redpost

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well we all know whose fault it will be if someone > is involved in an accident there. Yes, I agree fully. Only Wednesday did I witness a cyclist and yummy mummy politely sidestep each other causing her to spill her oat latte.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My partner who used to work for a homeless charity > commented on the benches on the square of shame > and Elsie Rd (not Melbourne..my mistake). The > design with an arm-rest bar off centre is there to > stop any cold, poor homeless people from sleeping > on them.. a bit like those spikes under bridges or > outside of very posh shops. Homelessness isn't a > crime...we are all only a few steps of bad luck > away from being homeless and I find this obvious > purchase of anti-homeless benches really sad. I agree, the legions of homeless folk around Dulwich Village will have to bed down in Gails doorway instead.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Upcoming cycle hangars and various double > yellow > > lines etc > > > > https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3771087 > > Ah the usual double-yellow line extension > pre-cursor to a CPZ review is in play (squeeze the > parking spaces to try and create parking stress to > get people to vote for a CPZ): > > > (n) add new or extends existing lengths of DYL 2m > (unless otherwise stated) in ATHENLAY ROAD, > BELLWOOD ROAD, BORLAND ROAD, DUNSTANS ROAD (3m), > ELCOT AVENUE, FELLBRIGG ROAD (4.5m), FRIERN ROAD, > GOODRICH ROAD, GROSVENOR PARK (1.5m), IVYDALE > ROAD, KELLY AVENUE, MELBOURNE GROVE, OVERHILL > ROAD, SHENLEY ROAD and in three locations on > UPLAND ROAD; No, to stop road deaths/injuries to pedestrians at junctions caused by inadequate sight lines and speeding drivers.

richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Speaking with a friend he told me that his son who > lives outside of london but has been coming > through DV for the past 8 days has just been > informed that he has been fined on every day. He > had no idea you could not go north. > > He said he did not see the signs and just followed > the flow of traffic. When he was told told he > looked and said it was impossible to see these > signs unless you were looking for them. > > So 8 days pay going to Southwark in fines to keep > Dulwich residents in their bubble of peace. > > Just how much is this scheme fleecing people? There are many idiot drivers who speed and drive dangerously, does he blindly follow them? Just tell him it's a new government tax on the inattentive, the signs are perfectly visible and easily comprehended if driver is fully engaged and concentrating. If he feels differently, then he has the right to fromally object and lie that he couldn't see the sign even though in truth he wasn't looking in the first place.

LTN's and the consultation process have been all over the TV news, print news, leaflets, shop windows, internets etc for the past year Just to make sure everyone is aware of the process, perhaps southwark should pay for a gorillagram to personally deliver the leaflet to every household in south London? Of course, you would then be the first to moan about the cost of consultation Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They have to do a better job of communicating with > everyone on this. We are all aware of the review > but many people have no clue it is going on and so > will not have an opportunity to give their input. > I suspect the council is more than happy with this > as they know this is going to become a numbers > game and if the weight of public opinion is > against them then it becomes more and more > difficult to justify. > > It's clear that everyone who lives on one of the > roads on the pulldown menus (but remember the > fight many of us had to put up to have our roads > added) should also receive the leaflet as a matter > of course.

Urgent message from Ministry of the Obvious: Perhaps they just took a wrong turn or got lost? That would explain the embarassed look

I don't understand, your petition says "...which is of a size so as not to require planning permission..." so I assume you have checked the rules and it passes permitted development?

Stop/start equipped cars have a bigger battery, special alternator and will disable the feature if the battery is too low. The feature may also be disabled if aircon is working hard, the engine isn't warmed up sufficiently or for a diesel the particulate trap is going through a cleaning cycle. So, if your stop/start isn't working then perhaps the LTN may not be the blame. However, most of the time it will be working and saving you money and peoples health. To support stop/start in a heavy SUV the battery is around 20kg heavier, yet another reason not to buy one.

"One of the major changes tothe PRS across London over the last 20 years has been the increase in rent. This has resulted in problems with residents being able to afford and access decent,affordable housing." Yes, and mandatory licensing is only going to increase rents from decent landlords. I'm a decent southwark landlord with an over compliant HMO (fire doors, fire alarm system, quick repairs, has a lounge and garden), I have to pay roughly ?1200 to comply every 3 years, this has gone mostly straight onto the rent. It has taken 20 emails and a year to get the southwark HMO license correctly sorted. Southwark haven't even bothered to visit the property. Rogue landlords with dangerous properties will just continue business as usual.

LTNs certainly stop rat-running by PHV on satnavs, so in this respect they are of great benefit Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fascinating data included in the latest Travel in > London report: > http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report- > 13.pdf. > > I have been concerned for some time that the > council had not done proper analysis of the > traffic types and have been too quick to throw in > roadblocks when they don't know what is causing > the issues. > > The report is fascinating and really challenges > some of the narratives around traffic in and cross > London and goes a long way to validate many who > think that vehicle journeys need to be analysed > better to determine type before initiating > measures. > > For example: > > Between 2010 and 2018 there has been a net > increase in traffic of 0.5% - not good of course > but you need to look into the supporting data (but > it's not the doomsday many of the pro-closure > lobbyists have been touting on social media in > terms of traffic increases in recent years). > > Car volumes have (comparing 2001/2018/19) declined > 38.3% crossing the central London cordon, declined > 14.9% crossing the inner cordon and increased 2.8% > crossing the boundary cordon. > > But, van traffic is up 9.7% crossing the inner > cordon and up 29% crossing the boundary cordon. > > HGV traffic is down 35.2% in central London, down > 10.1% in the inner cordon and down 2.9% on the > boundary cordon. > > Licensed taxis are down 13% from their peak in > 2013/2014. > > Licensed private hire vehicles are up 100% from > 2008/2009 and account for 29% of daily miles > volume in central London, 19% in inner London and > 8% in the boundary area. That's huge. > > This data goes a long way to show that the problem > in London is the increasing dependency of many on > home deliveries and people using PHVs to get > around the city - neither of which get resolved by > the current LTN measures. > > It is a huge report and the data within it is > fascinating and gives a very clear picture on what > is actually happening in terms of transportation > in the city - it also shows the positive increases > in cycling and walking over the years.

Your idea is certainly old fashioned and pretty disgusting TBH, that is justifying road deaths and injuries on the basis of driver frustration Wil72 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Traffic sitting in endless queues due to LTN's, > narrowed roads, ridiculously wide cycle & bus > lanes- spewing out more pollution than they would > be if they could just drive. > > It is no surprise that people are getting > irritated and there are more accidents. What ever > happened to designing roads so that people could > actually get somewhere on them? > > Or is that an old fashioned idea?...

Utter nonsense rockets and you know it, we discussed this ages ago I saw strips myself on EDG, Grove lane, dulwich village and LL plus various other roads They were replaced once after cutting, not sure what happened after that, but they were there for 2 months at least Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Unless and until Southwark measures pollution > on > > the roads it has pushed traffic into, and has > > sound measures 'before' as well, then we can > > assume that any figure quoted as to changes or > > improvements will be rubbish. So no changes > here, > > then. What I will expect to be told is that the > > measures have improved conditions for the roads > > which have been closed and then told 'job > done'. > > Given the council only put monitoring strips on > the roads that were closed when they initiated the > DV closures it is clear that was their initial > strategic approach...displacement was not even > considered....

@abe yes, but primarily to allow people to walk/cycle safely instead of using a car or public transport @malambu Compared to the 50's, it's very different pollution now and the emitters are a lot closer to us on the roads, therefore less dispersed and more harmful to human health. We have de-industrialised and outsourced almost all of our industral pollution to developing nations. But, since the 50's car ownership has steadily increased at around 2.7% a year, in absolute terms from 4 million vehicles in 1950 to 40 million vehicles now. Increases in efficiency are offset by larger heavier vehicles and more intensive usage now.

I think a national news paper may be interested? Email it to the various news desks

alien You can already sign up for local pollution alerts at the london air quality network However, it's wildly inaccurate because it's a very difficult problem ... testing stations costs ?100,000's, big running costs and frankly a more granular network won't give any more info than we already have because of weather/wind/rain/woodburners/industry So, we need to reduce our car usage ... that's the only thing that will work

alien there already is monitoring, monitoring station at catford on south circular: http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/basicgraphsseparate.asp?region=&site=LW1&sitename=Lewisham__Catford&period=30_day&graphdate=16/12/2020&species=O3 There's enough monitoring stations in london to tell us the air is bad and exceeds safety levels (although any pollution is damaging) And what would that advice be? move to the countryside?

just leave a message: "hope you enjoyed yesterdays milk, I used a hypodermic to inject my cats urine into it"

yes, uber are part of the problem, in my view not because they are so popular and have displaced night buses/minicabs/black cabs, but because they use satnav that routes them down side streets just like a lot of other private traffic. Let's not forget for those working nights/late or out at night, an uber is much safer than the nightbus, and for women probably safer than black cabs/mini cabs since you can share your journey progress and the app has an emergency button. I write this as someone who has seen plenty of unsavoury events on the nightbus.

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "It seems that this route is heavily used as a > rat > > run from Peckham High St down to the South > > Circular to avoid going all the way round to > > Consort Rd." > > > > Did someone really write this? > > In what way is it incorrect? The number of > coaches, HGVs, tipper trucks ubers and taxis > driving down Maxted Road are not coming from local > streets, they're cutting through the area. In fact > a month ago I chatted to an HGV driver who got > stuck on the corner of Maxted and Nutbrook as he > waited for the police to guide him out, he said > his company's route planning software recommended > this route of residential streets as a southbound > route. Need proper fines for this kind of HGV nonsense, there are proper routeplanners for HGVs and irregular loads, the AA do one for a start ... they just cost money to use that's all

sue, doing party wall works without an agreement in place my bad, not sure if it's actually illegal and the only way to stop the works without agreement is a potentially expensive injunction: https://www.peterbarry.co.uk/blog/what-to-do-when-your-neighbour-ignores-the-party-wall-act/ Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > redpost Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's actually illegal and you can get an urgent > > injunction to stop works. > > > What is illegal?

It's actually illegal and you can get an urgent injunction to stop works.

Read the report, it would be counted as 3 journeys because it is 3 journeys. Also note, the report is only about cycling and takes no account of people walking rather than driving. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also, was there anything to prevent those 300 > counted cycle journeys from being outbound and > return journeys? So, if someone cycled down Calton > Avenue, dropped their child at the school and then > cycled back is that counted as 1, 2 or 3 journeys?

Actually, your neighbour should be the one pushing for a statement of condition, without a statement of condition there is no proof that a defect wasn't present before the works started and you can press for compensation or repairs. I know this because my neighbour tried to stiff me for replastering some rooms and redecorating her house because of so called small movement cracks caused by some minor party wall works. The statement of condition had detailed photos on a DVD which proved they were present well before any party wall works started and I told them where to go stick it. You also have a choice of party wall surveyor and do not have to accept the use of their party wall surveyor, you can have a chat to your neighbour and use this as leverage since some of them are quite expensive...

Rockets, but your pictures are inflammatory hogwash. There is no context or metrics presented with the photo, just an un-timestamped picture and an accompanying rant about people not being able to drive their brum brums quickly because everyone in tooley street is secretly wearing lycra under their business attire. How long did it take to clear? when did it start? any accidents reported? Did you check the tfl traffic cams? https://www.tfljamcams.net/index.php?v=openstreetmap Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nigello Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rockets, I see that and I also see empty > stretches > > of LL, so neither shows a typical situation. It > > shows a snapshot, that's all. Every day feels > like > > a Friday because you maybe want it to because > it > > reinforces your viewpoint? (You also have a > car, > > so are, ipso facto, part of the problem even > > though you may not want to believe that.) > > > Nigello - you only want to see what you want to > see (same applies for me). My pictures are based > on what is happening and the nonsense some people > are spouting about this being because of the > Christmas tree sellers on the A205 is utter > hogwash - anyone who bothers to look will have > seen those queues have been there since the LTNs > went in and well before any Christmas trees were > being sold. You revel in images of proof there > isn't a problem yet attack those posting images > showing there is - you don't work for the council > do you? ;-) > > I am not even going to grace your accusation of me > being part of the problem with a response - it is > a childish, and frankly, ill-conceived attempt to > bait which really goes to show the problem those > who dare voice an opinion other than total support > for the closures face. Any second now I am sure > you'll pull the Daily Mail/Nigel Farage/Jeremy > Clarkson* accusation.......it's frankly tiresome > and goes to show how fanatical some of the > pro-closure cultists have become - incapable of > having any reasoned debate or acknowledge that > there might be another side of the story without > defaulting to attacks. It's doing your cause no > favours. > > *delete as applicable

Reasons to reduce car usage: 1) health of driver, not walking/cycling 2) health of people breathing pollution 3) people killed on roads 4) Co2 emissions 5) particulate pollution (brake pad dust, tyre dust) of the land from runoff 6) land usage dedicated to roadspace