first mate

Yes, if it is felt there has to be any sort of display it should be limited and properly controlled and low noise type only. This way those with vulnerable pets or other issues have time to plan and avoid. Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do like fireworks but think in this day and age, > the only acceptable display is where the public > are charged a notional sum to watch a public > display. Remembering when the children were young > we paid for tickets to see fireworks at Crystal > Palace park - It was something like ?10 for a > family group of 4.

ianr, suggest you read articles, as linked to in other posts, above. They explain implications/concerns better than I. ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > First Mate wrote on May 26, 05:48PM > > > It seems that unless you opt out > > you are giving over rather more > > than just anonymised data, your name, > > address, DOB. > > What's your source for your information that name, > address and DOB may be passed on? > > Does your "rather more than" refer to "just > anonymised data, your name, address, DOB"? If so, > what is the "more"?

I think, as exdulwicher has pointed out, you can support a principle in the abstract but be against forms of implementation. I think for many that is the case with these LTNs and the way the council is going about it. Likewise, because you support an idea the fact that you cannot proffer a perfect, ready made solution does not mean you are against its implementation in any shape or form. You can know what you don't want and be clear when something is not working, without simultaneously knowing the solution. If DA tries to focus on solutions at this juncture they know it will dilute the message to the council, which is to stop their bull in a china shop tactics and start proper, democratic consultation. The council is also extremely adept at divide and rule and myriad suggestions about 'what to do' would probably be like manna to them, a bit like their street by street consultation on CPZ (except for certain streets like Melbourne Grove).

Thanks Rockets for correcting the attempted slur on the motives of those against LTNs. It is really not helpful when the Council employs such underhand tactics in order to get the result they have pre-determined. I am also tired of reading how the mayoral elections are a clear mandate for LTNs. I think few had the appetite to strengthen the hand of the current Govt by voting in their reps and they are all frankly such liars we have no way of knowing they would have dismantled LTNs anyhow. But viewing a vote for Labour as mass mandating of LTNs. Nope.

Yes agree, but the Council trawl for views and opinions that(presumably)helps inform their decisions, only goes one way, in this instance.

Extraordinary waste of funds by our 'green' council desperate to save the planet. Wonder if the type they aim to purchase are low noise?

LTN BooHoo got the answer to their question, the latter dripping with judgement and condescension. A change of tone would help. LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Droid Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I really don?t know what all the fuss is > about > > - > > > the roads are only busy at rush hour like > they > > > have always been. Go down from 9:30am onwards > > and > > > it?s really quiet. Removing the LTNs won?t > > change > > > the rush hour jam one bit. > > > > > Sorry but it's not just rush hour. The > increased > > traffic congestion on Saturday & Sunday is > > horrendous on EDG, LL, DV, Croxted and Gove > Vale > > simply because:- > > 1. Locals use their cars for a weekly shop as > it's > > the only time they can reasonably do it if the > > work mid-week. > > 2. Most of the roads off EDG and the others are > > blocked. > > 3. People travel to socialise. > > > > Last Saturday, my neighbour took 40 minutes to > > travel from Grove Vale to Alleyns school. > > > > Your assessment is just so, so wrong. > > Ok I have to ask, I assume your neighbour was > driving from Grove Vale to Alleyns School, if so > why? Time poor? Au pair on the sick? Why would > anyone drive that short distance?

Why is it that on the cycle hangar commonplace map you can ask for a cycle hangar but as a resident on the same street you cannot object to it. Again, seems anyone can ask for hangars and state there is terrific demand without any proper analysis. Totally undemocratic.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/30/the-guardian-view-on-medical-records-nhs-data-grab-needs-explaining Think this deserves much greater scrutiny. NHS patient records are a data goldmine...It is stated patient records would not be used solely for commercial purposes. That says it all.

The chook's very obvious tactics- to hen peck posters into submission, so the thread and subject goes away- is best ignored.

Just went to the link and said it cannot be found?

alex-b, I agree that they need to check your identity but feel that could be qualified in the message, it isn't. I am probably way too cynical.

Plus, in very bad weather people will be less likely to cycle (especially with those hills at either end of ED) so a decent public transport system, with buses where we need them, is key; without that cannot see how any of this is ever going to work, not with our local terrain.

Reading the privacy notice a number of thing raises question marks, notably that an emergency (pandemic)supersedes elements of that notice...quite what that means not sure but would like to be clearer. It seems that unless you opt out you are giving over rather more than just anonymised data, your name, address, DOB. Data is held in the cloud in secure servers in the EEC. Again, not sure of implications of that. If you use the 119 service to book or change jabs a phone advisory seems to suggest you give permission to whoever is running that service (NHS subcontractor) to "access your health records". No doubt all intentions here are as pure as the driven snow with only the interests of health and social research and public interest at the heart.

That seems a bit rich, given the centre replaced a 'community' hospital. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Tessa Jowell supports a consortium of SE > London GP practices. If yours isn't one of them > you won't be asked there, I'm guessing.

I wonder if these instances of 'walking' and 'cycling' are included as evidence of LTN success? Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Re: school drops Court Lane is also a school car > park at drop-off and pick-up time but at least > they are walking the last 100 yards!!!

I do agree with this and wonder how much the Council is engaging with either sector? As a teacher our local Councillor is well placed to comment in more dtail.

Let's not try too hard to get this thread locked, though that does seem to be the intention of a certain forum 'cock'.

Thanks Fred. I also noted that in using the 119 service to book or change a vaccination you seem to give consent to the NHS subcontracted (private)company to access your health records. Does anyone know more about this?

This is a bit odd, almost every poster against LTNs seems to own a bike as well as a car and nearly all in favour seem to own a car as well as a bike. Go figure!

But rahrahrah, Surely even you must concede that an awful lot of people are getting caught in the crosshairs of this so called steady, incremental change. Indeed, they are being punished, accused of being lazy and entitled and simply not caring. Your tone has been pretty consistent all along but others seem all too ready to generally trash objections and those objecting, and seem incapable of acknowledging the flaws in the current state of affairs. Revolutions do not always work, the results can be very different from those envisaged by the 'revolutionaries' and not always for the better either. I'd really like to see some of the zealotry and wish lists replaced with an effort to really address practical realities and the detail.

I'd rather see spending on that than murals and the like, for sure.

Good luck but a great example of the sort of detail that is missed in the sledgehammer approach of LTNs, CPZ and seemingly deliberate, new camera traps.

Yes, but then many bike users say they still need to use a car? I don't think that is about laziness or not caring etc.. it is just the way the modern world has evolved over the last few centuries...in that things we may need or need to do, cannot always be done on just two wheels or by using public transport. On top of that, many will have made life choices- where they live, where and how they work, where they school their children, on the basis of being able to make some of those journeys by car. Expecting them to rip all that up overnight is unrealistic. Great if you are lucky enough to be able to but let's not punish those who cannot.

Sure, but you must admit something similar will be important if cycling is to replace a range of car journeys focussed on shopping, deliveries, taking family members from a to b, other everyday chores? I cannot see any of the activities Karim described as being really doable on ordinary bikes. There is no outright suggestion everyone should have or will need a cargo bike/ access to one, but examination of what you can realistically use to substitute for car journeys indicates this would be the case. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think anyone is suggesting that cargo > bikes are for everyone.