rendelharris

You're as capable as I am of Googling: you can start here: http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/drivers/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Applespider Wrote: > > > Pedestrians and cyclists should lobby together > for > > better conditions. We would be stronger > together > > when campaigning for improved junctions, > traffic > > light phasing and for each group to have > > appropriate space. In cities, both groups > should > > take priority, alongside public transport > users, > > over private vehicles. > > I agree. Which is precisely why one of my main > gripes with segregated cycle lanes is that a > number of bus lanes have been removed to make way > for them. Even the most fervent pro-cycling lobby > should acknowledge that everyone can take a bus, > while not everyone can cycle. So, as I've suggested to you before, take the lanes away from private transport and not buses or cyclists. I believe I pointed out to you the other day that on Vauxhall Bridge, one of your pet peeves, there are six lanes available, currently distributed one bus lane (northbound), four open vehicle lanes and one two-way cycle lane. If you want another bus lane coming south, why shouldn't that be taken away from the vehicle lanes instead of, as you wish, from the one cycle lane?

DL, it's fun to debate with you but you do have this habit of demanding that other people provide evidence rather than offering it yourself. You're clearly intelligent and capable of looking for the evidence yourself, I suspect sometimes you ask people to provide evidence (vide cycle lanes) that you know is not available (to support either side) as a debating technique. As for 20MPH limits, cost/benefit - cost, don't know, benefit, many fewer people are killed if hit at 20 than if hit at 30 - and I know you can find the evidence for that yourself. The only reason some 20MPH limits haven't reduced accidents and fatalities is that people haven't been adhering to them (you can see this every single day (every minute) on the streets of ED), that's an argument for better policing of them and better driver education, not against the limits per se.

Enjoy, never ridden one but heard heaps of good things about the XJ6!

benfaulkner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In terms of bikes, theres a fairly new Yam XJ6 I > have my eye on, which is in my price range and > fits my requirements. Not that desirable but maybe > enough for someone to go to some effort to get. > Other option is to get an much older > ER5/CB500/GS500 but then it's not a whole lot > cheaper and you get a lot less bike and > potentially some issues. It's a while since my (motorised) biking days but I'd strongly advise against an ER5 - my experience was they handle like a pig and aren't too reliable (but they're popular so maybe I rode bad ones). CB500s are great and just about bulletproof. Dakar type bikes - BMW F650 for example - are comfortable in traffic and have a good high riding position. My sister had the unfaired version of Suzuki's SV650 and that seemed to me one of the best compromises I'd seen of relatively sporty performance with a comfortable commute. Just my tuppence worth, as I say it was a while ago. ETA Might not fit your requirements, but the one time I rode a Honda Varadero 125 I was really impressed with the quality (well it's Honda) and surprising punch, if all you want to do is commute in London you could do a lot worse and obviously there are massive insurance advantages...

@malumbu: thought that wasn't your style! ;-) @Nigello: completely agree, all the better if improvements for cyclists and pedestrians come at the same time - on Blackfriars Bridge Road, for example, hand in hand with the new cycle lanes came new broad pavements, planters and traffic control measures to improve things for pedestrians. @DulwichLondoner: well until someone does a study we're left with I think/you think, which isn't getting us anywhere. However, as noted before, segregated cycle lanes are not intended to be a zero sum game; they're intended to act not just as a better way of getting people to work/leisure activities but to get people out of cars and off public transport and exercising, with the obvious public health benefits as per link above and reducing our desperate pollution problems (and this applies not just to the congestion charge zone, where for once we agree few commuters drive). Signs are, from the massive explosion in cycling, this is starting to work.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Walking's fine for my commute ? four miles and an > hour and ten minutes door-to-door (ED to London > Bridge) with a pleasant enough walk through the > back streets of Cmaberwell and Walworth via three > parks. I jump on the train if it's wet or too cold > or too hot. I wish the pedestrian lobby was as > vociferous as the cycling lobby, but I guess > there's not so much cash in it ? perhaps shoe > leather manufacturers could take up the cause.* > > * Unnecessary cynicism Serious question - what extra do you need for walking? Cyclists lobby for segregated provision etc, generally as long as pedestrians have pavements...

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But are they DIRECT links, or is it that, say, > cyclists are less likely to smoke and more likely > to do other things that prevent cancers? I think > "cycling beats cancer" is just too unlikely to be > true in its most face-value sense? (I still think > the easiest and cheapest thing is to walk more.) > NB - The research also looked at people who walked > and didn't cycle: "Walking cut the odds of > developing heart disease but the benefit was > mostly for people walking more than six miles per > week." "However, the effect was still there even after adjusting the statistics to remove the effects of other potential explanations like smoking, diet or how heavy people are." Absolutely agree that walking is a fine exercise and one to which I'm greatly partial, but for anyone living more than three miles or so from their workplace it's not really practical as a means of commuting.

Malumbu - wasn't trying to be smug, I don't even cycle commute, I work from home, just thought it would be nice to point out some benefits as a counterpoint to those who want cycle infrastructure curtailed or even removed in favour of more sedentary transport. Yes pollution's dreadful, now what can be done to counter that - encourage zero pollution transport perhaps like... Titch - the point is, as made in the article, that cycling to work is exercise which has a practical benefit and fits into the day rather than having to force oneself to the gym. I just thought it would be of interest to some people to see a study showing cycle commuters halve their risk of heart disease and cancer, sorry it seems to have irked you chaps.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > malumbu Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I expect that there is greater homophobia in the > Tory office (hardly > > traditional values) and similarly their backers > in the black and red top media. > > You might 'expect' that, but I believe that the > Tories fielded more LGBT candidates than Labour in > 2015 and had more gay MPs than Labour until 2015. > So, like for female leaders, Labour wrings its > hands and frets about identity politics but > actually achieves little. With reference to the last election, no they didn't: Labour had 35 LGBT candidates, as did the LibDems, with the Tories fielding 28, Greens 25, others 10. It was also notable that the Tories didn't run LGBT candidates in any of their safe seats or winnable marginals, unlike the other parties. Labour now has 13 openly LGBT MPs and the Tories 12. So your last sentence is nonsense.

...and as powerful a reason as any to keep building cycling infrastucture! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39641122

Always behind the times me. I'd open with a scrum of Marler - Best - Cole, Itoje - Wyn Jones, Warburton - Vunipola B - Faletau, with Stander, Vunipola M, Furlong and Tipuric coming in off the bench. (ETA response to Mick Mac)

I can see a pretty England-centric pack there - maybe five of eight? - and a fairly balanced set of backs, with the pack becoming more international as the finishers come on. Already licking the lips in anticipation of that first 8AM beer on June 24th...

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A Moslem guy said to me once (on drinking this > time) - why > do you care if I think you're going to hell if you > don't > believe in God anyway. I think the answer to that is that if you believe God's going to clobber me then I'm worried that you're going to think that you clobbering me is pretty much carrying out God's will.

Rumours flying that Jamie Roberts is in and Jonathan Joseph and Mike Brown will miss out - if true that seems absurd for a man who couldn't make the starting XV for any of Wales' 6N games this year.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- As a Labour member, this is the > only way to be rid of him, and as much as I hate > the prospect of May till 2022, with Corbyn at the > helm, we would have been looking at 2025 at least. > So Labour finally gets itself a chance of a > credible leader and rebuilds. That is a very cheering and positive thought, thank you, could be just five more years of Tories instead of eight. I needed that!

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you're riding next to a large vehicle, there is > a good chance you'll be in its blind spot. If you > are approaching a bend, you might get crushed as > the large vehicle turns. If you're approaching an > intersection, the large vehicle might make a turn > and not see you, even if it signals. Lastly, if > the road is straight, the risks are much lower, > but there is still the risk the large vehicle > might change lane and, again, not see you. And all > of this for what? To assert a constitutional right > to ride next to a large vehicle? To reach your > destination 30 seconds earlier? Our lives are > worth more than that... Make an honest assessment > of the pros and cons and explain why anyone should > ride next to a large vehicle. Yet again, as you have throughout this thread, you make an automatic assumption that a cyclist must be at fault: you appear to be telling people not to ride alongside HGVs even on straight roads, well guess what, HGVs overtake. Should a cyclist dismount every time they hear an HGV coming? Are you the same DulwichLondoner, by the way, who acknowledges how dangerous roads are for cyclists to share with HGVs but also wants all segregated cycle lanes torn out?

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But the Lib Dems entered an alliance with the > Tories last time they got any votes, and look how > that turned out. If you vote Lib Dem in Dulwich, > you're likely to inadvertently usher in a Tory MP. > This is a Tory v Labour seat. James Barber is a > big figure on the forum but his last candidature > led to a 17% drop in the Lib Dem vote. He is not > popular in real life (politically, I mean - I am > sure he's a very nice person individually). You're probably not wrong, a lot of thought will have to be given...frankly I'd like to go and hide on some Hebridean island until it's over...

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course I may be wrong. I am not a truck driver > and have no experience whatsoever driving large > vehicles. I fully appreciate there may well be > other things I have neglected to consider, which a > truck driver should specifically do, and which > would make a material difference. This is why I > asked you what these could be. If I made a > mistake, I will gladly admit it. So I ask you > again: what are these other steps that truck > drivers should take? If you were a truck driver, > what exactly would you do before turning left, if > there is a non-segregated cycle lane? Oh God, I don't know what on earth a truck driver could do! Stop, check down the side of their vehicle, see if there are any vulnerable road users on their inside before turning left, stay back any time they see a cyclist ahead of them...no, that's madness, obviously. Go and have a look at the coroner's reports into most of the recent HGV/cyclist deaths over the last few years and see where the blame was apportioned. What would I do if I was a truck driver before turning left? Make f0cking sure I wasn't going to run over a cyclist, that'd be a good thing to do, no?

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ???? Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Politics does make me laugh as now half the > people > > who were screaming "you've got no mandate" at > May > > are now screaming "You said you wouldn't call > an > > Election. Given Brexit it is an eminently > correct > > decision whatever the politics. > > Yeah, shame she didn't call the election before > triggering A50 though, @#$%& > My initial take when I heard the news was that May > knows there will be a Hard Brexit regardless of > whether there is a small or large Tory majority, > but this will at least give the Tory party two > extra years in power post-Brexit, and therefore a > better chance of winning the next election. > > > As it happens I will be voting SDP (again) as a > > big vote for them will send a message and > soften > > Brexit and double bonus in ED that's a vote > > against Labour > > Me too. Always voted Labour, and as Hayes stood up > to Corbyn by voting against the A50 bill, I > would've liked to vote for her just on that > principle, but it will be seen as a vote for > Corbyn, and I'm not doing that :)... It's interesting, never voted anything but Labour in my life, apart from the odd vote for Greens in the Euros, nor has Mrs.H, we're both going to vote LibDem now, if enough people do...

sally buying Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Any minute now you will get "If you cannot debate > in a sensible way I am out" Got a point of your own to make Sally? If not, what was the point of that?

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rendelharris, as usual you avoid replying to very > detailed and specific points. Congratulations. > > You accused me of saying it was the cyclist's > fault. I showed when and how I said I had no idea > what happened, nor whose fault it was. Is it too > much to ask that you acknowledge you were wrong? > Probably yes, right? So did you or did you not say this: > Other than signalling in advance, I don't really > know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid > cyclists! If you didn't then I'm happy to have a debate with you. If you did then you're not worth my metaphorical breath. And you did say that, no words being put in your mouth or anything else.

Just to repeat, this is what you said: > Other than signalling in advance, I don't really > know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid > cyclists! You remain beneath contempt.

adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Typical politicians. Decide something. Make it a > rule/law(fixed term parliament). Then when/if it > suits you, decide it doesn't apply to you. > > Also, she probably doesn't want to join the > exclusive club of Prime Ministers who never won an > election. > > In short, as has been stated elsewhere in the > thread, can we really blame/criticise her for > doing so? > > Remember, ALL politicians at ALL levels worship > the/their Holy Trinity,not the Christian one of > father, son and holy ghost, but the politicians > one of ME, MYSELF and I. adonirum and I in complete agreement, these are strange times indeed! ;-)

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > @Rendelharris, specifically what steps, other than > installing CCTV on the sides, and those 'stay > back' signs, do you think truck drivers should > take to look out for cyclists? If the driver had a > clear view of the cyclist, then he's a > bloodthirsty assassin and I don't think there is > much to comment. Why do you mention it? Do you > have any reason to believe this is what happened? > I struggle to see the relevance of mentioning > evidently stupid and criminal behaviour by a > category of road users unless you know > specifically that is what happened; the world is > full of idiots, every category of road users has > its fair share, what does mentioning generic > idiotic behaviour achieve? You love to accuse me of putting words in your mouth, so I won't do that. These are your exact words: > Other than signalling in advance, I don't really > know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid > cyclists! How does this not imply that any cyclist is to blame for any bike/HGV collision as long as the truck signals? Your many posts on here prove that you are fanatically anti-cyclist, I just wish you'd be honest about it rather than pretending you're not. There has been an accident with a left turning truck wiping out a cyclist, you weren't there, nor was I, but you have assumed it's the cyclist's fault. It's worth repeating once again what you said: > Other than signalling in advance, I don't really > know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid > cyclists! You are beneath contempt.