Jump to content

Andrew1011

Member
  • Posts

    198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andrew1011

  1. Peckhamnearbe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seems the lad killed was an innocent bystander - > it could have been anyone of us: This young man's father is an ex-volunteer at a place near Elephant & Castle where I volunteer and the two people I work with there know him well. He came in yesterday to see them and they hadn't previously registered that it was his son, who they'd also known when he was younger, who'd been killed. His father is understandably devastated and bereft. I had been out and arrived back just after he'd left to find my volunteer colleagues distraught and in tears. It's incredibly sad and a tragic and senseless waste of a young life.
  2. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you might be aiming that at me. If so, you > have me wrong. I'm not doubting anything, just > trying to address the balance. If the cap fits, etc. This is a thread about a local disabled person having been abused. It's not about addressing the balance, even if 'balance' actually needed to be addressed or restored here. > I promise you, I know a bit about disabilities. Clearly not as much as you think you do, especially if you didn't know that harassment of and hate crimes against disabled people are rising. The fact that there are people "are very kind and helpful" to disabled people doesn't really help the victims or detract from the fact there's a number who aren't. The fact is that there is an increasing number of disabled people who are victims of disability related harassment or hate crime. Anyway, I'm not going to detract any more from the serious issue raised by the OP of this thread raised or engage in a pretty worthless 'more people are nice to disabled people than harass them' type debate.
  3. Snowy, thanks for the further information. Unfortunately there will always be the proportion who doubt that something is happening when it patently is, or who dress their doubt up as interest in getting more information which they can then minimise. Have a good holiday.
  4. bonaome Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I've never heard of one being removed once > instated. > I've never known one not expand, once instated. I think an example has already been given somewhere on this thread.
  5. > > BrandNewGuy Wrote: > > > Really? I'm confused. You're saying that even if > there's no evidence that the CPZ would improve the > situation, you'd still be in favour of it? You clearly are are confused because that's not what I said. I am clear from my own experience there is a problem with parking, particularly by commuters, in the road where I live which is within the proposed CPZ area. I also suspect that the people living here also feel the same. Hard evidence and proving beyond doubt to others is not required in advance of a trial period. The trial itself will provide the hard evidence for or against a permanent CPZ.
  6. BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Proponents of the CPZ need to show why it would be > better than the status quo. They've failed in that > so far, as this thread testifies. If by proponents you means the people who live in the proposed CPZ area who are directly affected they clear don't need to show in terms of the decision making process why something would be better than the status quo. I'm generally in favour of a trial period of a CPZ which operates between 12 and 2pm and nothing I've read on this thread has in any way persuaded me to change from that view.
  7. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm really sorry the council has been cr*p on > thris. They'll blame the contractors, and probably rightly so to some extent. The Traffic Order notice I had left on my car at the beginning of these works applied to works undertaken in the Goodrich Road area in October 2010. When I queried it they attributed the problem to a mistake in the notice template they'd used. However, that didn't ring true given that the information in the notice about the site of the works and the effective dates was actually hand written.
  8. snowy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > there has > > recently been a marked increase in hate > > related harassment and crime towards > > disabled people in the last couple of years, > > > > Can you provide any links to articles about > this, > > I am interested. I've not heard anything like > > this. > > http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/the-hate-crime-dos > sier > http://www.disabilityhatecrime.org.uk/ > > Along with the growing trend of defining disabled > people as 'scroungers' etc. > > Not London specific, but there are national > programmes in NI & Wales to tackle crime targeting > disabled people: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14884754 > > And Be Safe Stay Safe in NI. > > The Scope report here; > http://www.scope.org.uk/news/paralympics-attitudes > -survey cites > > 47% said people?s attitudes towards them have got > worse over the past year (May 2011: 37%) > 66% of disabled people say that they have > experienced aggression, hostility or name calling > (May 2011: 41%) Snowy, thank you for posting a very full and good response to Otta's question and including the requested links. I'd not seen the question as I've not been online for a couple of days due to the unpredictable and debilitating effects of my own disability.
  9. Mark, thanks for drawing attention here to this abhorrent behaviour towards a disabled person. However, there has recently been a marked increase in hate related harassment and crime towards disabled people in the last couple of years, and it has to be stopped. I suggest that you also contact the Southwark safer neighbourhoods teams on 020 7525 5777 or by email at [email protected] to report this. It's also perfectly understandable in the circumstances that you should refer to the perpetrators as 'morons' and it seems to divert from the issue of harassment of the disabled person to pick you up on it.
  10. Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are ordinary residents allowed to(not that they > should have to) or do the experts have to be > called in? I've often just washed an offending deposit left outside my house into the gutter with water and disinfectant. I don't know if that's entirely legal but it seemed much better than leaving it on the footpath, and I'm certainly not tempted to pick it up.
  11. It's Big Society, you have to do it yourself (and remove it).
  12. kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's about to have its fair share of 'road > design-related' accidents, like that VW Polo that > struck the poorly-located centre bollard a few > weeks ago. Of course every eventuality can't be covered, such as with the car that struck those poorly located houses between Melbourne and Derwent Groves a few years ago demolishing their pillars and front walls. Or that badly situated tyre shop on the corner of Railway Terrace, the front of which was completely demolished by a vehicle one day in late June 20 odd years ago. As far as that centre bollard goes (which is actually a lamp post (albeit it wasn't lit at the time) on a new traffic island with two luminous 'keep left' signs on it, I find this makes turning right at that point less of a hair-raising experience and does prevent drivers overtaking on that bend or taking it so wide that they head straight for me at speed when I'm waiting in the right-turn filter lane.
  13. I haven't yet seen this yet, so can't comment on it or its size, but Grove Vale has its fair share of speeding related road accidents, including a fatal one within the last two years.
  14. Hi Emma, Are you just looking for people who are against for the Southwark News article, or will it also cover arguments from those living in the proposed area and elsewhere who like the idea of some kind of CPZ? You know, in the interests of balanced journalism.
  15. Oh, I nearly forgot to post this: http://www.southwarkcircle.org.uk/ It's not specific to ED but is probably a source for local connections in your specified age range.
  16. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is about revenue generation - the council saw > an opportunity (no doubt encouraged by James' > reporting of a groundswell of opinion in favour) > and are taking it. This is NOT, repeat NOT about > helping out local residents (although James may > have been motivated by that). I can confirm that there has been a genuine "groundswell of opinion" in most of the proposed CPZ area (certainly amongst the people I know here) about problem parking, including by commuters, from residents not being able to park their cars in their own streets. To be honest I'm surprised that the free parking around East Dulwich station has survived for as long as it has. I have my own views about how that problem could and should be solved but I simply can't agree that the council's only motivation is to raise revenue and not to assist local residents. Also, on the issue of Boris Johnson removing the Western congestion, now there's an example of a party politician playing to his constituency if ever there was one.
  17. What did the 55-65 year olds do where you lived previously?
  18. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Andrew1011, > I think what is proposed is probably the best > overall compromise in the circumstances. > But perhaps we need to check if your perception of > speeding is true. Once the speed humps are > reinstalled i'll ask if we can have a > traffic/speed count. James, I'm not sure which part of my posting you're referring to, but I don't think waiting until the speed humps are reinstalled is really the answer for the current problem. Two nights ago when trying to cross Melbourne Grove I was almost the victim of a driver who was racing from the direction of East Dulwich Grove, taking full advantage of both the lack of parked cars and speed ramps. However temporary, the arrangements have resulted in higher vehicle speeds and increased danger and they should have been better planned and organised to mitigate for that. If you're referring to the matter I raised with you personally about the width of the road on the blind bend in Melbourne Grove, which results in drivers dangerously accelerating into it between the speed humps, then I'm not sure a traffic/speed would necessarily help. The issue is about the width and layout of the road at that point and the consequent behaviour of drivers. A simple and low cost solution would be to have a broken white line in the road where it bends, and of the road width could be addressed with appropriately placed additional three hour (or other) parking bays where there are currently single yellow lines (these are no longer required since the re-routing of the 37 bus). Also, while not stating my position on the proposed CPZ, I note that this problem is not addressed at all in the circulated CPZ plan as it should have been, especially as council officers cite improved safety as one of the outcomes of such a scheme.
  19. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If a Labour > controlled council can raise revenues from wards > which are not wholeheartedly labour, why wouldn't > they? And why would they care if in doing so they > reduce the value and joy of living somewhere most > of their supporters don't. There's little point throwing around an almost certainly erroneous hypothesis about political motivations for imposing a CPZ in roads near ED station, especially as you may well find that the proposal for this CPZ has the support of at least one of the local ED (non-Labour) councillors. Have you seen any of the local Lib Dem councillors arguing against it?
  20. sophiesofa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For reference (and mini moan): > > 1 year permit ?125.00 - not cheap > 1 year business permit ?525.00 - I'm npt a local > business but why would theirs be over 4x more than > a residents? Presumably businesses will suffer as > it is as people may not be able to pop in > (depending on the cpz hours) as conveniently? > Visitor book ?16 for ten, one-day permits.(1st > book) > ?36 for ten, one-day permits (2nd + book per > year) > Average pay and display charge ?2.70 per hour I'm not justifying or condoning the cost of a business parking permit but I suggest companies like Foxtons (I know it's not in the zone), with its multiple cars, might be one reason.
  21. prickle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is also talk of allowing payment by mobile > phone which means that if the controlled time is > say 12 to 2pm, the commuter can just pay for this > by mobile from work?! This is a very good point.
  22. Sue Wrote: > Councils are having to really tighten their belts, > so the only real reason I can think of to spend > zillions of pounds on firework displays is to take > people's minds off the public services they are no > longer getting for their council tax :-S Public safety is a reason, as is the likely effect of reducing pressure on the fire and medical services. I'm in favour of money being spent on things that discourage individuals from buying and letting off their own fireworks.
  23. As I pointed out, there are examples of other roads in Southwark which are permanent bus routes and which have both speed humps and speed cushions. I've lived in Melbourne Grove for 25 years so have previous experience of house vibrations from much worse buses that we have in service now. I don't recall being consulted about what I and other residents would be prepared to accept in terms of temporary increased vibrations. I suspect this is actually about maintaining bus speeds, with the current consequence of increased car speeds too, and I would much rather the money spent on this temporary action had been used to put in place a permanent solution to drivers who speed into the bend in Melbourne Grove (an issue I mentioned to you at a recent meeting with residents).
  24. maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- As far as I know commercial advertising hoardings are subject to planning permission (I hope so, anyway). I've been concerned at the apparent proliferation of advertisements on walls in ED, and another new advertising board (for a taxi firm) appears to be on Zenoria Street at the junction with Lordship Lane.
  25. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd be surprised if anybody would park in Nutfield > Road to use ED Station. It's not particularly > close. > > Am I missing something? I suspect that joobjoob may be referring to the general displacement of non-resident parking that inevitably results from the introduction of a CPZ rather than specifically linking it to station user commuter parking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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