northlondoner

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > :)) > > I think those with ambition to give us all a > better future would argue that your views make you > part of the challenge northlonder - a combination > of cyncism and obstinacy with a smattering of > denial. > Ok - perhaps my response has been a little tart. But the ambition to improve things must include everyone...not just the fit able bodied folk with a passion for cycling - or the time/inclination to do their weekly shop by bus. So, for instance, the danger posed to blind people crossing these "entry treatments" is so obvious - it ought not to need pointing out. But at the risk of repitition - and this is from personal experience - some visually impaired people wont be able to tell when they;ve left the safety of the pavement and are in the middle of the road. Hope I'm not cynical - that would be a terrible way to live. I happen to believe that we live in one of the kindest, most civilised areas of London. And things are improving . More can be done to pick up the pace of those improvements . But let;s not enforce a kind of one-size fits all solution. We don;t all hold the same world view or have the same needs. Pip pip!

James Barber Wrote: --------- > A year ago we had a 3rd zebra crossing added on > the northern arm > > Lordship Lane. Last year we had lots more 'entry > treatments' on side roads where the road goes up > to be at level with the pavement. STill a few more > to go before universal. > > A scheme of change to Lordship Lane and Grove Vale > is again in the pipeline. The one roadblock to > this going out to public consultation is These "entry treatments" are generally a bad idea, I think. My mother is blind and finds it hard telling when she is off the pavement and in fact in the middle of the road. Thankfully I am usually with her - but I believe it would be a real problem for someone unaccompanied. Those raised studs on the "curb" don;t do the trick. Also - and I;ve done this myself - the merger of road and pavement somehow makes folk less vigilant about crossing. I think you actually need a physical reminder that you are going across a road viz an actual step down curb. Furthermore, because of the downward slope of of the "entry treatment" cars emerging from junctions into LL tend to protrude into the oncoming traffic as they wait for a chance to proceed. That cant be safe. Get rid of them please. But on the other hand we do need another crossing along the lane. Dont let TfL fob you off.

PeterW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LL is a vehicle through-route and pretty much all > the unpleasantness associated with it is due to > the incessant procession of private cars, many > carrying one person on a short trip which could > just as easily have been done on bus or bike. > > Imagine how much more liveable LL - in fact all > London - would be if rather than 2% of trips being > made by bike it was 25% or so, like in the > Netherlands. It's not impossible. The Dutch > managed to re-shape their transport priorities in > the 60s and 70s. It's a question of political > will. > > Sadly, the hugely vocal UK car lobby and their > cheerleaders in the popular press will stop this. > "End this war on the motorist!" they yell, without > apparent irony. How on earth can you divine the nature and length of the trips people are making? Are you monitoring their movements? The evil "car lobby" to which you refer are in fact ordinary people who - God forbid - make a decision about how to transport themselves, their friends and their families. For me , one of the great charms of ED is the fact its possible to pop onto LL and do a bit of shopping/carousing without having to drive or cycle. But I recognise other people may have different needs/desires to me. Yes London would be a more pleasant place if we all cycled/strolled/went by horseback/skipped holding hands about our business. But it aint going to happen.

huncamunca Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just remember - The LL shop owners value profit > more than the safety of the residents and have > proved this in the past with their vocal > opposition to any thing that may harm their > trade.they dont going a shit about the quality of > the environment for residents as long as they stay > in business. Those capitalist pigs.It is typical of the running dog imperialists to object to workers' demands that harm their vile businesses. That's why it's called lordship lane. Fact.

eater81 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > . Cheers for pointing out my poor > spelling, i guess it further marks me out as > ignorant and uncultured for not being part of the > east dulwich dream world no? Correct

> *Cough* so you follow some rules? Any reason you > can't post the board name? Yes. He's a tosser.

jim_the_chin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What with the fireworks and the Barclays bikes and > the strangely familiar blue colour bike lanes why > don't we just rebrand the whole place as > BarclaysLondon? Or Tory London

I work opposite Westfield and it's pretty handy for decent al fresco eats and drinks on a summers evening. Ok there are chains but not your dreggy pizza huts etc. Think wahaca, buthchers block etc.

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Herne Hill has done so well to avoid chains. > > Independents too, it's a crappy shopping centre > except for the basics. Not ours tf. Lordship lane continues to be a haven of independence in a sea of mediocrity. *(Man dons steel helmet and awaits brickbats*

Sandperson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northlondoner Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sandperson Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > Northlondoner. I look forward to seeing you > > sued. > > > Why do you come on these threads if you hate > > > cyclists so much? > > > > Sandperson, I happen to be a cyclist. I just > don't > > happen to think that when I get out of my car > and > > onto my bike, that I am magically exempted from > > the laws of the road, common courtesy or - most > > importantly - physics. > > > > And funny you should mention recourse to legal > > action. Last week a friend of mine was sat > > stationary in a jam when a cyclist runs into > the > > back of her, trying to squeeze through the > lanes > > of traffic. He ended up on his arse, in the > middle > > of the road. He's only agreed to pay for the > > damage to my mate's car after being threatened > > with the police and lawyers. So yes, if some > over > > adrenalised tw@t does wobble over my bonnet, > I'm > > the one who'll be suing. > > > > So,I wonder if the time has come for cyclists, > > like other road users, to have some form of > > registration ? I'd be happy to part with a few > > pounds if it meant safer roads. > > > > And re your ban on criticism of cyclists, does > it > > merely apply to posting on this and other > threads > > -or does it extend to reading them as well? > Just > > asking, like. > > Oh, I get it. You're one of those perfect cyclists > and perfect drivers. I didn't ban you from this or > any other thread, that's not in my power more's > the pity, I just don't understand why you have to > be antagonistic and why you'd come on here to be > so negative. Every time there's a cycling related > thread you decide it's your place to tell us how > crap we are. Your opinions for me were negated > when you brushed aside a poster on this forum who > had smashed their face up after hitting a pothole > and facing thousands of pounds of dental treatment > you said they should chalk it up to experience. > > As a daily cyclist I stop at red lights, let cars > out in front of me and I'm courteous. I see > countless examples of other riders, just like me, > who obey the rules of the road and are > responsible. I also see cyclists who aren't but > the same goes for drivers. > > I am a British Cycling and British Triathlon > member so I have 3rd party insurance. > > As for licensing bikes, where do you start? Does > my two year old have to have a license on her push > along? It's a ridiculous idea and unworkable. I've actually noticed a lot more cyclists acting in a safe and sensible manner - that't to be applauded. But your claim about my supposed response to the the guy who hit the pothole is as weird as it is wrong. Go back, read the posts. Search for "witnesses to large pothole" . You'll see I was suggesting ways of holding the council to account - as I've had a similar experience. The guy/woman who in effect said "get over it" was someone called Northernpup. Perhaps you were confused by the fact the poster's name had the word "north" in it. And you're arguing in absurdum with your point about registering two year old cyclists. That doesnt really advance matters. But congratulations on the Triathlon thing.

Sandperson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Northlondoner. I look forward to seeing you sued. > Why do you come on these threads if you hate > cyclists so much? Sandperson, I happen to be a cyclist. I just don't happen to think that when I get out of my car and onto my bike, that I am magically exempted from the laws of the road, common courtesy or - most importantly - physics. And funny you should mention recourse to legal action. Last week a friend of mine was sat stationary in a jam when a cyclist runs into the back of her, trying to squeeze through the lanes of traffic. He ended up on his arse, in the middle of the road. He's only agreed to pay for the damage to my mate's car after being threatened with the police and lawyers. So yes, if some over adrenalised tw@t does wobble over my bonnet, I'm the one who'll be suing. So,I wonder if the time has come for cyclists, like other road users, to have some form of registration ? I'd be happy to part with a few pounds if it meant safer roads. And re your ban on criticism of cyclists, does it merely apply to posting on this and other threads -or does it extend to reading them as well? Just asking, like.

Good work. Think we all owe you a debt of gratitude

Yeah it's ok but doesn't have the charm of rye hotel. The pub the old owners have in penge is great. Heading to mansion this avo as it happens. Not sure about the coke supply though.

Nick Clegg.

Hey, hasn't Boris already committed to axing the extension?

Sandperson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it's a magical time to be a cyclist and I > love the scheme. > > I hope there's several people wobbling randomly > over Northlondoner. Or over my bonnet...

Classic woof post!

citizenED Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The London Hire Cycle scheme got up and running > today. I was in town and there seemed to be a lot > of interest. Great. More people wobblng randomly through the traffic. Just what we need.

A very beautiful American woman I know had the philosophy 'if he's treatin' I'm eatin'. The male riposte suggested by one wag was 'if I'm payin' you're layin'. But seriously, from the male perspective, one does expect to pay for the first few dates. But as others have said , an offer to contribute is a good gesture. And longer term few of us can afford to keep paying for everything in perpetuity.

Oi- the Iphone is irie!

Go katie !

Rhino Spearmint Club.

Oh yeah - around. As in: Sheila strangled Debbie after Debbie kept talking about problems 'around' parenting.

Off the back of - meaning 'after' or 'as a result of '. So :Bob shot Dave off the back of Dave's use of the phrase 'simples '. End of.

Nero Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just having a jolly hassling people? Do you really > think they do that? I don't. Sweet, really.