jimlad48

MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sally Eva, > to ask people to record a provisional alternative > choice is totally reasonable, with the option to > say 'no, I will not change my mind' > > That is not what jimlad has reported and is > justifying. > > Jimlad, can you provide the actual quote, to > support your statement? While streets such as Denman Road and Talfourd Road were against the implementation of a parking zone, it would be irresponsible to leave these streets out because these roads would then experience the displacement of commuters and even higher demand for parking spaces. It is anticipated that within a year these roads would require a parking zone. Page 18 of the report - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/2448/PDF%204_Peckham%20Road%20South%20report.pdf

MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "In the toastrack consultation it was noted that a > couple of streets had said no, but the judgement > was they would quickly request to be added to the > CPZ once the wider zone was activated." > > jimlad, that's outrageous. Not really - more based on long established evidence that where small number of streets, particularly those which in this case were then surrounded by CPZ remained free parking, the pressure became overwhelming and residents would lose the ability to park - hence repeated petitions after the event for another go.

The reason why some areas get CPZ even if they voted against it is the realisation that the parking pressure on those areas would soon become intolerable. In the toastrack consultation it was noted that a couple of streets had said no, but the judgement was they would quickly request to be added to the CPZ once the wider zone was activated. The manner that commuters shift to new areas is fascinating, and they do displace when a CPZ comes in. There is a chain reaction and you would be surprised how far some walk to ensure they can drive/park for commuting -the cost of driving in is always cheaper than trains in from Kent or elsewhere.

In the toastrack consultation, one local educational site warned parents that it would face closure if staff couldnt park. Today it is still open and succesful. Its hard to take this hysteria seriously.

. The idea that restaurants will close is nonsensical. CPZ usually close by 6.30pm, hardly likely to defer business. The CPZ deters commuters, not locals. If you live locally you wont chabge your activity pattern. If you commute then you are unlikely to contribute much anyway beyond parking. If you are a visitor who can afford to go out for coffee or food then you can afford to pay to park too.

The 'you won't have anywhere to park' line is utter rubbish.The toastrack CPZ has been in operation for 18 months and there is a consistent huge increase in parking spaces relative to what was before. Southwark have significant evidence to show a 40% drop in parking levels post CPZ implementation which carries on the for the long haul. CPZ implementation makes a massive difference to freeing up spaces in the area. If you look at the provision of spaces to residences, the CPZ pack will usually break down how many car parking spaces there are versus how many houses exist. Its really clear that there is more than ample space for residents to park, so the only way this is changing is if residents start buying lots and lots of new cars. I've heard a lot of utter rubbish about CPZ, such as the idea its a tax - which it isn't, they are mandated by law to spend the money raised on parking, and if you have evidence to the contrary then I strongly recommend you contact the Police. The 'no space will be there' is just utterly untrue without a shred of credible evidence to support this assertion.

Eileen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This message is for people who live in Nutbrook > Street - what do you think of the proposals for > our street? > I frequently can't find a place to park in the > evenings long after a CPZ would have ended. Could > this CPZ solve that? > > To anyone else - do you have any experience of > CPZ's solving car parking scarcity after 6.30pm? Our street had similar problems on the toastrack due to commuter parking. Once the CPZ came in, we found that the cars were gone in the day and there were no problems parking day or night.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I believe everyone has a responsibility to use > the > > road in an appropriate manner. Drivers should > > exercise due caution, pedestrians should not > > dawdle or walk out unexpectedly, and cyclists > > should not jump red lights or ride on > pavements. > > No one would disagree > > > My unscientific observation is that many > cyclists > > when politely challenged on clearly breaking > these > > rules become exceptionally aggressive and > > offensive from the off, even though they are > > utterly in the wrong. > > This is not my experience. I have seen plenty of > 'road rage' drivers. It is probably more often > that cyclists are confronted about their > behaviour, simply because they are not sealed off > in a car. Clearly it is wrong to behave > aggressively however one is being transported. > > I just don't get the point in these types of > threads. Clearly no one is going to defend > criminally irresponsible behaviour, but how often > do we see cars tearing down the road at speed, or > accelerating through red lights? We don't think > 'bloody car drivers', we think 'what an idiot'. > Why with bikes, uniquely, do we associate the > transgression with the mode of transport? Last week I was told in blunt terms 'go and have sex with myself' three times by cyclists when I pointed out to them that they were riding on the pavement. The reason it seems to be cyclists targeted is because uniquely among road users, they can make effective use of both roads and pavements. I don't see cars driving on pavements, and I rarely see pedestrians using the road. The simple fact is that all road users can and do use it irresponsibly. However, as a pedestrian the worst behaviour I see repeatedly comes from cyclists - I have been threatened and abused repeatedly for politely pointing out that people are riding on pavements or throguh red lights towards me. By all means mention drivers, but the problem i have with cyclists is the mentality which is 'well drivers do it too so lets blame them as well', not 'we need to put our house in order, lets accept blame and improve and hope others do so as well'. A bit of humility, less arrogance and a lot less aggression towards other road users would be appreciated. Said as a non car or bike owning pedestrian fed up of nearly being run over by bikes.

I believe everyone has a responsibility to use the road in an appropriate manner. Drivers should exercise due caution, pedestrians should not dawdle or walk out unexpectedly, and cyclists should not jump red lights or ride on pavements. My unscientific observation is that many cyclists when politely challenged on clearly breaking these rules become exceptionally aggressive and offensive from the off, even though they are utterly in the wrong. There is no reason, or excuse to jump a red light or ride on the pavement - full stop, end of discussion. The other day, I must confess to shouting at a cyclist that I thought he was a complete wanker - which is very unusual for me to swear at a cyclist. The reason why was I watched him cycle straight through a red light in Camberwell, on a complex four way junction involving multiple red lights where it is 'blind' - e.g due to the staggered layout, high walls and intervening terrain, you cannot see what the other road users are up to, and it is not possible to see the other lights or what colour they are. He rode straight into traffic, with a young child on the back of his bike without a helmet on. It was low light, he had no reflective gear on and any cars coming would not have seen him until it was too late. This is criminally irresponsible behaviour that put his child at risk for no reason. Why was it so important for him not to wait a minute to ensure he could cycle safely, rather than risk his childs life?

?125 cost has been frozen for years and it last 10 years has gone up a total of ?5 I am going to sound harsh too and say that if you can afford to run, maintain and unsure 3 cars in london, theb you should be able to find an extra ?125 each.

Its fascinating to see the same arguments emerge on both sides. Having gone through a CPZ campaign where our street was a commuter dumping ground during the week, its clear the same problems exist elsewhere. What I will say is, nearly 18 months into our CPZ, is that I've never seen it quieter down our roads. There are spaces all over the place, there is pay and display parking (rarely used) and everyone I've spoken to has commented on how much better the parking is. It won't solve all your problems, but it will make it a lot easier. I walked through a large chunk of the DKH zone today during rush hour, and was impressed at how its gone from being super busy to being very quiet, with spaces all over the place - this is an 11-1pm zone that people worried would still be busy. In fact once the commuters leave when a CPZ is introduced, it gets a lot quieter very quickly. A key fact to remember - firstly pay and display parking is also usable by Residents with a permit- so locals are not deprived of a space when those bays come into use. Instead they are still available for you at no extra cost. I keep hearing the claim that there are more resident cars than spaces. This is a lie plain and simple. Our CPZ saw road parking spaces increase by about 40% on a daily basis, which is line with Southwark experience. Anyone that tells you that a CPZ takes away spaces for residents is stretching the truth, and there is zero evidence to support this charge. It is a charge often levied here without a shred of substantiated evidence. Every CPZ that I have seen come in locally has produced quieter safer roads - traffic use decreases, parking space increases despite perception of fewer spaces. The only time toastrsck gets busy now is weekend when people come for weddings or shift work at Kings. Please donr forget Southwark have studied this closely over the years. Their data is clear that there will be at least a 40% drop in road use in your area as a result of a CPZ. This is based on all CPZ experiences to date. Unless you lose 41% of parking spaces, you will have more spaces than cars.

There is a persistent issue with commuters driving in to access London stations - when the Toastrack got its CPZ, the parking uptake dropped overnight. There was a lot of evidence of people driving in from Kent or beyond (source - Council published comments received on consultation by people confirming they did this) to use the streets to park, prior to taking train/bus. ED is likely to be similar - its hard to imagine though that the shops on Lordship Lane will collapse if a CPZ is put in. How much of their trade is really reliant on people who come solely by car to shop? I suspect probably not much at all. Even if a CPZ goes in, there will still be plenty of 'pay to park' spaces available (as per all other CPZ too).

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The better solution is to spend money and > create > > an extra exit. Until that point, I don't plan > to > > spend extra time stuck in DMK because the > railway > > can't be bothered to spend money. > > Yes of course it is, and that should be done. Two > points though: firstly, as noted above, this > system will at most cost you an extra twenty > seconds (you possibly may even get in and out of > the station quicker as the flow improves, who > knows); secondly, if you push against the flow of > pedestrians, you are risking causing a serious > fall on the stairs (more so as your presence will > be unexpected) resulting in potentially > life-threatening injuries. I've always thought > your posts showed you as a sensible and amiable > sort of a cove, I'm quite flabbergasted by this > attitude that for the sake of a few seconds > (literally) off your transit time you're prepared > to put others at risk. Please don't. Leave > home/work ten seconds earlier and act responsibly > instead. Sorry, I should have been clearer - typing in hurry. If it is clear there is enormous flow, or my carriage is next to other steps, thats fine. But if station is dead quiet, or normal use and I am next to the steps - I am not going to inconvenience myself for the sake of poor funding of the station. There is a wider issue too about use of FCB coffee, as essentially its now blocked off to everyone leaving the station unless they want to walk in a big circle - not sensible or optimal.

The better solution is to spend money and create an extra exit. Until that point, I don't plan to spend extra time stuck in DMK because the railway can't be bothered to spend money.

How do they propose to police said one way system? LAst time they tried it failed in a couple of days. I personally plan to ignore it on the grounds that I don't wish to be massively inconvenienced and I suspect most regular users feel the same. I predict a spectacular failure.

Its worth noting that if you have a 'pay and display' bay in your street, and you have a permit, you can park in these bays. They are intended for use by both residents and visitors - but there is nothing to stop you parking in them if you want without charge.

The pay and display bays are a small number of the overall bays (e.g. most streets will have a couple). There is a maximum stay per vehicle of about 4 hours per day usually. you cannot park all day. We went to a CPZ last year and overnight went from being a drastically overcrowded area to a street where parking utilisation is rarely more than 50-60% of the spaces available. The only time we see pressure is at the weekend when the restrictions dont apply - funny that! Stand by for your parking life to become unbelievably better soon.

He was at Denmark Hill station last night and this morning just before the junction with grove lane, where the path narrows and there is a sculpture. His bike was upended, and he sat there with identical knee wounds on both occasions. Description was mid 40 something, grey beard, foreign (guessing central/eastern european)accent. Got very verbally aggressive when I challenged him this morning loudly saying he'd been there last night and that he is a con artist. But, within 5 minutes of being challenged he'd packed up and moved off. If I see him again I'll get a picture and report it to police - without doubt a con trick.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > stop clutching your pearls and making a drama out > of it. You made a provocative and antagonistic > statement with the intention of getting a > response. Do not be surprised if the response is > not what you expected You just accused me of supporting the mass murder of innocent men, women and children because I said that I didnt like PR as it stood now, and would welcome redevelopment. You could have said 'I'm sorry for slandering you, that was a bit of an overreaction'. Instead you've doubled down. Again, please could you delete and withdraw your above comment - I believe it is a despicable means of attacking someone by suggesting that their support for urban redevelopment equates to their supporting the mass murder of men, women and children. Please withdraw your statement.

Agree this place is full of people going out of their way to be offensive. One poster has just accused me of endorsing ethnic cleansing because I happen to support the redevelopment of Peckham Rye station. I cannot begin to describe just how offensive I find such a statement.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > To be honest I can't wait for the work to begin > - > > PR lane is a dump full of squalid shops selling > > cheap nasty tat. The sooner its replaced by > > something that doesnt feel like a dystopian > > fantasy novel the better. > > > heavy handed CPZs and ethnic cleansing seems to be > your thang. You really are a charmer Ethnic Cleansing? I'm sorry, I don't often feel the need to get irate, but equating urban redevelopment with the intentional identification and mass murder of one group of people by another isn't just in bad taste, it is exceptionally offensive. Similarly, my support of the democratic process to see CPZ implemented where the democratic majority of voters choose to do so has nothing to do with this thread. What an extremely offensive and unpleasant post which adds nothing to the debate, and seems intended to be as offensive as possible about the poster. I have reported you to site admin as a result.

To be honest I can't wait for the work to begin - PR lane is a dump full of squalid shops selling cheap nasty tat. The sooner its replaced by something that doesnt feel like a dystopian fantasy novel the better.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jimlad48 Is there anything in particular he has > written > you believe has no substance or is it everything > he has written you feel is odd. It may seem over > analysing to you, i can understand you thinking > this, as your view is very clear cut. For myself > it feels naturally to look at other view points, > especially the long history our government have of > withholding or giving wrong information. His obsession with Israel for starters. I'm afraid if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck then its usually a duck...

Craig Murray is someone who is definitely well into tinfoil hat territory. A good man now pushing odd ideas. I don't rate him at all as fundamentally there is nothing untoward here. The Russians have a long history of doing this stuff, its a material only they have, a man only they would want dead and so its easy to realise it is Russia and not the butler with the lead piping. A lot of people are over analysing what is an astonishingly clear cut case.

Southwark are totally different. Go to website, enter visitor registration and date of visit, confirm this is the right car, click okay, and the car is fine to park in the CPZ for the entire day. The stories of paper nightmares are all history, its done online or by phone. I am not quite sure see how 30 seconds of typing a date and reg number to give your visitor all day parking and the ability to park locally and not spend hours failing to find a space is 'hell'.