Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wasn't missing your point rahrahrah, I was just

> not really agreeing with it.

>

> More people may die / get injured playing football

> than cycling, but why do they die / get injured?

> In a lot of cases it will be because of the

> unpredictable actions of another player.


Well sure, but in lot of cases it will be the unpredictable actions of another road user which lead to injuries on a bike. I just think that there is a general perception (misconception imo) that cycling is some kind of high danger activity. I don't believe the statistics bare this out and the perception dissuades people from getting on their bike / doing what they want to do. We shouldn't live in fear, especially when the fears are out of all proportion with the reality.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> God I wish I was more motivated to work today. I'm

> involving myself in this nonsense for something to

> pass the time.


The forum would struggle if we were all motivated, productive employees :-)

If the term "child leash" causes upset then my apology. I will refer to it as child harness.


The highway code did not specify that cycling with dog is illegal.




Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wish you'd stop calling iot a child leash,

> that's just language designed to wind people up

> (even if you did find a profuct with that title).

> And whilst I understand the point you are making,

> I don't think it's comparable (child walking /

> running on pavement compared to child passenger on

> bike).

>

>

>

> I guess the most apt comparrison could be seat

> belts in cars. You may have never been involved in

> a crash. Every time you get in your car you

> PROBABLY won't have an accident, and yet you belt

> up. I know this is the law, but even bofore that,

> most people did it anyway, because despite the

> fact that it probably wouldn't be needed, people

> just felt it more sensible to play it safe.

>

> But again for me it was the whole dog thing. I've

> never seen that on the roads, and if it is legal

> I'd be quite surprised.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I just think that there is a general

> perception (misconception imo) that cycling is

> some kind of high danger activity. I don't believe

> the statistics bare this out and it dissuades

> people from getting on their bike.



But maybe this is exactly why the stats do look so good. It's entirely possible that is there wasn't some healthy fear attached then every fucker woukd jump on a bike and we'd end up with carnage.


Obviously I have absolutely nowhere evidence to back that up, but it's possible.

Well, this is the whole question isn't it. Unpack the term "common sense", then it opens up the whole question of the applicability of "a" common sense as perceived by a particular individual to a specific situation.



edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But common sense would dictate that it's a very

> stupid thing to do.

>

> Cyclist Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> >

> > The highway code did not specify that cycling

> with

> > dog is illegal.

> >

No it isn't the whole question.


It's just more argumentative rambling that makes no grammatical or semantic sense.


Fyi - Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.

Quite.


robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No it isn't the whole question.

>

> It's just more argumentative rambling that makes

> no grammatical or semantic sense.

>

> Fyi - Common sense is a basic ability to perceive,

> understand, and judge things, which is shared by

> ("common to") nearly all people, and can be

> reasonably expected of nearly all people without

> any need for debate.

You would find that most dictionaries including Oxford define common sense as a judgement rather than "a basic ability".


edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quite.

>

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > No it isn't the whole question.

> >

> > It's just more argumentative rambling that

> makes

> > no grammatical or semantic sense.

> >

> > Fyi - Common sense is a basic ability to

> perceive,

> > understand, and judge things, which is shared

> by

> > ("common to") nearly all people, and can be

> > reasonably expected of nearly all people

> without

> > any need for debate.

If common sense is an "ability", then that implies anyone who does not share that common sense has a shortcoming in his/her natural ability. In the "ability" definition, anyone who does not share what some perceived as "common sense" risked being defined to be lacking in his or her natural ability. Not many people would appreciate that insinuation.


On the other hand, it is much more appropriate to see common sense as a "judgement" because it then admits the possibility of multiple common sense. Whose common sense we are talking about and which common sense in the particular situation we are talking about exactly ?


I don't think I have been talking nonsense at all. I have instead observed the fairly acute reaction from commentators when their version of common sense is challenged.




robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And your point?!

>

> I'm glad you looked it up - now you see what

> nonsense you were spouting.

surely you understand "basic ability to judge" and "judgement" have two very different meanings.


robbin Wrote:

----------------------------------------------------

>

> Fyi - Common sense is a basic ability to perceive,

> understand, and judge things, which is shared by

> ("common to") nearly all people, and can be

> reasonably expected of nearly all people without

> any need for debate.

Cyclist - I suggest if you are going to tangle with the meaning of words, you start by opening up your dictionary and looking up the meaning of "pavement" and "pedestrian", as you also seem not to have got to grips with those words (a pavement being something people walk along - and a pedestrian is someone who walks along it).

yes you are right. I mean "pavement". Great pick up Robbin. Thanks. Now perhaps you could consider your common sense to give your child the safety harness while on the pavement. It is safer than without and only costs a few quids, as you put it. Quite a few people harness their child while walking on lordship lane, particularly in the weekend. Don't let your common sense fall behind their common sense !


My child and dogs are living happily without your wishes of "good luck" or the sort. You go your way, I go my way. And that's the way it should be unless your ego dictates otherwise.


robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cyclist - I suggest if you are going to tangle

> with the meaning of words, you start by opening up

> your dictionary and looking up the meaning of

> "pavement" and "pedestrian", as you also seem not

> to have got to grips with those words (a pavement

> being something people walk along - and a

> pedestrian is someone who walks along it).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...