Jump to content

DulwichLondoner

Member
  • Posts

    470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DulwichLondoner

  1. Many moons ago, when I was renting, the agent sent me an invoice for some ?300 for 'tenancy renewal fees' after my 12-month tenancy had automatically become a rolling contract. I ignored them. They started chasing aggressively. I asked them if they could be so kind as to point where in my contract I committed to paying them anything after 12 months. They said it was their 'policy'. I said it was my 'policy' not to pay out money I don't have to. After a bit of back and forth, I had to threaten them with legal action if they didn't stop harassing me. They never admitted that money was not due, but in the end they sent a rather ridiculous letter in which they explained they waived that fee out of the kindness of their heart!
  2. And what is going to happen to all the busses that need to go from East to West? They're going to congest the few other alternative roads available?
  3. If you'll be using it for commuting in city traffic, my advice is: * go for something with an upright position (no sportsbikes). Less strain on your wrist, from the constant pressure of braking all the time in traffic, you dominate the traffic ahead better, and have a better field of view when you do a lifesaver (turn your head to the side) * consider how hot certain engines run. Powerful, sporty bikes may become very inconvenient to ride in city traffic during the summer as you feel your legs boiling. * ignore those who say topboxes are ugly (yes, they are) but get one anyway to carry a big U-lock with you, to store your helmet when you're out and about, etc. Of course this is just my two cents; these are my personal preferences, but it's all very subjective.
  4. I say this as a homeowner: the orgasmic reaction of many homeowners when they learn their home has gone up in value never ceases to amaze me. If the appreciation means you are in a lower LTV range and can get a cheaper mortgage, by all means, great for you, but most people fail to realise that their house being worth more is virtual wealth, which you can only cash in on if you move somewhere where house prices are cheaper. If you want to retire to Nowhereshire or some sunny Mediterranean town (interesting to see what will happen post Brexit!), fine, but for the majority of people who still need to live sort of in the area, crazy house prices simply mean that the chances of moving to a bigger property and/or to a better area have become even slimmer than they were before. Oh, and all of this is looking at the situation from a purely selfish perspective, without taking into account the impact on the rest of society as a whole...
  5. The Council rents some garages. I registered my interest a while back but never heard back. I shared my two cents on motorcycle security here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1765269,1797549#msg-1797549 Do you have a driveway where you could leave your bike? What bikes are you considering? Have you got any insurance quotes yet? Do you have an idea how much it would cost you to insure a bike left on the road?
  6. AFAIK this kind of information is not published publicly. You should try to contact the school and ask them directly; if you do, it would be interesting if you could post the answer here. To be honest I have no idea if the school is obliged to share this information, or can refuse to do so when asked explicitly. PS I'd imagine the new Charter on ED will relieve some pressure off its North Dulwich 'sister' school.
  7. Is anyone familiar with how the lottery system in Brighton works? I'd be interested in learning more.
  8. @rendelharris, as I said here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1810370,1810924 I would simply like a cost-benefit analysis to be carried out before loads and loads of public money is spent on a major initiative. What's so wrong with this? This should be a basic common-sense principle for any initiative, regardless of bicycles. Now that cycle lanes have been built, there is little to estimate and loads to measure objectively: it shouldn't be too hard to count the number of pushbikes using the cycle lanes during and outside rush hours, the reduction (or not) in bus or tube passenger numbers, the increase (or not) in bus journey times now that some bus lanes have been removed, the change (or not) in the rest of the traffic. Like I said, my impressions of segregated cycle lanes are negative, but they are impressions because I do not have hard data, because it is not my job to collect it (I'd love to, but I can't). My impressions may be wrong. If the benefits of the cycle lanes are so obvious, and my experience of longer bus journey times, and empty bus lanes outside rush hour, is unrepresentative, it will be super easy for TFL to show it. I am not saying I am 100% confident I am right. I am saying we should have a discussion informed by data and facts, not by ideology, and that it is crazy that these data are not being collected, and that more and more money is being spent without a proper assessment of the cycle lanes already built. Do you disagree? If so, why?
  9. bmoney Wrote: > [...] so it's > not beyond reason to see why many cyclists go on > the inside of vehicles. I am not following. A cyclist going on the inside of a vehicle at an intersection or bend is one of the dumbest things possible, for all the reasons already discussed at length. It deserves a Darwin award http://www.darwinawards.com/ for the improvement of the human species by removing dumb genes from the gene pool. Now feel free to have a go at me for being insensitive - it doesn't change the fact that that behaviour is stupid. @ Otta, not sure what drivers you are referring to. I don't own a car and drive one no more than a handful of days per year. Also, I did not generalise - I have simply been advocating the very same behaviour (stay the hell back from alrge vehicles) I follow myself as a motorcyclist, something a number of cyclists agree with.
  10. Applespider Wrote: > On one occasion, > if I hadn't heard the engine revving to accelerate > and chosen to brake and stop, I'd probably be dead The importance of being heard is an interesting point. In fact, one of the reasons why I do not like electric vehicles is precisely because they are too quiet, yet it shouldn't be particularly difficult to install some kind of noise-generating contraption, for the sole purpose of being heard by other road users. I would never ever ride an electric scooter or motorcycle, unless it had some kind of noise-generating thingy that makes me reasonably loud and easy to hear, for this very reason.
  11. @bawdy-nan, I said "at intersections and bends". Apologies if I was unclear - let me try to clarify. Of course a cyclist on a cycle lane can (and, in fact, IMHO should) overtake large vehicles on a straight stretch of road. It is at intersections and at bends that extreme caution should be exercised. As for right of way, first of all in this country the Highway Code does not grant any one right of way - it simply tells road users whether/when they must give way to others. Surely you knew this, right, because the thought of a cyclist not knowing the highway code is simply inconceivable ! :) Btw, I don't think the difference is as subtle and useless as some think. The Highway code, rule 183: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203 states: "when turning [...] give way to any vehicle using [...] a cycle lane [...] in either direction". This does not change the fact that, again, extreme caution should be exercised! I don't honestly understand what your beef with me is. I have simply been saying that two-wheelers (cyclists and motorcyclists alike) should not intentionally ride next to large vehicles for prolonged periods of time: they should stay back or overtake them as quickly as possible, but not stay next to them, because that exposes them to unnecessary danger. Again, I speak from personal experience because this is precisely what I do myself as a motorcyclist. Could you please help me understand if you disagree with this statement and, if so, why? Yes, large vehicles turning onto a cycle lane are dangerous. Yes, as I have reported above, the Highway Code explicitly states that vehicles turning onto a cycle lane must give way to cyclists. No, nothing comes even remotely close to exonerating or excusing a driver who does not signal well in advance, swerves to the left abruptly, does not pay enough attention, etc etc etc. But none of this changes the fact that the most vulnerable road users (again, I category I belong to myself as a motorcyclist) should exercise extreme caution regardless of whose fault a collision might be. Yes, a vehicle turning onto a cycle lane is dangerous, but isn't this danger reduced by a great deal, if not eliminated altogether, if: 1) cyclists do not intentionally ride along a large vehicle (unless they can overtake it quickly in a straight stretch of road, without any intersections), thus making sure they are not in their blind spot? 2) And if a cyclist slows down, if he sees a vehicle about to turn left, and has even the slightest doubt that the driver might not have seen him or might not give him way? You might argue that a cyclist should not give way to a driver if it's the driver who has to give him way. Technically true, but who'd come out worst from a collision? There is no point in proactively seeking a dangerous situation that might kill you for the sole purpose of asserting a legal right. Again, this is what I do myself when I ride my motorcycle, and I'd like to think this, alongside pure luck, has contributed to me never having an accident in ca. 10 years of riding: if I have the slightest doubt that another vehicle might not give me way, I slow down and let him pass. I may try to film and report the bastard, to loudly praise his mother's virtue, etc, but I sure as hell do not intentionally put myself in a situation that has a high probability of injuring or even killing me. Do you disagree? My advice is: "stay the hell back from large vehicles". What is yours? "Don't bother staying back because we'll prosecute the bastard and make sure your widow gets a fair payment"?
  12. Not sure if this is the right section (apologies if it's an off-topic), but has there been any announcement by the parties on who will be the candidates at the general elections? The same as in 2015? Note I have no intention of starting a lengthy political discussion here - I'm just asking if there is any news on who the candidates will be.
  13. Sorry to hear that! We should all keep an eye for scooters and motorcycles with no plates. A few days ago I called the non-emergency police number to report a scooter with no plate parked at the corner of Bellenden road and Avondale rise - possibly stolen. I am a motorcyclist myself, and if my bike were stolen, I'd certainly want it reported. A while back a scooter, with the licence plate cut in two, was left chained at the bicycle rails opposite the East Dulwich station; I reported that, too. This vlogger avoided a possible 'bike-jacking' by two guys on a scooter with no plate: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/quickthinking-motorcyclist-dodges-possible-bikejacking-at-junction-in-london-a3341361.html Another thing to watch out for is someone on a scooter pushing another scooter or motorcycle with their foot: it's a system used by some thieves to steal a bike or scooter they can't start. I get the impression that scooters are more stolen and more involved in thefts etc than motorcycles - maybe because they're easier to ride and because the automatic transmission lets the distignuished gentlemen riding them use the left hand to snatch mobiles from passers-by without the need to slip the clutch...
  14. I think we went to the pharmacy at the roundabout between Goose green and Lordship Lane
  15. @Renata, I believe that much is clear - it's precisely what I had said, too. I think most of the debate was on whether selling, renting for a year and then moving, while being compliant with the letter (although arguably not the spirit!) of the rules, is morally objectionable, and what, if anything, can be done to stop or limit this kind of behaviour. I mentioned earlier that Wandsworth has changed its sibling policies for its primary schools: you now get sibling priority only if you have not moved, or if you have moved but still live within 800 metres. I don't honestly know what to think, because on one hand I understand the rationale for this: if so many parents have moved elsewhere that even those living within 200 metres from the school can't get in, something is clearly wrong. On the other hand, this would also penalise those families who are forced to move through no fault of their own, especially those who rent because they cannot afford to buy, and move because the landlord kicks them out for no reason, wants to sell the place, wants to double the rent, etc.
  16. @rendelharris, are you for real? Please tell me where I said a cyclist must automatically be at fault. It is a rhetorical question, of course, because I notice you have still not answered my other questions, nor admitted you were wrong in accusing me of saying the cyclist was at fault. I shall remind you that, as a motorcyclist, I do the very same (stay back from large vehicles) myself. By your logic, does this mean I assume every motorcyclist is automatically at fault? Being in the right or in the wrong is beyond the point. Riding cautiously and defensively, whether on a pushbike or a motorcycle, means trying to preempt danger as much as possible. This is what I do myself, because, guess what, I'd much rather say: "phew, thankfully I avoided that, regardless of whose fault it would have been" while riding my motorbike safe and intact, than: "your honour, it was his fault" while paralysed in a wheelchair. This is the same point Penguin made above. Thank you for reminding me that HGVs can and do overtake. Since we are talking about self-evident banalities here, you won't be offended if, similarly, I remind you that there is a difference between ending up next to an HGV which has just overtaken, and intentionally riding next to one. It's the same attitude I follow when I am not the most vulnerable. If I am approaching a green traffic light, and my bike and bus lane is empty while the car lane next to me is jammed, I almost come to a stop because I assume there can always be an idiot pedestrian, hidden behind a car or truck in my right lane, who may decide to cross the road when he shouldn't. This doesn't mean he'd be in the right, it simply means I'd rather preempt the situation even if hitting him wouldn't be my fault. I must say I am simpathetic towards drivers who are undertaken by cyclists, especially at intersections and bends. It is something I have witnessed myself so frequently that I have taken to honking and signalling with my hand, too, when I turn left. Similarly, when cyclists are around I ride around bends "the wrong way" : I don't make my way to the right of my lane before a left bend (which is the proper way on a motorcycle as it draws the shortest line around the bend and increases the field of view, as also advised by the Police in their bikesafe course), but, rather, I stay as far to the left as possible, because this way cyclists don't have room to undertake me. Of course I cannot say this, because this makes me an anti-bike fanatic, rather than a cautious motorcyclist who rides defensively to preempt dangerous situations, regardless of whose fault they might be, right? Finally, I am the same individual who strongly objects to public works, costing a lot of money and causing considerable disruption, being undertaken without a proper cost-benefit analysis. The Transport Watchdog (are they fanatics, too?) raised my same concerns about the negative impact of segregated cycle lanes on bus users, since bus lanes would be removed to make way for them. These concerns were ignored and the first cycle lanes were built, AFAIK, with no cost-benefit analysis at all. After the first were built, why was their impact not measured, so as to have a proper discussion, informed by facts rather than prejudices? Before they were built, their impact could only be guessed and estimated. Now that they have been built, it wouldn't be particularly complex nor expensive to measure how much they are used throughout the day, the impact on bus journey times, the impact on the rest of the traffic, etc. Why was this not done? Why was it decided to spend more money on building more segregated cycle lanes without assessing the impact of the existing ones? Is mine such a weird demand? You refuse to acknowledge that I am ready to accept my negative impressions of the cycle lanes may be wrong. Maybe bus journey times have not increased. Maybe the cycle lanes are not empty outside rush hours. Maybe my experience is unrepresentative. It is possible. However, it should be TFL, not me (I'd love to but I can't!) which monitors the impact of cycle lanes, publishes the result and allows us to have an informed discussion.
  17. bawdy-nan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > [...] to be alongside a > vehicle on the right is not to be behaving > dangerously rather, using the road as it is laid > out. I disagree in the strongest possible way! If you're riding next to a large vehicle, there is a good chance you'll be in its blind spot. If you are approaching a bend, you might get crushed as the large vehicle turns. If you're approaching an intersection, the large vehicle might make a turn and not see you, even if it signals. Lastly, if the road is straight, the risks are much lower, but there is still the risk the large vehicle might change lane and, again, not see you. And all of this for what? To assert a constitutional right to ride next to a large vehicle? To reach your destination 30 seconds earlier? Our lives are worth more than that... Make an honest assessment of the pros and cons and explain why anyone should ride next to a large vehicle. Notice I say 'our' lives because this is exactly what I do when I ride my motorcycle; I am speaking out of direct personal experience here.
  18. How many commuters from Sydenham here? Can anyone comment on the reliability of the connections to Victoria (from Penge East) or to London Bridge / overground (from Sydenham) during rush hour?
  19. I notice that you still cannot admit you made a mistake in accusing me of saying it was the cyclist's fault. Oh, well... You have also not explained what would be so fanatical in saying that cyclists and motorcyclists should stay back from large vehicles. Oh, well... What you have described (stop, check, etc.) is just responsible, common sense behaviour that should be followed by every road user. Have I maybe ever said that drivers should turn without checking? Come on, I know that putting words in my mouth is your favourite pastime, but this is ridiculous. I don't have access to the coroners' reports of HGV/cyclist deaths. Do you? Are they public record? The only public record I know of is a report by the Metropolitan police or TFL (the MET does the classification; I don't remember which body publishes the report) classifying collisions into a number of categories; I remember that, for cyclists, a significant number of collisions fell into the category of the collision described in this post, but I don't remember reading any statistic on whose fault it is. Do you have any data on this? Bearing in mind, of course, that single cases are utterly irrelevant and statistically meaningless. TFL has a 'safer lorry scheme', which is about installing specific mirrors, which provide a greater field of view, and side guards to protect cyclists from being dragged under the wheels in case of a collision. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/deliveries-in-london/delivering-safely/safer-lorry-scheme. Large vehicles have big blind spots. If al cyclists stayed back from large vehicles, overtaking them only well away from bends and turns, the number of collisions would plummet. At intersections like those between Bellenden road and Peckham road it is sensible for any driver, especially those of large vehicles, to come to almost a complete stop before turning. Not doing so would of course increase the chance of hitting a cyclist in the blind spot. Whose fault it would be if this were to happen would of course depend on the specific circumstances; nothing changes the fact that staying back from large vehicles reduces these risks considerably. In other circumstances, instead, like changing lane before turning, coming to a complete stop is neither feasible nor desirable, because it would block the traffic creating a number of other hazards. On a related note, more training would help. It is not feasible (although I would consider it appropriate) to require some kind of licence for cyclists, but it should be in everyone's interest to provide more training, eg in schools or at the workplace. Let me make an example with motorcycles: in the past you could ride certain motorcycles with just your car licence, as many continental Europeans still can (I think up to 125cc). The UK abolished that and introduced the CBT (compulsory basic training) as a requirement for holders of a car licence to ride 125cc scooters and motorcycles. The change was prompted by the high number of deaths among inexperienced riders, which apparently plummeted after this measure was introduced. I say 'apparently' because I do not have specific statistics. I am sure some of those deaths were caused by other road users, and of course losing control of a motorcycle is easier and more dangerous than losing control of a pushbike, still, the concept that letting inexperienced road users on the road is dangerous, and that training reduces the danger, seems rather reasonable and straightforward.
  20. @rendelharris, you accused me of saying it was the cyclist's fault. I never did; in fact, I showed very clearly how I said I had no idea whose fault it was. Are you ready to admit you made a mistake, yes or no? You accused me of being a fanatic. I explained very clearly why, as a motorcyclist, I consider cyclists and motorcyclists who don't stay the hell back from large vehicles as idiots who are putting themselves in great danger - danger which could be easily avoidable. To reiterate: I talked about a category I belong to myself. Does this make me... what? An anti-me? I asked if you agree or not and why; I asked what is so fanatical about this statement. Your silence has been deafening. As for your other question, yes, I did say that I am not sure what truck drivers can do, other than signalling well in advance. To be clear, just in case there is any doubt, this does not mean drivers should close their eyes, signal, and then turn with their eyes closed. Of course they must pay attention, drive sensibly, etc... all common sense stuff every road users should always be doing. What I meant was that I don't think there are specific 'silver bullets', magical solutions. Some of the larger vehicles play very loud recordings: "this vehicle is turning left/right". This clearly helps, but I am not sure it would be indispensable if other road users paid attention to the signalling lights. I have not seen a single large vehicle without the customary "stay back" sign, which helps, even though it would be totally unnecessary if the roads were not so filled with idiots. I suppose some vehicles will have smaller blind spots than others, but I'd still expect the blind spots of large vehicles to be significantly bigger than those of a car. I know there are initiatives to give truck drivers the perspective of a cyclist, eg by getting truck drivers to cycle in central London for a day. I think this helps; in fact, as a motorcyclist, I strongly believe all road users should go through the experience of riding in central London on two wheels, whether motorised or not; however, I do not think it would be a silver bullet. The only thing I can think of which would make a big difference would probably be installing CCTV on the sides of the vehicles to eliminate most of the blind spots, although it would be interesting to understand if this is permitted or if the law would consider watching what happens laterally a distraction. Of course I may be wrong. I am not a truck driver and have no experience whatsoever driving large vehicles. I fully appreciate there may well be other things I have neglected to consider, which a truck driver should specifically do, and which would make a material difference. This is why I asked you what these could be. If I made a mistake, I will gladly admit it. So I ask you again: what are these other steps that truck drivers should take? If you were a truck driver, what exactly would you do before turning left, if there is a non-segregated cycle lane?
  21. @rendelharris, as usual you avoid replying to very detailed and specific points. Congratulations. You accused me of saying it was the cyclist's fault. I showed when and how I said I had no idea what happened, nor whose fault it was. Is it too much to ask that you acknowledge you were wrong? Probably yes, right?
  22. @rendelharris, you continue putting words in my mouth. You really can't help it. I specifically asked if anyone knew what happened. I said the possibilities were endless, that maybe it was the cyclist's fault, maybe it was the driver's fault, we just don't know. I specifically said: > Maybe the driver swerved to the left, without signalling, and hit the cyclist who couldn't have known the truck > decided to turn at the last moment. Maybe the driver had signalled well in advance, and the cyclists didn't notice it > or decided to risk it anyway. The possibilities are endless. Again, do you have any reasons to believe one of the > possibilities is more likely? Please enlighten me: how is this assuming it was the cyclist's fault? I shall be looking forward to your explanation. Just to be clear: I was commenting about my experience of the road in general. I cannot comment on the specifics of the case because I do not know what happened; again, maybe the cyclist was at fault, maybe the driver was at fault, I have no idea, and I have no reason to believe one hypothesis is more likely than the other. If a truck signals well in advance, I find it extremely stupid and irresponsabile if a cyclist or motorcyclist undertakes or overtakes the truck. I repeat, I say this as a motorcyclist. Does this make me... what? A fanatic? Of what? Why? I repeat, I say this as a motorcyclist, and I think that anyone on two wheels, regardless of whether they have an engine or not, who does this is an idiot who puts his/her life at risk. Again, what is so outrageous about this opinion? You don't agree? If not, why? Do you think it is wise for a cyclist or motorcyclist to undertake or overtake a large vehicle which has signalled? Please elaborate. I am not a lawyer nor a policeman. I honestly do not know what the law says about a cyclist or motorcyclist who undertakes or overtakes in those circumstances. I am simply a motorcyclist who has been both cautious and lucky enough never to have an accident in about 10 years of riding. All I know is that, regardless of what the law may or may not say, undertaking or overtaking a large vehicle which has signalled or just before the road turns left or right is extremely stupid and irresponsible. > You are beneath contempt. Personal insults are the last resort of those who cannot reply to very specific and detailed points.
  23. @flocker spotter, do you know what actually happened? I don't. If you do, please clarify. What do you mean by 'pretty basic stuff'? Maybe the driver swerved to the left, without signalling, and hit the cyclist who couldn't have known the truck decided to turn at the last moment. Maybe the driver had signalled well in advance, and the cyclists didn't notice it or decided to risk it anyway. The possibilities are endless. Again, do you have any reasons to believe one of the many possibilities is more likely? @Rendelharris, specifically what steps, other than installing CCTV on the sides, and those 'stay back' signs, do you think truck drivers should take to look out for cyclists? If the driver had a clear view of the cyclist, then he's a bloodthirsty assassin and I don't think there is much to comment. Why do you mention it? Do you have any reason to believe this is what happened? I struggle to see the relevance of mentioning evidently stupid and criminal behaviour by a category of road users unless you know specifically that is what happened; the world is full of idiots, every category of road users has its fair share, what does mentioning generic idiotic behaviour achieve? On a related note, it still beggars belief how many cyclists and motorcyclists fail to understand that they must stay the hell back from large vehicles. I am not a truck driver - I say this as a motorcyclist. We road users on two wheels (and 3, counting the Piaggio Mp3 and the like), regardless of whether we have an engine or not, are the most vulnerable road users, and must ride accordingly, i.e. defensively, which means assuming that all the other road users are brain-dead idiots ready to kill us for no reason other than their idiocy. I ride a powerful and loud (not illegally loud, but clearly louder than a bicycle) motorcycle, which means that, compared to a pushbike, I am more likely to be seen and/or heard, and I have an incredibly better chance to accelerate away from an unexpected danger. Yet I always stay the hell back from big trucks and the like. I overtake them only if the road is straight and they couldn't possibly turn anywhere. Why on Earth do not all cyclists and motorcyclists do the same? No, this does not mean minimising the responsibility of the truck drivers who behave with criminal negligence: it means accepting the banal truth that we are the most vulnerable and must behave accordingly, taking the necessary precautions.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...