Penguin68

If what is reported here is true Southwark is combining vanity projects (hitting an area not noted for its 100% labour electorate) together with a massive increase in reserves and reduction in front-line services (including, if what James has reported elsewhere is true) not offering education (yet) to nearly 3 dozen SE22 families. No doubt Coalition cuts will be blamed for the front line services reduction. I think it is important that we keep in mind actions which are in the council's free decision area (i.e. not actually being enforced by direct budget cuts from central government). This is very much Big Government (as opposed to Big Society) in action - the Southwark Daleks have given their orders, with no interest in taking on board local views.

I think the New Road Brighton trial isn't on a road which is a major route out of Brighton (at least that bit) as Grove Vale is out of Dulwich. However it does look good and I guess everyone is careful in its use. The experiments I was talking about do still maintain pavements and roads as separate spaces. But to share the whole width of Grove Vale amongst all its users would be an interesting idea.

For those interested in a different approach to reducing congestion & accidents - these two links may be of interest. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2143663,00.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html

Huguenot Actually although the quote you italicise is mine I did not make any comment about poor parking around bus stops, that was another of us data-less car hugging bigots. I did say that most of the near accidents I had seen involved vehicles pulling across the road to pass stopped or parked vehicles, but I made no comment (as I recall) about whether these were stopped or parked badly - in many cases not, but the road is already too narrow to carry the traffic it is having to. Often the stopped vehicles are buses, sometimes stalled and waiting for assistance. There is a study going on in, I think, Barnet of reduced road signage - and your assumption of European drivers full of social responsibility suggests that you are not a regular driver in Europe, and particularly not Italy or Belgium.

As a driver I have, of course, (or apparently that's Huguenot's belief) had my legs removed and replaced with 4 wheels, but is there anyone out there who is still both a driver and a pedestrian and might be able to comment from both points of view? Before the wheel operation I do have dim memories of walking, although clearly these must be fading, but I do recall that in that particular stretch of Grove Vale there are already a plethora of controlled crossing points. Many studies have shown that removing street furniture and road markings (rather than swamping roads with them) actually leads to better driving and a better pedestrian experience, as both drivers and pedestrians have to rely on their own observation and care rather than making assumptions about other's behaviour to given constrictions and signage. There are approximately 38 million registered drivers in the UK - out of a population of 60m. If you exclude people under 17 (who cannot be registered) then you have signifciantly more than half the population who are drivers. Of course, the whole population are also pedestrians. If you add to the registered drivers those non-drivers who take motorised public transport (buses, taxis) or who are dependent on freight vehicles for deliveries etc. (and who pay the costs of longer drive times through pricing) then I would guess you would find very few people who would not be adversely effected by reduced conditions for road vehicles. As a driver and (yes, really I am) a pedestrian (and even a user of public transport) I understand the concept of trade-off between different benefits. I cannot see (and, PhD less in traffic management I still have over 60 years of life experience) that the benefits (if they even exist) of this scheme outweigh the disbenefits. Huguenot tries to paint private drivers as a tiny minority of selfish individuals - more than half of all adults are private drivers (or have been) - and we are no more selfish than any other group. People who are uniquely pedestrians (i.e. do not ever use motorised public transport or drive themselves) are in fact (if everything is to be designed just for their benefit) the selfish minority in this instance.

Huguenot You quote the priorities as "pedestrian, cyclist, public transport, freight, taxis, motorcycles and then private cars" - All of these (apart from cyclists and pedestrians) pay vehicle excise duty and substantial taxation of fuel usage, all apart from pedestrians will be adversly effected by this road narrowing (if cut-throughs are designed for cyclists they will not, but, as I said, that design is not clear at the moment). The money that is collected by government in this way is (you are right) not hypothecated, but it is taxation which is being paid by those with (or who use, though charges) powered vehicles and not those without. You constantly write as if disruption to the roads is something which is a disbenefit only to the private car driver, when, in fact, what is proposed is only to the benefit of the pedestrian and (possibly) the cyclist.

Guess what - if you search that document for Grove Vale - nada. The issue is not policy objectives - it is the actual consequences of doing things which claim to be consistent with those objectives. Unless these constrictions have cyclist passegeways (I can't see that on the chalk marks, but is it possible) then cyclists will be forced out into the road in front of motorised vehicles rather than being able to stay more safely close to the 'normal' curb, and every other type of vehicle will also suffer from these constrictions. On the basis of what you claim therefore, these changes will place pedestrians first and everybody else nowhere - which as a 'hierarchy' is somewhat unbalanced (unless pedestrians pay road tax - remind me?)

I would be interested to know how many councillors, who apparently make these decisions on behalf of us, and how many of the officers and staff in the appropriate department advising these councillors have PhDs in traffic management - there are already controlled crossings (in the space of only a few hundred yards) to support crossing at the school and at ED station - very sensibly. There is also a pedestrian crossing only a few steps away at the Goose Green Roundabout. And there is a controlled crossing (partially, with lighs) for the crossing towards Sainsbury's at Dog Kennel hill. I suspect that as a very regular user of that part of Grove Vale (probably a far more regular user than any of the people who advised on or took the decision) I am as least as well qualified to offer an opinion as any. I do not recall any manifesto pledge about Grove Vale made by any candidate (though I am happy to be corrected on this). I also do not subscribe to the 'vote once every three or 5 years and you're a full member of a participating democracy' schtick. We live in an elective oligarchy - and occasionally, like the Egyptians and Libyans, I feel like kicking against the pricks (read that as you will).

Most of the near-collisons I have had/ seen in Grove Vale (I haven't seen or been in any actual collisons, but there have been near misses) involve traffic pulling into to opposite lanes to pull past stopped buses, lorries, parked vehicles etc. - this plan appears to be intent on creating permanent narowing when there was once only intermittent narrowing (but of course that intermittent narrowing will not be displaced but simply additional to the permanent narrowing). Traffic times will be hugely increased, so vehicles will be able to be stopped outside the school puffing out fumes for far longer (that will be a health enhancement for our little ones) and of course ambulances trying to get to Kings will be satisfyingly delayed. A great call and a fine example of local democracy at work. But then, not a lot of those who will be impacted vote around here for the current ruling party, do we, so no real issue.

The severed cable would take out broadband and telephone - the problem as you describe it with TalkTalk suggests a completely different problem than that being generally discussed here - it may either be a modem/ router problem or possibly a problem with the TalkTalk service itself. It could also be a problem with your own connection to TalkTalk equipment in the exchange - I assume that you have an unbundled line? If so, this might effect just you. But if you have dial tone it does suggest that you have an integral line back to the exchange equipment.

Some earlier posters were saying that BT was talking about restoring service fully on Monday. In this sort of situation BT try to restore first key business (doctors etc.) and vulnerable personal subscribers (elderly, sick etc., where they know these) then other businesses (who will be suffering financial loss) then remainder of personal subscribers. However a 2000 pair cable will be split up (via flexibility points) so some subscribers will get service 'on the back of' vulnerable or key customers on the same sub-cable. I don't know the topology of this (or frankly any other) section of cable to know the sequencing of service restoration, but it is quite possible for some customers to receive service before others as a natural consequence of the sequencing of re-connecting the damaged cable sections. However it would be worth checking on Monday if BT thinks the work is complete - they may have either missed out on your pair (amongst 2000) - or of course you may be suffering from an unrelated fault.

exoploding telegraph poles There is such a thing as proportionality. And HE is so much more difficult to obtain nowdays than wire.

Piano wire

Cables are accessed via cable chambers (they are under the slabs in the pavement with, often, 'GPO' on them. Lever them up and you get into a cable chamber and you can pull and cut cable from there (it's pretty heavy, which is why only comparatively short lengths are taken). Cables also terminate into cabinets and pillars (green street furniture, often also with GPO marks on them), but these are less easy to pull cable from. Cables run along ducts underground - these can also be exposed by other street works (gas, water. electricity) as they all follow broadly the same courses (they are all serving the same sites after all) - and they are again vulnerable in this instance. I should note that cable chambers can (a) be flooded and (b) contain gas - accessing them can be dangerous and engineers have to be trained in their safe access and also have the right equipment (including gas detection). Don't try this at home (or actually, normally, just outside your home.

They may be pumping out the cable chamber just to get access to it - sometimes the chambers can get flooded without causing a service interruption - (and they also can fill with gas). Telephone cable (where it isn't fibre, which mainly it isn't in the local network) is made of copper - which has a high scrap value as its quality is very high. The London-Birmingham micro-wave link was paid for (common myth at least has it) by the pulled copper which it replaced. I am not surprised to hear that cable (or a section of it) could have been stolen - if it has been it makes repair much more time consuming - as it requires two sets of joints to be made (linking a replacement length of cable to each of the two cut ends) - rather than just jointing the cut ends together (when no cable length is missing). There are may be also be problems pulling replacement cable if the ducts are already quite full - as they may be around ED. Some telephone infrastructure in London is now 100+ years old - in ED probably 80-90+. BT normally offers rental rebates where service has been interrupted like this - not that that's much of a consolation to those without land-line access.

The rules about field market reaearch say that you shouldn't call after 9.00 in the evening - clearly that's about dusk in the summer but way after dark in the winter. If you do set a 'not after dark' limit then house-calling for charities in the winter would be pointless - as very many targets wouldn't be home before dark at the best of times. Which would rule out a lot of time when money could otherwise be being collected. Day-time calling is OK but won't pick up the employed, who are probably best placed to make donations.

If I was a qualified field engineer I might even offer - but I am not and I don't.

A promising domain for robotics, possibly, eventually, ... The issue is matching the pairs - so that the ones going towards the exchange onto subscribers equiment on the main frame are joined to the right ones going towards the subscriber's premises. I am not sure (considering that each severed cable is severed in its own way) that live jointers aren't still better at doing this than robots - obviously testing equipment is used extensively to make sure the correct ends of pairs are jointed together. If it was a JCB job then the jointers will be working in whatever hole in the ground has been created, and dealing with whichever cable type (there are lots) has been damaged. Building and programming robots for all these eventualities is even more non trivial.

If there are lots of lines down, then there may well have been a 'JCB' incident (someone cuts through a cable) - this happened a lot when the cable companies were laying lots of cable, and street works can still do this. If a cable is cut repair is non trivial - unlike a gas or water or electricty pipe (which is just a single conduit) cables are made up of multiple twisted pairs, all of which lead to individual phone lines and have to be re-connected in the right order - each householder has a unique set of twisted pairs that run from their master socket back to the exchange frames (albeit through a number of flexibility points). The only other common thing that can take-out multiple lines is flooding - although obviously cables are generally sheathed against this. If an underground cable chamber is flooded however where there are flexibility points things can short out. Hope things come back on soon for all those without connection.

If there is an external problem the most likely cause is work on a flexibility point (pillar or cabinet) local to you - it may be worth popping out and seeing if anyone is working on one. It is very easy to inadvertently disconnect one set of pairs (or one half of a pair) whilst working on another - about a quarter of all faults used to be classed as 'working party' faults for that reason, although far less work now goes on in pillars and cabinets (they are green boxes forming part of street furniture). It is worth checking your phone - those can also go wrong - and indeed make sure that your own internal wiring is sound - see if you are getting dial tone off a phone connected to your master socket (the first one into the house). BT can quite easily check the line for integrity - you can call them from a mobile. I assume that you are not using BT to support your internet use - otherwise if there was a complete break in line integrity you could not have posted this message - if your voice link is down but your adsl is working that may be a technical fault at the exchange (but more normally is a function of internal wiring problems).

If we take 'mugging' to mean street robbery (as opposed to other types of violent street attack) then the remedies actually available to us as individuals are limited - don't choose routes (or times) which take you through areas vulnerable to attack, don't carry with you relatively valuable items which will encourage attack (and certainly don't display them - such as smart phones and iPods etc.) walk confidently, where you can walk with others. My daughter has been mugged (in the sense that someone stopped her and demanded her phone in a threatening manner) , at least once, luckily her phone was old and damaged and was handed back to her with the injunction to 'get her dad to buy her a better phone' - so another hint there. She also had her iPod earpieces grabbed from her. Where we have been mugged, we should report it (if we do, apparent crime numbers might increase, but this would be a function of better reporting, not increased crime). Too many young people don't bother nowadays - partly I think because to do so would worry their parents and lead to them not being allowed out. [i am not sure, by the way, whether mugging really has increased that much - 8 or so years ago my elder daughter was reporting that her teenage male friends expected to be robbed in the street every 3 months or so - clearly an exaggeration but not much of one.] Finally ? we should not be frightened of screaming and running away (setting off rape alarms if we carry them)? these actions may seem pusillanimous (particularly for men) but this does have a good chance of spooking muggers ? and if we do take this up as victims, then as citizens and householders we should also respond to cries for help. (Yes, I know we would be constantly rushing out to help vixens, but that may be a price worth paying). As parents we are lucky enough to be able to afford mini-cabs for our (grown but young) children when they are coming back late, and certainly we cab it if alone. Not everyone is in this position, of course.

I suspect that the key issues here are simple economics 101 factors. (1) Different types of house operate with different elasticities of demand - properties targeted at first-time buyers (who have little equity to trade) are price elastic - falling prices bring buyers in, rising prices exclude them, primarily as a function not of desire but availability of funding (affordability). At the other end properties are relatively price inelastic - quite significant changes in price will have limited effect on purchase as people are in a better position to exercise choice less constrained by funds availability (simply because they probably already have sufficient equity to be able to borrow lower fractions of the total house cost). (2) Prices also vary as a function of scarcity - so scarce desirable properties (right size/ location/ build quality etc.) carry a higher price premium than less scarce properties. First-time buyer houses are comparatively scarce (as a ratio against those seeking them) but very price elastic - so in the current borrowing climate to sell them the price must fall - houses at the top end which meet the desirability criteria are also scarce but more price inelastic - so their values are maintaining or even rising (i.e. their selling owners can benefit from scarcity whilst not being penalised by elasticity issues).

If the utilities dig up roads they have to pay for their restoration - so it is the utility customers who pay for their mistakes, rather than the council tax payer - but these two groups do have substantial overlaps so it does come to the same thing - curiously it is rarely the shareholders who suffer diminution of dividend when their companies cock-up.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: 30%+ chance of an iphone or Blackberry (?50-?100, exported abroad), chance of some cash (?0-?50 and if your lucky a laptop (?100-?300). I am surprised at these figure - in general fences give you about 10% of the 'value' of the object stolen - hence when safes are 'cash-rated' it is assumed that you can keep in them artifacts worth 10 times the cash-rating. A good second hand blackberry must be worth (be sold for) ?275 tops I would guess (based on a quick google) - so you would get under ?30 for it; you would be lucky to get ?50 for a laptop. Those people who export abroad and make the money aren't the people who do the stealing, just as the wealthy drug barons tend not to be the street pushers.

Carbonite as a solution is fine if (1) you only want to back up one computer (its licence is per computer - so 2 computers costs ?82 a year. (2) - you don't have any data on portable hard drives, which it won't back-up - which many people get to extend the capacity of otherwise perfectly OK laptops (3) you don't mind paying for, effectively close to a terrabyte of storage each year which is only yours on lease. For many people this is an entirely good solution, but check your requirements. For the cost (probably) of 2 years storage you could buy 2 terrabyte drives and mirror them (in case one dies) - put them in an external drive case (additional cost) and link that by wireless or ethernet to your computer - then lock your home server away somewhere where the little scrotes won't think to look. Standard back-up programms (additional cost, possibly) will allow you to preserve your data. HOWEVER - this won't protect against fire in the home - for that external (cloud) storage is required. Mind you - a bad bout of solar flare and you probably lose the cloud - possibly all your data with it (whereas at home you can switch off your computer and disconnect from power etc. sources and it should survive a solar flare). My key data is backed up on 3 separate systems (against data loss and system failure) and (work data) additionally in 2 locations - but I don't use any cloud storage. And as soon as I post this I expect something dreadful will happen which makes all my precautions useless.