Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I thought some of you might be interested in this. We recently closed our street - Relf Rd in Peckham- so that our kids could play out with their neighbours, safe from cars. It was great - they played football, rode their bikes and older residnets came and leant on their gates and chatted!


It was really easy to organise. An email to the council's events locations officer - [email protected] and 020 7525 0741 - filled in some forms, letters to residents then th council delivered the barriers and 'street closed' signs.


We were inspired by a Guardian article about a scheme in Bristol. There's loads more info on the playing out website includinng template posters, letters to residents etc



http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/reclaiming-the-streets-for-kids


www.playingout.net


We are hoping to make it a regular thing ideally monthly

If you live on the South Circular....unlikely! :-)


I'm torn on this. It IS good that kids get to play on the street. But what a shame that our streets are now so given over to cars that we have to close the road in order for them to do so.


There are no more houses now than when I grew up and yet certainly more cars and more car journeys. I was able to play in, on or around my road with relative freedom and little worry a little over 15 years ago and yet wouldn't want to do so, or allow my child to, now.


If politicians (and I don't include James B in this dig) had stood up to the car lobby more and our streets were more pedestrian (and cycle) friendly, we wouldn't need to resort to such lengths in order for our children to participate in something as simple as outdoor play next to their homes.

the 'car lobby' (who ever that is?) or just the fact that majority of people if they have the means seem to like owning cars for a variety of reasons, mainly but not entirely practical. And we haven,t yet had a a government in power who feels it's their duty to social engineer us plebs out of this nasty capitalist habit and certainly one that's ever had the money to invest enough in Public Transport (and we are talking at least quadrupling the budget to even start making a chink in the 95% of passenger journys done by private car (or there abouts last time I looked at the National Travel Survey).
Most of East Dulwich is very handy for Peckham Rye park or Dulwich Park and they have great open play spaces, playgrounds, adult gyms and pr has a skate park and adventure playground too. Many people drive or bus into the area to use them.

I took mine to the Relf Rd closure (not a resident but invited by those organising). It was loads of fun but did have a few probs explaining to my 3yr old this was a one off special event and she was allowed to play in the road as there would be no cars.


Has been a bit like telling your kids not to speak to strangers but then expecting them to have a half hour chat with Father Christmas at the grotto - don't play in the road / oh yeah do play in the road.


There are loads of well maintained outdoor facilities in E. Dul and surrounds and don't think any extra money needs to be spent.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the 'car lobby' (who ever that is?) or just the

> fact that majority of people if they have the

> means seem to like owning cars for a variety of

> reasons, mainly but not entirely practical. And we

> haven,t yet had a a government in power who feels

> it's their duty to social engineer us plebs out of

> this nasty capitalist habit and certainly one

> that's ever had the money to invest enough in

> Public Transport (and we are talking at least

> quadrupling the budget to even start making a

> chink in the 95% of passenger journys done by

> private car (or there abouts last time I looked at

> the National Travel Survey).


You don't think a car lobby exists? Or you don't know who it's made up of? I'll presume the latter although I suspect you're being provocatively naive regardless. I would, off the top of my head, list car manufacturers, petrol retailers, pressure groups like the AA and RAC and trade bodies. They would influence national transport policy and this would filter down to local authorities. It's not some grand conspiracy, just how things work.


Nor is your attempt to label this as some anti-capitalist rant accurate. One of the most free-market countries on earth, Singapore, makes car ownership difficult and expensive and provides a superb public transport infrastructure.


And I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that in dense urban areas that car use could be much lower than it currently is if there was a political will for it. Or if there had been over many years. But there hasn't/isn't. And I completely understand that if you live in a rural or even suburban area then this is a much more difficult proposition.


If we want our inner cities to be greener, more pleasant places to live and safer for our children then our use of cars needs serious attention.

David - your political will bit gives the game away. The point is it's not really what the people want YET - and not becuase there's some capitalist crony car lobby hoodwinking us all - however frustrating that is to you as a socialsit who wants the state to decide for us rather tha us have the choice. Incidentally, all those countries that have thrown off the yoke 'of people on high that know best' for political freedom have a) got richer b) got more cars.


Singapore is a lol example. I've only been there once but reclaimed streets teaming with kids playing? mmm not anywhere near where I was or went. Their car policy reflects the fact that they had rampant congestion and it's still there - and that's where your solution will come when it get's unbearable. They've also plenty of money to invest in Public Transport (and I don't remember it being all that) as they don't have a welfare state or NHS. To be absolutely clear before you jump in I do NOT want a society without either of those thanks.


Happy to move this debate elsewhere as we've hijacked a thread about a decent initiative

There was a similar thread a while ago - I was really confused by this concept as children on our road play out in the street (admittedly it's a quiet road). Initially with supervision and then gradually as they grow in independence, and common sense, unsupervised.


It's a wonderful throw-back to the way it used to be (remember the good old days when all around was green fields and you could go out for tuppence ha'penny yadda yadda)


But is intensely different from 'closing a road' which personally I have issues with as surely the point is to grow in independence and safety - probably preparing them for secondary which comes round so quickly.


If the road is so busy it needs closing then it shouldn't be used IMO and the open spaces of Goose Green, Peckham Rye, Dulwich Park etc should be used. Otherwise parents in the street can keep an eye out / supervise as required and gradually you get children with road safety experience, neighbourhood communities and a lovely childhood


well that's my take anyway

The OP makes an interesting point about older residents coming out to socialise as well, so it isn't just about kids, or streets vs playparks. Older residents may be unable or feel comfortable walking to playparks to socialise. A quiet road with no cars might seem quite inviting for older folks to come out on their doorsteps and chat with neighbours they don't see everyday. xx

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Because they have been awful - scoring own-goal after own-goal. You cannot be an apologist for their diabolical first 100 days on the basis that the previous lot were worse - in the same way the whole of the 14 years of Tory rule was tarred with the brush of despair about their very worst behaviour in the latter years Labour run the risk of their government being tarred with the same brush on the basis of their first 100 days. It has probably been some of the worst 100 days of any new government and Starmer's approval ratings aren't as low as they are without reason. You know they are in trouble when MPs start posting the good bits from their first 100 days - it's a sure sign they know they have a problem. And when this government have a problem the frontbenchers disappear from media interviews and they roll-out the likes of Pat McFadden to provide some air cover. Yesterday it was farmers. Today it is the pensioners being pushed into poverty by Winter Fuel payments. It's a perceptual disaster and has been since day 1 - they have to get a grip on it else this leadership team is doomed. You highlight the very problem here. Farmers are not being gifted money. They are being gifted assets. Assets that they don't realise as they continue to work those assets to provide food for the country. Most inheritance is cash or an asset (a house) that people sell to generate cash. Passing a farm to younger family members is very different. On the news they interviewed a farmer whose family had owned the farm since 1822 and he broke down in tears when he spoke about his 13 year old son who was working in the farm to continue it - no doubt in the realisation that his son would be hit by a tax bill when he took it over. Given farmers are not cash rich then the decision would likely be that they would need to sell some of the land that generations had worked hard to build to fund the tax bill - and so many farms are on a knife's edge that it might be enough to send them over the edge.   There are many valid reasons why the government are doing what they are doing but those reasons are not cutting through and they are losing control of the narrative. That is a massive issue for them.  
    • Another great job by Simmonds Plastering. This time he decorated the newly plastered living room and added a pantry cupboard in kitchen.  He is reliable and works really hard.  Highly recommend 07949 180 533
    • Because land has been exempt from inheritance tax wealthy individuals (like Clarkson and Dyson) have used it as a tax avoidance measure. Clarkson is on the record stating that he bought land for precisely this purpose. It is people like him who farmers should be angry with, if anyone, because they have exploited a loophole, which is now being (partially) closed. Yes, I do grasp the concept of inheritance - it's were one is given money, or valuable assets by chance of birth (having done nothing to earn it). As money you have earned, is taxed, it seems odd that money you have not, shouldn't be. I assume you don't disapprove of income tax? Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should? Everyone has to pay inheritance tax over a certain threshold. In my opinion, if you are fortunate enough to be gifted any amount of money (whether cash, or a valuable asset), to quibble about paying some tax on some of it, seems rather entitled. Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part of it that is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate. 
    • Ah yes, good spot! Thanks for the link. It sounds like they are planning a licensed restaurant with a small bar from reading through the application. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...