Brixton news, rumours and general chat: Summer - Autumn 2018

[editor]

I've seen her around Brixton for years but this is the first time I've heard of her being violent:
Woman banned from station after punching member of staff in the face

 

[Twattor]

All these reasons you give are just excuses, they are just excuses to give cover for what your real feeling is which is that 20mph limits are fundamentally unnecessary, I think. That's what a lot of motorists think - they don't even think they should apply on secondary residential routes. This 20mph business is something imposed on them that restricts their freedom and challenges their wish to make their own judgements about when it is and isn't safe to stick to the limit. The desired leeway and lax enforcement isn't really about making sure accidents do't result from 'fearful' drivers - it's because people want it to be them themselves who decides when they don't bother with the 20mph limit. And the funny thing is that you seem really bothered about pedestrians making their own decisions about where and when they cross the road. You want flexible, we-won't-really-enforce-them rules for drivers but don't like it when pedestrians cross the road in central Brixton outside of the controlled crossings - you are bothered by them not sacrificing however many seconds of their day to go and cross the road in 'proper' fashion but you don't want to drive at 20mph on what you call main thoroughfares, presumably because you don't want to sacrifice a similar number of seconds of your own life in getting to your destination marginally later.

I don't have a problem with the 20mph limits per se. What I do have a problem with is people being cunts, you there are plenty of cunt cyclists, cunt motorcyclists and cunt pedestrians as well as cunt drivers. Drivers are just an easier target as they have a registration plate on the vehicle and are easily tracked-down. Driving through brixton is horrible, what with motorcyclists and cyclists diving through every gap and suicidal zombie pedestrians shambling out from between buses, but equally being a pedestrian in brixton is no fun as you're frequently forced off the pavements by idiot cyclists or having to run for your life as the cunts seem to think traffic lights only apply to cars.

I don't like this pervasive attitude of blaming car drivers for the city's ills. Generally people just need to stop acting like dicks.

 

[teuchter]

I don't have a problem with the 20mph limits per se. What I do have a problem with is people being cunts, you there are plenty of cunt cyclists, cunt motorcyclists and cunt pedestrians as well as cunt drivers. Drivers are just an easier target as they have a registration plate on the vehicle and are easily tracked-down. Driving through brixton is horrible, what with motorcyclists and cyclists diving through every gap and suicidal zombie pedestrians shambling out from between buses, but equally being a pedestrian in brixton is no fun as you're frequently forced off the pavements by idiot cyclists or having to run for your life as the cunts seem to think traffic lights only apply to cars.

I don't like this pervasive attitude of blaming car drivers for the city's ills. Generally people just need to stop acting like dicks.

It's motor vehicle drivers who have the ability to kill other people through bad behaviour though. That's why different standards should apply to them.

 

[teuchter]

Also, letting people drive cars, and not enforcing speed limits, automatically produces people behaving like dicks. There's no good just hoping that people will change. To some extent anyone will behave like a dick if you give them a car and just trust things to their judgement. I'd include myself in that. I don't drive a lot but I know the temptation to go faster or prioritise myself over other road users.

We simply need fewer vehicles on the roads and we need to force people to obey the rules including speed limits. Driving on the public road is nota right, it's a privilege which is conditional on the terms of a licence.

 

[Ms T]

A chap on my street was telling me yesterday that his car was written off by a pregnant, uninsured driver who crashed into him outside Mothercare on Brixton Road a couple of months ago. She was doing 55 mph hence the damage. Lucky she didn’t hit a pedestrian or a cyclist, just my neighbour’s extremely shiny top-of-the range Range Rover (and he’s old Brixton, before anyone starts banging on about yuppies and their flash cars).

 

[editor]

Brixton Orchard is looking good

In photos: Brixton Orchard starts to bear fruit, July 2018

 

[snowy_again]

Drivers are just an easier target as they have a registration plate on the vehicle and are easily tracked-down.

Because society deems cars are a responsibility and a risk to other road / pavement users - hence why you need to be licensed to drive them, and your driving tracked by a registration plate. The impact of pedestrians and cyclists is so low that they aren't (yet) required to study and get a licence to use pavement / roads.

 

[T & P]

Also, letting people drive cars, and not enforcing speed limits, automatically produces people behaving like dicks. There's no good just hoping that people will change.

Your statement could be applied to many other aspects of life, not just driving.

As an example, it is illegal to be drunk in a pub as well as a variety of other public spaces, as i’m sure you’re aware. If laws governing drunkenness in licensed premises and public spaces were to be as strictly enforced and the punishments for offenders as severe as the ones you often propose for drivers, I’d bet the rather significant alcohol-related crime, accidents, assaults and deaths in this country could be cut dramatically

If a six month ban from all pubs in the country to anyone who got pissed in a pub,followed by a lifetime ban if they did offend again was introduced, as you have suggested for drivers who got caught doing 25 mph in a 20mph area, I reckon the number of people saved from death or life-changing injuries would be as high if not higher than the lives you would save from an ultra-strictly enforced 20 mph limit on urban roads. So surely you would support such approach for drinking law regulations as well?

Also, would you say the majority of people who enjoy a an alcoholic drink are dicks? I’ve certainly observed far worse behaviour as a proportion of all drinkers than as a proportion of all drivers.

Perhaps you have had a particularly bad lifetime experience of people who drive, but that has certainly has not been mine, and it seems to me you have a strong bias towards motor vehicles and and the people who operate them that make you make generalisations that are not really representative of the majority of drivers.

If all of the above was tldr, dicks will be dicks whether they are driving, drinking shopping or interacting with other people in any life situation.

 

[Gramsci]

Deleted as quotation didn't work. Fiddly as fuck to use.

 

[teuchter]

If a six month ban from all pubs in the country to anyone who got pissed in a pub,followed by a lifetime ban if they did offend again was introduced, as you have suggested for drivers who got caught doing 25 mph in a 20mph area, I reckon the number of people saved from death or life-changing injuries would be as high if not higher than the lives you would save from an ultra-strictly enforced 20 mph limit on urban roads.

There are multiple apples&oranges problems with your comparison of people getting drunk in pubs with people not obeying speed limits.

But go on, give me the numbers you base your above assertion on. Real numbers.

Once you've done that, please explain the magnitude of the impingement on peoples' ability to enjoy their lives that enforcing speed limits would result in.

 

[Gramsci]

Your statement could be applied to many other aspects of life, not just driving.

As an example, it is illegal to be drunk in a pub as well as a variety of other public spaces, as i’m sure you’re aware. If laws governing drunkenness in licensed premises and public spaces were to be as strictly enforced and the punishments for offenders as severe as the ones you often propose for drivers, I’d bet the rather significant alcohol-related crime, accidents, assaults and deaths in this country could be cut dramatically

If a six month ban from all pubs in the country to anyone who got pissed in a pub,followed by a lifetime ban if they did offend again was introduced, as you have suggested for drivers who got caught doing 25 mph in a 20mph area, I reckon the number of people saved from death or life-changing injuries would be as high if not higher than the lives you would save from an ultra-strictly enforced 20 mph limit on urban roads. So surely you would support such approach for drinking law regulations as well?

Also, would you say the majority of people who enjoy a an alcoholic drink are dicks? I’ve certainly observed far worse behaviour as a proportion of all drinkers than as a proportion of all drivers.

Perhaps you have had a particularly bad lifetime experience of people who drive, but that has certainly has not been mine, and it seems to me you have a strong bias towards motor vehicles and and the people who operate them that make you make generalisations that are not really representative of the majority of drivers.

If all of the above was tldr, dicks will be dicks whether they are driving, drinking shopping or interacting with other people in any life situation.

ASB legislation has been around for a number of years. Its been regularly used in London to stop street drunkenness, drugtaking and begging.


I'm not that keen on this but it has been in place for number of years now under various guises. Ie ASBO and now CPN.


Perhaps ASB legislation could be extended to motorists that speed?


That is defining speeding as behaviour that is anti social like street drinking or begging.


Its unlikely.


Not because the legislation is against it but there is perception that car drivers are ordinary decent people.

 

[T & P]

There are multiple apples&oranges problems with your comparison of people getting drunk in pubs with people not obeying speed limits.

But go on, give me the numbers you base your above assertion on. Real numbers.

Once you've done that, please explain the magnitude of the impingement on peoples' ability to enjoy their lives that enforcing speed limits would result in.

Really? Are you happy to reduce this argument as to which scenario might produce the more casualties? I'm sure you must know that calculating the number of deaths caused by speeding on urban areas would be an all but impossible task. Indeed, I doubt such figures exist as anything more than broad guesswork.

You seem to be ignoring or be unaware that a great many accidents are caused by reasons other than speeding. Failure to pay due care an attention is a major one. Drink driving is another. Many of those take place with the driver travelling well within the speed limit, whether 30 or 20. Many of the peds or cyclists that get run over every year in London are done so by lorries turning left at undeniably low speeds. in short, an ultra strictly enforced speed limit would only reduce road casualties by a limited percentage, and would would nowhere near eliminating it.

As to people's ability to enjoy their lives being impeded by blanket 20 mph limits, it's not such limit that is the issue. Some people like me would find such limit on main roads wholly inappropriate on certain roads, but could of course live with it. What I take issue with is the ludicrously over the top punishments you propose for committing two speeding infractions as inconsequential as being caught twice within your lifetime doing 25 in a 20 zone. Because being banned for life from driving is not only a major impediment to people enjoying ttheir lives, but in many cases will have a devastating effect on some people's lives, from those living in rural areas with shit public transport to those looking after old and infirm people to disabled drivers.

I'm not denying that grave road infractions deserve very harsh punishments including lifetime bans, and often not currently offered or implemented by our justice system. But if you really believe someone caught twice doing 25 on a deserted Denmark Hill ar 3 am deserves a lifetime driving ban, I guess our beliefs are so far apart we're never going to agree on anything much on the subject. But I still don't see how you could not support similar ultra draconian punishments for people being caught twice being drunk in a pub, given that alcohol-fuelled crime and accidents are also significant, and regardless of which one of the two issues might top the casualty list.

 

[T & P]

Perhaps ASB legislation could be extended to motorists that speed?

That is defining speeding as behaviour that is anti social like street drinking or begging.


Its unlikely.


Not because the legislation is against it but there is perception that car drivers are ordinary decent people.

Sorry, not sure if I've read your last two sentences right. Are you actually suggesting that car drivers are not ordinary decent people?

 

[teuchter]

Really? Are you happy to reduce this argument as to which scenario might produce the more casualties? I'm sure you must know that calculating the number of deaths caused by speeding on urban areas would be an all but impossible task. Indeed, I doubt such figures exist as anything more than broad guesswork.

It's you that wanted to reduce it to casualty numbers! When you said

I reckon the number of people saved from death or life-changing injuries would be as high if not higher than the lives you would save from an ultra-strictly enforced 20 mph limit on urban roads.

So I was simply asking what your numbers were - and of course you don't have any - your statement had nothing behind it.

You seem to be ignoring or be unaware that a great many accidents are caused by reasons other than speeding. Failure to pay due care an attention is a major one. Drink driving is another. Many of those take place with the driver travelling well within the speed limit, whether 30 or 20. Many of the peds or cyclists that get run over every year in London are done so by lorries turning left at undeniably low speeds. in short, an ultra strictly enforced speed limit would only reduce road casualties by a limited percentage, and would would nowhere near eliminating it.

No, I'm not unaware or ignoring any of this. My bet is that I have spent more time looking at the statistics than you have. An enforced 20 limit would not eliminate accidents and deaths but there's very clear evidence that it would reduce both. Yes there are examples where speed is not a contributory factor to the severity of the consequences of an accident but in most cases it is. There's loads of evidence for this. It was all posted on the dangerous driving thread where we went through this before.

As to people's ability to enjoy their lives being impeded by blanket 20 mph limits, it's not such limit that is the issue. Some people like me would find such limit on main roads wholly inappropriate on certain roads, but could of course live with it. What I take issue with is the ludicrously over the top punishments you propose for committing two speeding infractions as inconsequential as being caught twice within your lifetime doing 25 in a 20 zone. Because being banned for life from driving is not only a major impediment to people enjoying ttheir lives, but in many cases will have a devastating effect on some people's lives, from those living in rural areas with shit public transport to those looking after old and infirm people to disabled drivers.

I'm not denying that grave road infractions deserve very harsh punishments including lifetime bans, and often not currently offered or implemented by our justice system. But if you really believe someone caught twice doing 25 on a deserted Denmark Hill ar 3 am deserves a lifetime driving ban, I guess our beliefs are so far apart we're never going to agree on anything much on the subject. But I still don't see how you could not support similar ultra draconian punishments for people being caught twice being drunk in a pub, given that alcohol-fuelled crime and accidents are also significant, and regardless of which one of the two issues might top the casualty list.

I actually haven't necessarily said that I'd advocate such severe punishments. When I asked if you'd support such an arrangement it was largely rhetorical, to see what excuses you'd come up with. It was in the context of what I saw as unreasonable demands for pedestrian behaviour. It's not really worth engaging with this comparison you're trying to make with drinking in pubs; there are too many things that don't make it a meaningful equivalency. Punishing people simply for being drunk in a pub would be the equivalent of punishing people simply for driving a car. Yes, getting drunk produces risks just like the very act of driving a car produces risks. The question is what do people then go on to do. If getting drunk demonstrably leads to someone assaulting others, then yes there would be an argument for a strict ban on them drinking again, although this would be virtually unenforceable. If someone gets in a car and then proceeds to knowingly break the rules of the road, then there should be consequences. And enforcing that is possible, and practicable - but for some reason we currently decide not to in the vast majority of cases.

 

[Winot]

Four lives a year saved by 20mph limits

 

[snowy_again]

• The city (Bristol) has saved an estimated £15,256,309 a year thanks to lower casualty figures

so there's an economic argument too.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

We simply need fewer vehicles on the roads

This about sums it up....

 

[editor]

'SLOW DOWN, YOU SELFISH STUPID CUNT' would be the text I'd have on those flashing LED signs for speeding motorists, followed by instant tyre shredding if they fail to cut their speed within the next 500 yards.

 

[aka]

snippppp Generally people just need to stop acting like dicks.

Amen to that, and a chocolate eclair for everyone. I cycle, walk and drive up/down the 'hill' all the time. Here's a clue or two. Driver - expect the unexpected - Cyclist - don't burn at 35k down to the lights at Morleys and then have to jam it on - Pedestrians - if you walk out in between the buses and not on the crossing you may get smushed.

 

[shakespearegirl]

And the dick cyclist doing 35 miles an hour on the pavement by the town hall this morning should also have his tyres shredded

 

[editor]

The dull march of gentrification.

Small plates - tick
Cocktail bar - obvs
Expensive - c'est naturellement
Well backed owners - totes
Hefty PR guaranteeing it wins some award or another - most likely

Italian cafe and cocktail bar Cattivo coming to the rapidly gentrifying Ferndale Road in Brixton

 

[teuchter]

Why is it, whenever dangerous driving is mentioned, people are compelled to start talking about cyclist or pedestrian behaviour?

When we talk about, say, knife crime, no-one pops up saying "well yes, it's bad but let's not pick on people running around with knives when there's also people carrying umbrellas which they might hit someone with, and in the end it's just about people not being dicks, whatever they've got in their hand".

 

[CH1]

Why is it, whenever dangerous driving is mentioned, people are compelled to start talking about cyclist or pedestrian behaviour?

When we talk about, say, knife crime, no-one pops up saying "well yes, it's bad but let's not pick on people running around with knives when there's also people carrying umbrellas which they might hit someone with, and in the end it's just about people not being dicks, whatever they've got in their hand".

I can remember people raising the issue of cycling on pavements 25 years ago at the Police Consultative Group only to be ruled out of order because it is not genuinely antisocial behaviour.

I must say I've never been knocked down by a cyclist on the pavement but I've had a few close shaves - especially when they come up behind you and you are expected to have 110% hearing apparently as a pedestrian on the pavement.

 

[editor]

Well, this is depressing

 

[teuchter]

I can remember people raising the issue of cycling on pavements 25 years ago at the Police Consultative Group only to be ruled out of order because it is not genuinely antisocial behaviour.

I must say I've never been knocked down by a cyclist on the pavement but I've had a few close shaves - especially when they come up behind you and you are expected to have 110% hearing apparently as a pedestrian on the pavement.

To be clear, I absolutely don't think people should cycle at speed on pavements, and it's definitely anti-social. I'm not defending it. The point is, that there's a big difference in the damage that a bicycle and a motor vehicle can potentially do.

 

[ricbake]

Statistical perspective

but

 

[trabuquera]

^ was there not some sort of a legal/media flap some years back about (non police) people wearing anti-stab/ bulletproof clothing - that either it was illegal in itself, or that it could be used by police / in court as evidence of gang membership? Or am I misremembering that?

 

[editor]

Statistical perspective
View attachment 142174
but
View attachment 142176

View attachment 142175

Interesting stuff, but I'd love to see a graph showing the rise in bike use too to help make sense of those figures.

 

[editor]

^ was there not some sort of a legal/media flap some years back about (non police) people wearing anti-stab/ bulletproof clothing - that either it was illegal in itself, or that it could be used by police / in court as evidence of gang membership? Or am I misremembering that?

It would make sense. Who wants to live in a society where all the youth are wearing stab proof vests?

 

[teuchter]

2016:
23,000 pedestrian casualties .
5,000 pedestrians seriously injured.
26% of pedestrian casualties were under 15.
38% of children killed in RTAs were pedestrians.