advising people to call the > police on 999. I had to remind them this was > unacceptable advice as that's an emergency number > and equally, it's not for police resources to be > used for this. If, as seems to be the case from various reports above, the organizers and/or participants were intimidating council officials who went to assess the situation to the extent that they withdrew and refused to send anyone else, I would have thought that would be a police matter (though not, I agree, a 999 shout).

Not really affecting me - glad I live out of earshot - but just walked home through Greendale and could not believe the racket, can't understand why that sort of sound system is allowed at this time on a Sunday evening. Those living nearby have my sincere sympathy.

More birthdays in September than any other month of the year - September 26th the most common. Christmas drinks have a lot to answer for!

Seconded. If "we are not afraid" then let's act like it!