Penguin68

At times, if a 999 call is unclear, or confusing, more emergency services may be called in than are actually required. On the better safe than sorry principle. This is not a bad thing.

This is good, if somewhat delayed, news

But of course John, as a Life Peer is also in Parliament, if in the Upper Chamber.

She chooses not to use that name professionally, which is her right, but as the wife of a Baron the style I quoted is legally hers, even though she may not have made a legal change to her name on marriage. This is different from a wife choosing not to use her husband's name. Her legal style is The Lady Cryer, even though she doesn't choose to use it professionally.

In which case she is actually The Lady Cryer, married to John, Baron Cryer. She chooses to use her maiden name for electoral purposes.

Moves against privately owned cars only work when public transport is available and dependable. And relatively frequent. Often at weekends trains effectively disappear for planned works, or for unplanned reasons as now. And buses offer tortuous and long east west travel for us (trains offer effectively none). I use public transport whenever I can, which seems increasingly infrequently! It's either not there or not going my way.

Most, actually, save perhaps late at night when there's no traffic, and they should, of course, even then. If as many as one in 20 cyclists signalled intent I'd be surprised.

Source?

If you drive any petrol or diesel (or electric 4 wheel) powered vehicle on your own, other than very low powered two wheelers you will need to have demonstrated hazard awareness and knowledge of road signs and the highway code together with sufficient skill in managing your vehicle. Even powered two wheelers must be licensed to drive. Cyclists (and users of electric assisted two wheelers) need have no training and are not obliged to pass any tests of any sort ever. It is not surprising that drivers are more likely to be 'better mannered' on the roads. Although some of course aren't. Careless and bad driving is not excusable, but why should careless and bad cycling get a free pass? Cyclists are of course far more vulnerable when road incidents happen, but you might imagine that would be imperative on making cyclists better skilled in road safety behaviour. Which isn't my experience.

I fear there is confusion here about regular and frequent. A regular occurrence may not be frequent, frequent or common occurrences may not however be regular. And there are many attempts to obfuscate by nit picking rather than addressing underlying issues.

I was asking you whether you laid as much blame on cyclists involved in 'accidents' as you do to 'drivers'. I think by the tone of your response we can draw our conclusions. I believe too many cyclists (frankly, as with careless drivers, one would be too many) cycle with little regard to their own safety, let alone to that of others. I don't believe and I have never said that drivers can do no wrong. By all means blacken me if you wish, but you win no arguments by doing so. What I have said is that road accident statistics suggest that drivers are driving less badly, and to less bad effect, than they have in the past. They appear to be on an upwards curve of better road behaviour at the same time as anecdotally cyclists appear to be on a downward curve.

Does this also apply in your view to cyclists involved in collisions on roads and pavements?

As is your right, but just because it is your right doesn't mean that you are right. I very much doubt, by the way, that people have spent money on extensions 'as an investment'. Read it up, but many building works do not lead to short term profits - or even long-term ones. In the main most people I know who have extended the size of their property have done so because moving to a larger property to meet growing family needs (which may include providing for elderly and infirm relatives) is not economically possible unless you also move (for those now in ED) far away - which level of disruption may be counter-productive.

Poor road layout, poor signage, pot-holes, badly parked cars obstructing roads and turnings have all been contributory factors to incidents where the error is not necessarily all, or indeed at times at all the 'fault' of the driver directly involved in the incident. Although you are probably right that the majority are driver error that is not the same as saying it is all driver error (and indeed accidents involving cyclists are again not all the fault of the cyclist).

Surely one issue here is that, in general, figures suggest that incidents involving powered vehicles and their drivers have been reducing over time, as has the relative seriousness and frequency of injuries (including fatal injuries) whilst reports of poor cycling behaviour have been increasing, at least anecdotally. At a time when drivers are apparently (albeit too slowly) getting better it seems very sad that cyclists are getting worse - one might hope that all road users would be improving in their behaviours. I know as a driver (it is a long time since I cycled) that it is predictable and 'signalled' behaviour which leads to safer roads - and that cyclists are frequently not predictable or signalling. I expect vehicles to stop at red lights, to signal turns, and mainly they do. That is simply not true of the majority of cyclists I see on the roads around Dulwich (with some sterling and admirable exceptions). Driving (or indeed walking) safely when you can't tell what fellow travellers are doing is much more difficult (as is driving on poorly lit local roads at night when other users do not have lights or reflective clothing). Cyclists are particularly vulnerable (compared with drivers) - I simply can't understand why so many are so reckless about caring for their own, and others' safety. And why this behaviour seems to be becoming worse.

Quite significant damage can be caused by heavy vehicles at low speeds, I recall seeing an artic demolish a parked car when the driver got a turning circle wrong. Clearly driver error but not a function of reckless speed. Until (and if) we know the actual cause of the damage in this thread who and how much to blame remains moot.

I'm sorry, but what cultural barriers? Other than people who are not white middle class men choosing not to cycle - surely cycling is a prime example of people exercising personal choice (save where inhibited by age/ infirmity). Maybe it is cultural - but are you arguing that people should be forced to make personal choices which conflict with their culture to meet some form of imposed target? Of course that would be so where people of one culture were being actively restricted (for instance in employment opportunities, access to public transport etc.) but this is not the case here. Is anyone who is not a white middle class man being stopped by anyone else from cycling? There are many activities undertaken by others that I do not choose to emulate, but if it's my choice then absolutely fine. Of course, you may be saying that white middle class males are so aggressive and unpleasant on the roads that their behaviours inhibit others - but if you do there will be a chorus of disapproval of your 'attack' on people so close to angels that you can almost see their wings.

It doesn't help that, on the night in question if I've understood it right, a lot of children and young people were parading the streets in masks and costumes. It seems sadly almost inevitable that some scrotes would take advantage of that.

I suppose I could say that 'tens of thousands' implies more tens than 'fewer than 3 tens' - I suppose I could add that the trend is in fact downwards - at a time, post Covid, when road usage increased. But I'm not sure I will bother - oh, I just have.

There were in fact, in 2023, in Great Britain as a whole, 3 'tens of thousands' of deaths and serious injuries' (29,643), although deaths at 1,649 were 4% down on the previous year. Overall casualties recorded were 132,063, also down (by 3%) from the previous year. Any casualty, serious injury and of course death is very sad, but try not to hyperbolise about this.

Actually, pavements are cleaned, though not necessarily at the frequency some would wish. We are very lucky in ED to live in tree lined streets (municipal or private trees) - apparently good for air quality and certainly aesthetically pleasing - but the downside is 4 weeks in autumn when pavements can be tricky (and when the awful silent step of leaf conceal dog poo is ever present). Considering the pressure on local authority finances, limited road sweeping is perhaps all we can afford; I'd suggest trying to live with it for the advantages for the remaining 48 weeks of our trees (even out of leaf they are stark and beautiful).

Rather like the policy then

You are right, technically there is a legal thing called a Short Term Let, but student let's are unlikely to be for more than 3 years, and are frequently one year (and in fact only occupied often September to July) whereas the crying need is for family housing for several years continuously. Hence my use of (lower case) 'short term' to describe typical student tenancies. Lets to student nurses are more likely to be continuous and for a longer period than a year, but the Dulwich Society comment on the nature of the rooms on offer does suggest that most would want to move out to something less cell like if they could.

It seems not unlikely that Thames will default and fall back into public administration, so we will have no opportunity to wash our hands. And as a local monopoly we have no choice anyway.

Ironically the amount that Thames Water said they needed (some years in the future and which they would achieve by using price rationing to reduce demand) was actually less than the amount they lost each year at the moment through leaking pipes! Just undertaking the repairs to the network which our current charges are meant to meet would obviate the need for any price rationing on their own estimates. And of course we're well aware of the drought situation we have been in this year, to need price rationing at all! If they met the regulator's current requirements on water loss through leaks they would not need to price gouge and ration for the future.