tomchance

Medley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James Barber Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The Cycle Superhighways are as good as TfL will > > fund and where council roads as the council > > insists. > > No real idea what this means but the cycle > superhighways are monstrously expensive, often > badly designed and at the expense of the existing, > far wider network. Cycle Superhighways are paid for by TfL out of a separate budget to money that goes to councils to pay for their Local Implementation Plans. The wider network (the London Cycle Network) is these days paid for exclusively out of those LIP budgets. TfL used to give councils money specifically for the LCN, but Boris scrapped that when he got into City Hall. So from the Boris moment onwards, Cycle Superhighways are not at the expense of the other cycle infrastructure. Southwark council pays for that separately, and they shouldn't be diverting LCN money into CSH schemes. On the expense, they're not that much more pricey than any other cycle route. It's expensive to re-engineer road junctions to improve things for cyclists, full stop.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some great little London Cycling Campaign videos > here about how to lock your bike: > http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1818 Every cyclist should watch this video, it's amazing really that crap locks are sold. After watching the video it's also no surprise so many bikes get stolen from public places when you see how badly they've been locked up.

The Lane SNT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This stretch of road is still a "one way street" > for both vehicles and cycles despite the road > markings. Until such time as the relevant signs go > up it will remain this way. > > To that end, cyclists should NOT ride against the > flow. Interesting, I didn't know those road markings have no legal force. It's the same situation on Bermondsey Street oop north, but no cyclists (myself included) seem to realise that we need the signs as well as the street markings.

I'm not completely averse to cyclists being licensed, but I'm not sure it would work too well given that any kid or oldie can pick up a bike and hop on the road. The police have a hard enough time cracking down on unlicensed drivers, who tend to be the least safe people on the road. For cyclists fed up of bad drivers, there's always this handy web site! http://london.mybikelane.com The trouble with London roads is just that so many people are so bad tempered and inconsiderate, whether they get around on feet, two or four wheels; whether they need a license or not. On a typical commute somebody wanders into Rye Lane without looking so I have to break or swerve to miss them; somebody cycles far too fast along the Surrey Canal Walk chopping up a mother walking her kids to school; somebody zooms past me in a van on Glengall Road trying to make the green light at Old Kent Road; somebody pulls up into the cycle lane at the lights on Tower Bridge Road in their motorbike then revs past us frightening the bejeesus out of novice cyclists. And so it goes on. I seriously doubt the Cycle Superhighway will change this. At best, it will prompt TfL and Southwark Council to slightly improve a few nasty junctions and make cycling a bit more (bright blue) visible, going by the two CSHs painted in so far.

There should be a bylaw banning those enormous golfing umbrellas from pavements, or a requirement to "brolly-share" with at least three other people if you want to take up that much space!

I think it's pretty unlikely there will be much effective civil disobedience of the sorts Rosie mentions, it's rare that a group is well trained and strategic in their use of those sorts of tactics. More likely waves of protests ranging from petitioners on street corners to (hopefully not) 1980s-style riots.

Gussy, In the literature we got through the door the council said they would now collect all the recylcables you put out even if they don't fit in the bin (which seems pretty commonsense, not sure why they didn't do it before). So I'd just stack all that party stuff into some bags and pop it on/around your blue bin.

It's rachel here tom's partner. I can't wait for this to open, I live in the gardens and always thought it should be a cafe. I've been fantasizing about strolling down with me paper of a Sunday. I talked to one of the builders and he said there's not going to be a kitchen there which seems weird. I hope it's going to do more than soup and quiche etc, if its just food prep and not cooking, how is it going to be different from the cafe on the rye or homemade...? we shall see. anyone know an opening date?

Who can forget World Cup '94... http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/04/29/baggio_3004.jpg

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A 'privelege'...how insulting and not to mention wrong - what a joke! Being charitable... I think he probably just meant that it's not a cycle lane with a solid white line that legally only cyclists can use, but one of those lanes that technically anybody can use but are meant mainly for cyclists. But yes, it's a joke. On a road with such random pedestrian behaviour and on a London Cycle Network route we need a proper dedicated cycle lane!

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At the community council meeting last night I > spoke with Simon Philips who is a key part of the > Roads and Transport team at Southwark. He > confirmed that Rye Lane is going to be resurfaced > as part of the current work to the North and South > end road works. > > I raised concerns regarding the colour of the > contraflow cycle lane. He explained that the lane > is designed to be a 'privilege' for cyclists > rather than a right of way but took on board the > issue of pedestrian awareness of the lane and > would look into the options. > > For anyone interested there is a Transport > sub-committee (headed by Councillor Gavin Edwards) > which meets regularly where residents can raise > issues and concerns regarding roads/ traffic > management and schemes. When I have confirmed > details of the next one I'll post them for anyone > that might be interested in attending. That's where I raised it at the previous meeting, having corresponded already by email. I also raised issues about waste on pavements and the road, traders putting goods out onto the pavement forcing pedestrians into the road, and the (now thankfully slightly improved) crap situation with the lane as it meets the lights crossing Peckham High St. I didn't get the most promising response, Gavin promised to get a discussion at the next meeting about serious fixes as opposed to occasional enforcement work. It seems to be a policy decision to make the contraflow lane a 'privilege' (as Simon puts it) and to keep it so obscure. But more people raising the fact that it looks so similar might help get it painted! Interestingly, Simon said at the last transport sub-committee that cyclists make up 25% of the road users on the part of Peckham Rye that splits off south-east towards Crofton Park way. Pretty cool!

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As for the canal path - what speeding? Most > cyclists ride according to the conditions. Again I > have never collided with a pedestrain on it in all > the years I've used it and never seen a collision. > If the pathway is clear you cycle quicker...if > there are pedestrians you go slower until you > safely pass them. Most times of the day it's > fairly clear, only at rush hour will there be an > abundance of cyclists going to/ from work. But > there are those that just don't want cycling on > any kind of pathway of course. Stand there for an hour one morning and you'll see all manner of behaviour! I'm saying this as someone who commutes along that path on my bike every day... We witnessed some cyclists cutting pedestrians up, probably the majority going too fast and many being very sensible. Part of the problem is that the faster route along Sumner Road isn't well signposted and is less convenient than zipping along Surrey Canal Walk.

robotcat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a slightly different note, is that Superdrug > lorry allowed to park across the cycle lane > forcing cyclists either onto the pavement or into > the bus lane? It's there at least once a week. Technically, yes, because there's no solid white line giving the lane any legal significance.

I raised this with the local councillors (not James) and the transport department. This is what they said: Thankfully after I complained they removed the utility box and bollard that were blocking the lane at the top of Rye Lane by the lights, but the lamppost is still there so no surprises that nobody uses it! While I'm at it, can I encourage every cyclist who uses the Surrey Canal Walk route to go slowly and be considerate of pedestrians on that path! We went out to talk to cyclists about this, people walking down the path say speeding cyclists are a huge problem - http://southwark.greenparty.org.uk/localsites/southwark/news/cyclists-told-to-take-it-slow.html

It's a shame they switched the zebra crossing outside Iceland to traffic lights. The roundabout at the top works very well, the fact is there are people crossing the road all the time so giving pedestrians some extra safety and cyclists/motorists some extra certainty would only be a good thing. One way systems definitely aren't appropriate for main roads, they speed everything up. Has any of this been raised at a recent community council meeting and is there a traders forum to discuss it at?

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > c) > In any event, the Greens will need to work harder > to ensure that they reach all parts of the > electorate and don't preach to the converted. They > will need to demonstrate that they have policies > to deal with those issues that aren't just > environmental (economy, health and so on). Katie, as Caroline Lucas repeatedly said when journalists made this same point in the few chances they gave her, the Green Party has had policies across those issues ever since it was founded. It has just taken thirty years for the media to catch up. Check out our election broadcast for a flavour: http://www.onlygreen.org.uk In this election our flagship policies address public services, the minimum wage and the recession. Here in Southwark the living wage for council workers, an action plan for Peckham town centre and safer streets are three of our priority issues. You might not realise this because our real problem is having enough money and activists to reach more than two target wards with this message!

I sent East a private message with the following response, which now appears on the blog: Libraries - yes, we would fight to protect libraries from public spending cuts. Whichever of the three grey parties form the next Government, all three are committed to large cuts in public spending and locally the axe often falls first on services like libraries. Whilst access to the internet is increasingly used as an excuse for neglected or shrinking library services, the reasons you cite in addition to the relatively low level of internet access in Peckham Rye make them all the more important. Shops - the Green Party has long campaigned to protect local independent shops. We have published an action plan for Peckham town centre (http://southwark.greenparty.org.uk/peckham) and would apply the same principles to Lordship Lane, Forest Hill Road and other smaller arcades with handfuls of shops throughout Southwark. Walking and cycling - we would press for three simple measures: first, actually implement the council's dormant policy of providing cycle lanes and infrastructure whenever road works are carried out, extending this to also include the widening of pavements for pedestrians where there is road space; second, prioritise roads on cycle routes such as LCN 22 and 25 when filling potholes and other road maintenance; third, more consistently implement a 20mph zone across the entire borough on all residential roads and ensure the police are taking road safety more seriously. We are, more or less as Huguenot says, focusing our resources on South Camberwell and The Lane. Sorry for the slowish reply.

If you've a spare moment (or perhaps a spare day) you can stick up leaflets on this web site for all to see: Dulwich & West Norwood leaflets - http://www.thestraightchoice.org/constituencies/dulwich_and_west_norwood Camberwell & Peckham leaflets - http://www.thestraightchoice.org/constituencies/camberwell_and_peckham

DulwichResident Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I am saying though, is that politicians > should be straight with us. At the moment the > Liberals aren't being by telling the electorate > that the Conservatives don't have a chance. It's par the course for Lib Dems to make the most creative use of past elections to push that message in any election. Conservatives and Labour are catching up, but the Lib Dems are the undoubted masters. Ironic for a party that claims to be fed up with an unfair electoral system. Incidentally, this is a good place to collect examples: Dulwich & West Norwood leaflets - http://www.thestraightchoice.org/constituencies/dulwich_and_west_norwood Camberwell & Peckham leaflets - http://www.thestraightchoice.org/constituencies/camberwell_and_peckham

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have a brief look before adding them to the > recycling pile. Some of the 'we are the only > party that can beat the incumbent' stats/graphs > are appalling and misleading. Really, it makes > them look completely dishonest - and I'd have to > say the Greens were the worst at this. (Though > the wonderful statistical jiggery-pokery by the > Independent to show that if all the non-voters > last time came out and voted for her then she'd > win was so wonderfully daft I had to smile.) Loz, which Green leaflet are you referring to? I can only think of two where we make any such claims - The Lane, where we state (accurately) that we were 2nd behind Labour in the last local elections, and South Camberwell where we show the accurate results from the last 2006 local elections.

Except that the chances of voting out Harriet Harman are close to zero under this electoral system, so frankly every vote is a waste if that's your aim. If you really support the policies of another party then vote for them. It's a lovely theory that an increased popular vote for the Lib Dems will increase pressure for a different voting system, but I don't buy it. The current system is obviously ridiculous but that didn't stop Labour going back on their promise to Ashdown. If the constituency were genuinely marginal with a choice of a Lib Dem win then maybe...

Given that Camberwell and Peckham is considered an "ultra safe" seat - http://www.voterpower.org.uk/camberwell-peckham - I'm taking the view that there's no point tactically voting in the ordinary sense of ousting the incumbent. So either vote for the party whose policies you most like (http://voteforpolicies.org.uk) or make a tactical decision about backing a party to up their popular vote.

I do like a nice ginger nut, though I've not canvassed somebody who smelt of one.

For the record, you're right that our Green Party candidates in East Dulwich are paper candidates. Without wealthy backers and under a punishing electoral system we are focusing our efforts in Southwark on South Camberwell (where Jenny Jones was elected in the previous locals) and The Lane. It would be great if we could be active in every hustings across the borough, but we'd never manage to mount a serious campaign if we spread ourselves so thinly. I'm sorry the committee didn't get a proper reply to that effect but at this time in the cycle we're bombarded with hundreds of requests for hustings, petitions, policy questions etc. and sometimes requests slip through the net.

We included limited hours for deliveries to ease congestion and taking all cars, vans etc. except for access off Rye Lane as proposals. I'm not sure how a one-way system would work, especially for people trying to catch a bus as the potential gyratory is a bit of a walk away. Living Streets did a really long report with a lot of mentions of widening pavements, but again as a cyclist and bus user as well as a pedestrian I'm not too sure how you balance that for bits of Rye Lane that are already pretty narrow :-S I also wonder about illegal parking. Sometimes I wish I could take photos with number plates and report people, it really gets on my nerves how people blatantly flout the law by parking up for long periods on double yellow lines. Almost as bad as when fellow cyclists fly through red lights endangering others when some of us are patiently waiting for them to change. Every monrning... If we had a Del Boy statue we'd probably need a Desmonds one too ;)