Penguin68

Really, and if these people do ever turn up are you going to see them to confirm that? And can I watch?

First thing this morning (8.00am) traffic lights were installed at the junction of Wood Vale and Langton Rise - and switched on. A section of road in Wood Vale was coned off. So far (13.30) there has not been any sign of any workmen doing anything. By all means install the lights in advance, if that works best for you, but don't switch them on, or cone off a section of road, until workmen arrive. Unless you really really couldn't care less for the taxpayers who are paying your wages - oh, but of course, you don't - Southwark or Lewisham (the works are on the border) apparat, do you?

But I can't imagine they would have undertaken all this work, with whatever the cost is and certainly the disruption locally if TfL had not now agreed the light phasing - even if it took them a ridiculous time to do so. So not switching it on is just offensive, and if there is a fatal accident now before it's switched on then TfL should be charged with corporate manslaughter, if it can be shown the delay was at their end.

You could make apple juice from eating apples, it would be very sweet, but for cider you need cider apples which are very different.

When I started this thread in February the works were scheduled to last, quite ridiculously, to mid June, it is now the end of July and they are still not complete, even though there has been no work at all for weeks apart from some overnight tarmacing and line painting on the 25th July. The 'emergency' lights are still working, the replacement lights still covered and the safety light work to improve pedestrian crossing still not switched on. What a complete shower those responsible, and I use that word quite wrongly, are. Actually the junction seems to be working, broadly, OK, so why the hell can't they finish it? Until they do it's still a hazard.

I'm guessing it's an edit of the two news stories about Southwark roadworks overall I posted on another thread. Just picking up helpfully the ED roads.

As Occado source from Waitrose, and were their only deliverer at one stage, and as Waitrose do now deliver it may be they feel their reach in ED is sufficient to mean having a local outlet would not gain them sufficient additional sales to be cost effective. The movement to delivery rather than physical shopping during Covid has I believe substantially changed the grocery economics. So it may be that the High Street dynamic for physical shops has now changed.

I believe the key issue is the available size of shops. Waitrose, unlike M&S does not, I believe, have a small outlet offering which could be shoehorned into LL except in one or two spots.

I think you need to indicate primary and secondary needs to get useful recommendations, and sex of children since two local academies are single sex.

Maybe if you indicated what you were reviewing, pub, gastro pub, high-end gourmet, local Italian etc. - whatever classifications you wanted, then you need only indicate that your stars referred to overall quality in that category. So it it's pub grub then 5 stars means it's great pub grub, but not the same experience as 5 stars in a high end gourmet category. Your star system could then include implicitly value for money as well.

https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/community/drivers-face-a-total-of-30-road-closures-over-the-summer-when-driving-through-southwark/ https://www.mylondon.news/news/transport/southwark-road-closures-including-tfl-32106269 So let's hear it from the 'nothing to see here' Southwark Council cheerleaders then

It wouldn't just have to be in an LTN, but anywhere where the natural route for assistance would have gone through an LTN where the road was actually blocked off by planters etc.

There is no evidence that I can see that anyone on these boards is employed by, or advocates for, the oil and gas industries. You are conflating someone who cares for those who are owners and users of private cars, however powered, and inter alia deplores misuse of the roads by cyclists who break normal road rules, with a complete different sort of industry advocate. Some, but not all, private cars use fossil fuels, certainly, as many use steel, and plastics, and leather. You may as well accuse your opponents of being advocates for big steel, or big engineering, as advocates for fossil fuels. You just hope to gain sympathy for your own advocacy by associating your opponents with what you believe will be a dog whistle cause which will help praise your position.

But a larger number, in a more hotly contested election, didn't. It is an anomaly that Starmer won a landslide in seats with a turnout for Labour which would have shamed Labour leaders in all the 21st and much of the post war 20th century.

It is not Labour Party members who elect Labour governments, as it certainly isn't Conservative Party members who elect Conservative ones. It is all those who are not party members who actually make up the sufficient numbers to elect governments.

Surely only where the local businesses offer clear advantages, otherwise you are rewarding what should be failure. I want to be served by a better bakery than Gail's, not a worse but local independent one. Certainly give a local independent some time to get the offer right, but don't buy goods which are worse and or more expensive just because the outlet isn't a chain.

That would be MADNESS. London streets are built around walking and bicycles (and horses!) - they are narrow, winding and with many intersections. They are not laid out on a simple grid as are US streets, nor are they as wide as US streets. Pedestrians are not restricted from crossing them, or walking on them with Jay walking laws as in the US. The AI that works in the US simply is not fit for purpose on London, or indeed most other European towns or cities.

The drink will be for the teachers, in my experience

Only if the fox is in the street or a public place. The council will charge for removing a dead fox from private premises.

You really don't seem to understand how the internet works. AI works out what you're interested in and gives you links. You don't have to set alerts, Google and Chrome does that for you. You need spend no time at all.

The claims made in this report, or at least reported by those who seem to have full access to it, the report by people who are known to be supporters of a particular mind-set do not, so far as the reporting I have seen of it goes, lay out contextualised and comparable figures for areas with and without LTNs. Put very simply it may very well be that accident figures have improved in LTNs (now virtually without traffic for much or all of the time) - but I want to know the following:- 1. How does this compare with changes in accident figures in other parts of the country (and London) which are comparable in terms of urban profile and traffic levels with the LTNs?. That is, have accidents levels in general in comparable urban areas changed over the same time period. How have these changed? Are these changes statistically significant? 2. How have accident figures in roads known to be necessary alternatives to LTNs altered over time? What are the joint (LTN and adjacent figures) combined. and how do these compare with comparable non LTN areas? Just for context, over the time period which I believe is being measured we have had a considerable roll-out of reduced speed limits, at least across London, from 30 to 20mph (and of course we have had lock-down for part of this). We have also had the exclusion from the roads of older cars and vans (because of emissions issues) which have removed what may be less road-worthy vehicles from the equation. At the moment we seem just to have found that where you reduce traffic levels, reported accidents reduce. The alternative would be surprising. No doubt if you were to remove all motorised vehicles from all streets the incidence of accidents caused by motor vehicles would plummet.

NHS subcontractors frequently use supermarket parking areas for CT and other screening. Easy to get to and park. They've done the same at Dog Kennel Hill in the past. Makes a lot of sense. And they ram in lots of timed appointments, so time critical is precisely right.

Absolutely don't post on the forum. By all means provide evidence to the police or shop security.

If I was designing research to determine whether LTNs did reduce accidents involving motor vehicles (because we know other accidents are rarely reported) the null hypothesis I would test is that accident rates in the broad locales of the LTN did not change significantly compared with other comparable areas. ‘Broad locales’ because I would assume that at least some traffic would be displaced from LTNs to adjacent and alternative routes, so I would include those routes which were understood by local people to be alternatives – and helpfully look at routes offered by e.g. Waze as alternatives for those without local knowledge. I would test this against similar urban areas where there were no LTNs to ensure that I was not measuring just a general drop in accident rates (which have been significantly dropping through the second half of the 20th century into the first quarter of this, discounting the period of Covid Lockdown when all traffic was significantly reduced). And I would follow the same broad design to determine whether significant drops in air pollution (and CO2 is not a pollutant as regards air quality impacting health is concerned) had occurred. In this manner I would not by hamstrung by the lack of proper comparative data from the past, particularly as regards air quality. I would need to ensure that I chose comparable areas so that I was comparing like with like. This latter would of course be open to challenge. I cannot see from what little I have read that this sort of comparability has been undertaken in the study being quoted (happy to stand corrected). If you just look at LTNs and say reported accidents are down this actually tells you nothing of use until you can contextualise the information, and until you can demonstrate that (taking into account displaced traffic) this is unusual compared with non LTN areas. Similarly for air quality. I’m not saying this sort of study is easy, or cheap. I am saying it meets reasonable research criteria. I used to handle graduate research proposals (not in this area, but research techniques are transferable) so I know a little of what I speak.

I'm sorry, so what you are saying is that if you ban traffic from an area there will be fewer traffic accidents in that area - oh, that is ignoring the accidents which are not reported because people tend not to report accidents where it's only bicycles involved, because, inter alia, cyclists are uninsured so there is no chance of any recompense for damage and little chance to sue for injury. Quel surprise!