rupert james

What a load of rubbish referred to Chadwick week being the quietest road not ratios or % beloved by Councils Please go knock on doors and ask residents views on traffic on a day to day basis you then might change your mind. It wont involve your beloved stats. As I have said 1 weeks figures are meaningless. To save you further posts, as usual you can accept victory and move on to other posts.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LynnB Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Any data based upon a small sample size > increases > > the chance the data are not accurate. > > Traffic data for one week is an example. A > larger > > sample would very likely give a more accurate > > value. > > Perfectly fair point (as opposed to someone just > saying "what a load of rubbish you don't live > here") - but the ratios would remain fairly > consistent, wouldn't they? So Southwark Cyclists' > assertion, angrily dismissed (not by you) that > traffic on Grove Hill Road remains 2.5x that on > Chadwick is still valid. Whether this validates > or invalidates the case for bridge closure or > reopening I really don't know, but the debate > isn't helped by people (again, not you) just > dismissing figures without offering any > alternative evidence. "Unlike you I happen to live on the road. I see what is happening every day. Perhaps you might like to get off your bike and knock on every residence and ask what the problem is. You might be surprised. Not only do we have vast amounts of traffic we also have no parking due to the recent implementing of the "toastrack" CPZ. I am sure there are figures that can be produced but they cover 1 week out of 52 or 1 week out of 26. Meaningless The real situation does not revolve around figures for week" Is this not what I said?

Unlike you I happen to live on the road. I see what is happening every day. Perhaps you might like to get off your bike and knock on every residence and ask what the problem is. You might be surprised. Not only do we have vast amounts of traffic we also have no parking due to the recent implementing of the "toastrack" CPZ. I am sure there are figures that can be produced but they cover 1 week out of 52 or 1 week out of 26. Meaningless The real situation does not revolve around figures for week

Southwark Cyclists have said "While Chadwick Road has seen the biggest increase, it is still one of the quietest residential streets in the area. Even with the closure reducing traffic on Grove Hill Road outside the Dog Kennel Hill primary school by a third, traffic levels remain 2.5 times higher than on Chadwick Road". What a load of rubbish. Perhaps Sally EvSouthwark Cyclists should try living on the Chadwick Road/Grove Park . Their minds would soon be changed.

Thank you appreciated

Silly question no doubt. What is the mot emission test for? Are they not the same thing as this T charge?

What if toastrack residents wanted to access McNiel Road? They would have to use Peckham Road or does the south end have a barrier they can open and shut?

It was about the closure of a newsagent that existed for 35 years and saying goodbye.

'As part of the new CPZ which is being introduced early next year there are plans to introduce pay and display bays along by where the health centre is" In response to another question relating to Chadwick Road/Grove Park this answer was given. This refers to the recent Dog Kennel Hill area consultation regarding CPZ's. It has only just closed and no decision has been announced or agreed at Community Council meetings nor have any results of the consultation been published It appears that Southwark already has decided and the consultation is no more than a sham. Does anyone know more? Another CPZ to add to the revenue flow for something that has not been asked for.

As a resident of one of the roads off Camberwell Grove I can confirm that traffic is heavier than it has ever been. I am sure other roads off, Grove Park, Mcneil Road, and Lydnhurst etc will confirm this. Rush hour brings jams frequently and arguments are common. Depends I guess when you use the road, we residents see the result all day of increased traffic flows. Agree Camberwell Grove for cycling has never been a problem.

Perhaps you should ask from the 18% turnout who was for and who was against. That would give you a better idea of how the decision was arrived at. From experience if 10 people vote for something, 6 for and 4 against southwark will say 60% were in favour and forget those against.

"It is the council?s responsibility to manage kerbside space. The council has a limit of three permits per address to ensure that there is enough kerbside space for everyone". Are people aware of this ruling? I was never consulted. Question. Large Victorian house 3 adult children and 2 parents. each has a car, as is the norm these days, what then?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rupert dear, you make a fool of yourself virtually > every time you post. Scroll back through your > history if you need examples. > > ETA: if you need a current example, I just said I > could never afford to live on Camberwell Grove. > You came back accusing me of saying you could > never afford to live on Camberwell Grove. Making > a fool of yourself, right there. Agreed the old eyes are not like they used to be but I can live with it

If only I was like you. I now know my place. Thank god. I realise now I can never be perfect. Do carry on with your posts. Rupert Dear, were you an ex actor before going into teaching? Don't reply. I will just read your postings on this forum and learn. Take care

When was I made a fool of. Please let me know

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quite right, by golly: nothing should ever be > changed, ever, ever, ever, because someone can > remember what it was like fifty years ago when > traffic conditions were utterly different. > Especially when they're a declared car lover and > cycle hater. I hold no brief for Camberwell Grove > residents, I'll never be able to afford to live > there, but the idea that you have better knowledge > of how traffic flow should be managed, simply by > virtue of your birthdate, is utterly risible. > > ETA "It was never a short cut but a major road and > always was from the time it was constructed." > Camberwell Grove came into being around 1770. The > majority of houses there were built before 1850. > Are you seriously claiming that horse and cart > traffic would deliberately choose to use such a > steep road when (and this is in fact what they > did) they could go round the flat route through > Peckham Rye? Laughable statement. How far would you like to go back?

No matter what anyone writes on here you always know better. How do you know I could not afford to buy now or before in Camberwell Grove? For your information I have many friends who live on Camberwell Grove. Traffic condition have not changed on Camberwell Grove. You do some times become a bore.

As a resident over 70 years I can assure that Camberwell Grove was always a major through route for traffic. It may not have had a tram route that was reserved for Denmark Hill up through Dog Kennel Hill. It did not need to 2 tram routes. Camberwell Grove has residential housing but it is not a cut through it takes traffic South to North and North to South. Perhaps long term residents know more than you? Would it not be wonderful for Camberwell Grove residents to shut it down and increase house prices. It has always been a major route please accept it.

Or better still crowd fund for a complete survey of the offending tree's position.

Just how many people in the Borough have actually heard of these plans. If you see pages of road names in the local papers do people read them to find out why they are there and then all respond, I think not. Amazing the time many plans come out they seem to appear when a major holiday is in the offing. Typical Southwark operating mode. Thanks Cllr Barber for opposing this.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichFox Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Used to use The Wishing Well occasionally back > in > > the day.. mainly to meet friends. > > .. but it was always a shite hole. > > One person's shitehole is another person's pub > with character, Fox. > > I liked The Wishing Well, but I can see why it had > to go. > > Not very keen on the Victoria Inn though. The old Prince Albert had character but now gone. Semi cloned version of the Victoria. That is what the locals now want, cannot fight progress as they say. Unfortunately the clients also seem to be the same.

It was never a short cut but a major road and always was from the time it was constructed. But some people will always liken the closure to the film Independence Day as mentioned before. Lambs gambolling in the fields and cows eating the grass, then came the spaceship. Was not like this when I bought.

As people have pointed out at the last meeting held regarding this bridge, British Rail, Southwark etc all agreed that it would be replaced. If people can remember it was at the same time as the Borough had its new bridge swung in. It was mentioned that this could be done. Agree residents on Camberwell Grove will do all they can to stop the Grove opening. Their last wheeze was having a Toll gate like Dulwich. It was laughed out of court.

When non disclosure agreements are used it might be the fact that they are offering to people a sum of money that is large in relation to their everyday experience of money. This is starting to look very suspect. Perhaps Harriet Harman and the local Cllr might like to comment.

Thanks