first mate

Get your local councillor involved; they should be very interested and want to help.

One wonders how fair the issue of meeting criteria is? Certainly those companies contracted to assess for PIP on behalf of DWP are seriously dodgy and deliberately skew or even lie at assessment in order to fail people. It is known that having gone through the horrendous process of PIP assessment and then being failed, a proportion of applicants will be too ?beaten? and scared to appeal. The hope is that the council is not going the same route. Sally Eva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blue badges are cancelled automatically if a > person loses entitlement to Personal Independence > Payment. The test for PIP is the ability to walk > 20m safely, reliably, repeatedly and in a > reasonable time. A reasonable time in this context > means not taking more than twice as long as a > non-disabled person. > > If your wife has lost PIP but should be entitled > to it under these rules, she should appeal or (if > she is out of time to appeal) should re-apply and > appeal any refusal. These decisions are overturned > more often than not and 70% are overturned with > assistance such as that provided by the CAB. > > Southwark will give a blue badge even if PIP is > refused, if she fulfills certain criteria. If you > feel that she fulfills the criteria but has been > wrongly refused, then you can appeal Southwark's > decision. You will need to provide evidence but > your wife's GP should be able to provide this.

Time to get a catapult!

The flatness of NL compared to UK is a major consideration and really makes comparison almost pointless. Also think people who are talking about 200km rides are showing how invested they are in cycling as a lifestyle and hobby they have chosen because they love it. This is very different from forcing people into something that feels not only alien and difficult but may also present real physical obstacles. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please please please stop using the Netherlands as > a great example. It is a great example of how > cycling can be integrated with other forms of road > use but it is also very, very different to the UK. > Fundamentally different. > > For a start Amsterdam, the biggest city has only > 800,000 people living in it and is very very > small.It is not a mega city, like London. > > The Netherlands is very very flat. So flat that > they were able to develop significant canal > networks that came with tow paths - you may have > noticed Amsterdam is famous for it's canals! Tow > paths lend themselves very nicely to cycle lanes. > > Much of the Netherlands was reclaimed in the 1920s > so is relatively new and don't rely on Victorian > infrastructure. > > Due to the flat nature of the country and tow > paths cycling has always been a big part of the > culture there. > > So please, show me a mega city that developed > significantly during Victorian times and built > along railways lines and tube lines and then I > might pay attention. But please, don't cite The > Netherlands as a comparable model to what could > happen here. It won't.

KK I agree, I am all for cycling if people are able to, but weary of the ?holier than thou? tone adopted by some dispensing their advice and wisdom on the subject. And you are absolutely right about the perceived suggestion that any car user is some kind of wilful, low level criminal, only continuing to drive a car because they are lazy and ill informed.

Pugwash, the cyclists should have dismounted and walked. Pedestrians and disabled must have priority at all times.

Actually I do think this is a useful service for those who want to cycle but are not confident.

Get a folding bike.

Ah, here we go again...the just move line. It?s is just so simple folks. And why is the council simultaneously pushing this and funding anti-car lobby groups while at the same time supporting massive and deeply unpopular planning applications that include a hike in car ownership and use? James_C Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is the entire point of these plans. Stop > driving in such a built up city ! If you want to > drive your car around then move somewhere car > friendly otherwise you're going to have to deal > with traffic. The vast majority of us do not drive > so why should such large amounts of our public > space (roads are public space) to geared towards > those who do ?

The cost in vet bills for a dog that cuts a paw on broken glass will vastly outweigh any ?50 fine for littering. The risks to children are also serious. People need to get a grip. It is not always someone else?s responsibility to do your dirty work. Take your rubbish home if the bins are full. Simple and as it should be. dontbesilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Surely it's quite simple - if you bring stuff > into > > a park, you should take it away with you, or, > if > > you're lucky, dispose of it in rubbish bins > > provided. If they are't, or they're full, then > > whatever you brought your 'not yet rubbish' in, > > can be used to take your, 'now it's rubbish' > away > > with you. At a time when public space is > > particularly vital (for those otherwise > sheltering > > in their homes) messing it up for other people > is > > unforgivable. I wonder if 'spot' ?50 or ?100 > fines > > might help sharpen minds? > > > > Enjoy public parks of course, eat or drink > there, > > of course; but only if you're prepared to treat > > them properly and with respect. > > > I have once been given a fine by some kind of > civil enforcement officer for taking a piss in a > park in Hackney. > > > The park was on route to another park that was > hosting a music festival, and there were no > provided toilets anywhere, so after a long tube > journey i found a discreet spot in a park to do my > business. Some fluro jacketed loser comes riding > up to me on a mountain bike and dishes out a > ticket- i'd have told them to do one had this > brave person not worn a body camera, and i was > carrying shall we say 'medication' to take at the > festival, so did not want the Police getting > involved. > > Hackney must be very pleased with themselves that > day as no doubt they milked plenty of people for > ?50 on account of them not being able to provide > public toilets. I wonder did these wardens dish > out fines every time a dog took a piss in that > park? > > I'd be very annoyed if Southwark or our > neighbouring boroughs started behaving in this > manner, whether its due to littering or public > urination.

I second this point and question. In light of the decision on the Alleyn?s planning application this is not a good look for a Labour council pursuing an anti pollution, green, lower car use agenda. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > An overseas property company who treated the areas > with absolute disdain when they tried to trade > mark the name Dulwich Hamlet Football in order to > stop the club using it. They've behaved so, so > badly. And yet they're allowed to put up tower > blocks on metropolitan open land. > > @James - can you clarify how many extra cars are > being added please.

Shocking decision especially when considered in context of Southwark?s oh so green Healthy Streets and anti pollution stance.

Couldn?t agree more. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suspect the residents who feel they have been > ignored by the council are pulling out all the > stops to get as much support as possible for their > group (which is not pro-car they just want a more > balanced approach to council decision making that > impact all residents in Dulwich). > > One Dulwich have been very public in their request > for people with relevant skills to offer their > services to them so I suspect they have been > deploying those skills when people volunteer their > services. > > One Dulwich are now heading up towards 1,000 > registered - the momentum is gathering pace, just > look at the map of Dulwich where people have > registered - it's pretty compelling. > https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters > > By the looks of the amount of active One Dulwich > de-positioning going on those who have had the > exclusive ear of the council for so long are > getting worried that the playing field is getting > levelled.......

Long time since I have been there but it always used to have a market at the weekend and I do not recall it being a busy street in terms of traffic. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also, i am not sure what point people are trying > to make here about the Northcote Road weekend > closures as all the closures around Dulwich aren?t > designed to create more space for shoppers > visiting high streets - our councillors have done > diddly squat to assist social distancing on > Lordship Lane bar the token gesture outside > Oddonos, which came far too late. > > Also, the Northcote Road closures are weekend only > probably as the council realises closing key > routes there would be disastrous for the > surrounding roads. > > Once again, the pro-cycle, reclaim the streets > lobby scream look, look, look at what they have > done and when you scratch beneath the surface you > realise it makes what is happening around here > look even more non-sensical.

Where have you found out about these plans from? rollflick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With Islington and neighbouring Bromley this week > being in the top ten councils seeing a spike in > COVID cases nationally, and Lambeth also having a > significant increase, closing Rye Lane was clearly > the right decision to help prevent an increase in > Southwark. > > Before lockdown, 40% of the vehicular traffic on > Rye Lane was pedal cycles. Sure it's more than > 2500 per day now and this will only increase with > more filters going in this week, e.g. Bishopsgate > and Walworth. > https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/8 > 6015 > > Telling everyone on two wheels to walk isn't going > to walk on a major cycle route, you'd need police > every 100m. In the short term Southwark should > burn off the yellow lines etc. to reduce the > perception of the kerb and then mark a 4.5m strip > down the middle as a cycle track. That would make > things simpler and clearer than everyone going > everywhere. There's also a massive need for cycle > parking to encourage all those people cycling to > stop and spend, especially around Choumert Road > and either side of the station. > > Next Southwark is planning to make Peckham Rye > east side (the bit by the Rye pub) cycle & bus > only, with access for residents. Maybe the > Consort/Copeland Road junction could be made into > a mini-roundabout, allowing just cycle & bus > access into Copeland Road, so there's a stop > closer to the station.

More and more broken glass everywhere too. In the park, on the roads, on the pavements. What on earth are people doing, learning to juggle with glass bottles? The glass is deadly for animals and also dangerous for pedestrians. Cyclists will also suffer. What can be done to curb the increase?

I think that if this is what you want for your children then living in London is not realistic. I just don?t see how the city can properly function if road closures are pervasive. Those who do not have access to a car will have to a degree planned for, adapted and developed their living patterns over a number of years, lack of a car will probably have informed work choices as well as other key aspects of survival. The sudden, extensive road closures are forcing some into impossible situations, with no time to plan or adapt. To what extent do you think children will be able to safely walk and cycle in the dark winter months? Safety is not just a matter of removing motorised transport from the roads is it? What about street crime? No doubt bikes, especially e-bikes etc.. will become increasingly desirable items and those using them potentially vulnerable. Those walking are even easier targets. These issues also apply to the elderly.

Sillywoman, so glad you have spoken out and so sad you are being hit in this way, especially as you perform such a valuable community role. I have to say that some of the myopic, cycling lobbyists on here are of the view that moving is exactly what you should do. The other point is the poster you replied to says ?sometimes we need to look beyond our own needs? failing to see that for him/her driving was not a ?need? it was a preference. What you describe is a genuine need. The problem with these interventions is that those with genuine need are being sacrificed in favour of those who can make changes based on preference.

Having seen how some people cycle I would not be surprised if there are some nasty accidents, if we get to a point where lots of people start to cycle. As with all vehicles, there will be speed freaks who enjoy a bit of high risk weaving around people and other cyclists.

If roads are being made vehicle free to facilitate social distancing then pedestrians must have priority on the roads. Perhaps cyclists should be forced to dismount and walk through areas like this. KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep cyclists are happy to let you know it?s > ?their? road now, only the pavement bit is for > pedestrians as far as they are concerned ! Not a > sense of shared space.

Onedulwich is a start. What we really need is a council and councillors that properly listen and engage in an even handed way instead of the slippery and divisive methods they seem to prefer. The way they have approached all this has been far from helpful and I think a lot of trust and hope has been lost in the middle ground- the ordinary resident who just wants an infrastructure that is stable and works. Instead, we have utterly loaded and opaque processes and one ?experimental? intervention after another, with zero accountability.

Indeed, but they may need to use the bus. I cannot imagine many carers will be cycling or walking to their work? My issue with all of this is it feels like let?s just try to force people out of their cars but not put too much real thought or planning into it. The impact on some will be to cause huge amounts of stress. As someone else said earlier, those who have been driving road closures have the luxury of setting their terms, for them walking or cycling everywhere is not going to cause much of a problem. Others who may not have driven closures but actively support them still wish to hold into a car because they know that realistically they cannot completely do without one. For them the situation is bearable and supportable because they presumably are able to walk and cycle most of the time. These groups are driving what suits them best and will enhance their lives, without much consideration for those who are not in the same privileged position and who really do need to drive in order to work or to support a loved one. Anyway, time will tell. If it all works out for the best I will be the first to admit I got it all wrong, but I am far from convinced.

If the main issue is local residents needlessly using cars then we should expect to see massive gains very soon. However, if the main issue is through traffic then things may get very much worse as traffic becomes concentrated along a few routes and, yes, I do then wonder what happens in emergency situations and to bus services? Through traffic suggests journeys that are not local and are to some degree necessary. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... so there is no practical alternative to the > car? What any of the time, in any situation? But > you are definitely supportive of healthy streets > 🤔