Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Lowlander Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Your point (4): In the links I've posted. My case

> is rested and you are entitled to your opinion.


Well, considering your links did not back up your assertion that "20mph seems to be the equilibrium in terms of cost/benefit" with any actual evidence, the only real conclusion is that you are, indeed, talking out your bottom.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lowlander Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Your point (4): In the links I've posted. My

> case

> > is rested and you are entitled to your opinion.

>

> Well, considering your links did not back up your

> assertion that "20mph seems to be the equilibrium

> in terms of cost/benefit" with any actual

> evidence, the only real conclusion is that you

> are, indeed, talking out your bottom.


If that's your view, you're entitled to it. But resorting to insults is a bit childish, you could try a little harder to articulate your side of the argument.


Exactly the sort of response I'd expect from a wannabe boy racer in his 1.1 Astra and cheap tinted glass, really.

Lowlander Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If that's your view, you're entitled to it. But resorting to insults is a bit childish, you could

> try a little harder to articulate your side of the argument.


I've not made an argument - merely asked you to back 'facts' you've asserted with some actual proof. Which you have consistently failed to do.


> Exactly the sort of response I'd expect from a wannabe boy racer in his 1.1 Astra and cheap tinted glass, really.


Because resorting to insults is a bit childish, isn't it? As it happens, I don't own a car.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lowlander Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If that's your view, you're entitled to it. But

> resorting to insults is a bit childish, you could

> > try a little harder to articulate your side of

> the argument.

>

> I've not made an argument - merely asked you to

> back 'facts' you've asserted with some actual

> proof. Which you have consistently failed to do.

>

>

> > Exactly the sort of response I'd expect from a

> wannabe boy racer in his 1.1 Astra and cheap

> tinted glass, really.

>

> Because resorting to insults is a bit childish,

> isn't it? As it happens, I don't own a car.


It's interesting that you don't own a car, I would have assume (wrongly it seems) that non-car owners would have been in favour of this. You learn something every day.

mako Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If stopping 10m down the road they wont have

> reached 30 so this group is unaffected, so why

> spend all that money changing the limit?


When I watch from my balcony people wait at the lights

- rev loudly (especially certain types of traffic) then

accelerate off like crazy - some go well beyond 30 very

quickly (Some cars can do 0-60 in less than 5 seconds).


I know the argument is that these will not take any notice

of the 20mph anyway .. but at least try.

Townleygreen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I hear the 20 mph limit was in Labour's manifesto

> for the Southwark election. As they got a clear

> majority, then it looks like they have a clear

> mandate to do this!


That's the problem with manifestos. I think voters are entitled to vote for a party and subsequently argue against some of the policies they don't agree with. Otherwise we're just election fodder. I've never voted for a manifesto I agree with 100%.

Townleygreen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I hear the 20 mph limit was in Labour's manifesto

> for the Southwark election. As they got a clear

> majority, then it looks like they have a clear

> mandate to do this


Correct. On page 7 /10 last para in small writing under healthy living views?


Most people would not have got past tax tax frozen.


Hence put in what you want.

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I still maintain there are very few time savings

> of going fast in inner London.

> I see people racing off from traffic lights then

> coming to a halt 10 m down the road.

> We should concentrate on getting the 'red' roads

> running freely.


I completely agree with this. When on my bike you get a very different perspective. I regularly see the same car overtake me at speed half a dozen times on the same journey - without getting to their final destination any more quickly than I do (often much less quickly). Their speeding from one set of lights to the next is entirely pointless, but from their point of view, I suspect they believe they're 'saving time'. It's changed the way I drive in London - I'm much more circumspect / relaxed behind the wheel.

My issue with this 20mph limit, isn't the limit itself - but the fact that it's a lazy way of claiming that you're 'doing something' about dangerous driving. The fact is, it'll be little enforced and won't go anywhere towards targeting some of the really dangerous and irresponsible drivers I see regularly. That's not to say that it won't have any effect, it's just that it's a weak intervention.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • This presumably hasn't been done by vandals. It's hardly a Sycamore Gap situation. So if it's been done by professionals, unless it was a mistake (unlikely) there must have been a good reason, as it would have cost money. It would perhaps have been a good idea to put a notice on the tree explaining why such drastic work was done, but usually (I think) it would be either because of disease (often not noticeable on the surface) or that the roots or branches  were endangering nearby structures. As already said, nobody on here is likely to know. The tree department in Southwark Council are helpful in my (admittedly limited) experience. Please post on here when you have found out, as I agree what's left of the tree looks pretty odd. Depending on why the work was done, possibly they intend to remove the rest as well?
    • I have a very stupid question. I want to get a SIM card to put in an old mobile as a back up,  in case despite my best efforts my mobile gets stolen and I have no way of contacting anybody quickly, eg banks. Can I just buy any old cheap pay as you go  SIM card and put say ten pounds on it and it will then be fine for years (with the phone kept charged!) even if I don't use it, or do I have to use the phone  every so often to keep the SIM card valid?
    • I hate to see trees cut down to such an unfinished state. Unless the tree is home to wildlife, an effort should be made to remove & replace. Otherwise, it's just so useless & unsightly.
    • Given the level of care in Dulwich Park, I would not expect this to be careless or unnecessary. It will grow back.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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