Penguin68

And you know that my comments had nothing to do with being able to recognise Highway Code signs properly displayed, but to be able to see (based on where the signs are) and read (based on the amount of information contained on those signs and the size of the type and the level to which it is illuminated) those signs - where information includes non-standard hours of operation etc. It is not unusual for local authorities to be found to have produced signage which does not met standards, or which is conflicting.

As regards signage, surely you realise that the more confusing and apparently contradictory it is, the more chance of penalty fines. I'm not suggesting that this is an intentional ploy on behalf of Southwark (yeah, really?) - but you will note the lack of speed in their response to complaints about misleading or badly positioned or difficult to read signage.

And 100,000:1 - the 'consultation' will have its timetable extended to take account of the fact that many people were unable to compete it.

Just to note that what is lawful may not thus be necessarily beneficial or e.g. morally right. You need different sorts of tests for that. Face validity would suggest that if there are fewer 'more polluting' vehicles in an area, air quality might improve, as indeed it has been for a number of years in London. Dating indeed to (well) before the introduction of the original ULEZ.

Male wrens build multiple nests to attract a mate, so don't worry if you see a nest built which isn't used. Doesn't mean the wren is dead, just that the jenny wren was picky.

Admin has changed the title of this thread, but actually, at the moment, there is no disruption to traffic, or at least wasn't yesterday. I'm not complaining about what is not (yet?) there. I am complaining about poor planning and apparent mismanagement. Which a lack of any actual work to date, a week into the threatened disruption, would suggest is not misplaced.

Is this a regular occurrence? Is this weekdays or weekdays and weekends? If it is daily during the week, including school hours, is the house in question possibly offering day care? This week the weather has been good enough for children to play out after a dull winter. Is it just a family taking benefit of this? Are they actually screaming or just playing noisily?

Just thought I'd mention that, by 8th March, the only sign of the work being forecast is a sign, literally, saying that 'work starts on 3/03/2025 and will continue for 13 weeks' together with a temporary traffic signal, (not operational) and a little bit of fencing off of one bit of the pub. Work has not started and although it is good that there is no traffic disruption I am standing by my argument that the people responsible for this are 'clowns'. If what has been done to date has taken 5 working days - well the mind boggles. And if it hasn't - well why institute that signage? Will the 'work - and I use that word quite wrongly - take 13 weeks from 3rd March, or is it already running a week late? If project managers working for me had kicked off so publically like that, I'd be at a first warning stage by now. Has anyone noticed whether the forecast closure of adjacent bus stops has also started?

Surely you cannot be surprised. The council's 'consultations' in whatever context (vide the discussion on Gala) bear no resemblance to anything which might imply democratic accountability or any unbiased search for 'truth'. Their object is to grind down protesters such that they don't bother to be consulted in future, knowing it to be a farce. And it's working.

I suspect that it might not, for our cinema, be that good an earner. Which would be a perfectly good commercial reason to can it. If the sessions were making net money then they might have stayed, perhaps. The costs of running special sessions with babies must be higher than for 'normal' sessions, I'm guessing.

Maybe because it's a film you want to see, and you know that a babe-in-arms (not perhaps toddler) is not going to be impacted by it, and you're anyway going stir-crazy. I think, with actual babies, it ought to be parental choice, but perhaps the cinema should give warnings if there are flashing lights, explosions and loud noises, in case your baby is sensitive. But as regards 'content' - a baby will not be influenced by anything said or on screen - they don't have the cognition or language skills to process it, and if adults with tiny children want to get out of the house, and perhaps be with friends, why not? Toddlers however may be a different issue. But remember you're not taking the baby to to the cinema for its benefit but for yours. The sort of things actual babes in arms want to watch (repetitive dancing fruit) are anyway not on general release in cinemas!

If it only doubles you'd have escaped lightly. It is fair to note that all councils are on reduced rations from the centre (National Taxation redistribution) which makes even meeting statutory requirements an issue (hence local fury at what has been wasted in the Village vanity project) - but Southwark will continue to ramp-up what it can out of discretionary charges - i.e. car related and waste collection related. When I moved here nearly 40 years ago, garden rubbish and large items were collected out of 'general rates' (Community charges). And there were no CPZs.

So, Mal, despite not living in Southwark, let alone the proposed CPZ, you decided to influence our lives? You got the working staff link I suppose?

I'm expecting that either their chosen respondents (including staffers whether resident locally or not, it wouldn't surprise me to discover) will be getting the access url that works or they'll declare that nobody much was interested. What they should do, of course, hearing their system was broken (which of course can happen wholly accidentally) is to re-set and re-start the process with a new deadline. Anyone think they will?

I was driving my children back when the snowstorm hit. Not forecast. And rather a spiteful, unpleasant and unthinking statement. I must just hope you're never caught in unexpected and unforecast poor weather. And how does anyone having 4WD hurt you? And the second occasion when I did have 4WD was again an unexpected event where I had to get people home. Certainly public transport wouldn't have helped then.

I didn't, in an earlier snow episode I slid sideways down Sydenham Hill, it had been a sudden snow storm in the afternoon rush with no gritting. Luckily I didn't hit anything, and nothing hit me, but when I changed our my car and there was a suitable one available second hand with 4WD I snapped it up. My kids were in the car at the time and I didn't want a repeat with a less fortuitous outcome.

Yup, think it was. The bus in question was on Underhill at the bottom of the cemetery hill.

And that couldn't remotely mean that this research has an agenda possibly? Recognise that's not something in your normal vocabulary!

And there are relatively few of these real beasts and a lot of sheep in wolf's clothing. By the way, 4 wheel drive is a positive safety issue, without it I couldn't have managed one of ED's hills the last time we had snow, passing a bus that had slid sideways. Just because 4WD is necessary for off roading etc. doesn't make it evil. It may be generally unnecessary on urban roads, but that just means it's an unnecessary cost to the purchaser.

It's noticeable that many car parks are no longer fit for purpose with most modern cars, of whatever profile, being substantially wider than their predecessors. Which is mainly about safety build. Big (real) SUVs are particularly problematic.

You are right that I could have referred to 'body plans', but I wanted to emphasise the difference in sturdiness, and weight, of build between commercial trucks, the design basis of real SUVs (the US Utility Vehicles, or Utes) and the modified passenger saloon or large hatchback basis of modern crossover vehicles with SUV style bodies. 'Chassis' is sort of a vocabulary many are familiar with.

A range rover is built on a jeep style chassis and is reasonably classed as an SUV, although smaller than the classic US types. It is very different from the many crossover types, such as the Qashqai which are really dressed-up cars. My argument has never been that SUVs are good, but that many cars are wrongly identified as SUVs if by that you mean the extra large chassis size and weight seen as being their drawbacks. Their body form may seem 'SUV', their reality isn't.

That is true of all modern cars, which are bigger and heavier than 'ordinary' cars 10 years ago, whatever the type, either small run around or family car. If you want manufacturers to reduce cabin safety, or legislators to require no modern cars to be sold, then fine. Indeed if you and others want generally to argue against modern cars at all, well fine again. But to rail against 'SUVs', when you actually mean modern family sized cars, is simply disengenuous. And, by the way, when quoting my commentary on bicycles please note that the legislation regarding driving an SUV and any other car as regards speeds, compliance eith road rules etc is in fact already identical. Which is all that I was asking for.

I agree with Sue here, but it is reasonable to raise a concern - there have been incidents of mass poisoning (from restaurants and cafes, supermarkets and food sellers such as butchers and fishmongers) where early warning (or a lack of it) has had a significant impact. But where this concern has been reasonably raised, but then discovered to be likely misplaced, it is a good thing to obfuscate the retailer identity. Of course, by removing the specificity, this might get later readers to worry that other ice-cream outlets locally were being implicated! Bit of a lose-lose situation really!

I was making the point about child seats - two of these in what should be a 3 seat back seat will take up most of that space, so if you want to take 5 people in a car, two of whom are children, you will be hard pressed in many smaller vehicles. The SUV style of body (but not the truck chassis) allows for this - as do people carriers and estate cars. And once again - SUV 'style' cars which have an SUV style body, but are built on a car chassis are not SUVs. It's like suggesting the old (1970) Mini Clubman or a Morris Traveller were Estate Cars, ! Looky-likey ain't the same. And most SUV style cars (on car chassis) are not actually that high off the ground at base platform - simply with taller bodies - so they're on a standard wheel base but higher overall - so that the front bumpers are at the same level as standard cars. It's true that some cross-overs (on car chassis) do have wheels with larger diameters - so do stand taller overall over the ground - but with the pot-hole situation that has genuine safety advantages - as regards driver safety at least. But it is the weight of the truck chassis (and the strength of its build) which makes true US style SUVs more of a problem (and a better choice for off road usage) . You would be right to assert that these are over-engineered for (sole) urban use, unless they are doubling (as some do) as commercial vehicles. I do have a (hybrid) car (on a car chassis) with SUV body styling - which is much easier to get in an out of at my age and infirmity and gives me a better road view than a sports car, and allows me to travel with an extended family, as well as a much more comfortable long-distance drive - but it is not an SUV. It is an SUV style cross-over. For most urban travel around S E London I use a much smaller hybrid. I wonder, if the chosen car style for family cars was still people carriers - or Estate cars (people carriers effectively identical in terms of size and road height, estates in terms of length, capacity and weight) if you would be making the same fuss? Or do the initials (wrongly used) upset you?