exdulwicher

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.

I didn't say I did it, I posted several reasons as to WHY people jump lights (and actually it applies to pedestrians nipping across on the red man, cyclists RLJing and drivers RLJing. The MANNER of RLJ is very important. Pedestrians and cyclists will (generally) look all ways, ensure it's safe and then "nip through", perhaps only to a mid-way traffic island. Drivers RLJing (generally) do it by what is politely termed "amber gambling" where you see the light change and floor it. Clearly there's a vastly different level of danger to both the RLJer and any other road users to those various cases of RLJ. Ultimately, traffic violations (by drivers, cyclists and pedestrians) are the result of poor infrastructure that eithr enables that behaviour or in some cases actively encourages it. If you've got a set of lights at a crossing where you have to stand for ages, you'll be more likely to "nip across" through a gap in traffic than if the lights changed more regularly or gave a longer crossing period. Same with cyclists. If the lights change at ocne and the big HGV behind you starts to turn left, it stands to reason that some cyclists might voluntarily choose to self-remove from that danger by "anticipating" the lights a bit. You can mitigate that by intorducing what should be there already - advance traffic phases for cyclists. Similarly when you see a cyclist on the road instead of on a cycle path. Rather than thinking "bloody law breaker, he shoud use the bloody path that my taxes have paid for" it might be an idea to examine WHY the cyclist is not on the cycle path. Chances are it's becasue it's shit in which case it's again a failing of the infrastructure, not a failing of the cyclist. It's a fascinating topic actually - mix of psychology and traffic engineering.

As @rendelharris said in the post below the one I've quoted, there isn't really such a thing as a "cycling community" anymore than there is a driving community or a train-travelling community. You often get some shared interest type stuff, especially on social media and you might all share a "moment" when your train breaks down and people are forced to start talking to each other(!) but once it's sorted, you all trot off without a care in the world. you've had a breif bonding moment but it's not a "community". I don't really get the red light thing either - anyone jumping a red light (whether it's a pedestrian nipping across between cars, a cyclist nipping across during the joint red phase etc) - so long as they're not directly harming anyone it's generally not a real problem. No-one wants to be hit by a car or bike, no-one on a bike wants to hit anyone else either and as traffic lights are generally put there to control the large heavy lumps of vehicle, they may not always be suited to controlling people - be that people on foot, on bike or on skateboards. After all lots of countries allow cyclists to turn right on red (and USA allows it for cars too) or to treat red lights as a give way and there are not hoards of people being knocked flying nor hoards of cyclists ending up dead. Sometimes it can actually be beneficial - there was a wonderful in-depth study in Germany where cyclist behaviour was observed for a while at several junctions and it as noted that there were hundreds of red light infractions but none of them resulted in any danger to the cyclists or to third parties and it was also noted that motorised traffic generally flowed better when the cyclists simply got out of the way in advance. Situations where large groups of cyclists obeyed the lights (the classic "everyone else has stopped so I will too") actually resulted in slower traffic flow ovrall as everyone got going again when the lights went green. That's why those cyclist advanced stop boxes should really only be used in conjunction with advance light phases for cyclists (as at the JAGS / Alleyn's junction on East Dulwich Grove).

I was in town at the weekend and walked from Sydenham Hill down Cox's Walk to the South Circ / LL junction then along LL and turned off down Court Lane (this was Saturday afternoon). One side of LL for about 250m was being re-surfaced and Court Lane was closed at the junction onto LL. Walking down Court Lane though - wow, the number of drivers ignoring the prominent ROAD CLOSED signs and driving right to the top, discovering that the ROAD was in fact CLOSED (hint: the signs saying ROAD CLOSED may help you here...) and then attempting to turn round - driving across pavements, turning around in people's driveways and then roaring off down the road in frustration! Insane. Traffic on Court Lane between Eynella Road and the LL junction was mental because of the number of people ignoring those signs. Other than that I had a really pleasant walk and watching the traffic was quite entertaining....

Alexthecamel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I received that letter also Robert Poste's Child. > It definitely says will be closed, with no mention > of access for residents, does anyone have > confirmation that that's the case? Could you scan and post the letter on here or type out it's contents please? Any idea what they're doing to actually close the whole road? (at least, I assume it's the whole road from DV right up to South Circ.)? I managed to avoid the area by car last time I was in Dulwich but I did cycle through it early on Sunday morning and then later I was sitting outside Gail's and even at the time it was noticeably worse traffic than normal.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How about a tiny raised border where the cycle > lane meets the pedestrian bit, to raise awareness > of the cycle lane? I imagine it's a cheapish > interim solution? That just introduces a trip hazard for pedestrians and a "clipping wheels" hazard for cyclists. Similar to that awful ribbed tactile paving (in theory designed to assist visually impaired people in working out the pedestrian side of shared use paths) that becomes super slippy in the wet

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > now's the time to resurrect a previous popular > thread. but how to find it? Search via your username and lo! http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1624090 The above just makes me even more convinced that the fault there is not pedestrians or cyclists, it's actually the design. Councils once again wasting taxpayers money and putting in substandard designs that actually make things worse.

If you want to see a very similar scheme to that proposed (the double roundabout/shared space thing) search online for "Poynton shared space" or "Poynton roundabout". I'm not going to provide one link over any other, you'll see why when you have a look! I can see the idea of it and actually I've seen similar on the continent but that's in already traffic calmed streets where the majority of cars have already been removed (as @wulfhound says above). Anyway, have a read of it, might give you some research, ammunition etc to use against Southwark Council.

I was always under the impression that central London where distances were measured from was Trafalgar Square. However The Knowledge that taxi drivers do is a 6-mile radius from Charing Cross. Not that there's more than about 300m in it anyway but it's an interesting discrepancy. And none of it remotely relates to Goose Green which as everybody knows is at the top end of Lordship Lane. Four miles as the crow flies is about right but as the 176 goes it's better measured using a calendar than a ruler!

Borrow (or buy) a cycle computer. Some are cheap basic ones that use a magnet attached to the spokes but you can get plenty of GPS ones whcih just clip onto the bars with a simple elastic band style mount and they don't need any set up.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It never ceases to amaze me how many people lazily > cut corners in their cars. I actually think power > steering has made people worse. Power steering is fantastic, it enables people to drive round corners while texting!

My mother had a parking ticket in that spot too, she appealed and it just got dropped, she never heard anything more from it and it went way over the time limit they had for responding. I took a few photos of the sight-lines to use as evidence if needed. Since then, some locals have been out putting up signs warning about parking there. Definitely worth an appeal.

I knew I shouldn't have read the comments on the Daily Mail website... :-(

Statistically, it is about 75:25 motorist:cyclist at fault so yes, you can see where that arises. Source: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study However I think this picture sums it up neatly: But yes, I agree with the above, this thread has now gone so far off its original topic and descended into the usual petty cliches. It was fun while it lasted though. Have a safe journey hone everyone, no matter what your mode of transport.

This is an interesting read on some of the bad infrastructure = bad behaviour correlations: http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2014/09/22/cut-the-crap/ Our wise and all-knowing Government cut all that. :-( That said, some councils do still offer free cycle safety training, you do have to dig around on their websites a bit to find it though. Here's Southwark's: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200123/cycling/446/cycle_with_confidence

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why defend cyclists' bad behaviour by saying > "drivers break the rules too"? Nobody is defending > dangerous driving... not an excuse. Because bad behaviour breeds bad behaviour. You get big heavy metal boxes jumping lights, speeding and killing hundreds of people a year and "the rest" (cyclists) are going to take whatever measures necessary to protect themselves. Some do it with cameras and spend ages uploading footage to YouTube. Some do it by simply staying out of the way of all the big heavy dangerous things and riding on the pavement. Most of it is simple self-preservation. There is never just one thing to be discussed, you have too look at the wider picture. Why are they riding on the pavement - whole mix of factors. The cycle lanes are quite often painted there The traffic is dangerous/scary It's convenient I'm not defending bad behaviour, simply pointing out that you can't just blame ONE aspect of it without considering WHY that behaviour is happening and putting in steps to correct it. Proper segregated cycle lanes that don't impinge on pavements would be a good start, you can hardly blame cyclists for using the infrastructure that has been provided for them!

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought you could be fined from 14 for cycling > on the pavement? Bottom line - you can't legislate > against selfishness so it will always happen. Is it "selfish" though? Problem is, as mentioned above, children learn to ride on the pavement (ironically becasue the roads are so dangerous!). But there's a further problem now in that councils are specifically directing people to ride on the pavement! Here, have some shared use foot/cycle path. Ride up here! These pictures say "look, come and ride on this footpath!" Couple that with the fact that Police have been specifically told not to bother fining footpath riders unless they are actually being dangerous and is it any surprise that a) some riders are so confused about where they should/shouldn't can/can't ride that they end up unintentionally making mistakes b) some riders simply don't care in much the same way that a mobile-phone-touting motorist knows that the chances of being caught are almost zero c) some riders DO care but they rationalise it in the same way that a speeding driver does. "oh it's only a few metres along here and I'll be careful" (compared to "oh it's only a few mph over the limit and everyone else is doing it too") Rather than blaming "cyclists" (as a sort of sub-species) the real outrage should be directed at the council for squandering our taxpayers money on this kind of crap