exdulwicher

Speed limits don't apply to cyclists (or horse drawn vehicles) because they're not legally obliged to carry any form of speedometer and (although plenty of cyclists have computers fitted) there's no nationally approved calibration test for them. They can however be done for reckless or dangerous cycling. The fines are usually orders of magnitude higher than for drivers... You don't count the number of people swimming across the river before you decide whether or not to build a bridge over it - it's fairly self evident that building a bridge will lead to more people crossing the river. As a rough general rule, efficient transport systems often look empty. But no-one looks up and down the train tracks and says "i can't see any trains but the road alongside it is gridlocked, we hould rip up the tracks and replace it with extra highway". Cycle lanes often look empty compared to a road becasue cyclists are smaller than cars and because they move far more efficiently, they just flow better. Therefore the system looks quieter. It isn't - it's actually moving more people than the neighbouring vehicle lanes. The stats across Blackfriars and along Embankment bear this out, about 70% of the people movements (note PEOPLE, not VEHICLES) is pedestrian and cyclist at peak times yet the pavements and bike lanes don't look as busy as the carriageway. Just means that vehicles are woefully inefficient and the answer is absolutely not to build more highway, it's to enable people (again PEOPLE, not CARS) travel more efficiently. And in terms of cost benefit - cycle lanes are ? for ? the most efficient and best value thing a city can build: https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycling-and-economy That's obviously a cycle campaigning organisation but the figures are borne out from various studies in various countries. Denmark, The Netherlands, there's one from Pilsen (Czech Republic) and a couple from cities in America if you search online.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > A 20mph restriction makes roads for drivers and > > pedestrians safer. > > Says who? There were a few discussions about 2 > years ago here, on how there were lots of > different studies with inconclusive results. Sure, > being hit at 20 mph is better than being hit at 30 > mph, but there has been little to no actual > conclusive evidence that 20mph zones mean fewer > accidents. There's a whole host of studies out there although not many yet have significant primary data around traffic volumes, pollution levels because the zones haven't been in place for long enough. There's the other factor that different places in Britain have different transport policies, road design, population density etc and what works in one area might not be as beneficial in another so getting actual nationally applicable data out of it is quite difficult. A lot of the time 20mph zones are put in place alongside other measures (like closing off rat runs, making parking residents only, making some streets one-way) so it's not always possible to tell if any reduction in injuries, deaths, collisions etc was the result of a 20mph limit or some other factor. If you close a road to through traffic then fairly logically there'll be far fewer collisions on it but that's not necessarily anything to do with the 20mph limit that now applies on there! > I also wonder about the impact on > pollution: at rush hour the 20mph limit probably > makes no difference to total journey times, but it > does at night. Is it really better to have an > engine on the road for longer? Pollution isn't just the emissions from the engine. It's noise pollution (slower speeds = less noise) and particulates from tyres, brakes (slower speeds = less wear and tear). again though, that only applies if the vehicle is being driven sensibly. Slowing to a crawl for a speed hump, traffic island or speed camera, flooring it away, repeating is clearly worse for pollution than driving at a steady 20mph but that's a factor of the idiot behind the wheel, not the policy itself.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Starting the engine possible produces more > pollution than an engine idling for a few > minutes. > Stop / start stop / start is not good. Source?

You could put the law in place but it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference. The coaches outside Alleyn's have been reported loads of times (to the school, the council, the police) for sitting there engines thumping away for hours as they're waiting to pick the kids up after school and Southwark Council's "enforcement team" said there was nothing they could do and (in response to one complaint) actually said it was OK because (and I quote) "the pollution blows away" !!??!! Seriously, when you have an attitude like that in local Government, all the laws in the world won't matter. Personally, if I was in charge of a council and was seeing my annual budget slashed under "austerity measures" year on year, I'd be caning every possible method of fining misdemeanours, especially if it made the borough a more pleasant place. Litter, pollution (like idling engines), anti-social parking. An extra few million ?? there for a council implementing all of that. What's worse is that most modern cars now have start/stop technology - roll to a stop at the lights, kerb or whatever, the engine cuts out (while still running things like air-con, power to your vital phone charger etc) and then starts again when you press the gas to move off. There shouldn't be any excuse to be idling the engine in any modern car.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apparently the 20mph speed limit will be > introduced to TfL managed roads in the near > future. This would include the section of LL > between Melford Road and Wood Vale, along with > major trunk roads such as the A23, Old Kent Road, > North/South Circular etc. > > As a bus user, the service has got worse since the > speed reduction. It can take 20 mins to get from > the Horniman end of LL to Dog Kennel Hill off-peak > when traffic is light. Not helped by the > enforcement of gaps in the service where drivers > are instructed to wait at bus stops. TfL's documentation on it: content.tfl.gov.uk/speed-emissions-and-health.pdf Lower speed limits means a shift to more walking and cycling, so fewer car journeys. And therefore the buses can get around more easily. Buses are only held up by crap driving, parked cars in bus lanes, too many cars on the road. Get rid of most of that and you get nice clear bus lanes.

Well technically, in the case of muggings and other violent crime, it's not really the councils remit to do much directly. That's the job of the police and central Government is responsible for the police. That'd be the central Government that have cut policing numbers to the bone... The council come into it with things like social care, youth centres, support for deprived families and so on. But they get most of the money for that from central Government. That'd be the central Government that have cut the welfare budget to the bone... Wait, what? Wasted? Surely not... I was definitely promised a Unicorn from the Sunlit Uplands, bearing a blue passport on it's golden horn. ;-)

seenbeen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > someone should remind the speeding cyclists....I'm > dreading the new 'healthy streets'. It's quite astonishing how there can be complaints about being held up by cyclists (and there always are - the usual rants about how someone was "stuck behind" them while they trundled away at 10mph for miles upon miles) while there are also complaints about speeding cyclists. Which is it - they're either too fast or too slow uless you've encountered Schroedingers Cyclists - simultaneously too fast and too slow. They "come out of nowhere" yet can also be heard shouting from miles away. They dress all in black and can't be seen yet if one jumps a red light, every motorist around seems able to see them instantly. They wear lurid hi-vis (see note above about how they dress all in black). Simultaneously so fast that they're overtaking cars in 20 zones but so slow that they're holding up traffic. It'd just be nice if there was some consistency, that's all. ;-) That's an urban myth put about by people who are rubbish at driving. I was in a 19 reg Mercedes last weekend (sadly not mine!) and it was a VERY powerful car - twin turbos and a 2L petrol engine. It sat there in 20mph and 30mph zones at 20 and 30 respectively with no issues at all - in fact the car did most of it for me. Intelligent road sign recognition linked to the speedo and cruise control, it auto adjusted. Was actually incredibly easy to drive. Frankly there was zero excuse for speeding in it.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But if you don't want CPZ in your own street why > would you want it in another? Given the repeated > cautions about parking displacement it seems more > than likely that if you do not want it in your own > street you will not want it anywhere in your area. > Because people are NIMBYs. Most people agree with things like "we need to do something about the traffic / parking problems" but what they usually mean is "I want everyone else to stop driving (or to drive less or not to park there or whatever...) but I should be allowed to carry on as normal". The poster itself may or may not be sinister but what is unsettling is the figure on there with (apparently) no reference to exactly how it was obtained. See my previous post about the massive dumbing down of statistics whcih in turn allows them to be twisted to fit pretty much whatever agenda you like. And that part is sinister.

Lowlander Wrote: > If the poster didn't contain the "67% of ED > residents rejected..." lie, I probably wouldn't > even have started this thread. > 67% of statistics are bollocks. ;-) It still amazes me how badly statistics are used in day to day life - from journalists dumbing down whatever random story of the day happpens to have a background stat of 84% of people polled.... to adverts for skin cream claiming that "9 out of 10 women noticed a significant difference" and then the disclaimer underneath "poll taken from 104 women in a shopping centre in Gravesend on March 3rd 2014" If you want a good example of how "statistics" can be used, watch the wonderful clip of Yes Prime Minister and how you get the answers you want...

That pretty much never happens though. There are now countless studies from the UK and abroad which shows that every time you improve the area in terms of removing cars, people spend more time and money in that area because it's simply a nicer place to be. https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/policy-and-resources/our-policy/high-streets There's a pdf available on there called The Pedestrian Pound which looks at multiple aspects of pedestrianisation, restricted motor traffic, retail footfall and spend and so on. Interesting read. Happens with cycle lanes too - the usual furore about cycle lanes removing parking and the standard "lycra lout" comments but then once it's in, the shopkeepers all find that actually it's beneficial. On a (sort of related) point, house prices near to Santander Cycles docking stations are higher than those that aren't (in the same way that being near a train station etc means higher prices because of improved convenience). And Lordship Lane is accessible (at various points along it's length from Dulwich Library to Goose Green) by about 6 different buses from Peckham, Herne Hill, Forest Hill, Camberwell and North Dulwich and by a train station at the northern end (East Dulwich). The problem is that people are generally very lazy - they'll always take what they perceive to be the easiest option) and also very resistant to change (they'll always do what they've always done) and what they've always done is a result of the urban environment in whcih they've found themselves. If you live somewhere where it's easy and cheap and convenient to drive a car, you'll do that. Remove the ease and convenience of the car (and this next bit is crucial) replace it with another easy convenient means of transport and you'll drive change. It's actually much easier and cheaper to walk so people walk (or use a bike or a bus or a mobility scooter) and they're helped to do that by quieter, more pleasant streets.

It's a little way out of town but Westerham in Kent has huge areas of woodland nearby - Westerham Woods itself but then The Chart (Limpsfield), Squerry's Park and Toy's Hill and they're all superb for bluebells. Toy's Hill has good car parking, pubs nearby etc but there are miles and miles of random footpaths through woodland around that area. It's always a carpet of blue this time of year, looks stunning.

Well currently theres a whole list of exemptions for residents etc: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/discounts-and-exemptions?intcmp=52218 So perhaps when it's extended in Octover there'll be a similar grace period covering the new zones? Good. If TfL are making money, that means it can be reinvested in better public transport and more cycle lanes and if ULEZ / congestion charging is keeping private cars off the roads then the roads will be quieter and easier to get around on anyway.

City gets slightly more affected by weather (fog / smog) than most of the other "London" airports due to the river and the nearby buildings. That said, it's a lovely little airport, nice and small, easy and quick to get through security and baggage. Baggage is brilliant there because the vast majority of people flying to & from there are business-people so usually only a carry-on briefcase, it means very little queuing at baggage reclaim! Flight time is about 75 minutes and seat size is a function of the plane, not the aiport! Go for the emergency exit seats or Row 1, they have more legroom. Flybe use Embraer 175 and 195 on the City - Jersey route.

Genuine question, help me out here. YOu can (surely??) see that pretty much any version of Leave currently being offered is going to make you, us, the country WORSE OFF compared to Remaining. Not better in any quantifiable way whatsoever. Unless I've actually missed two things here and you can point out to me what we'll be gaining by leaving...? The country voted for "Leave", I get that much (albeit in a vote that was based on lies, dark money and interference). Now that the version of Leave that our genius politicians have managed to come up with is here in front of us, do you not look at that and think "wait, hold on just one second, this is actually shit, this isn't what we were promised". ? Are you not angry at the Farages and Rees-Moggs and Johnsons of the world who promised you the easiest deal in history and the UK holding all the cards when you can (hopefully?) see that NONE OF THAT is true? At the moment, this tinkering round the edges with "the deal" being offered is basically deciding whether to have yuor shit sandwich on white or brown bread, with butter or without. Don't you want to put the bread down and have a bit more of a think before you make the sandwich? I know you voted to have a sandwich but you're allowed to change your mind....

Well you can, in fact arch-brexiteer and total arse JRM said exactly that: We could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is complete. Imagine you put an offer in on a house, on the promise that it's amazing, all looks good on the photos you've seen on the internet. So you put in your offer, it's a fantastic opportunity to move away from your 27 overbearing bullying housemates and their freedom of movement where you have to share the kitchen and you don't have total control over the heating. Then you discover that your new abode has dry rot and there's a waste disposal plant being built next to it and being on your own means you lose all the great deals at all the local takeaways. It'll be shit. You might want a chance to revoke your offer on discovering all that, yes? Given the total utter shitstorm that it's fairly obvious Brexit is turning out to be, surely even the most ardent brexiteer is thinking: hang on a sec, this is bollocks, we can get a better deal than this, our Government haven't got a clue, let's put it on hold, have a think about it and then when there's a deal that everyone can actually agree on, we can leave. If not, why not?! And if you're going to go down the usual Leave stance of "we can *just* go to WTO", here's a thread on Twitter (from a Leave voter!) on why we can't: https://twitter.com/OliverNorgrove/status/907687683128004608 And this is worth a watch on how we ended up in this mess but it's very sweary

It's the only logical solution - if the system is broken you revert it back to the last known point it was working and then try again. May however has never been one for logic. Whatever happens now, the Brixiteers have comprehensively screwed the entire thing. No Deal will be catastrophically bad. Revoking Article 50 will have the (admittedly quite entertaining) effect of sending the Brexiteers and the Daily mail into apoplexy but either way, our days of special treatment from the EU (having our own currency, numerous opt-outs) are long gone, the UK is now a global laughing stock. Imagine the good that could have been done over the last 3 years if all the time, effort and money spent on this farce had gone into education, transport, communities, the NHS....

Whatever "lies" or "misinformation" you think the Remain side were telling (all of whcih was dismissed blithely as Project Fear), it only seems to be the Leave side which broke electoral law repeatedly, they've just been fined again for further breaches: https://www.joe.co.uk/news/vote-leave-fined-40-grand-breaking-electoral-law-224139?fbclid=IwAR10XgxK14F_wV_HBumze6kVIMDHHm_U3q9UfRMapodH7Wlyltrfl1WVACE And as you can see from the Twitter campaign on the Led By Donkeys page which are quoting all the tweets and comment made by Leave politicians about "the easiest deal in history", "we have all the cards", the notorious "take back control". All of them wrong. Outright lies. Entertaining watch - aimed at those poor hard-of-understanding Yanks but it kind of works here too.

With references to the numbers and percentages: If you think it's a clear majority, try getting two identical containers and putting 52 grains of rice in one of them and 48 grains in the other. Then tell me how clear cut that result is....

I remember the days when you had to write down the name and number of everyone in your phone then spend the next day or so programming all the numbers back into your new phone!

Are you changing phone as well or is it same phone / new SIM and just a new contract? If it's an new phone, some have a "smart copy" function - my new Google Pixel just needed connecting via a cable to my old HTC and it asked what you wanted to copy. All numbers, contacts, photos, call and text records were copied directly across in a few minutes. You can download various apps that do it for you as well - search on Google Play store for "copy my data" and that does it over a wifi network or bluetooth once the phones are both online. If it's a new SIM card in an existing phone, you can copy everything from the SIM to the actual phone memory itelf, then insert the new SIM and copy it back. IME, phone shops are usually *rubbish* at doing this plus there's the issues of them potentially reading or seeing all your messages or photos, it's often better to just do it in the comfort of your home over a secure wifi and with a Youtube video for guidance - there'll be online insructions on it somewhere.

Yep, as mentioned Evans Cycles run "Fix It" classes: https://www.evanscycles.com/help/servicing/bike-maintenance-classes There's a branch on East Dulwich Road as you head towards Peckham from Goose Green. Brixton Cycles certainly used to do them, don't know if they still do. Up in town, Look Mum No Hands on Old Street run regular bike maintenance classes. And if you want to venture even further north of the river (!) there's this place: https://lbk.org.uk/ which gets good reports.

Yep - that works SO well with the million or so uninsured vehicles; 700,000 untaxed (although I admit that a lot of those are probably double counted); and people driving while DQ'd: https://www.mib.org.uk/media-centre/news/2016/july/police-seize-the-uk-s-15-millionth-uninsured-vehicle-as-drivers-continue-to-flout-insurance-laws/ https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/nov/16/untaxed-vehicles-uk-trebles-tax-disc-abolition-vehicle-excise-duty-dvla https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38887951 Here's a test. Phone the police and report a driving transgression - speeding, RLJ, using a mobile phone - and give them the registration plate. What do you think will happen? I'll tell you now - absolutely nothing. They'll do nothing without evidence and even with it, there'll be enough loopholes and it'll be considered so minor (ie no-one died) that literally nothing will be done. You only have to look at how spectacularly awful driving can be (in fact, people can be killed) and the driver can still be found not guilty. Remember this one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-40134629 Pretty clear cut case of driving without due care & attention (maybe even dangerous driving), injuries caused - no prosecution. "Just an accident". Oopsy. So please tell me exactly what issues you expect number plates on bikes to solve? Every single time number plates, insurance, cycle tax etc come up (Ken and Boris both mentioned number plates as possibilities when they were London Mayors) and it's been shot down in flames repeatedly as costing more than it would bring in, solving nothing and generally being completely unworkable. And you can read the BikeBiz article that I linked to in a previous post. You know, if FACTS aren't too inconvenient for you.

The fine art of posting a deliberately inflammatory coment or statement and then just sitting back and watching the arguments unfold. There's a few topics pretty much guaranteed to do that - newspapers know that an opinion column on cycling in general (usually ith some well worn cliches about red lights, dark clothing and not using cycle lanes) will always get them a load of clicks and comments. Your attitude seems pretty much made up and no amount of common sense or worldly evidence will convince you but here you go anyway: https://www.bikebiz.com/business/bicycle-licensing-for-dummies

I love the irony in this statement (and you see this sort of thing every week on forums, newspaper letters columns etc about cyclists all in black, no lights etc that are seen). So they're seen then?! Same way that you see pedestrians and trees and dogs and cats and parked cars and rubbish bins and other unlit things like debris in the road. If I jump a traffic light while wearing dark clothing, every motorist for half a mile around will see me. If I have fluoro kit and bright flashy lights, I'll still get "sorry mate, I didn't see you..." ;-)

I think it is important that we all think about what kind of environment we want to live in. I am certain that when people imagine their ideal neighbourhood, it is not be a dream of polluted air, cars jammed in endless traffic, or streets filled up with parked cars. The thing about raising revenue as well, the comments about it being "just a cash cow" for the council. On the one hand, everyone obviously wants the normal council services - refuse collection / recycling, schools, libraries, road repairs - but the councils have systematically had their central Government funding cut and cut over the last 10 years. They have to recoup that money somehow or cut more services and like it or not, driving / parking are relatively simple ways of (a) raising much needed funds and (b) simlutaneously inducing a change of atitude and habit around driving. when you go to LL, do you go to admire the long queue of traffic that's trying to negotiate its way past a badly parked car and the cars endlessly circling trying to find a parking space or do you go to do some shopping, eating, socialising? If you make the surroundings more pleasant and less toxic (in terms of noise and pollution) people spend more time there, they relax more and they have more time to shop and browse. And they visit the area more often because it's a nicer place to spend time. That's just factual info from every city, every neighbourhood that's introduced restrictions on driving (via whatever means like more pedestrianised zones, parking restrictions etc). The general point of it is that it's done in conjunction with better public transport (like park & ride, more buses etc) and environmental factors like creating more public spaces, more planting and so on.