malumbu

Deleted

Not sure why this thread has mutated to e bikes. Here's a thread I posted last year with BA interest. Meanwhile as said before if it quacks like a duck..... As I've posted before for most of the population it is easy to distinguish an illegal e-bike - speed and no, or limited, pedaling. Many don;t even look like a conventional bike. Really don't understand how you can confuse a legal bike with a powered two wheeler. The legislation above didn't go through. Not really sure why the Tories bothered in their dying days. What is Reform's position? If you have free time tonight it would be better spent reading around the subject eg in the Lord's debate: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-06-10/debates/3C570E41-D69F-43B9-8789-02449033FDCB/ElectricCyclesIllegalUseOnRoads

Disagree, they took action. I've regularly walked past there when the coaches are parked and only seen one idling in recent times. As said I phoned them and they came out to speak to the driver. More effective than going onto social media It is an offense under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Regulation 98 of the Road Vehicle Regulations 1986 to leave your vehicle's engine running unnecessarily while stationary

30 years ago you could buy and sell houses that had been underpinned without too much worry as long as the paperwork was in place. Huge swathes of Victorian and Edwardian, and occasionally between the wars, properties are underpinned in SE London. Many after the 1976 drought and no doubt following the increasingly common droughts we are seeing in recent decades due to climate change. First issue was when insurers got funny, Direct Line I remember, wont insure many SE post codes. I'm not sure why there is more concern now, although five subsidence claims is quite impressive. As others say if is it discounted and you are prepared to take the risk... Not sure what others think of structural surveys, difficult here is that you need to monitor movement for six months or longer. And older properties will move slightly with the shrinkage and expansion of the clay. Most are out of true (look at how square original door ways are); some would have moved following bombing in the blitz. Odd how much we invest in a pile of bricks that will age and deteriorate.

Why don't you start your own thread on cycling in Amsterdam?

Most of them are not aggressive drivers in the conventional sense, they are unaware or oblivious, the speeding ones are doing what many do, exceeding the 20 mph limit. The anklets because they are moving may attract more attention. As can reflectors in the pedals

You've avoided my points, yet again!! Anyway, to move on, and returning to the point of this thread, evidence reviewed by Cycling UK is interesting: I've highlighted key points If wearing hi-vis helps people feel safer when cycling and more willing to do it, that is only to be welcomed. It is, though, hard to prove whether hi-vis makes any significant impact on cyclists’ safety, and there is very little convincing evidence to support the argument that it does. Research suggests that hi-vis may help drivers spot cyclists more readily, but it appears that spotting is one thing and driving safely around them another. One academic study, for example, found that whether a cyclist is wearing hi-vis or not makes very little difference to how closely motorists overtake them. On the other hand, research suggests that retroreflective accessories designed to make you more conspicuous in the dark – especially anything that moves when you pedal (e.g. ankle straps) – are probably worth the investment. Overall, Cycling UK believes that improving cyclists’ safety is best served not by making hi-vis clothing compulsory, but by improving driving behaviour, lowering speeds, reducing traffic volume, and providing high-quality facilities. We also believe that all road users, including cyclists, should behave legally and responsibly, which includes obeying lighting regulations. Rather than dismiss the above please do read the reports first: News item: https://www.bikeradar.com/features/tech/hi-vis-is-not-silver-bullet-for-cycling-safety Cycling UK briefing: https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2023/08/21-03_ca_hi-vis_brf_1.pdf And Written parliamentary question https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-01-10/23174/ Government has no plans to introduce compulsory wearing of hi-vis I cycle maybe 250 days a year, mainly in Lewisham and Southwark, and experience several near misses a week, mostly in daylight. The drivers simply make no effort to give you space, and I expect that many do see me, Something that particularly annoys me is those coming towards you when space is a little tight. Neither party has priority, but some rather than do the sensible and courteous thing and slow down to ensure we pass each other safely do the opposite. someone coming at you at 30mph on a narrow road with parked cars on either side isn't fun.

Perhaps have a look at the review first before making such a judgement. Maybe you could do better, please do contact Number 10. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf

It does surprise me that you are so supportive of the above as most of your posts give a very different image. Looking at three of the above; cyclists' visibility - you seem to have used this as a stick to beat cyclists; school streets - perhaps I am confusing you with others but there is a narrative here that this is all about Southwark ripping off the poor driver, with poor signage, inappropriately placed; 20 mph, I love the prefix 'pragmatic' - I recall you complaining about some 20mph roads rather than championing them.

Not sure how you define overtaxing, I expect most of the population would like to pay less tax. One of the panel on Kuensseberg, not the young influencer, nor the unreconstructed old man (the opposite of 'new man') Piers Morgan), was fairly knowledgeable and explained that measures to improve growth such as an improved deal with the EU and trade agreements, are done elsewhere.

So because he said something you believe isn't the truth he shouldn't have introduced measures to improve air quality, and reduce deaths and ill health associated with pollution. Odd logic.

Not sure why this thread was started. @mitchiner do explain.

What worries me is all the talk of these foreign architectural styles. Art Deco (French) and Art Noveau (Belgium - can you even name ten famous poeple from Belgium), Thank heavens for good old British Arts and Crafts, harking back to previous times. What do you think those who are asset poor and cash poor may think? Don't you feel there is a case for evening things out? Get real. There are numerous anti-Labour threads and a few of you who clearly hate everything Labour, no doubt going back decades. Not everyone of course who have posted on this weird thread has such strong views. For balance there are a lesser number of threads on other political parties and a former prime minister, but they attract far less traffic, and one person seems to go out of their way to defend Farage

There is a possibility that poor air quality leads to adult onset asthma. The Lancet did not confirm this and stated that more work was required. 10,000s of deaths are linked to poor air quality. Surely it is good that our Mayor wants to further improve air quality. That is the important aim, rather than pick holes in what he said.