DulwichLondoner

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bit disingenuous - making it an offence to cross a > road other than at traffic lights is a lot more > than 'a modicum of discipline'. It almost sounds > like you think pedestrians should have to wait for > you rather than the other way round ???? And why on earth would that be? First of all, if there is a traffic light, pedestrians should respect it. Crossing when red is dangerous for themselves and others; what justification would there possibly be? On roads with very frequent traffic lights, like the Lordship lane high street, why on Earth shouldn't a pedestrian be patient enough to walk 60 metres or so to the next traffic light, and wait a few seconds till the green man appears? Pedestrians should not be inconvenienced even if this makes the road safer for all? I say this from direct experience: I almost never ride along Lordship lane, but do walk there as a pedestrian, and am always amazed at the people who jump in the middle of the road when traffic lights are so ubiquitous. I can understand crossing the road on long stretches of road with no crossings, but on somewhere like Lordship lane, with a traffic light every 60 metres or so?? > - rather an > odd point of view if you choose to live in a large > city, surely. Yes, surely. Which is why what I advocate is, in fact, the law in other European countries like Belgium, Italy, France, Poland. I think that in Northern Ireland jaywalking is down to police discretion if it causes an accident. > > I don't find 20mph limits at all unreasonable, > particularly in residential streets as in my view > they help to calm down the aggressive, selfish > kind of driver who refuses to show consideration > for anyone if it means dropping below third gear > (obviously not all drivers are like that). I must be the only rider and driver who finds it necessary to spend all too long looking at the speedometer to determine if I am at 20 or 22mph - everybody else must be able to recognise this just feeling the wind, so my bad! I wouldn't be so against 20mph if there was some reasonable tolerance on speed fines but, AFAIK, by statute there isn't. And no, I don't want tolerance because I want to speed (oh, the adrenaline of going 4 mph faster...) , but because keeping my eyes glued to the speedometer to make sure I'm at 20 and not at 21 is stupid and dangerous. > The point, surely, is that we ALL - drivers, > cyclists and pedestrians (not forgetting that some > of us are in all three of those groups) - need to > remember to read the whole road. Sure. But allowing pedestrians to cross when it's red or to cross in the middle of the road when a designated crossing is nearby goes very much against what you have just said. > Maybe everyone > should take the driving theory test at 17 > regardless of whether they want to learn to drive. > A few months ago a policeman told me he thought > driver training should include cycle safety > training, which sounded sensible. As a motorcyclist, I couldn't agree more!

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If pedestrian safety is really your priority, DL, > then you would surely support cars driving at > 20MPH rather than 30MPH, given all the well known > statistics about the different likelihoods of > fatality at those speeds? It's never only about speed. Education has a lot to do with it, too. There are many factors to balance. Practical example: if we were to ban parking on ALL kinds of public roads, roads would become way safer for pedestrians. Similarly, if we were to draconianly enforce 10mph speed limits. Clearly, neither is feasible, yet the additional benefits in terms of safety for pedestrians are quite obvious. > Are you seriously going > to claim that your frequently voiced opposition to > 20MPH limits has nothing to do with your desire to > get around faster? Of course there is an element of personal inconvenience. But, if you think that the thrill of being able to ride at 30mph instead of 20mph for very limited periods of time on very limited stretches of road is an adrenaline shot, you are badly mistaken. Like I have said multiple times, it's a combination of: 1) annoyance that public money is spent on something with no proper cost-benefit-analysis, and without a hint of proof that it actually brings any benefits; the very same reaction I have about hs2, for example, which does not affect me at all (other than as a taxpayer footing the bill) 2) great suspicion that something fishy may have pushed council to rush this through without waiting for the Government's study 3) annoyance at the possibility of being fined for riding even only at 21mph, since the new laws do not allow any tolerance at all, AFAIK 4) annoyance at the sheer stupidity of having to spend more time looking at the speedometer, and less at the road, for the reasons already explained 5) annoyance at the greater number of idiot pedestrians who now have a greater incentive to cross where they shouldn't, endangering themselves and others

What is your view, then, on a council spending ?700-800k on 20mph speed limits, without waiting for the Government to complete a multi-year nationwide study on the merits of the initiative? That is something which cost real money, real money which could have been better spent elsewhere, whereas what I am proposing would cost effectively zero; I am not saying cops should monitor every single stretch of road handing out fines, of course! I am simply saying it would, realistically, have more of a symbolic value than anything else. Oh, and what about harsher speeding fines with no tolerance whatsoever, so that a motorist could theoretically be fined for going at 21 rather than 20mph? That is not a nanny-state petty rule, uh? I honestly fail to understand why imposing a modicum of discipline to pedestrians should be seen as giving drivers 'a greater sense of the road'. So crossing when it's red should be fine? So jumping in the middle of the road because someone is too lazy to walk 60 metres to the next crossing and cross there is fine? I am speechless. Honestly speechless.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > In the US, at least, they came > about mainly through lobbying from the emerging > car industry. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797 This does not mean it is necessarily wrong. Also, it may be argued that the USA are not directly comparable to Europe, in the sense that most cities, other than San Francisco NY Boston, tend to have a very limited downtown which is somewhat comparable to the centre of a European city, whereas the rest of the city tends to be spread out and to require a car. However, Wikipedia tells me that jaywalking is illegal in a number of European countries, too, which are more directly comparable to the UK. Regardless of why or where it is illegal, don't you think it would make sense to 1) fine those who cross when it's red? 2) fine those who cross in the middle of the road when a crossing is available within a reasonable distance? Safety should be everyone's responsibility.

PS I have explained it before: I get mad when public money is spent on initiatives whose benefits are unproven, and which may, in fact, end up being counterproductive (e.g. more polluting and more congestion because of 20mph and because of the cycle superhighways). Like I said, I believe Lambeth council could have spent those ?700-800k in a lot of other ways that would have improved road safety.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ETA you're doing it again, by the way (and I must > admit you're quite good at it): you're setting > yourself up as being all concerned about > pedestrians, whereas the truth is you want higher > speed limits for your own pleasure and > convenience. Be honest and don't pretend concern > about 20MPH causing more accidents because > pedestrians are more likely to cross unless you > have any evidence that it's true. Yes, sure, I am a devious individual with an evil plan to speed undisturbed through London. That's what I'm all about. This is why, despite riding a powerful motorcycle, I am all too often overtaken by other vehicles that have a different conception of safety and prudence from me; this is why, regardless of speed limits, I always slow down to a walking pace when something is blocking my view; this is why, at night with no traffic, it takes me longer on my bike than on a taxi (something which, out of curiosity, I have timed multiple times). > Your question is entirely redundant as running a > red light in a car is illegal, whereas crossing as > a pedestrian against a red light is not. It should be, because it is dangerous for the pedestrian and for others. I understand that a pedestrian cannot be fined if caught crossing when it's red but the road is empty, but what when there's a lot of traffic (genuine question, I really don't know)? I very much doubt there is a constitutional right to endanger yourself and others. Take the Lordship lane high street. Do you not agree that fining pedestrians who cross when red, or are too lazy to walk 200 metres to the next traffic light, would make the road safer for all? Or should pedestrians be immune from laws limits and regulations? The fact that jaywalking is not illegal actually worries me as a parent, because, growing up, my child will see lots and lots of example of people dangerously crossing when they shouldn't.

Another dangerous crossing is the one on Edgar kail way, on the other side of Dog Kennel Hill from Pytchley road; it's the crossing at the corner of St Francis Park, to continue going uphill along DKH. It's dangerous because, if you cross when it's red, you cannot see cars or buses coming from behind the bend. About 18 months ago someone was killed while crossing Grove Vale just oppiste the railway station. I have no idea about the details, though - no clue if a car was speeding, he crossed when red, or what.

By the same logic, cars should be allowed to run red lights when no one is in sight, right? Or motorists should be allowed to speed when the road is empty? Yes, there are situations when running a red light or speeding or crossing when it's red may be safe, but rules exist precisely because we humans cannot be trusted to make this kind of determinations. Those billboards were put up because too many pedestrians were crossing the road dangerously. What would you have recommended? Lowering the speed limit to 10mph because too many idiots cannot wait till it becomes green? Or do you think that rules apply to motorists only, not to pedestrians?

The quality of constructions in this country is too poor. Part of it is demand (you can't be too picky or someone else will buy/rent instead of you), but most of it is due to poor regulations and even poorer enforcement, I believe. Did you hear about the shambles with Bovis Homes? A quick google search will yield lots of results. This Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/11/why-are-britains-new-homes-built-so-badly is not the only source commenting on some key differences between the UK and other countries; for example: "In Germany, if there are evidenced problems with build quality the regulatory authorities can rescind the licence. This is a ?barrier to entry? related to craft skills and basic competence levels that we just do not have in the UK.? My block of flats was built about 12 years ago. All corners are crooked, not at 90 degrees, and the ceiling is not straight; when I had bespoke furniture made, they had to measure the height of the ceiling in multiple points. Both here and in my previous flat, both about 10 years old, the holes made to make way for the pipes in the kitchen had not been sealed correctly, creating a beautiful hidden mouse super-highway from one floor to another. If all of this is what is evident and visible, thinking of what is not visible sends shivers down my spine.

You must be a very alert pedestrian, then :) You know what, when I am a pedestrian I pay a lot of attention to the road and the traffic when I have to cross a street, but not much when I'm just walking on the pavement or in a park. Also, don't forget that a motorcycle exposes me to more stupid behaviour than a car: cars are more likely not to see a motorcycle than another car, I can (perfectly legally) sneak in spots which are too small for a car, etc. E.g. I often overtake busses which have just pulled over, something which cars often cannot do, so a stupid pedestrian jumping onto the middle of the road, hidden by the bus, is more likely to be hit by a motorcycle than a car. May I ask what you think of the Paris billboards against jaywalkers?

rendelharris Wrote: > The > argument that speed limits should be kept high to > discourage pedestrians from not crossing anywhere > but at lights or zebras is clearly nonsensical I am not saying we should increase the speed limit to 40mph everywhere to disincentivise pedestrians from crossing; I am saying that, in many cases, lowering them to 20 creates too many incentives for pedestrians to cross dangerously. Park Lane is not comparable? Fine. Let's think of many stretches of the South Circular, which is not a 4-lane road yet has 30mph limits in most stretches. I do not see many pedestrians trying to cross suicidally there. > and > also demonstrates the "we own the road" attitude > of motorists: >it's perfectly legal for pedestrians > to cross the road wherever they choose. I am no legal scholar, but my gut tells me it is only perfectly legal when it is safe to do so. AFAIK, a pedestrian does not have the right to jump in the middle of oncoming traffic only because he/she is too lazy to walk 200 metres to the next zebra crossing, and wait till it becomes green. By the way, I find the approach of other countries, where jaywalking can get you arrested (eg most of the US) way more reasonable, because, guess what, it contributes to protecting pedestrians from themselves. It's not about "owning the road", it's about finding reasonable balances that work for all. Of course > some of them do so stupidly - just as some > motorists drive stupidly - so what do you want? > All main roads fully barriered with crossing only > permitted at lights so you can do 40MPH? Limits at 20 near schools, parks, busy high streets. Zero tolerance for road users (be they pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, drivers, etc.) who endanger themselves and others. This includes fining pedestrians and cyclists, two categories which cannot be identified by cameras as clearly they have no plates. The experience of my daily commute is that I see way more acts of stupid, almost suicidal behaviour by pedestrians and cyclists than by other categories. I find it puzzling, as they are among the most vulnerable, yet that is my experience. In the US, jaywalker can be arrested. Paris launched this campaign against jaywalkers, which I find effective precisely because it is shocking: http://www.serviceplan.com/en/news-detailed/virtual-crash-billboard.html Limits of 30 in the rest of the city, unless it can be proven that the 20mph limits bring substantial benefits in terms of safety (eg fewer/less severe collisions) without causing more congestion and pollution. From memory, Lambeth spent ca. ? 700-800k to implement the 20mph limits. I can certainly think of many things which could have been done with that money to improve road safety (repairing potholes, etc.).

I understand that a landlord (in the sense of freeholder) must demand payment within 18 months of incurring certain expenses. However, it's a bit of a moot point in my case, because freeholder and managing agent have a nice tendency to always overbudget "for prudence". To be clear, they are not asking now for a payment related to 2015: only now are they certifying the financials for 2015, which therefore verify whether they had under or over budgeted. But they always demand payment upfront every quarter.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only barriers on DKH are a few yards either > side of the traffic lights, the rest (90%) of the > road is unbarriered, and people do cross So you agree with me that speed limits which are too low incentivise people to cross where they shouldn't? Mmm, I wonder why no one crosses at random in the 40mph strecth of Park Lane? Maybe because even idiots realise it would mean instant death? Want to bet that, if we made that stretch 20mph, MORE people would cross dangerously and there will be more collisions? > recently Mrs.H bumped into a kid there who ran > across the front of our car, coming from behind > out of her blindspot - think he'd seen the bus > lane light was red You mean opposite the Domino pizzeria? Ie a bus on her left was blocking your wife's view of the sidewalk to her left? This is something I come across multiple times a day in my commute; eg when overtaking a bus that just pulled over, I always go very very slowly, **regardless of the speed limits**, because I expect idiot pedestrians to cross where they shouldn't. > and so thought we were > stopping. Very luckily he was unharmed, partly > due to a superb bit of reaction braking from > Mrs.H, who's an excellent driver, but also due to > the fact that she was adhering to the 20 limit. > The silly lad went down under our bumper > (heartstopping moment) but the wheels didn't touch > him. If she'd been doing 30 she would have gone > straight over and doubtless killed him. I don't debate that being hit at 20mph is better than being hit at 30 - that's self evident. Guess what, being hit at 10mph is even better than being hit at 20mph, yet this doesn't mean speed limits should be 10mph. It's always a balance among many aspects. My point is that the 20mph campaign failed to substantiate the benefits of lower speed limits, and rushing them through without waiting for the multi-year, nationwide study by the DfT makes me very, very suspicious. > Why would someone have to check their speedometer > more often to see if they're staying under 20 in a > 20 zone than they'd have to to see if they were > staying under 30 in a 30 zone? I have a motorcycle with an analog speedometer. If the limit is 30, a quick glance is typically all I need to determine, with reasonable accuracy, if I am within the speed limit, plus or minus a minimum tolerance. I may not know with absolute certainty if I am at 27 or at 33, but I can be confident enough I am within the limits. If the limit is 20, a quick glance at my analog speedometer is NOT enough to determine the same. Note that speeding penalties were made harsher in April this year. AFAIK it is customary to allow for a tolerance of 10% + 2 mph, but it's a custom, not a law. 20mph +10% + 2 mph = 24 mph. A quick glance at my speedometer is not enough to determine, with absolute certainty, if I am at less than 24mph. The dial may well be close enough to 20 one second and one move all too close to 24 the next. Also, for all I know some speed cameras or policemen with speedguns may well fine me for going at 22mph - after all, the law doesn't mention any minimum tolerance. So, to recap, for all these reasons a quick glance is not enough for me to determine if I am within these lower limits - I typically need to spend more time looking at the speedometer, which is not safe! Of course I could ride even slower, so as to be absolutely sure that, yes, I am within the limits. However, even ignoring the additional time this would take me, other motorists would get mad, would try to overtake even when dangerous, not to mention I would probably pollute more, I'd have to slip the clutch all the time, the engine would be less efficient, etc.

I am a leaseholder in a block of flats. The managing agent has just distributed copies of the 2015 (yes, 2015) financial statements. One thing that caught my eye is that about ? 1,000 would have apparently been spent on the maintenance of the video entry phone system in 2014 and 2015; however, my neighbours did an informal polling of the block, and the 60% who replied confirmed that the video has never worked in the last 5 years. Of course that money could have been spent on the maintenance of the rest of the system: the video doesn't work but the audio does. Or, maybe, just maybe, the expenses have been inflated or misallocated. My question is: what do I have the right to ask my managing agent, and what does he have an obligation to provide? I went through the terms of my lease, but it's all very generic. Can I demand to see the actual invoices? Can the managing agent refuse? PS Yet another proof that the leasehold system is an exploitative anachronism, a medieval heritage which survives only in the UK (excluding Scotland) and in some former colonies!

adonirum Wrote: Another driver may not have been > able to do so, and certainly the buggy would have > been hit if the old limit of 30mph was in force. Not sure about that. Drivers should approach crossings with caution, regardless of the speed limit. A 30mph limit doesn't mean that everyonw will be always driving at 30mph, especially at crossings. I say this as a motorcyclist who commutes in London daily, and is therefore used to seeing plenty of suicidal behaviour by all kinds of road users, including pedestrians. My philosophy is that there will always be some idiot who wants to use my motorcycle to darwinianly improve the species by committing suicide, and that, however unfortunate, it is my job to prevent it. A 30mph is in force in most of Westminster. Can you say with absolute certainty that the higher speed limit results in more accidents in Westminster compared to, say, Southwark or Lamebth? I can't - because AFAIK there is not much data available. The DfT had commissioned a 3-year study to look into the matter, because initial results from 20mph trials were inconclusive; I therefore find it extremely suspicious that so many councils rushed to implement 20mph limits without waiting the results of the nationwide study. I can, in fact, think of two reasons why 20mph may be less safe: 1) They give pedestrians an incentive to cross where they shouldn't. In my daily commute by motorcycle, I certainly see more people crossing (in an almost suicidal fashion) where they shouldn't in 20mph zones. Park Lane going north is 40mph and in the very heart of central London, yet do we want to bet that fewer pedestrians cross at red lights there? 2) Drivers or riders may spend more time checking their speedometer (especially if analog) than actually looking at the road. Note that 20mph limits are also in force in zones like Dog Kennel Hill (think downhill from Dog Kennel Hill school to the train station), where there are barriers preventing people and, notably, children, from crossing where they shouldn't.

I ordered blackouts from this guy about 4 years ago: http://cornerstaraluminium.com/ Not the super-expensive Warema, but a cheaper option. They don't block 100% of the light like rolling shutters in some countries on the continent, but I'd say they do a very good job of blocking about 90%. The same guy also made two bespoke screen doors, to keep the balcony doors open, but mice and insects out. John Lewis and Argos sell cheap blackout blinds but, in my experience, the weak point of those is that they tend to be at least 1 cm away from the window, which lets in a lot of light.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Should'nt be allowed full stop And why is that, if you don't mind my asking? TFL's report concluded it did not prove dangerous for cyclists. - a popularist move > by Boris, and I resonded to the consultation. Nor > electric cars. On what bus lanes are electric cars allowed? I am not aware of any. Allowing electric cars would be wrong because electric cars, regardless of how green they are, cause the same congestion of petrol cars, whereas motorcycles do not! > Why the comment motorbike hating cyclists? We all > have to get on together and generally do. ? What comment?

-- moved topic --

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Two tourers travelling together (they often do - > not commuting but touring) has the same width > profile as a small car. I have never seen two tourers travelling together in a London bus lane. Anyway, a single motorcycle travelling in the middle of the lane occupies almost as much space as a small car. However, that's not the point. That's totally irrelevant. The point is that, when traffic comes to a halt, motorcycles, even large ones, take little to no space, because they can and do occupy gaps among cars. That is why motorcycles cause little to no congestion at all! Add to this all the other observations by rendelharris. Bus lanes are for public transport, yes. But allowing motorcycles in bus lanes does not cause any inconvenience to other road users, not even to busses, so it's a win-win for all (apart from a minority of motorcycle-hating cyclists). Also, as rendelharris pointed out: when was the last time you saw a bus held up by a group of motorcycles? I have never seen one in my life! PS Of course all of this applies if the lanes are of a normal width. The geniuses at TFL narrowed down a number of roads with the explicit intent of making filtering harder. Initially they denied it, but the Motorcycle Action Group forced them to admit as much. This is perverse, because this worsens congestion without creating nay benefit.

Yes, the 20mph limits are another great scheme. Rushed through most of London before the Department for Transport could complete its 3-year study on the matter, presented as a panacea even though evidence in support is scarse if not non-existent, it basically forces motorists to spend more time looking at the speedometer than at the road (will I be fined if I am at 23 mph instead of 20? Let me break a bit, now it's 19, no, wait, it's 23 again, aaargh!), plus it increases journey times (and therefore pollution) in those circumstances (eg outside of rush hour) where there would be an actual chance of reaching 30mph every now and then.

@Penguin68, a small 125 scooter like the SH 125 is ca. 67cm wide. Most motorcycles are ca. 75 to 90cm wide. A big touring bike, like the BMW R1200 RT ( https://www.bmw-motorrad.co.uk/en/models/tour/r1200rt.html ), arguably not the best commuter, is ca. 1 metre wide with both panniers. This is the bike most police officers use, but with bespoke, less wide panniers. I'm not sure what you mean by blocking a bus lane. Even a bicycle could block a bus lane, in the sense that there are situations where it is not safe for a bus to overtake a bicycle (narrow lane, traffic jame in the opposite direction, not enough room to overtake safely). The difference is that busses do not typically need to overtake scooters and motorcycles - unless it's a small 50cc scooter which struggles uphill. By the way, just looking around it is easy to see there are very, very few 50cc scooters in London. I agree that the lack of consistency is a source of confusion, and I also agree that two-wheelers changing lanes irresponsibly are a source of potential danger (I am always amazed at how aggressive some fellow riders are in their filtering), but that's not going to change much whether access to bus lanes is allowed or not.

Yes, I am a member of the Motorcycle Action Group and of the BMF.

@rendelharris, I believe this is the second time we happen to be in agreement. This calls for celebratory drinks! :)

@macutd, I honestly believe 50cc scooters are dangerous in general, let alone uphill: they are simply not powerful enough to accelerate away from a dangerous situation.

Proj London Health Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe Mayor Johnson made all bus lanes free > for m/bikes. ? I'm not following: you're saying that at one point all bus lanes were free for motorbikes, but then the decision was reversed? The decision would never be the Mayor's entirely - some routes are controlled by local councils. > > Then, after a couple of m/cycle protests in > central London gridlocking various parts, I also > believe that on this basis it all returned back to > as before. What protests? When was this?