Penguin68

When the rules set are unfair and do not reflect rules of a similar authority which allow e.g. legal turns into side streets with normal safe driving behaviour then they are designed not to penalise illegal activity but to raise revenues in ways not common or normal, or, actually possibly, legal. Cars are not designed, or safe, to make 90 degree (right angle) turns, which is what is required here if you are to proceed 'in the rules'.

Nice diversionary tactic, but the point being made was about the comparative difference in trading activity between the outlets in the Village and those in L Lane. Obviously the walkers and particularly the cyclists are not buying stuff, is the impression gathered. So, soon enough, goodbye the shops. But as they are managed by small independent traders, no problems to the kulak hating council, I'm guessing. Why, some of them may even own private vehicles. Drive them out! Which is what they're doing.

I remember reading that there were a number of illnesses (presumably ones most likely to be bacterial in origin) that pharmacists were particularly pointed at, I think, UTIs, tonsillitis, and some others. Perhaps the symptoms of the declared illness (which may have been recurrent) fell into those categories. If you've had something before you probably do recognise the symptoms, and may well be able to relatively accurately self-diagnose.

Only their own homes

Southwark has a single budget head 'Cleaner, Greener, Safer' which has allowed special spend initiatives sponsored often by local counsellors based on feedback from their wards. Monies derived from CPZ revenues, should there be a surplus over the cost of running the CPZ, which is where all revenue is intended to post, can be applied to this budget, but that doesn't mean that CPZs are intended to address Green issues. Nor are they ever a justification for creating a CPZ. Parking pressure is the only legitimate reason. Indeed, where school road safety is concerned there are special measures to close off streets at the start and close of the school day, during term, to allow this.

It doesn't - PTAL impacts LTN decisions - or rather, it should and it was Southwark's own guidance about PTAL which was overturned when it came to implementing the Dulwich LTNs. I certainly didn't introduce PTAL into this discussion - I merely pointed out that someone referencing environmental issues as a CPZ justification seemed to be confusing CPZs (about parking pressure) with LTN (about the environment and 'healthy' travelling). And your view that PTAL is a function of population density and not lack of public transport is simply wrong. Dense populations attract, because they are fiscally rewarding, more public transport, but it is the amount of public transport (frequency, convenience of location of stops) which influence PTAL scores, not the population density. Correlation does not imply causation.

No, the quickest way would be to implement more, and more frequent buses, and indeed more frequent trains, neither of course in Southwark's remit. If you made housing more dense without doing this it would make the PTAL much worse, as even more people would not have access to decent public transport. Housing density may make supply of public transport more fiscally attractive BUT IT HAS TO BE SUPPLIED (my shouting). As it is you'd just have more people trying to catch the same number of poorly supplied buses.

I think PTAL scores are a function of the availability of e.g. public transport - clearly where there are wide open spaces and the public transport availability is low then the scores will be as well, but this doesn't stop it meaning that people have to go a long way (longer than those with high scores) to get access to public transport. Or are you thinking that's a trade-off people should accept, whatever their age and disability?

Because the NHS nowadays is nothing but taking the p*ss.

It's part of the active travel initiative, TFL is steadily withdrawing all forms of public transport to ensure that if you can't walk or cycle there you can't go there. In south Southwark anyway.

As I've said before, cyclists tend to act as if they're pedestrians on wheels. They don't think they're on vehicles as such, to be constrained as other road users are.

Before this re-design bicycles mainly (obviously there were always the illegal exceptions) went on the roads, and pedestrians on the pavements. Pedestrians entered roads at controlled crossings (although of course cyclists did ignore those). Now pedestrians and cycles have to share space coterminously. Which increases by some large margin the chances that they will be in exactly the same space at exactly the same time. Hence the chances of accidents between cyclists and pedestrians have increased. And that includes little pedestrians much more likely, because of their size and relative weight, to be damaged by such an impact. Yes, the cars, driven in the main by trained drivers who had to pass a test, have now gone - to be replaced by untrained cyclists who don't have to pass tests of any sort. Not, to my mind, a good or fair swap. And showing pictures (above) of cars (a car) which was being driven very carelessly in the small hours is not an exemplar of everyday risks to pedestrians - very few of which would have been about, if any, at the time of the accident.

As he died of wounds in a hospital there would be no need of a post mortem. The recorded circumstances and the death certificate would be sufficient in any court case. For those whose faith requires swift burial, courts and coroners are generally careful to meet requirements. Hold ups are generally only likely where defendants dispute cause of death, highly unlikely in these circumstances.

And my point - cycling errors were not the story being told, no reporter worth their salt diverts between stories, that's just bad journalism. You may have only one fixed point in your universe but reporters focus on just one story at a time, and tell different stories.

I've had recent UPS deliveries from India & Sweden which have been delivered with no problems and in a very timely manner. I suspect problems may be more evident on internal (to UK) movements, I've nothing to complain about with their international service.