rendelharris

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Edhistory, > > Yes, let's please sort out the local pavements and > make them safe for all but especially the elderly > and disabled before shelling out on street storage > for cyclists. Everyone uses the pavement so in > cash strapped times these should take priority. I tend to agree, and I think I've said before that I don't find the case for bike hangars convincing in many cases: I think provision of on-property bike storage could well prove more effective where appropriate (?5K for an eight slot bike hangar could provide forty or more front garden bike sheds with storage for eighty bikes). So if it's a question of either/or, yes, pedestrian priority. However, I trust the same rule will be applied to motorist provision as well?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Extremely tenuous, to say the least. If you > believe that, and you were in any way consistent, > you'd have say Corbyn is 'mates' with some pretty > unpleasant terrorist individuals as well. > > And I'm pretty sure you'd never say that. I don't understand, what is "tenuous" about the fact that the DUP, with whom May is consorting to remain in power, offer tacit support to a terrorist group? I don't deny in the slightest that Corbyn has certainly allied himself with some distasteful groups in the past in a way which I feel calls his judgement into question. However, he's not currently hoping to run the country with the support of such groups in such a manner that he will have to make concessions to their demands to remain in power. There's the difference.

Given that the DUP apparently support the flying of UVF flags, quite a lot I'd say: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/northern-ireland-dup-mp-uvf-terror-flags-outcry-uproar-emma-little-pengelly-south-belfast-a7800846.html

Just for information: Dear Mr Harris Thank you for your online form of 12 June about the security barriers that have been installed on Vauxhall, Westminster and Blackfriars Bridge. I'm sorry for our delay in responding to you. The Metropolitan Police has installed barriers to increase security on London's busiest bridges. We are working with them to ensure that these barriers affect cyclists as little as possible and facilitate safe pedestrian access, while ensuring the security of all road users. I understand that Blackfriars Bridge has been raised as a particular issue as the restriction on cyclists is quite severe and cycling groups have become involved. I have passed your concerns for each of the bridges to our teams working with the Police. Please be assured we will investigate if any improvements can be made. Thanks again for contacting us. If there?s anything else we can help you with, please reply to this email. Alternatively, you can call us on 0343 222 1234 and we?ll be happy to help you. Kind regards Serena Richardson Customer Service Adviser Transport for London Customer Services

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No similar thread for Boris, then? Quite. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/22/boris-johnson-interview-disaster-diane-abbott#comment-100805562

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She didn't get a majority because of the > fox-hunting in the manifesto....social media is as > big on 'let's all hug a bunny, fox, give up meat, > legalise dope ..'etc, as it is on 'I don't want to > pay my uni fees' If that's true (which any sane person knows it isn't) what a bloody fool she was to include it then! Careful with that straw you're clutching uncle, they have a tendency to break and drop you right in the midden...

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She didn't actually win the election. Had she won > a clear majority and dropped these, you'd have a > point. > > Actually, there were a couple of pleasant > surprises in the QS I didn't know were coming - > the tenant fees banning and the right to be > forgotten. Shame about all the Project Economic > Suicide stuff. Well she has won the election in the sense of winning the most votes and forming a government, which one would think should carry with it an obligation to either attempt to pass the legislation you were offering or stand down. As far as I can see she hasn't dropped the policies she had in her manifesto because they would be impossible to pass, her excuse at least is that she needs all parliamentary time for Brexit - did she not know this was going to be the case prior to calling the election?

Yes, I'm just wondering whether they would have had even the Pyhrric victory they achieved without the promises that they've now ditched ? for example I seem to recall during the campaign there was a lot of talk of grammar schools playing well with certain sections of the electorate, and I'm sure the vote in some rural communities would have been influenced by the promise to bring back foxhunting. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad these policies are out, but I wonder how many would have voted for a government offering Brexit and nothing but?

I don't think "I like doing something" is really a valid excuse for contributing heavily, and unnecessarily, to pollution which causes around 10,000 early deaths and countless childhood breathing and developmental problems in London alone. Nobody's talking about the occasional campfire, but the increase in woodburners is a massive environmental health problem - is wanting clean air to breathe "a bridge too far"?

Willard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > "Given that particulate pollution from > > woodburning stoves contributed to up to 50% of > > particulate matter in the air on some days last > > winter..." > > Source? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119595-wood-burners-london-air-pollution-is-just-tip-of-the-iceberg/ (May have to create free account to read)

How many voters chose the Tories on the basis of policies (e.g. new grammar schools) which have now been dumped? One feels that in business this would be called taking money under false pretences...to suddenly drop a skipfull of manifesto commitments saying "Oh, we've got to deal with the Brexit which we knew was coming" seems fundamentally dishonest.

Great description of the DUP the other day (can't remember who, could have been Frankie Boyle): "They're the paramilitary wing of the Old Testament."

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And there is of course the argument that it's ok > for a group of people to be enjoying themselves > even though their actions cause distress to others > ( see 6 year old cycling on pavement thread ) . I think the difference is that it is possible for a well-controlled polite six-year-old to cycle on the pavement without causing any distress to others, but it's not possible to have a firepit on the go without the smoke going into other people's windows. Given that particulate pollution from woodburning stoves contributed to up to 50% of particulate matter in the air on some days last winter, and that firepits, which are not subject to the regulations demanding kiln-dried wood or other smokeless fuels, will be even worse contributors, it's really time we reconsidered our desire to burn things just because they look pretty. Natural gas and propane firepits are available - no cleaning, no trips to the shops for fuel, no fumes and no pollution!

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Oh, and before the cycle nazis have a > go at me I think don't someone who thinks using "nazis" to describe people who disagree with him is really worthy of the consideration of debate. Especially someone who comes up with arguments such as that we shouldn't have lower speed limits because he apparently doesn't have the skill to monitor his speedometer and ride safely at the same time. End of the day, DL, you rehash the same old arguments over and over every time this subject comes up and make it more and more apparent that the simple fact of the matter is that for you the motor is king and anything at all which prioritises cyclists or pedestrians over motorists enjoying the "right" to get around as fast as possible is anathema to you. It would be more honest if you admitted this rather than dress it up in a rather transparent "really I'm actually protecting the pedestrians" argument.

DL: "Pedestrians should not be inconvenienced even if this makes the road safer for all?" Substitute motorists for pedestrians and that's exactly your position re 20MPH limits.

If pedestrian safety is really your priority, DL, then you would surely support cars driving at 20MPH rather than 30MPH, given all the well known statistics about the different likelihoods of fatality at those speeds? Are you seriously going to claim that your frequently voiced opposition to 20MPH limits has nothing to do with your desire to get around faster?

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By the same logic, cars should be allowed to run > red lights when no one is in sight, right? > Or motorists should be allowed to speed when the > road is empty? > > Yes, there are situations when running a red light > or speeding or crossing when it's red may be safe, > but rules exist precisely because we humans cannot > be trusted to make this kind of determinations. Your question is entirely redundant as running a red light in a car is illegal, whereas crossing as a pedestrian against a red light is not. That's why it was rather confusing earlier that you were advocating fining pedestrians - there is no offence of "jaywalking" in this country.

The videos I've seen of them seem to show them scaring the crap out of people crossing completely empty streets when the red man is showing. When you get to a crossing as a pedestrian and the red man's showing, do you always stand and wait even if there's no traffic in sight? ETA you're doing it again, by the way (and I must admit you're quite good at it): you're setting yourself up as being all concerned about pedestrians, whereas the truth is you want higher speed limits for your own pleasure and convenience. Be honest and don't pretend concern about 20MPH causing more accidents because pedestrians are more likely to cross unless you have any evidence that it's true.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- The experience of > my daily commute is that I see way more acts of > stupid, almost suicidal behaviour by pedestrians > and cyclists than by other categories. I find it > puzzling, as they are among the most vulnerable, > yet that is my experience. Funny, when I'm in the car (as a passenger) I see more stupid behaviour from pedestrians and cyclists than from any other type of road user. When I'm cycling, I see more stupid behaviour from pedestrians and motorists than any other type of road user. When I'm walking, I see more stupid behaviour from motorists and cyclists than any other type of road user. When you say it's your experience, it would be more accurate to say it's your perception.

Well, it's for that precise reason that I fitted a wireless digital cycle speedometer to my last motorcycle - set it up right and they're very very accurate, only cost you a tenner or so. With reference to Park Lane, come on, you're clearly a clever chap, you know that's nonsense - the reason pedestrians don't try to cross Park Lane other than at the lights is because it's impossible to do so, it's a four lane highway that is nearly always rammed with traffic. The argument that speed limits should be kept high to discourage pedestrians from not crossing anywhere but at lights or zebras is clearly nonsensical and also demonstrates the "we own the road" attitude of motorists: it's perfectly legal for pedestrians to cross the road wherever they choose. Of course some of them do so stupidly - just as some motorists drive stupidly - so what do you want? All main roads fully barriered with crossing only permitted at lights so you can do 40MPH? With reference to the incident I mentioned, no there wasn't a bus there at all, we were heading towards Lordship Lane, the kid ran from the corner of Quorn Road, diagonally across the empty bus lane, appearing at my left shoulder (in the passenger seat) and running across in front of us on the diagonal. As I said, he was obviously looking at the red light in the bus lane and thinking it meant we would stop.

William Elliot Whitmore - Let's do something impossible

The only barriers on DKH are a few yards either side of the traffic lights, the rest (90%) of the road is unbarriered, and people do cross - in fact recently Mrs.H bumped into a kid there who ran across the front of our car, coming from behind out of her blindspot - think he'd seen the bus lane light was red and so thought we were stopping. Very luckily he was unharmed, partly due to a superb bit of reaction braking from Mrs.H, who's an excellent driver, but also due to the fact that she was adhering to the 20 limit. The silly lad went down under our bumper (heartstopping moment) but the wheels didn't touch him. If she'd been doing 30 she would have gone straight over and doubtless killed him. Why would someone have to check their speedometer more often to see if they're staying under 20 in a 20 zone than they'd have to to see if they were staying under 30 in a 30 zone?

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with keano77- the article is biased and > from German so was probably instigated by Merkel > as they are scared stiff that France and Germany > are going to have to make up the shortfall. The > whole tone of Juncker and others is obviously that > of toys being thrown out of the pram. The EU will > NEVER have a reasonable debate- it is so up itself > that it will just carry on demanding. A) If you actually read properly you'll see it's from "a Swiss newspaper, Der Bund" and B) believing that the Chancellor of Germany occupies herself by ordering that anti-Brexit articles be published in small (circulation around 50,000) regional newspapers in other countries really is heading further into the tinfoil hat territory you've been occupying for some while now.

Most common garden birds fledge around two weeks from hatching, so you can tell your neighbours they won't have to wait too long (though a bit of shade would be welcome today!). I'd suggest you wait until you're sure the mother's not taking food in any more, then cut back slowly and carefully and obviously stop as soon as you come upon any active nests.

Apparently there was a big drop in milk production last autumn and so wholesale prices rose sharply, which is now showing at the till.