Klaus

I've lost count of the number of accidents involving cyclists at the junction by the Rye Hotel. I live opposite this junction and it's always the same scenario: cars turning left in to Scylla Road plough into cyclists carrying up the eastern part of Peckham Rye. I've seen ambulances there at least 3 times. In my opinion, the cycle lane that separates cyclists from traffic (for a few yards) does more harm than good. It appears to make motorists forget that the cyclist thery've just overtaken is there. With regards to cars getting caught out at the entrance to Rye Lane: the less cars that use Rye Lane the better. It should be purely for shoppers and buses.

I heard it's going to be a Bob Hoskins theme pub.

It's all here: http://www.vcl.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=6&id=24&Itemid=54 I think the training sessions start slow, then get faster, so people drop out when the pace gets too high.

The gradient is a too steep to cycle up without getting out of breath. Could the council flatten it a little?

Hawton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...and remember Princess Margaret coming to Peckham to open Troy Town. Troy Town... as in the tiny little street by the old people's home? Princess Margeret came to open it!? Care to explain more, or indeed why it's got such a strange name?

True enough! However, he was riding through a park that i cycle through regularly and i've never seen any no cycling signs there. It's just like the big path around the outside of Dulwich Park really. He had a right to be miffed imo.

I don't think anyone has moaned about being caught have they? I imagine most cyclists welcome the current clamp down because it should help reduce the number of incidents that winds people up so much (yet not that much of a problem statistically). Longer term this should help to reduce the vehement anti-cyclist feeling that crops up so easily whenever cycling is discussed by the general public.

They appeared to be coming in abnormally low on Sunday morning to avoid the particularly dense cloud. The cloud then reflected the noise back to ED resident's bedrooms. (Like most of the posts in this thread, this is pure speculation, with no scientific basis.)

The route i use everyday into Soho goes down Bellenden Road, through Warwick Gardens, down Camberwell Groove, up Camberwell New Road, turn right at the cricket ground, then through back streets to Lambeth Bridge, across it, then back streets up to Horse Guards Parade, under Admirality Arch and in to Soho. It's the best combination of speed, safety and pleasantness that i've found in three years of trying. It also avoids the black spots of Elephant & Castle, Walworth Road and Whitehall.

I could waffle about this all day but i reckon the bike i commute on is quicker, easier and safer than a fixed or single speed model. I have enough gears to get me up any hill in London easily as well as accelarating without effort, disc brakes to stop me in emergencies, front suspension to absorb potholes and speed bumps ...and a weight under 22lbs. I also own a single speed bike which i use for trips to the shops or pub and i love it dearly! I can think of no reason why i'd choose to ride it with a fixed wheel though. I totally understand the point about maintainance but i stand by the point that fixies are a fad. (Metal) horses for courses etc!

The bicycle is one of the best (possibly the best) inventions ever made and as such their beauty comes from their functionality. The way they look is important but they shouldn't be suseptible to the vagueries of fashion and style. You've not going to ride it round to show off as the driver of a beautiful classic car might choose to criuse up and down the Kings Road... you'll ride it because it's a classic design that still feels like a great bike today. Practicality should rule every bike decision! So, er, spray it.

I love fixed wheeled bikes too... mainly for the amusement they give me whilst watching their owners attempt to climb hills. lol Any gear that allows you to get up Denmark Hill will limit your speed on the flat and be unpractical (even dangerous) going downhill. They're a fad... like BMXs in the 80s and full suspension mountain bikes in the late 90/00s. Good at what they were designed for and popular with enthusiasts but a poor choice for most people. If your route to work involves hills, hub gears are the way forward imo.

It was one of those lorries that delivers bricks. The crane on the back got wedged under.

ratty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Incidentally, the secondary school i attended in > a village just outside Portsmouth has confiscated > a number of knives in the last couple of years." > > Pray tell where Klaus... I too attended a > Secondary School in a Village outside just outside > Portsmouth! Swanmore. Despite most of the pupils coming from very 'nice' middle-class backgrounds lots of the boys feel it's neccessary to carry a knife because the bad kids do. Whether for self-defence or not, this is certainly not a problem restricted to big cities.

BJL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > snoozequeen1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > jumpinjourno Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > What on earth is going on and how do we > tackle > > > this. > > > > > Stop buying cocaine > > > > Stop buying cannabis > > > > Stop buying tamazepam and modafanil (stolen > from > > the NHS) for "recreational use" > > > > Stop tolerating the use of drugs all around us > > > > Ostracise drugs sellers and optional drug users > > > > That might help. > > > Ted Max Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > BBC Radio has just reported > > the Bellenden Road stabbing was the result of > an > > argument between a man and a woman who had been > > drinking together for much of the day. > > Snoozequeen1: what are your views on alcohol? Indeed. As booze appears to paid a large part in this tragedy, would you add alcohol to that list? Incidentally, the secondary school i attended in a village just outside Portsmouth has confiscated a number of knives in the last couple of years.

I feel safe on Peckham Rye at night precisely because of the lack of legal drugs, not illegal ones. The lack of pubs means there's barely ever drunken idiots who are far more likely to give strangers hassle. Apart from the pot smoking i can't recall witnessing any other criminal activity in the four years i've lived here... not even kids behaving badly after school.

Through no choice of my own, i've been on benefits just over a year and can happily inform you all it is possible to survive on them. "Survive" being the important word though. I've barely bought any non-essential items in that time... that means no clothes, music, books. Even things like newspapers are a treat. Every purchase, from a tin of rice pudding to a new toothbruth is deliberated as to whether it's really neccessary. No holidays. No pubs. No eating out. In fact, barely any sort of social life at all. I can also happily say it is no fun whatsoever.

snoozequeen1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The big roundabout...that's the one people call > the Bricklayer's Arms? Thing is Ratty, I know > that cyclists love their bicycles and want to > spread the benefits to all the world, but isn't > that route one for those who can instantly sprint > away at the lights and out of trouble? Negotiating the roundabout is easy because traffic lights on the roundabout itself, meaning all the traffic tends to be heading in the same direction as you. The tricky bit is getting out of the bus lane on OKR - into the right hand lane where cars wait to join the roundabout. A prolonged, obvious hand signal tend to do the trick though. 60mph?! ha ha

I'm with Zen and use the New Cross exchange. I've had loads of problems in the last few weeks... very slow and lots of drops. Zen's tech support, although very helpful, recommended i try a different router and filter to try and work out where the fault lies. Looks like the problem isn't at my end.

Ha ha, sorry i got that junction mixed up with Ondine Road.

How about making Coplestone Road two-way for cyclists?

I found this whilst nerding around on thinternet. Although the ED area is obscured it gives a clear idea how the flightpaths into Heathrow work when there's a westerly wind. http://www.caa.co.uk/images/72/arr_tracks.jpg

Yeah, cocaine is the hole in my argument which i haven't resolved yet. Too many nights out in Soho with colleagues talking and behaving like proper plums have prejudiced my view somewhat. I suppose if it was legal it would help to sort out the ethically dubious supply chain. Obviously, police will have to divert resources to stop incidents silly dancing and rubbish talking.

Most alcohol users drink sensibly and without harm to others, yet it's a dangerous drug. That's why it's legal, yet controlled. In practice it's the same with most 'recreational' drugs. Most cannabis users smoke to relax in the evening. Why should they be criminalised whereas someone having a glass of Shiraz in the same situation is perfectly fine? The problems associated with these drugs are caused *exactly because* they're illegal.

LizzygotDizzy Wrote: > Drugs are offered basically everywhere you go so > they are not that hard to get and surprisingly not > that expensive anymore, my point was someone > would'nt go and mug someone for money or steal > from them if they couldn't get money to buy the > above items, I wouldn't mug an old lady for ?20 to > go buy cigarettes or booze, whereas someone on > crack would think nothing of mugging someone or > whatever to get their next fix. Of course you wouldn't mug an old lady for a drink/fag. Lucklily, most of the country's drinkers/smokers have the same viewpoint. Similarly, most drugs (legal or not) have the ability to be taken sensibly and without harm to others by the majority of their users. The harm you do to yourself is a personal issue and i'd argue that 'recreational' drugs like cannabis and ecstacy are no worse in this regard than alcohol or tobacco. By accepting alchohol, you are implicitly saying that it's morally ok for the public to get into a state of altered conciousness. Yet alcohol causes immense damage to society, ranging from personal relationships to city-centre violence to the burden on the NHS. Simply put, the law is hypocritical and directly causes a lot of the problems associated with drug usage. Understandably, you're concerned about addicts commiting crime to pay for their habit. The vast, vast majority of drug-related crime is caused by heroin and crack users. By distributing these for free through special clinics you will wipe out most of this crime instantly. It will also greatly reduce the numbers of 'pushers' who deliberatly get vunerable people addicted in the first place (because they'll have no financial insentive). Legalising drugs will also greatly harm organised crime, from the the international cartels to local gangs. Surely a good thing?