malumbu

You find fault in so many things. I live within a short walk of the P13, I can see the good side of it. And I use it. And other local buses. It's three or four times an hour. Yes I'd like it to be more but happy to schedule things around it. I'd like it to run later too.

Rather a glass half full view Use it occasionally to go all the way to Tulse Hill and Streatham. At the right time of day most excellent. Virtually all of us carry these pocket computers around with us linked to most of the computers in the world that give us fairly reliable information on the next bus.

I'm commenting again about the broader picture. I commuted by cycle for 20 years through Peckham Rye (west) and Rye Lane, it was (and still is) pretty horrid during peak times. I'm not aware if and how the new scheme will affect that commute. But I am interested in the political angle following the ex-councillor's interjection. A simple AI response for the two main left parties: LDs The Liberal Democrats' position on driver behaviour focuses on enhancing road safety, reducing environmental impacts, and promoting, or, in some cases, regulating the use of cars in favor of greener alternatives. Their approach combines technological solutions, support for safer infrastructure, and stricter penalties for dangerous driving. Greens The Green Party of England and Wales positions itself to drastically reform driver behaviour through stricter regulations, reduced speed limits, and a shift toward sustainable, low-emission, and active travel, with an ultimate goal of zero road fatalities Infrastructure and Road User Hierarchy: The party prioritizes a "road hierarchy" that places walking, cycling, and public transport above private motor vehicles. They plan to cancel new road-building programmes, using the funds to improve walking and cycling infrastructure. So both fall short of a totally radical rethink of our attitude to the motor car. And how technology could, and hopefully should, see the end of the need for a private car in most urban environments freeing up 100s of miles of road space. I'm sure that an earlier search mentioned the presumed liability, as adopted in some European countries, being something that LDs supported. This is where the road user higher up the hierarchy eg car/motorcycle, or Truck/car would be presumed liable if there was a collision. Perhaps James Barbour would know more.

Sorry wasn't able to delete my quote. Anyway the line I was trying to refer to was the one about stressed drivers being dangerous. I've lived in London for decades and before that visited family. There has always been congestion, and thus from what you say 'stressed drivers" Rather than blaming this on congestion, and as we can't rid this from London unless we build far more roads, get rid of all restrictions etc, we should be looking at driver behaviour. Anyone who has done a speed awareness course, something that I was engaged in rather obliquely, will appreciate the advice on how to not be stressed. Back to my continual point that for the last 60 years there as a nation we have been too pro-driver and there needs to be a reset. If any party is brave enough to do this. I sense Lib Dems possibly and Greens more likely. Maybe another chance LDs after blowing the last one as a centre left coalition following the next GE.

@Spartacus I comment on something James Barbour said, and Rockets butts in. I tell Rockets to Butt out and then you butt in. Who will be next? Do you have any views on the cycle training video?

@CPR Dave why on earth have you posted on this thread. Your views are wrong and you seem totally ignorant about cycling. I expect you represent many drivers, one reason why there should be compulsory retraining for drivers. In over ten years I've avoided using the T word; but for the first time I believe this is trolling.

Surely he can defend himself? @Rockets why don't you do something useful and have a look at the cycle training video. I'd appreciate your views and this would be good use of your time.

@Moondoox agree and please see my post on the cycling training thread where a (presumably motorist) is criticising cycle training. @Rockets I'd appreciate your views on the cycle training video, presumably you cycle/cycled with young family

You really haven't a clue @CPR Dave You appear to hate cyclists and are not looking at this with an open mind. You should welcome the work of Barnaby, other instructors, and government and local authorities for supporting cycle training. First six minutes First minute. Explanation of position including keeping a good distance from parked cars. At this point no vehicles coming in the other direction and Barnaby adopts quite a wide position in order to support his 7 year old son. Talk about ride buddies, ie more experienced cycling 1 min 30 seconds, a right turn from a major road with car coming in other direction. The two cyclists wait in the appropriate position and his son, due to age, does a slightly hooked turn. Would you really criticise a 7 year old who is confident enough to cycle on the road? How sad of you. 2 minutes, further discussion about the need to be in the centre of your lane/away from parked cars 2 mins 20 Barnaby doubles up in order to reduce the hazard to himself and his son, they move position to give cars plenty of space when passing in the other direction. 3 minutes 20 Barnaby talks about the benefits of doubling up as per rule 66 of the Highway Code: You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. 3 minutes 44, the two move position to the left to allow the patient driver following them to overtake, and as important thank them for their patience (again under rule 66: Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so) Move off road into the park Return to the road on the 6 minute where Barnaby talks about taking his son on the road, and asks viewers to comment. All excellent and positive advice. Why on earth can you not see this?

@James Barber From my casual observation you appear to take a poltical stance, ie that everything Southwark does under Labour control is wrong. @CPR Dave I doubt if you have posted anything positive on this forum

@alice why is it funny to smear academics? Do you agree with Trump about paracetamol? Or with Piers Corbyn about the Covid vaccine and that Climate Change is fake? I'm making a serious point. I look forward to hearing your take.

Nope as some of us discussed for some reason the judge was swayed by a load of bolloxs from some NIMBY's with money and time on their hands.

@rollflick Great to have your views on my earlier question I'm avoiding the more recent debate as I have stuff to do, but I am grateful for @Earl Aelfheah for challenging what a number of you are saying and as with him hate the smearing of academics, that is Farage/Trump territory. Back to AI: Smearing academics—the act of discrediting, insulting, or attacking the reputation of university researchers, scientists, and professors—has become increasingly common due to a combination of political polarization, anti-intellectualism, and the public's changing relationship with authority. According to research and social commentary, people smear academics for the following reasons (I've only attached the first as this is most relevant): 1. Political Ideology and "Culture Wars" Perceived Liberal Bias: A major driver of distrust in higher education is the perception that colleges are too liberal and engage in indoctrination. Roughly 41% of Americans who lack confidence in higher education cite concerns that universities push certain political agendas, "brainwash" students, or focus too much on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). "Culture War" Targets: Academics, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, are often targeted as "out-of-touch elites" who are disconnected from the "real world". Populism: Populist movements often rail against the "establishment," which includes researchers, technocrats, and scientists, framing them as elitist antagonists to the common person. And on distrust: Rejection of Authority: In an age of "anti-intellectualism," there is a growing tendency to reject expert consensus, especially when it conflicts with personal beliefs or political ideologies (e.g., climate change, vaccine skepticism).

@rollflickHow would you cut traffic on Underhill? Genuine question. I've asked this of some of the more prolific posters objecting to measures introduced by local authorities and cross London but it seems to be easier to object, rather than come up with some constructive proposals. I'm not inferring any criticism of you. I'm all for reducing car journeys through more efficient use of vehicles (the no brainer is lift sharing/higher vehicle occupancy), use of public transport and active travel. But driving for many is such a difficult habit to break, and there are those that agree that we should do more to cut carbon emissions and pollution, as soon as they are personally affected then it is a different story. I believe this is called attitude-behavior gap, a form of cognitive dissonance.

@CPR Dave Sadly, as I expect with many if not most motorists you are ignorant both about cycling and the Highway Code. Rule 72 Road positioning. When riding on the roads, there are two basic road positions you should adopt, depending on the situation. 1) Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in the following situations on quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely in slower-moving traffic - when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you I've underlined for your benefit. Should Barnaby's son veer slightly it is because he was then a seven year old. On looking at the video he is more aware than many adults. Should Barnaby come out a little further it is purely as he has a responsibility for his son. Also worth a reminder of the space that drivers should give vulnerable road users when overtaking: Rule 163 Overtaking Includes give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215). As a guide: leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds I expect that you would benefit from doing the sort of course Barnaby offers. Or the ones aimed at professional drivers when they get them out on bikes to better understand vulnerable road users. https://www.jaupt.org.uk/course/crs96481742 I hope that my explanation helps you become a more aware driver better at sharing the road with all users.