first mate

Rahrahrah, I think your emphasis is wrong. The priority should be to improve and invest in public transport. Cycling too but emphasis should be on the first.

You are not really answering my question though. We all get the theory but we also need to address the reality. Owing to very recent measures there has been a sharp, unprecedented, rise in traffic displacement onto main routes, causing a massive rise in congestion. One effect is to negatively impact those who do need to make urgent journeys as well as reduce access to emergency services. These impacts are very, very recent. Do you view the suffering of some as necessary to secure an ambition to reduce car ownership? Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes, but in the here and now, is it your > position > > that those with genuine urgent needs, as well > as > > requiring access to emergency services should, > > effectively, be sacrificed in the interests of > a > > long-term agenda to reduce car usage and > > ownership? Not forgetting that the overriding > > rationale of that agenda is to reduce pollution > to > > produce a healthier environment? > > You can't improve the lives of those with > "genuine, urgent needs" without getting rid of the > people whose journeys are not necessary. You could > make every road in London a dual carriageway and > there would still be traffic jams and pollution- > demand for free unrestricted road space is always > going to exceed supply in London. Everyone - > residents, businesses and travellers - is going to > have to change (and already is changing) the way > they get around and organise things to some > degree. That's not going to come without some > short term inconvenience and friction.

Yes, but in the here and now, is it your position that those with genuine urgent needs, as well as requiring access to emergency services should, effectively, be sacrificed in the interests of a long-term agenda to reduce car usage and ownership? Not forgetting that the overriding rationale of that agenda is to reduce pollution to produce a healthier environment?

Yet, some people will have urgent, necessary journeys. You?re view seems to be they should just accept this? What about emergency services?

And for anyone who has to make an urgent, necessary trip by car...they must be made to suffer too? Is there a way for emergency services to circumvent these jams? hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This! 👍 > > micromacromonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I have just driven down Grove Vale for the > first > > time since these restrictions were put in > place, > > from Quorn road right down to the harvester > > junction. Traffic is very slow and it was a > > frustrating experience. > > > > And that's great, because my journey was > totally > > unnecessary (one household member was in a > hurry > > thought it would be quicker to drive than > cycle). > > Hopefully all the other people in the traffic > will > > feel the same way and quit labouring under the > > misapprehension that they have a right to be > able > > to drive their car unimpeded wherever they like.

Good point but I am not convinced smoothing things is the aim.

Hi-lar-ious windup. Fireworks are soooo environmentally friendly. Shrieker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gadder Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dogs should be banned in London. They are an > > environmental catastrophe. The average dog has > the > > same carbon footprint as a range rover, on top > of > > the problems with theor owners failing to clean > up > > after them. > > Of course humans dont have a carbon footprint. > > Yep, and then people have the cheek to get angry > because others living nearby have fireworks as > part of a celebration and their precious dog gets > a bit scared.

?asked the council about them being moved today and it's to do with access for waste vehicles. Emergency services weren't mentioned?. Really, you couldn?t make it up!!

That sounds a nice idea and a heck of a lot better than mini golf.

Hmmm. What sort of timeframe does limited amount of time refer to? Months, years?

Yes, but look at where the bowling green in PRP is situated, right next to the Japanese Garden and opposite the Rose garden. It?s generally a quiet, tranquil space, round there. This might be changed with the introduction of a mini golf course. Don?t they tend to involve lots of primary colours and plastic? By all means have one, just not there. Perhaps a space closer to the cafe and children?s playground would be a more suitable position? I?d rather see that space given over to fitness and wellbeing of a quieter nature, things like yoga, meditation, tai-chi. People tend to go to that bit of the park for those pursuits anyway so it could be a good fit. Perhaps the NHS could get involved and offer physio and massage in the building.

Not mini golf though, please.

The closest shaves I?ve had on a bike have been with other cyclists, usually cycling much, much faster than me and sweeping past without warning. Very similar mentality to certain types of motorist, seeing an opportunity to overtake and going for the gap. I also remember one of the more vociferous pro cyclists who used to come on here (and once CPZ was forced through completely disappeared) did not want mobility vehicles in cycle lanes because he said they would slow cycling speeds (his cycling speed).

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > ------------------------------------------------- > > Anyway, is your conclusion > a) that traffic is so quiet that the council > didn't need to put in the DV closure at all and > there is no need for any further, phase 2 > measures? > or > b) that the high traffic volumes are very much > time limited (especially in the morning peak) so > timed restirction would deal with the problem? > > My own view is b. I have been cycling in to work > a few times over the last few weeks and around > 8.30 Dulwich Village is stationery with cars > backed up from the EDG junction as they try to > turn right. Not sure about teh afternoon peak, I > normally come back quite a bit later. > > So maybe we need just some kind of timed > restriction 7.30 - 9.00 am? It still leaves the > issue of where the displaced traffic will go to > but, hey, the councillor's don't care so why > should we. This!

Are you saying that the council want you to create an account but to do this you have to lower your browser security? If true that seems worthy of further investigation and councillors should be asked to pursue. It is probably an accident but you?d also want to try to rule out anything more sinister. Your friend should also get help of local councillor as her inability to access a permit may be viewed as discriminatory as in the technology makes it too difficult for someone With little understanding of websites etc.., which may become more likely as we get older.

Troll.

In fairness, eD generally does answer questions and no doubt will this one. slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > exDulwicher, It looks like you don't want to > answer my question about which roads the traffic > displaced by the OHS scheme would end up using. > Any reason why please?

Thanks Sally.

The cycle maintenance course could be very useful but appears to be based in Enfield and, unless I am mistaken, is subsidised by Southwark? Is there any way to mount a course within the borough. A course in Enfield, especially in the current climate, seems an odd choice.

Not in any way advocating or condoning this sort of action but would not be surprised if more of this occurs. When you read about break-ins and theft carried out in broad daylight with no police action, moving planters will probably be pretty low on the list. Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In another nearby borough I discovered today the > residents themselves have removed one of the new > planters blocking their road because they were so > fed of up all the new congestion caused by cars > trying to find alternative routes and endlessly u > turning. > > The implementation and outcome of these schemes > have been utterly woeful.

Gumshoe, thanks fir feedback. Were you referred in by an ED based GP?

Fantastic result and thanks to all concerned. With the sort of weather we have on its way you hate to think if any animal being lost.

Yes, you cannot assume the person she was seen with was her owner. So glad you took her to vet and not Dog Warden or RSPCA. If no owner identified Battersea or Dogs Trust would be better. She looks lively. Clearly a great temperament to allow herself to be handled by strangers.

https://doglost.co.uk/dog-blog.php?dogId=158805 A long shot, but please check this link. If stolen, the dog may have been taken a long way.

Can you take to vet to see if the dog is microchipped. Also post details on Dogs list as a dog found. There may be reports of a missing dog matching the description. It is great you are taking care of this dog.