rendelharris

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Once in a while. ? Six people stabbed to death in > a week. ? And perhaps next week there will be none...ghastly spikes of unrelated incidents will always happen from time to time, year on year it's not getting worse, in fact if anything it's getting...I won't say better, let's say less bad.

.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had 2 eggs this morning. Yesterday I had 1. If > this trend keeps up, I'll be eating more than 3 > million eggs a day by next May!!! > > (For the less perceptive: a comment on how to look > at numbers). How about if we monitored your egg consumption since 1990 and found in 1990 you ate 184 eggs in a year but in 2014 you ate 83, would it be accurate to say that you ate fewer eggs in 2014 than you ate in 1990? Or would my belief that you ate fewer eggs in 2014 than in 1990 just be a symptom of my poor perception of how to look at numbers?

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The method of policing from yesteryear was a > deterrent to many. Growing up in the East End we > knew that if you got caught doing something > anti-social by parkies, police, neighbours, > teachers you would get a 'thick ear' and you knew > you deserved it so you behaved. Added to the > 'thick ear', if your parents were told they would > unreservedly back up the 'authority'. > Still- the past is another country. Where, as I've mentioned on another thread, crime - at least in terms of murder - was pretty much the same or actually worse than it is now.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah, Tim Horan. I remember in the early 90's before > rugby was professional travelling from Brisbane > with the Queensland team on board. They were on > their way to the Super 10(?) final in South > Africa. All the players including Tim were at the > rear of the plane. I was lucky enough to sit next > to two of them, Peter Slattery and Garrick Morgan. > They were drinking beers all the way to whereever > it was we had to change flights. Having struck up > a conversation with them soon after lift off, they > plied me with drink every time they were having > another one. Anyway, back to Tim. I vaguely > remember Slattery telling me that Tim was either > dim/mad/or something else. This extract from a > book had a story by Michael Lynagh when he > introduced Tim to Venice. It sort of confirms > it..... > > https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rvfa5F9bHv4C&p > g=PT179&lpg=PT179&dq=tim+horan+on+venice&source=bl > &ots=fDmuwmZc_D&sig=NIM-AIT-41QPFM68pSIK8ZQbp6I&hl > =en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFiqjGmcnTAhVhIMAKHfwRBBkQ6AEI > RDAD#v=onepage&q=tim%20horan%20on%20venice&f=false Superb - reminiscent of Robert Benchley's telegram to New Yorker editor Harold Ross: "Arrived Venice. Streets flooded. Please advise."

Yeah JoeLeg, why should any citizen be concerned about the working and living conditions of other citizens! Leave it to the bosses you fool, they've got our best interests at heart! apbremer is an honest and clear commentator, her/his admission of the possession of a feeble brain is absolutely spot on.

Like many of my ideas, it's probably a stupid one, but I've often wondered if totally random stop and search, weighted in terms of the racial profile of an area, could be a deterrent - i.e. if an area is 50% white 50% BME in makeup, the police could just stop and search a requisite number of each group at random as a deterrent. All manner of civil liberties issues involved I realise, but I wouldn't object to occasionally being stopped if it was done courteously. Even as I write it I realise it sounds a bit Big Brother though, but if it meant people thought twice about carrying weapons...

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They're all whinging about the press > misrepresenting him (funnily, just like trump > supporters) so I went to his website and looked at > his 10 policies direct. The first one cost > ?500bn....@#$%& off.... That's his infrastructure spending plan, and refers to the amount he wants to invest in UK infrastructure over the next ten years. The Tories have identified ?483BN of projects that require investment before 2021. Even if that ?500BN was planned all to come directly from taxes, which it isn't, that would be ?50BN a year, or less than 10% of total revenue, on infrastructure projects to create jobs etc. I'm no Corbyn fan, far from it, but you know, when they talk about misrepresentation they've got a point.

Every murder is terrifying and tragic in its way, and the recent explosion of a murder a day in the last week is awful, but just for some perspective, in 1990 there were 184 homicides in London, 1991 184, 1992 175...a gradual decline with peaks occasionally (2003 204) down to 2012 89, 2013 86, 2014 83, 2015 118...so it's bad, but it isn't really getting worse: similarly nationally, 2002 1047 murders, declining year on year to 550 in 2011, 573 in 2015 - fewer than in 1980 (600+). There were 300+ murders in 1898, when the population was less than half the size it is now, 500+ in 1946 with the population roughly 60% of what it is now. Not belittling anything, just thought some people might be interested.

Gorgeous - I would have included this one though: Passing to himself - reminds me of W.G.Grace who apparently went rushing after a skier someone had hit off him, pushing a fielder out the way to catch it himself - "That chap," said the other batsman,"won't be happy until he's keeping wicket to his own bowling."

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I guess from a press perspective when there's > already been 5 fatal stabbings in London this week > it doesn rate a mention. Which is pretty shocking > and upsetting really... > > https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/28/ma > n-found-fatally-stabbed-on-london-bus-marylebone I just saw that, really worrying ? bringing us towards USA levels, e.g. nine homicides in New York this week.

Very boddish - beautiful! Put me in mind of my own playing days - unfortunately it was the guys buying the step and being left for dead that reminded me of me...

As indeed I said, a painted line. The cyclist in your picture "not using the lane" by the way is clearly pulling out to overtake the cycle rickshaw ahead of her. The idea that the cycle lane helped the attacker is quite absurd, especially as traffic was actually flowing freely at the time. Apologies to others for taking the thread off topic, but it is actually pertinent: the Westminster murderer used a car to drive to Westminster, to access the bridge and commit his foul deeds, but nobody's suggested cutting off car access to the area, yet somebody on a bicycle commits a crime in Dulwich Park and immediately suggestions are made that cycle access should be restricted. As absurd as wanting to ban dogs from the park if one person bought an illegal fighting dog into the park and it attacked somebody - as a society, if we start constraining the vast majority as a reaction to the illegal actions of a tiny minority, we're up the proverbial with no paddle in sight.

In Dulwich Park, with reference to the incident yesterday, in fact the "ring road" used to be a public highway, so that at least is suitable for cycle access. All in favour of keeping bikes out of inappropriate areas - I never go onto the internal paths. I can't see (still thinking about Dulwich Park) how you're going to prevent cycle egress: for starters you'd have to close the carpark and, as you rightly say, anything preventing cyclists getting out will prevent pushchairs, wheelchair users etc getting in. I'll take your silence re Westminster Bridge as conceding the point!

Penguin68 Wrote: > (1) There is a (narrow) cycle lane on Westminster > Bridge - it is not full carriage width and it is > separated from the road by raised paving, but for > a 4x4 (which was what was used) that, together > with the width of the pavement did allow for the > car to proceed at speed causing the damage it did, > straddling road(s) and pavement. Let's not take the thread off topic, but that's completely wrong; I cycle over it regularly so I should know. The only cycle lane currently on Westminster Bridge is separated from the road by nothing but a painted white line. The idea that the attacker used the cycle lane to help him cross the bridge is utter nonsense, as it's just not there. Look on Google streetview if you don't believe me. They've just started building a segregated cycle lane, works commenced after the attack. You said: perhaps the parts > where they (kids)could ride could be sealed from the > exits so that others couldn't use the parks to > ride and get away. To me that reads have special areas for children learning to ride and ban cyclists from the rest of the park, isn't that what you meant?

It's worrying that this sort of event is now such a commonplace that Googling it comes up with nothing apart from the EDF - nothing in the Standard or Metro even.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The park is a brilliant (and generally safe) place > for young people to learn to cycle - I would hate > to see that stopped, although perhaps the parts > where they could ride could be sealed from the > exits so that others couldn't use the parks to > ride and get away. > > But maybe it is time to consider the dangers that > two-wheeled thugs can offer park users - maybe it > is time to focus on policing things like this, > rather than focusing on dog crime (indeed focusing > on extending the definition of dog crime). If a > questionnaire had been set-up which asked the > question - which should we be focusing on - > cracking down on dogs or thugs - I wonder what the > responses would look like? 'Dogs' would be only > getting a look-in once 'thugs' were a thing of the > past, I'm guessing. Absolutely! And I was once mugged by a bloke whose escape was facilitated by the fact that he was wearing training shoes, so ban joggers too! Is this comment for real? Given that last week you were looking to blame the (non-existent) cycle lane on Westminster Bridge for facilitating the attack there, perhaps it is... first mate's comment was clearly making an apposite satirical point about what a nonsense it would be to ban the majority of law-abiding users of a park, be they dog owners, runners, cyclists or whatever, because of the poor behaviour of one or two, but your anti-cyclist prejudice clearly doesn't allow time to pause for nuances!

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, they could do dangerous cyclists and 20mph > motoring violations together. I am soooo sick of > being regularly nearly rear ended, simply for > keeping to the speed limit. That would suit me fine!

I think that might be an old report of the murder in 2011 at a funeral - Forest Hill Road, six shots fired, one dead at scene, injured man found a mile away in Honor Oak, all matches that. No date on the Capital report but fairly sure it would be on other news outlets by now if it was today.

Didn't think you were! The thing is as far as I can see from DVLA forms there's absolutely no requirement in registering a Class 3 scooter to say anything about one's reason for needing it at all, so the need for the scooter is entirely self-assessed. Not saying that's good or bad, just that it would seem to remove the only real point to the DVLA's involvement at all. It would have to be the police, and of course it would be difficult in these constrained times, applying fines. Still, I've seen quite a few "sting" operations in town recently where they've pulled over large numbers of cyclists for red light violations and ticketed them, no reason they couldn't do the same thing at night.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel, I don't know exact reasons behind > requirement to register but would guess it is a > means to ensure only disabled folk use them and > that they meet certain standards of roadworthiness > in terms of safety all round. The latter point is > probably pertinent to all road users...I am > thinking of my recent near miss at night of a > cyclist clad in dark clothing with no lights. Not as far as I can see, anyone can register a scooter - you don't need a doctor's certificate or similar, it's just like registering a zero rated car for VED, in fact until they were abolished road used mobility scooters had to have a "zero" tax disc. Technically the rules say you mustn't use a mobility scooter unless you "have trouble walking because of an injury, physical disability or medical condition
" but there's no requirement to prove that medically - it's not like applying for a blue badge, for example. As may be obvious, I am a very keen cyclist and defender of cyclists' rights: I would be happy to see cyclists riding without lights at night pulled over and given on the spot fines of ?100, no problem with that.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bobbsy, I think that if there is a requirement for > mobility scooters to be registerd then the same > should apply to other motorised vehicles. As I said above, why should mobility scooters have to be registered when once registered there's no requirement for licensing, maintenance, MOT etc? What's the point? Who benefits?

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeap, definitely going in circles. My argument has > nothing to do with safety - you introduced that > element - mine is completely to do with being a > motorised vehicle. I believe motorised vehicles > should be registered. You disagree - good for you! Just restating a belief without any justification for it is not an argument, you know. Well, you go on believing that, they're not required to be registered and nobody apart from you seems to be suggesting they should be.

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, because a motor - is there anything else > legally allowed on the road that has a motor which > doesn't need to be registered? Should we exempt > motorised bicycles just because you think they are > handy for some people? We're just going round in circles. Are they more dangerous than bicycles? Are they faster than bicycles? Is there in fact any difference between them and a bicycle apart from the fact that they have a small motor attached? It appears you just have some strange resentment of the fact that something with a motor doesn't need to be registered rather than any logical safety or any other argument to say they should - if you have such an argument please produce it, as you haven't yet. The fact that the very safety and regulations conscious EU sees no need to register them should tell you something.

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because they have a motor and legally need to > travel on the road - simple as that. I don't > understand why you think something with a motor > that travels on the road and needs to obey road > rules should be excempt from registration? Should > we exempt a normal car or motorbike because the > driver/rider feels they need some assistance? That's such a syllogistic argument, just because it has a motor it therefore should be treated the same as anything else with a motor! That's like saying my dog has four legs and a tail, my cat has four legs and a tail, therefore my dog is a cat...I can only restate what I've said above, ebikes are no faster than ordinary bicycles, no bigger and no more dangerous. If you say ebikes should be registered then why not bicycles - they have a motor, it just happens to be human! I'm sure as a cyclist yourself you wouldn't want that.