Penguin68

The drink will be for the teachers, in my experience

Only if the fox is in the street or a public place. The council will charge for removing a dead fox from private premises.

You really don't seem to understand how the internet works. AI works out what you're interested in and gives you links. You don't have to set alerts, Google and Chrome does that for you. You need spend no time at all.

The claims made in this report, or at least reported by those who seem to have full access to it, the report by people who are known to be supporters of a particular mind-set do not, so far as the reporting I have seen of it goes, lay out contextualised and comparable figures for areas with and without LTNs. Put very simply it may very well be that accident figures have improved in LTNs (now virtually without traffic for much or all of the time) - but I want to know the following:- 1. How does this compare with changes in accident figures in other parts of the country (and London) which are comparable in terms of urban profile and traffic levels with the LTNs?. That is, have accidents levels in general in comparable urban areas changed over the same time period. How have these changed? Are these changes statistically significant? 2. How have accident figures in roads known to be necessary alternatives to LTNs altered over time? What are the joint (LTN and adjacent figures) combined. and how do these compare with comparable non LTN areas? Just for context, over the time period which I believe is being measured we have had a considerable roll-out of reduced speed limits, at least across London, from 30 to 20mph (and of course we have had lock-down for part of this). We have also had the exclusion from the roads of older cars and vans (because of emissions issues) which have removed what may be less road-worthy vehicles from the equation. At the moment we seem just to have found that where you reduce traffic levels, reported accidents reduce. The alternative would be surprising. No doubt if you were to remove all motorised vehicles from all streets the incidence of accidents caused by motor vehicles would plummet.

NHS subcontractors frequently use supermarket parking areas for CT and other screening. Easy to get to and park. They've done the same at Dog Kennel Hill in the past. Makes a lot of sense. And they ram in lots of timed appointments, so time critical is precisely right.

Absolutely don't post on the forum. By all means provide evidence to the police or shop security.

If I was designing research to determine whether LTNs did reduce accidents involving motor vehicles (because we know other accidents are rarely reported) the null hypothesis I would test is that accident rates in the broad locales of the LTN did not change significantly compared with other comparable areas. ‘Broad locales’ because I would assume that at least some traffic would be displaced from LTNs to adjacent and alternative routes, so I would include those routes which were understood by local people to be alternatives – and helpfully look at routes offered by e.g. Waze as alternatives for those without local knowledge. I would test this against similar urban areas where there were no LTNs to ensure that I was not measuring just a general drop in accident rates (which have been significantly dropping through the second half of the 20th century into the first quarter of this, discounting the period of Covid Lockdown when all traffic was significantly reduced). And I would follow the same broad design to determine whether significant drops in air pollution (and CO2 is not a pollutant as regards air quality impacting health is concerned) had occurred. In this manner I would not by hamstrung by the lack of proper comparative data from the past, particularly as regards air quality. I would need to ensure that I chose comparable areas so that I was comparing like with like. This latter would of course be open to challenge. I cannot see from what little I have read that this sort of comparability has been undertaken in the study being quoted (happy to stand corrected). If you just look at LTNs and say reported accidents are down this actually tells you nothing of use until you can contextualise the information, and until you can demonstrate that (taking into account displaced traffic) this is unusual compared with non LTN areas. Similarly for air quality. I’m not saying this sort of study is easy, or cheap. I am saying it meets reasonable research criteria. I used to handle graduate research proposals (not in this area, but research techniques are transferable) so I know a little of what I speak.

I'm sorry, so what you are saying is that if you ban traffic from an area there will be fewer traffic accidents in that area - oh, that is ignoring the accidents which are not reported because people tend not to report accidents where it's only bicycles involved, because, inter alia, cyclists are uninsured so there is no chance of any recompense for damage and little chance to sue for injury. Quel surprise!

Who needs LTNs when our utilities (B Gas and T Water) are so adept at sealing off the area from the menace of traffic?

But in many cases the leaks are happening in the same places again and again, and every inch of pipe outside the Horniman on the South Circular must have been replaced at least 3 times in the last 15 years! Of course the infrastructure in some areas is old, but locally there's been quite a bit of replacement. To little effect it would seem.

Good point, but not Uber drivers. It's in their interest to take more fixed fee rides so jumping red lights benefits them. Makes no difference to their fares but of course it does to black cab fares, who want a short journey as they are additionally paying for time as well as distance.

So I imagine you will be urging black cabs to be allowed to jump reds as well then?

No, it's because they won't let something as petty as public opinion stand in their way. Which is why they initially targeted an area, but fell back onto individual roads, and they've even gone to part roads in the past to squeeze something into start the rot rolling.

I have reported on this site before of an incident witnessed by my daughter when a cyclist was attacked by a car driver (with his car) as a clear road rage incident - which the police only responded to with a questionnaire sent to my daughter several days later, her having reported the incident to the police on her phone as it was happening. The cyclist was slightly injured and his bike totalled. However this incident as described may well be a car driver responding (probably ill advisedly) to a phone or similar snatching incident - we do know that goes on and in spades recently. The (very probably) later arrival of the police cars may well have been a response then to a report of a crime (and not dangerous driving) - but here, please note everyone, I am just speculating.

Well, let's just hope, then, that the cyclist wasn't one of those who are phone snatching, and the driver not someone trying to make a citizen's arrest, otherwise this narrative would be stood on its head.