Cardelia

The thing is, if the RMT/ASLEF win then it'll have a knock-on effect on the train services which are already DOO. So the Underground, Overground, some suburban metro and long-distance Thameslink trains (plus others nationally) will be subject to strikes and disruption as the unions force their position onto those franchises which have already won the battle on DOO. Not only will those people suffer disruption in future, but everyone will be paying higher ticket prices to pay for all the new staff which will be 'needed' to open the doors. I can't see any way in which the Government are going to back down on this issue. With no general election until 2020, the opposition in complete disarray and most of the public's attention focused on Brexit, they see it as a golden opportunity to break one of the last union strongholds without causing too much of a national fuss.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Toffee Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Penguin. Totally agree with you. A few days i > was > > actually called a selfish person by a mother > with > > a pram wanting to cross in front of me whilst > the > > traffic was still moving. > > Legally speaking, neither of you has a right of > way. If I'm on a slow street like LL and > pedestrians want to cross, I just stop and let > them go with a smile. The fact that there was > traffic behind you is completely irrelevant. > > [Highway code Rule 206] My understanding was that legally speaking 'priority' lies with the main direction of traffic flow. Therefore any road user wishing to make a manoeuvre which goes against the direction of the main traffic flow has to give way to other road users. This includes pedestrians who want to cross the road: unless they use something which gives them priority, like a zebra crossing, they have to give way to the main traffic flow. Remember also that the Highway Code is not a legal document. The parts which specifically reference statute (use of "MUST NOT") should be treated as legally binding but the rest is just advice.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Denmark Hill/Peckham Rye to Victoria is > SouthEastern . > > So no doubt rammed but running . > The Southeastern trains were ok this morning. A few minutes late (which happens every day) but not overly busy.

No, the Southeastern trains from Denmark Hill are running as normal i.e. late. They didn't even seem particularly busy this morning.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bus drivers are all fairly bonkers. > They do mad things like flash their lights at you > if you change lane into their lane five car > lengths in front of them.. > I've now taken the view that they are thick as > thick can be, as a friend said if they had any > brains they wouldn't be bus drivers. > > There's always the exception but 1% of bus > drivers with a brain isn't really going to help... Do you have any idea what the stopping distance for a double decker bus is? I'll give you a clue, it's a lot longer than 5 car lengths. If you cut in front of a bus and have to brake suddenly, I'll give you good odds that although you will stop quickly and efficiently, you'll then be rammed from behind by several tons of steel which no longer has enough room to brake to a complete halt.

1) If a driver is being "undertaken" then, by definition, the lane to their left is empty. Unless there are obvious exceptions such as operational bus lanes or lots of parked cars, they should be driving in the left hand lane. Even in London the same rules of the road apply as they do to the rest of the country: drive in the left hand lane unless overtaking or maneuvering. The general standard of lane discipline in this country is absolutely appalling and whilst I don't deny there are some very stupid and dangerous drivers out there, that doesn't excuse the rest of us from not paying attention to the lane we should be in. 2) Cars are not speed-limited because quite a few people take their cars across national borders. In many other countries it is possible to drive legally and safely at speeds higher than 70 mph. Just because a powerful car is impractical for London driving, that doesn't mean that the owners don't also drive somewhere else where the power is much more useful. 3) Most new cars these days have a top speed in excess of 100 mph, for example the Prius can do over 110 mph. Even the Fiat 500, the very definition of a small city car, can do 100+ mph (apart from the most basic engine which tops out at a mere 99 mph). Buying one of these doesn't indicate an "ego trip or a definite intention to break the law", it just means you've bought a car. 4) Remapping an engine is perfectly possible and legal. However, it counts as a modification to your car which you need to declare to your insurer. Some insurers flat out refuse to insure a modified car and most others charge extra, hence you'll be likely be paying a higher premium than if you just left it alone. Also, remapping the engine won't physically change the gear ratios so it may not have the desired effect of making it "easier" to drive at 20 mph. 5) Most people who buy cars use practicalities like price, fuel economy, comfort, ride height, storage space etc. to make their decision. Power is usually a long way down the list of priorities. For example, the Ford Fiesta is the UK's most widely sold model (100,000+ sales in 2016) but only a tiny percentage of those are the high-spec ST variant which is sold on the basis of having lots of power. The same is true for pretty much all of the high-volume manufacturers; they know that power/speed doesn't sell anymore so they don't advertise cars on that basis.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problems at LL roundabout are caused by > selfish drivers heading into the roundabout too > fast and failing to follow the rules of the road > by slowing, preparing to stop if necessary, > indicating properly and selecting the correct lane > for their exit. > > ETA and giving priority to a) pedestrians and b) > traffic from the right. To put the blame entirely on drivers is a bit unfair and a rather simplistic argument. For example: 1) I've seen pedestrians amble out into the road, without looking at traffic, some 5-10 metres before the crossing (typically on Lordship Lane outside the EDT). 2) I've seen cyclists fail to give way to pedestrians at the crossings and also fail to give way to traffic already on the roundabout. And I've never, ever seen a cyclist indicate their intentions at the roundabout. Ever. 3) I've seen buses block the LL/East Dulwich Grove junction which means that traffic wanting to turn right onto EDG causes a jam all the way back to the roundabout. 4) The roundabout is too narrow to allow two lanes of traffic to use it when a large vehicle (bus, HGV etc.) is involved. However, all the approach roads can be used by two lanes of traffic. This causes jams when two lanes temporarily become one. 5) On Grove Vale the bus lane ends too close to the roundabout. Buses wanting to go down LL end up making a right turn from the left lane because it's the quickest way through the roundabout. Conversely, cars wanting to turn left down East Dulwich Road can end up turning left from the right lane because the left lane is blocked by buses. 6) No modern traffic planner would look at that junction and think it was acceptable. The crossings are too close to the roundabout, there are too many side roads close to the roundabout, the roundabout isn't wide enough, the approach roads have too many obstacles (traffic lights, bus stops etc.) close to the roundabout.... I could go on. I accept that the majority of bad behaviour at that junction is carried out by car drivers. But that doesn't excuse cyclists, pedestrians, bus drivers and traffic planners who should all take a little responsibility for the state of the roundabout. Unfortunately we're stuck with it until some bright spark in Southwark traffic planning department can come up with a radical overhaul of the entire junction.

Mugglesworth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In short, if there is no sign stating hours of > operation on the bus lane then there might be > cause for appeal. If there are no hours of operation specified on the sign then it means that the bus lane is in operation at all times. There is no legal requirement for a bus lane sign to specify "at any time" so an appeal on these grounds would probably be a waste of time.

In my experience most 'fancy' restaurants in the US have a strong European influence or style to the cooking because historically that's where the top chefs were trained and it's what michelin inspectors expected to see.* The dishes will be made from top-quality US-based produce and you'll certainly find ingredients you won't get in this country, but I don't think you'll get a truly different style of food. Having said that, if you still want an expensive blowout, try Per Se which is run by Thomas Keller. 3 michelin stars, rave reviews and an awesome location overlooking Columbus Circle. I also had a really good meal at 21 Club (Upstairs restaurant, W 52nd St) but that was 7 years ago. The steak recommendations in this thread are also really good ideas. For something which is a bit more NY-style then there are a few Jewish delis/restaurants around E Houston St. I second the recommendation for Russ & Daughters (amazing range of smoked fish...), plus Katz's and Yonah Schimmel are a block away. And whilst you're in the area the Tenement museum is supposed to be good, but booking is essential. There are a few good places for bagels but I've always liked Zucker's on Chambers Street, close to the World Trade Centre. Other foodie things to look for are Bleecker St pizza (Bleecker St/Barrow St) which is the best pizza I've ever had. Momofuku (1st Av, between 10th and 11th St) is amazing and the steamed pork buns are worth waiting all day for. Chelsea Market is at the bottom end of the High Line and is also worth wandering round. Oh, and Juniors Cheesecake, but go to the original in Brooklyn and not the Times Square one. If you've never been to NYC before then definitely spend a couple of hours on the typically touristy things like Times Square and 5th Avenue. The Staten Island ferry is a good way to see the Statue of Liberty up close for free and Grand Central station is a very impressive building, well worth wandering around. But I've found the best way to see NYC is to just pick an area and walk around for a bit. You'll find something interesting around every corner. * this is changing, albeit very slowly

If you want to claim for a weather-related delay under Article 7 of EC261 then I expect that you will be unsuccessful. Most airlines will (justifiably) say that the weather is outside of their control and thus does not fall under the scope of EC261. If you wanted to press the issue it's likely you would have to take your case to MCOL (small claims court, essentially) where you would need a very convincing argument as to why bad weather would not constitute "extraordinary circumstances" which are outside of the airline's control. However, each case should be examined on its own merits and if you can argue that the delay should have been mitigated by better planning on the part of the airline, you might just get the airline to back down. Before submitting a claim it would be worth looking on the Flyertalk forum, specifically the subforum which deals with the airline in question. You may find that your specific circumstances have occurred before and someone else has already tried to do what you want to do. I wish you luck if you do decide to submit a claim. One final thing to be aware of is to ask for the right amount of compensation. It's not clear what your exact route was, but assuming it was under 1500 km then the maximum you can claim for is ?250 per person for a delay of greater than 2 hours. Stansted to any airport in mainland France will fall into this category.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The proposal doesn't change much in flight timing > we'll just be getting more early morning and late > night flights NOT fewer! Heathrow have agreed to a total ban on flights between 11 pm and 5:30 am if the third runway goes ahead, which is (a) better than the current situation and (b) better than at comparable airports like Frankfurt, Schipol and Charles de Gaulle. Also, where is it stated that Heathrow will operate more early/late flights? Stephent: that is not strictly true. There is a total ban between 11 pm and 5 am, but Frankfurt can operate 133 flights per day between 10-11 pm and 5-6 am. I don't know how many of that allocation it actually uses, but I'm pretty sure that Heathrow doesn't operate anywhere near that many flights within those hours.

I went to Chutneys a lot for lunch when I used to work at UCL. I don't remember trying the buffet but the Dosas were really tasty and also cheap.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh and aircraft noise is only a problem in London > no other major European city has aircraft flying > over millions of people every few minutes from 4am > until past midnight. How many major European airports are restricted to two runways? Schipol has six, Charles de Gaulle, Madrid and Frankfurt have four each. Istanbul's new airport is planned to have 6 runways when it's finished. Why do you think that airports with an abundance of spare capacity have far fewer night flights than airports which are pretty much operating at capacity?

Yeah, the loyalty scheme definitely isn't as good as it used to be. In the past I've found that you had to be either really organised or really flexible in order to use the companion vouchers effectively. But in bad economic times, when corporate clients cut back on international travel budgets, BA generally release more avios seats to try and fill the planes. Economy availability to most destinations is really good for the next few months and even popular destinations like Singapore have a few short-notice business seats available, which is really unusual because they're usually impossible to get without booking 355 days in advance. But I suppose if you're tied to specific dates when you can fly then it may not be any good anyway. If you're not already aware of it, have a read of headforpoints.com. They occasionally run articles on how best to use the companion vouchers, like today's article covering BA's announcement of a new route to New Orleans. This means that there will be guaranteed avios seats on every flight so booking early means a much higher chance of getting dates which work for you.

DovertheRoad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BA is still ok-ish but they've screwed it up a bit > with recent back end systems upgrades and a > weirdly unhelpful flight finder for air miles > seats which are still rarer than hens teeth. BA's flight finder is appalling but air miles seats seem to be quite common at the moment. Obviously flights in school holidays are going to be difficult to find, and flights to somewhere like Sydney are never going to be easy to obtain, but to most destinations the availability is quite good. As an example, last year it was almost impossible to find Caribbean redemptions even in the low season but this year there was a lot of availability in September/October, even in first and business.

There was a 3.5 ton delivery lorry parked in the bus lane outside M&S around 8:30 this morning. I don't think it was straddling the white zigzags but it wasn't clear from my point of view. Depending on what the bus lane restrictions and loading restrictions are at that point of Lordship Lane, there's a good chance it was illegally parked.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fact remains that London is unique in having > it's biggest airport in a foggy location, with > prevailing winds dictating flightpaths over the > city affecting the majority of residents. > > You won't find this situation in any other major > Western city. Well, Chicago frequently has fog rolling in from Lake Michigan and even though the approach path is generally over the lake, a lot of northern Chicago suffers terribly from aircraft noise. Boston is very similar, with fogs rolling in from the harbour and north Boston suffering from noise. In North America, off the top of my head, there's also LA, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York (Newark), Toronto and Washington DC, all of which have some/most of their urban areas underneath the flight path and can suffer from severe fog delays. Heathrow's problems are not unique to Heathrow.

rendelharris Wrote: > > Yes, collision avoidance is certainly to be > commended. But for all the crumple zones etc, > which are to be applauded, I wouldn't agree that > the pedestrian is safer overall, due to the > increased size of vehicles and particularly the > proliferation of 4x4s, which are 25% more likely > to be involved in an accident than a saloon car > (Churchill insurance) and twice as likely to kill > any pedestrian they hit (New Scientist). It's difficult to find data from the 60s and 70s about the numbers of pedestrians killed on the roads, presumably because the specific data were just bundled in with all other road deaths. The earliest reliable figures I can find start in 1994-98 where, on average, 1008 pedestrians per year were killed. In 2014 this was down to 446. Given the overall trend of road deaths decreasing since the mid-60s, despite the massive increase in the number of vehicles on the roads, it's not too much of a stretch to suggest that pedestrians are safer nowadays. Sources: House of Commons Library SN/SG/2198 and DfT statistical release 25/06/2015

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You'll forgive me if I say I think we should be > more concerned about cars not hitting pedestrians, > rather than how safe they'll be when it happens. > I'd be prepared to bet it's a lot safer to be hit > by a 1970s car at 20 MPH than a brand new one at > 30 MPH. I agree that reducing the chances of cars hitting pedestrians is the priority. But from a purely safety point of view, the best way to achieve that is to remove the cars. And that's not going to happen. As to your wager, I think you'd be surprised. Car design back in the 60s and 70s still followed the school of thought that making the car as strong and rigid as possible would be the safest path. No crumple zones, no thought to dissipating the kinetic energy of impact, no thought on points of impact. Modern cars have to consider all those things. For example, the major cause of pedestrian death is not the initial impact which is typically where the bumper hits the legs of the pedestrian. The secondary impact, where a pedestrian's head hits the bonnet or windscreen, is usually what causes death. So modern cars have a crumple zone built into the bonnet to absorb some of the energy where the pedestrian's head hits the bonnet. They also have much more pedestrian-friendly bumpers which help to absorb some of the initial energy of impact. Some even have pedestrian airbags (Volvo V40 for instance) which cover the bonnet and windscreen in case of a collision. I doubt the data exist to prove the argument one way or the other. But if I'm given a choice, I'll take the modern car at 30 mph please. Especially if it's one with a collision-avoidance system built in :)

Applespider Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People in general have got used to driving much > faster as cars become safer with better brakes, > suspension and soundproofing. Which is great for > those in cars and less good for other road users > and pedestrians. Until lights etc are phased to > encourage slower driving so that you don't feel > like you are waiting, people will still feel > frustrated. Plus if there is no incident, it feels > like a victimless 'crime' and since we probably > all feel like we are better than average drivers, > it is easy to argue against. And I suspect there > are very few drivers who could say they have never > ever broken one (caught or not) so we excuse a > crime of which we have all been guilty. Perhaps on main and rural roads the average speeds may have increased, but the average urban speed has actually dropped over the past 20 years or so. This is primarily due to increasing numbers of vehicles trying to fit into an ever-decreasing road capacity. I completely disagree that lights should be phased to encourage slower speeds, instead they should be phased to encourage the optimum traffic flow for a given road system. If that results in slower speeds then so be it, but traffic lights should not be used merely to slow down road users. Advances in car design and technology have not just benefited occupants of the car. The NCAP ratings specifically look at how a vehicle will impact on a pedestrian (both adults and children) in an accident and this is factored into the overall safety rating for a vehicle. Crumple zones, energy-absorbing zones, height of grilles, shape and rake angle of bonnets etc. are all important things to consider and changing these can all improve the chances of pedestrians surviving an impact.

Pity he couldn't have enforced a greater percentage of social/affordable housing in the new AFC Wimbledon stadium development. http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/sport/14696865._All_systems_go___Sadiq_Khan_hands_back_AFC_Wimbledon_stadium_decision_to_Merton_Council/ 9.6%. Great, that's really going to make a difference.

If you're being blocked in then the police should tow the offending car away. In fact they should have arranged this when they visited you. I would call them again, explain that your lawful access to the highway is being blocked, and ask them specifically to arrange the removal of the car. The local number ought to be fine.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A con does involve a deception. Southern continue > to hold up the compensation as a method of > accountability, but when the rules mean that a > large chunk of their customer base are disauded > from applying for compensation owing to, inter > alia, the circumnstances I described above, that > representation is misleading and therefore > deceptive. You're still not getting it. It's not a question of dissuasion. If a passenger doesn't take a train journey they're simply ineligible for delay compensation. Passengers have to take the train journey and suffer the delay. I understand your point that commuters would rather get home quicker than be deliberately delayed and claim compensation - I'm in exactly that situation myself - but that still doesn't make the compensation scheme a con. > And thank you for going to the trouble of bolding > the words "train journeys" but in doing so you are > demonstrating that you misunderstood my point. I > have paid for a train ticket. Thanks to > Southern's poor service, I can only get > compensation for the ticket I have paid for if I'm > prepared to wait risk waiting more than 2 hours to > get home. I am being put into a position where the > diminishing odds of my trains running at all mean > I have to suffer the loss of the train fare if I > want some certainty of getting home within 4 times > the usual commute. I haven't misunderstood your point at all. You may have paid for a train ticket but you haven't taken a train journey. If you want your money back for an unused train ticket then you need to ask for a refund, not delay compensation. It's no wonder you're seeing the delay compensation scheme as a con if you want it to do something it's not designed to do. > I am not suggesting that any company does or > should offer compensation for a service that I > have not chosen to pay for, so please use take > your straw man elsewhere. Interestingly (or not, depending on your point of view), revenue allocation for London transport is not as straightforward as "I take a Southern train therefore I pay Southern for my ticket". You're not directly paying Southern to use their service. Instead you're paying for a permit to travel which covers Southern, Southeastern, Thameslink, LOROL etc., not to mention TfL and the various London bus companies if you have a travelcard. Revenue is allocated centrally at a later date. So if you're not directly paying Southern for their services, and you're choosing to not use Southern services, why should Southern be paying you compensation?

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry, just saw this. I can only assume that you > are equating a con with lack of foresight. That > is a very limited definition by any modern > standard. Any system that purports to > compensation passengers for their losses and to > hold train companies to account which fails to do > so because neither of those things occur without > people being prepared to stand around and lose yet > another hour of their day to a horrendous commute > is, manifestly, a con. To call something a con essentially means that there is some kind of deception being perpetrated. You could call the train timetable itself a con and I'd probably agree with you, but I don't see the deception involved with the compensation scheme. I agree that the definition of a delay is unsuitable for suburban commuting but that's not a deception and it doesn't mean that the compensation scheme itself is a con. Delay repay is there to compensate passengers whose train journeys are delayed for more than 30 minutes. If a passenger chooses to take a bus/bike/whatever instead of a train, then their train journey hasn't been delayed because they've actively chosen to not take a train journey in the first place. Is this just semantics? Perhaps. But it's an important distinction to make: how many situations can you think of where a company offering a service is forced to compensate a customer who chooses not to pay for and use said service? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/compensation-figures-paid-to-passengers-by-train-operating-companies This would suggest that it is the TOCs who pay compensation, not the government. Cedges: my apologies, I didn't mean to be patronising, that wasn't at all my intention.

Cedges Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because a 30 minute delay on a 4 hour cross > country train is a very different prospect to a 30 > minute delay on what should be a 12 minute > journey. > > I also get nothing because I don't buy a travel > card, I pay as you go so whilst my bus journey is > supposedly cheaper (except when I have to get a > total of 3 buses like yesterday) my journey now > takes 50 minutes and not 12 - there is no > compensation for time lost. Thats over an hour and > a half of my day gone. Oh, I agree that 30 minutes is completely unsuitable for defining delays on suburban commuter journeys, but it is what we're stuck with and everyone knows in advance what the criteria are. That's why I don't see it as a con. You can get compensation for PAYG journeys. If you register your card (either Oyster or bank/credit) with Southern, they keep a log of all taps in/out and it should be straightforward to highlight the journeys which are eligible for compensation. I don't think it will work if you're using buses instead of trains, but if your bus journey is taking 50 minutes surely you're better off getting the train from ED to London Bridge using the revised timetable?