rendelharris

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel, I've a feeling that roadworthy mobility > scooters, the ones you don't want in cycle lanes > because they go too slowly at a max speed of 8mph, > have to be registered with DVLA- not trying to > pick a fight again, just saying. > > However, I note how you use disabled and elderly > as part rationale for e-bikes. So many disabled > would never have that option and I am sure you > know that. Yes you're quite right it seems - 8MPH mobility scooters have to be licensed. But then I think that's a nonsense as well, especially as no licence is required to drive them, they are not MOTd or require insurance etc etc - seems an entirely irksome and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Would gladly have that requirement removed. Of course many disabled and elderly people can't use an ebike. But many can, and do! We won't get back into the should mobility scooters be allowed in cycle lanes, I think we wrung (wrang?) the last drop out of that one previously! :-)

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Any electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters > that travel on the road, yes. And you've hit on > the point exactly - they are exactly the same as a > normal bicycle EXCEPT they have a > motor...therefore aren't the same at all. I really don't see how I can debate this with you as you haven't given any reason why ebikes should be registered except that you think they should. They can't go any faster than an average cyclist, they can't do any more harm than an average cyclist, they're no bigger than an average bicycle, they're just as safe as an average bicycle and they can provide a way for the ill, disabled, elderly or those with journeys longer than they can manage unassisted to remain cycling instead of congesting public transport or using cars. Please can you just give your reason for saying they should be registered? As mentioned above, when I was seriously ill and there was no way I could cycle normally (could just about manage flats, needed assistance uphill) I fitted an ebike kit to my normal bicycle. I researched the best kits etc for months and in looking at literally hundreds of pages and dozens of forums about ebikes I don't think I ever came across anyone suggesting they should be licensed.

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are powered vehicles, thus should be > registered. Very irresponsible to let them on as > they are. Technically you are not correct > rendelharris - the electric motor won't assist > when you're travelling more than 25 km/h > (15.5mph), but they are not limited to 15mph. The motor is limited to that speed and cuts out if you're going faster than that. If you can go above that under your own steam, as many cyclists can, nothing wrong with that. Why is it irresponsible to allow a bicycle on the roads that's exactly the same as (apart from having a motor, obviously), and can't go any faster than, any other bicycle ridden by an averagely fit person? Do you want electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters registered too? They're powered vehicles...seems as though you want to create a problem where none exists.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In reality I think the reason is McLusky - I think > the other Milliband would have beaten Cameron, > conjecture of course I doubt it - although I favoured David at the time, from a best-chance-to-win point of view - as I recall polls asking if people would vote Labour if it were David not Ed in charge only gave David a couple more points, and people are notoriously fickle: I well remember in the '90s people saying they'd vote Labour if only Blair was leader, then when John Smith died saying they'd been planning to vote for nice John Smith but they didn't trust Blair... David, of course, would have been subjected to the same disgraceful Daily Mail "his dad was a communist traitor out to destroy Britain" stuff and his closer association with Blair would have been used against him as well. What I think really would have scuppered whichever of them had won was the fact that brother ran against brother - someone in the family should have knocked their heads together, whoever had won they were never going to look trustworthy after that. Cameron's "Of course we [him and Clegg] disagree, good lord, it's not like we're brothers or anything!" was one of the most effective jibes of the last parliament.

Deleted - just realised I haven't the energy/time/inclination to argue with the "where did you get your figures from" cohort, some of whom, whilst offering no figures themselves, demand PhD levels of verification for those of others...

ruffers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well cars are supposedly limited to 20 by law, > where does that leave us? It's not that there's a 15mph external limit, eBikes are not allowed if their motor can exceed 15MPH.

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Electric bicycles shouldn't be allowed on the road > without registration IMO Why not? They're limited to 15MPH, slower than most of us can manage on a pushbike.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not all of us have health options to ride > bicycles. I wish people would stop trying to sell > cycling. Like the Council. Keep saying it's > healthy. Well it would kill me, and also > breathing in fumes is worse when exercising. No > thanks. Stick with motorcycling. More fun too. Probably shouldn't follow you off topic but I'll bite...breathing in fumes is bad for you so I'll carry on doing what creates the fumes, right? Electric bikes are now brilliant for those who can't physically cope with cycling, I had one during a period of severe ill health and it was great fun - more fun in London than when I had a motorcycle, in fact.

Here's an interesting extract from another Telegraph article (full article here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8702111/How-do-accidents-happen.html): "It has been an eye-opener," says project manager Neil Greig, of the IAM. "Not just in terms of what causes an accident but in terms of dispelling some of the popular myths. For instance, if you look at Government campaigns they seem to say that speed is the number one problem. But illegal speeding ? when drivers exceed the posted limit ? accounts for only 13.9 per cent of fatal accidents. A bigger cause [15.9 per cent] is going too fast for the conditions ? entering a bend too quickly, for instance ? when you might well be under the actual speed limit." But the biggest cause of road accidents in the UK today? The statistics are quite clear on this and it's "driver error or reaction". It's listed by police as a factor in more than 65 per cent of fatal crashes and the heading covers a multitude of driving sins many of which you're probably on first-name terms with. Topping the charge sheet is failing to look properly (the Smidsy factor ? "Sorry mate, I didn't see you', relevant in 20.5 per cent of fatals involving driver error), followed by "loss of control" (34 per cent) which, says Greig, often means leaving yourself with "nowhere to go" after entering a bend or other situation, too quickly. Other errors include "poor turn or manoeuvre" (12 per cent) and "failed to judge other person's path or speed" (11.6 per cent.). Second biggest cause of fatal accidents, to blame for 31 per cent, is the "injudicious action", an umbrella term for "travelled too fast for the conditions' (15.9 per cent of those labelled injudicious), "exceeded speed limit" (13.9 per cent) or "disobeyed give-way or stop sign" (2.1 per cent)? Third culprit in the daily gamble on who lives and who dies is "behaviour or inexperience" (28 per cent), which covers faults such as "careless, reckless or in a hurry" (17 per cent), "aggressive driving" (8.3 per cent) and "learner/inexperienced" (5.3 per cent). The fourth main category is "impairment or distraction" (to blame for 19.6 per cent of fatal accidents) covering "alcohol" (a factor in 9.6 per cent of fatal accidents) and "distraction in vehicle" (2.6 per cent). So, "only" 13.9% of people killed are killed by people exceeding the speed limit. But 15.9% are killed by people going too fast for the conditions - so that's already nearly 30% of fatalities caused by excessive speed. No breakdown but it's fair to assume that at least some of those "too fast but under the limit" fatalities were caused by drivers in 30MPH zones taking bends too fast (one of, to my mind, the big arguments for 20MPH zones: yes that stretch of road might be safe for 30MPH, but how many drivers have the skill and judgement to slow properly for that bend/junction ahead? I'm continually braking/swerving out to avoid drivers for whom the stop line appears to have come as a complete surprise and who brake at the last second. Polite note to drivers by the way, you're supposed to have the whole of your vehicle behind the stop line, not your front wheels resting on it, or as is becoming all too common, having it under your bum with six feet of bonnet sticking into the road). Then 20.5% of accidents involve "Smidsy" - again it's surely obvious that faster speeds lead to less careful observation of the margins and less time to react. Then there's 17% caused by "careless, reckless or in a hurry" and 8% "aggressive driving" - safe to assume speed plays a part in a lot of those as well. So there's more to excessive speed than just people exceeding the speed limit. In an ideal world everyone would be a good and responsible driver and know not to take that bend/approach that junction/pass that playground at 30MPH even if the limit says they can, in the real world traffic needs slowing.

If they think that's a joke I'll gladly join a boycott, but as they're disclaiming responsibility and seemingly taking action it might have been more seemly to ask for an explanation and then post about them if it was unsatisfactory. ETA Sorry posted before saw JoeLeg's post - what he said.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nobody is under any obligation to merely refute > specific points made, this isn't a university > debating society or a court of law. It could be > said that your comment about a "meaningless > statement" was a rather lazy attempt at a putdown. You are quite entitled to say that if you wish if that's your opinion, just as I am allowed to express mine. Good, are we done now?

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A reflection contributes just as much as a counter > argument and can progress the discussion. Why do > you believe it's a "meaningless statement"? Because it implies that attributing anything to the class system (really, do you not believe that the class system played a part in shaping the intellectual and social life of the nineteenth century?) is simply a kneejerk reaction without validity, rather than refuting the specific point made. Without substantiation it's just a rather lazy attempt at a putdown.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Jenny1 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > rendelharris Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > As Frederic Raphael (I think) once said, > England > > > > is the only country where being called > clever (as > > > > in "too clever by half") is an insult. > > > > > > I wonder where this prejudice comes from? I > bet > > > it's a relatively 'modern' thing - nineteenth > > > century maybe? Does it go with the birth of > > > schools for the elite that focused on > creating > > > 'empire builders' on the sports field rather > than > > > scientists ? > > > > I think it's a lot to do with the class system > - > > in a society where high political and military > > position was more predicated on one's birth > than > > one's abilities the clever person was seen as a > > pushy upstart trying to usurp the natural > order. > > One day we're going to find something 'bad' that > nobody anywhere will try to blame on the class > system. Why not offer a counter argument instead of a meaningless statement?

At the risk of being a crawler, another good decision by Admin there - geobz was a nasty bit of work.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Putin has something on Trump but Trump had to do > something to show how strong America is and appear > to stand up to Putin. Google Trump and Bayrock corporation for some interesting theories about just what hold Russia has over Trump.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I view Blair's attitude as akin to Tony Crosland's > quote about destroying grammar schools- another > great betrayal of the working classes of this > country- after all it is a lot easier to brainwash > the uneducated isn't it! I just need something about Polish builders who live in council flats for a full house in uncleglen bingo!

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The moorhens can fly, not the coots, I think. Eurasian coots are sometimes migratory, they definitely can fly quite long distances - but when settled somewhere they tend not to. Moorhens I don't know, one sees them doing little flights like pheasants, can they go further if need be? Coots are definitely fearful bullies of other birds.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A prime example of mixing correlation with > causation. Lead particulates from tetraethyl lead > are heavy and fall to the ground - so you'd be > having to lick the road a lot. How Does Lead Get in the Air? Sources of lead emissions vary from one area to another. At the national level, major sources of lead in the air are ore and metals processing and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation fuel. Other sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. The highest air concentrations of lead are usually found near lead smelters. As a result of EPA's regulatory efforts including the removal of lead from motor vehicle gasoline, levels of lead in the air decreased by 98 percent between 1980 and 2014. US Environmental Protection Agency ETA: How much of a problem is air-borne lead in Australia? The amount of lead in Australia's air has decreased significantly since the introduction of unleaded petrol in 1986. Before the phase-out of leaded petrol, which began in 1993, the national air quality standard for lead was regularly exceeded in urban environments. Levels are now less than 10 per cent of the national annual standard of 0.5 micrograms per cubic metre of air. Australian Environment Department The correlation between lead in the air and criminality is certainly debatable, but the idea that lead particulate pollution from car exhausts simply fell harmlessly on to the road would seem not to be the case.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James, I'm interested in your comment about lead > removal from petrol contributing to crime rates > falling. > Is that really a thing - I was not aware of that. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27067615

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > > > No, moving traffic offences are the likes of > > blocking stopboxes, making illegal turns, > driving > > the wrong way up one way streets etc, speeding > > offences are separate and the revenue goes to > the > > treasury. > > I see - my bad, then. > > Do councils still somehow get the money back, i.e. > is that money reallocated back to road safety, > etc, or can the government use it for whatever it > wants? In other words, do councils really have no > financial incentives whatsoever in speeding > tickets? I hope you'll forgive my scepticism :) No, it goes into the general treasury expenditure and can be spent in any way the government allocates. If you want to be cynical to the nth degree, obviously it's in the interests of the relevant council officers to push for more speed cameras etc as the consultations etc required will keep them in work (though that reasoning can be applied to virtually any workers, private or public), but unless I'm completely missing something there is not a financial benefit to any council in issuing speeding tickets. Maybe, just maybe, they actually genuinely care about the safety of their residents on their roads? ;-) (By the way in some areas (though not the Met, as far as I know) police are permitted to keep a percentage of speeding fines, but councils definitely don't)

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > uncleglen Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > Blair has admitted that his policies were > > designed > > > to 'rub the establishment nose into > > > multiculturalism'..... > > > > No he hasn't, stop making things up. > > Hang on, I'm interested to know if this point is > true. > > Source please Uncleglen? Something verifiable on > Snopes preferably. I wouldn't put anything past > Blair, but seeing as it's you I'd appreciate some > proof otherwise I'll assume you've just pulled > your usual stunt of dropping into a thread and > making random bigoted assertions before running > away from having to defend your position. One of Blair's advisers in the early '00s, Andrew Neather, wrote an article much later in that beacon of truth the Evening Standard saying that the aim of Labour's immigration policy was to "rub the right's nose in diversity." This was leapt upon by the rightwing press and the Tories, although Neather himself quickly retracted and admitted the main aim of the policy was to fill jobs in the then booming economy and that any "multiculturalise the UK" policy was just an "impression" he had. Tony Blair has never, of course, said anything like what UG claims he has "admitted" and clearly it would have been suicidal for him to do so - actually if you Google "blair rub the establishment noses in multiculturalism" UG's comment makes it sixth out of the whole internet...it's the sort of cobblers people come out with when they get the majority of their information from Migrationwatch, I suspect.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blair has admitted that his policies were designed > to 'rub the establishment nose into > multiculturalism'..... No he hasn't, stop making things up.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Without a cap, you can end up like this chap in > Finland :-) > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1759791.st > m And why not? He'll certainly think twice before speeding again!

fmcgibbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know the heading of this thread isn't a great > opener.......but......I'm organising a very small, > low key get together for a friend getting married > in June. (you could almost call it a hen party..:) > And I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions > for doing something a little different than the > usual spa / brunches etc. > > Ideally we want to do an activity of some > description around Peckham / South East London and > then have a local dinner, so it's more the > activity that I'd like some fellow forum'ers help > with. The bride to be is Spanish as are 8 out of > the 11 people attending. We were thinking of > hiring a canal boat for the day, but as we have > left it a little last minute (happening in two > weeks) everywhere seems booked up. > > So any suggestions would be helpful, alternatively > if anyone knows of a skipper with a boat do PM me! > > Thanks, thanks, and thanks again! Unless you must do it on a Saturday this boat seems to have availability: https://www.designmynight.com/london/event-space/kings-cross/canal-boat-party

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?100 isn't much - Sky were talking about 150% of > your > weekly salary - and I bet that's gross. That's for really bad offences - 41MPH in a 20MPH zone up to 101MPH on the motorway. Can go up to 175%! But, unfairly in my opinion, the fines are capped at ?1000 and ?2500 for non-motorway and motorway offences respectively, so the footballer in his Aston, for example, will get a gnat bite he won't even notice, about four hours' pay, while someone on minimum wage will lost nearly two weeks' pay. All in favour of harsh penalties for dangerous drivers, but it seems as ever the law is advantageous for the wealthy.