PeterW

My feeling - and I could, of course, be wrong - is that anyone who buys a place for top price before the election is taking a risk. There's no telling what a few weeks of confusion and chaos amid a hung parliament could do for the markets and the pound. All it would need is a hefty rise in interest rates and there'd be big trouble. There was an interesting statistic in the latest Northern Rock results: 4% of their mortgagees are having problems making payments. That's with rock-bottom rates. This might just be wishful thinking. I'm very much of the opinion that ?500,000-plus for a basic three-bed Victorian terrace, the sort of home that only a couple of decades ago was very much within the reach of people on ordinary wages, is not only absurd but downright immoral. Bring on a huge house price crash. And I say that as a home owner. If it sends some estate agents over the edge then all the better.

More background on the house: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/feb/19/victorian-concrete-house Unlike Heritage London, I never found any evidence it was designed by Charles Barry Jr, but maybe they know better. I think it's an interesting enough story without that. Poor Charles Drake was convinced concrete would catch on but he was about 75 years too early. It would be great to see it restored. Mr Laxman's actions have been appalling throughout.

Dear, oh dear, DeptfordDiva. I'm really wary of getting into a cars vs bikes argument ? the arguments have been rehashed so many times ? but it's hard to let a comment like this pass. Let's just deal with the basics: - "They ride along in the middle of the road and cause motorists to swerve quite far out to avoid them". Um, that's called overtaking. Yes, cyclists normally should, and do, try and give drivers enough room to get past, but there's plenty of reasons for a bike to be closer to the middle of a lane, for example keeping a car door's width from parked vehicles, in case a door opens. This is in no way wrong; in fact cycle safety trainers actively encourage cyclists not to hug the kerb too closely. Under the Highway Code, cyclists are entitled, if they want, to ride two abreast, although very few do this. A car door suddenly opened can kill or seriously hurt a cyclist. These apparently selfish riders in the 'middle of the road' might just be trying to avoid this. What's your problem with it? Or is your journey time more important than their welfare? ? Drivers often perceive cyclists as a delay, since on a straight stretch of road they're likely to be going less than the 30mph limit. But I find that 90% of the cars who overtake me then get stuck at a set of lights 200m down the road, where I catch them up. Have some patience, DepotfordDiva. If you wait 30 seconds to find a safe place to overtake a bike it's probably not going to delay your journey in the end. And also, what is so important that you're in such a rush to get there? And also, many people on bikes would otherwise be in a car, which would delay you even more. This is the crucial one: - Cyclists are inherently more vulnerable than your car, and it is your duty, not only as a driver but as a human being, to be at least a bit careful. If you hit a bike, your tonne-and-a-half or so of steel cage will protect you, but the cyclist could get killed, or suffer a life-changing injury. As a cyclist, I'm not going to kill you, but you could very easily kill me. So be careful! It's not that hard to figure out. Of course, cyclists have a responsibility to be safe. Some ride recklessly. But that is not a reason to gamble with the lives of every cyclist on the roads, just because you think your own day/schedule/whatever is so damned important. It's worth noting that in quite a few European countries, this inherent imbalance between the vulnerability of cyclists and drivers means the law automatically assumes a car driver's legal culpability in any collision between a bike and a car, whatever the circumstances.

My tuppence on two issues linked to this: - Afraid I have to agree with the consensus, Morag. Shouting abuse like that might make you feel morally superior but it's a bit counter-intuitive when you're supposedly wanting to protect the welfare of the kids. Could startle them (not to mention upset them). This is doubly the case if you were driving a car. Cyclists are so used to getting random abuse from car drivers the mother probably heard it but ignored it. - EdKiwi, I'm afraid your arguments on helmets are, perhaps, a bit simplistic. There's a perfectly good argument for children wearing them, but compulsion for all has been shown not to work. In all countries where it's been tried ? NZ included ? accident rates have fallen but in the main because cycling use has plummeted. An Australian professor of actuarial science has just published an interesting study which concludes that when countries pass helmet compulsion laws it asctually ends up costing their health services money in the long term, as the reduction in injuries to cyclists is more than cancelled out by increased obesity etc as activity levels drop. There's other countries ? the Netherlands and Denmark spring to mind ? where helmets are almost unknown as cycling is an everyday activity done by so many people, not some supposdedly dangerous pursuit where you have to dress up like a gladiator. This works in no small part because drivers treat cyclists with respect and don't just try and push past them. As a side note, in Copenhagen or the Hague, Morag's cycling family would be much less exceptional. You certainly wouldn't get passers-by yelling abuse.

I'm becoming a bit of a bore on this subject after writing about it, but as far as I'm aware it wasn't designed by Charles Barry. Not that this matters ? it is believed to be the last surviving concrete house built by Drake, one of the very early pioneers of the technology. See here for more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/feb/19/victorian-concrete-house Sorry, I am going to lock this new thread as there is already a discussion about it here http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,185836 - The Administrator

I'm sure there's no need to worry ? given that council has already agreed to go ahead with compulsory purchase, they're hardly likely to give in now. I imagine it'll be a while before the place is bought, let alone restored, but the council is very aware of the house's importance. Plus, of course, it remains Grade II listed.

Seeing as there's an interest in the subject, thought I should point this out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/feb/19/victorian-concrete-house