rendelharris

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I went over Blackfriars this morning. As Beulah > says, utter chaos. Three light changes to get > through. It seems fine at the south end. That's the other daft thing - they've blocked off the left turn onto the sliproad for the Embankment for the sewage works or whatever it is they're doing (which are going to take over a year, apparently - I wrote to ask if they couldn't have just left a small cycle lane open but no reply) but left the lights as if it's still open! As I don't usually cross at rush hour I get off and push over to the new, "temporary" cycle lane on the north side of the road, it's quicker than waiting for the lights. TfL, having given us unprecedentedly good new provision, seem hellbent on taking as much of it away as possible.

Beulah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^I rode over Blackfriars Bridge this morning > during rush hour - was total chaos. > The queue backed up almost halfway. > There was some ex-squaddie fat head - City of > London PCSO type - near the gates at the northern > end who was there to presumably make sure no-one > was hurt - he was just shouting at everyone. > Made me wonder what would have happened if the > terrorists had used a bicycle instead of a van - > perhaps all cycling would be banned? > Vehicular traffic is completely unaffected. > I get the need to protect people but this is > poorly thought out, poorly executed and actually > puts more people in danger of being hurt IMO. Thanks for the information, I haven't sent my email to TfL yet so I will include that.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The difference between the bridges and places like > parliament square is that the traffic lights all > around parliament square, the oval etc, and all > the associated traffic congestion make it > impossible to get a car up to the sorts of lethal > speeds the terrorists managed to achieve on > Westminster and London Bridges. > > To say that the barricades will have "little if > any real effect on public safety," is nonsense. > Let's see how many more terrorists attacks are > carried out in London by driving a car across a > bridge and into a crowed of pedestrian. I think > you know that it simply won't happen ever again > because of these measures. Yes, quite possibly there won't be another attack on the bridges ? there'll just be an attack elsewhere. There are plenty of places where tourists gather that it would be possible to get up to a killing speed, especially with modern cars which accelerate so fast. On Sunday morning, for example, Westminster Bridge and Whitehall were almost devoid of traffic but there was still a large crowd, it wouldn't take much for a terrorist to work out the optimum time for an attack. When I say they will have little if any real effect on public safety I'm not claiming that the measures themselves are ineffective, I'm simply saying that attackers will select different targets: these sort of murdering psychopaths are hardly going to say oh dear, we can't make an attack on the bridges any more, let's call the whole thing off, are they? And even if having barriers on the bridges is absolutely essential to public safety, there's still no reason for them to take away provision from cyclists when far more sensible and just as safe alternatives (which, incidentally, wouldn't inconvenience motorists at all) are available.

Yes, rode over both Blackfriars and Vauxhall bridges yesterday and noted the ludicrous siting of the barriers inside the cycle lanes. The new entrance and exit bollards are absurd too, to stop even the narrowest car getting through (say a Smart ForTwo) they could still be 150cm apart, they're much closer than that. The most ridiculous setup is at the north end of Blackfriars, where three massive boat-shaped bollards have been dumped in the centre of the cycle lane with two more either side, with just enough space for one cyclist going in either direction. That must be chaos in rush hour, anyone tried it? I know we have to protect against attacks, but this is way over the top and, it seems to me, pointless, defending the bridges on the basis that they've been used before. I mean, I rode over Westminster Bridge on Saturday, yes now an attacker can't get at pedestrians on the bridge, get over the bridge and there were massive crowds in Parliament Square with nothing to stop them being mown down. Similarly, they can't get at pedestrians on Vauxhall Bridge, on Sunday they could have gone on a few hundred yards and found massive unprotected crowds waiting to get into the India vs SA game at the Oval. It seems cyclists are bearing the brunt of new measures when it's cars that have done the damage - I haven't seen a single preventative measure to slow or check cars on the road. If they were sensible and effective of course one would be obliged to support them, however inconvenient, but they seem to me ill thought out, kneejerk measures which will have little if any real effect on public safety. I've written to TfL about this, will post if any worthwhile response is forthcoming.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Clangers unite, there's Moomins to fight!... Stop your stirring, there's more that joins Moomins and Clangers than separates them, we just need mutual understanding.

One of the best holidays I ever had as a kid was on Majorca, get into the interior or the north part and there are (or there were) wonderful unspoiled areas, mountains, olive groves and the friendliest people.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a descriptive term - The legal entity is > the United Kingdom > > The descriptive term is Republic of Ireland - The > legal term is Ireland Lordship, I respect and enjoy your posts but you're really barking up the wrong tree here. We live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. All citizens of that entity are British, as is made perfectly clear on both the UK Gov and NI Gov websites linked above. However let the record show that if Clangers passports as suggested above by RD are available, I want one!

It's a simple fact, all persons born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are British citizens. That is the official UK government term. There is no official designation of "UK citizen"! This is the UK government's official website: https://www.gov.uk/browse/citizenship/citizenship - note the multiple references to "British citizenship"!

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "...can choose to be British citizens, Irish > citizens or both... > > Many of our former colonies can also apply for > British Citizenship > > Look at your passport, United Kingdom of Great > Britain (ie, England, Wales and Scotland) and > Northern Ireland I can't go much further with this squire, holders of UK & NI passports are British citizens, as evinced by the NI government website I've quoted above, I can't really give you any more evidence than what the actual government says about it!

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Correction Rendel > > Northern Ireland is not part of Britain. It is > part of the United Kingdom. As such, technically, > NI citizens cannot be British although > geographically they reside within the British > Isles Correction declined. Northern Ireland government website: Nationality and citizenship Northern Ireland is part of the UK. However, under the Belfast Agreement(external link opens in a new window / tab), also known as the Good Friday Agreement, people born in Northern Ireland can choose to be British citizens, Irish citizens or both. If they choose to be both British and Irish citizens, this means they have a dual citizenship. (https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/about-northern-ireland) There's no "technically" about it - Northern Ireland residents who opt for British citizenship are officially defined by the UK and NI governments as British citizens. A territory does not have to have a geographically located on the island of Great Britain in order for its citizens to be British: the residents of the Falkland Islands, for example, have British citizenship.

Robert Harris (no relation, sadly) in today's Sunday Times sums things up rather well, I think: "How did a stable, prosperous parliamentary democracy, granted a unique set of favourable opt-outs with the largest trading bloc in the world, including on the single currency and travel, throw it all up in the air on the basis of a 52-48 yes/no vote in a referendum ? a margin not normally wide enough to change the constitution of the average golf club? "What arrogance of intellect, what frivolousness of character, led our leaders to take such a gamble? Why did the Tory party rush to choose such an ill-equipped successor? Why did that successor, a ?remainer? herself, not seek to bind up our divided nation rather than opt for the harshest of all Brexit positions? Why did she call an election after, rather than before, triggering article 50 and so deny the country a final say on its destiny?"

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NI is NOT British > They belong to the United Kingdom of Great Britain > & Northern Ireland > - they are Irish people who are UK-landers or > Nirelanders, never British. It's a bit more complex than that - under the Good Friday agreement, those born in Northern Ireland can choose British citizenship, Irish citizenship or dual citizenship. There's no such official title as "United Kingdom and Northern Ireland citizenship" or "Northern Irish citizenship," if you choose to identify as a citizen of the UK & NI then you're officially British. No judgement intended on any side of the line, but that's how it's defined.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It will be interesting to see the voting by age > group figures next week- Jezza's big bribe re > student fees and school lunches must have > contributed to the result. Fun to see the right being poor losers when they haven't even technically lost. What a worldview when trying to make access to education and decent nutrition available for the less well off absolutely must be a bribe, not a principle worth fighting for. One almost feels they're more to be pitied than censured, it must be horrid to have to inhabit that bile-filled bitter mindset all the time.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the election result was switched between Con & > Labour, most of Labour would be sorely tempted to > do a deal with the DUP after 7 years out of power. > Even JC might compromise a few of his principles > to become PM. If he didn't then there might be a > coup. A) I very much doubt Corbyn would betray his principles, much as I'm sure the right, having seen their own leader totally kick the idea of any principle beyond staying in power into touch, would like to think all others would do the same, and B) it's an academic question as the DUP have said there's absolutely no question of supporting Corbyn in any circumstances.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thank you for the two pictures of velocipedes and > the confirmation that bone-shakers were not > cycles. They may have been called velocipedes at the time, but any history of the bicycle will show you that the boneshaker is regarded as the first proper bicycle, being the first two-wheeled conveyance powered by pedals.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you look at this objectively, anyone who voted > Labour, however good his or her intentions, is > indirectly responsible for the DUP being the power > brokers. > > The old adage, careful what you wish for comes to > mind. You're quite right - the Tories should have included it in their campaign - "If you don't vote for us we're going to team up with a bunch or terrorist-sympathising swivel-eyed bigots and you've only yourselves to blame." Your logic is impeccable and I and every other Labour voter should hang our heads in shame for that which we have wrought.

Now if you want some proper poetry... Goodbye T?resa May Though I never liked you at all, You?re lacking grace, you fooled yourself And now you?ve got fuck all. You crawled out of the woodwork As if you weren?t Remain You said that you could sort things out, You ran a shite campaign? And it seems to me your party?s rife With old farts full of wind You had the press all on your side But still you couldn?t win. And I wish we?d never known you And now you?re on the skids I?d tell you what I think of you But decency forbids.

I could conversely say London's roads certainly aren't suitable for the current volume of motor traffic - given that there are very few places the roads can be widened, the only solution is to reduce motor traffic. Sympathize with all your points re Rye Lane, ideally there should be a raised kerb (with plenty of gaps for wheelchairs etc) to stop stupid cyclists using the pavement for overtakes, and maybe a zebra halfway down to allow people like your mother to cross in safety.

They'll come - I fancy Watson for one, he's been great since the unfortunate friendly fire on Hogg.

This is a lot more like it, cracking play!

Henry_17 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel, > Unnecessary in terms of which imperitive? You mean the polls? This latest one because May had a majority, she thought she had the country behind her and Corbyn on the run so greedily - and I think for reasons very much to do with her own ego and self-perception as a strong and beloved leader - decided to try and grab a bigger majority and a guaranteed five year term. The Brexit vote also was unnecessary, Cameron included it in the 2015 manifesto as a sop to his own Eurosceptics.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From the Daily Mail > > The velocipede appeared in 1865, and had pedals > applied to the front wheels. It was popularly > known as the 'Bone Shaker', as the combination of > wood and metal tyres and cobblestoned streets made > for a very uncomfortable ride > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-233 > 9507/The-hobby-horse-style-bike-pedals-saddle--hol > ds-riders-harness.html Always be careful when looking to the DM for facts! As a bike bore I can tell you the word velocipede (from velo - fast and pede - feet) first arose in France much earlier, just after the end of the Naopoleonic wars. It was a simple "dandy horse" type bike pushed along by the feet, like the "balance bikes" one can buy for toddlers today. It's only used as a term for bicycles and similar derivatives (unicycles, tricycles etc), not skateboards or roller skates. Good post above Blah Blah, most of these conflicts won't be conflicts with a little courtesy and common sense on both sides.

So we either tell young people to start being middle aged as soon as they turn eighteen, or take the vote away until life has ground the idealism out of them? Personally, as a middle aged cynical old git, I say let's celebrate our youth, especially if they're bothered enough to get involved in activism - more than most of us (including me) do. They've got a lifetime to get old in, they're only young once.

It never ceases to amaze what people have told you uncle - do you ever stop to think that maybe they're telling you complete bollocks?

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Especially on the shared pedestrian bike way in > Rye Lane . No disrespect to your mum, but there isn't a shared pathway on Rye Lane, that's a cycle path which pedestrians shouldn't be on. That's why (see other thread) something needs to be done to mark it more clearly, pedestrians are getting mad at cyclists thinking they're riding on the pavement when in fact it's a very poorly designed cycle lane.