Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is the bit where we were consulted. Oops I mean notified of the intention. Via a notice in the London Gazette and Southwark News!


In accordance with legislation2 the council advertised its intention to make traffic orders in respect of the changes to speed limits on 27 February 2014. Notice was given in the London Gazette3 and local press (Southwark News). Notice was given to the following statutory consultees: London Ambulance Service, London Fire Brigade, Metropolitan Police Service, TfL Buses, Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association.

7. Notice was also given to non-statutory consultees including: Transport for London, Southwark Disablement Association, Southwark Disability Forum, Southwark Cyclists, Living Streets and London Travel Watch and full details of the proposals were also made available for inspection on the council?s website or in person by appointment at 160 Tooley Street.

Indeed.


In response to Objection 5 concerning boundary roads with neighbouring boroughs it is stated that Lewisham will be making a decision shortly (document dated July 2014) yet Lewisham seem to have a lengthy and open consultation process in hand


http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s33032/Boroughwide%2020%20mph%20speed%20limit.pdf

James Barber has replied to me to confirm that the 20mph limit could be enforced. However, he says that it is a matter of whether the Police will enforce it or not.


Frankly the police fail to enforce other potentially more serious offences such as illegal parking, particularly where the vehicle is parked in a dangerous place, so I reckon that they won't have the resources to enforce a Borough wide 20mph limit.

ZT

Indeed, especially since the police were dead against it in the first place, so there is an argument to say that instead of making roads safer the council have made them more dangerous, and I, for one do not want to see a load of money spent on traffic calming, speed cameras and pavement widening, to try to enforce it. What a mess.

So are you advocating just disregarding the new limits? I don't fancy this much so if you could just let me know where you're based I can pop round and let your tyres down. I know it's against the law but I'm not convinced the police will stop me, I reckon I can get away with it and anyway I reckon I'm right so I'll just go ahead and do it.

If you actually read my initial posts you will see that I am one of those who adheres to the 20mph but many do not and the experience of being aggressively tailgated is not only unpleasant but dangerous. You will also see that I am not advocating breaking the law or the limit but pointing out the fact that many do and will continue to do so, unless a load if money is spent on enforcement. Southwark states that it expects the scheme to be self enforcing.


So next time I labour up Sydenham Hill with a string of irate, hooting drivers right up my number plate, I will think of you Bawdy Nan and your kind advice.

first mate Wrote:

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


> So next time I labour up Sydenham Hill with a

> string of irate, hooting drivers right up my

> number plate, I will think of you Bawdy Nan and

> your kind advice.


That image did make me laugh!

Wulf -Is it that you don't think kids being driven to school unnecessarily, adding to jams & making them less active, is a

problem - or you don't think 20 will in any way help with that?

I dont know if there is evidence of large numbers being obese as a result of being driven to school, but if this is the case I think it incredibly unlikely that they will stop being lazy as a result of a speed limit change that you think will have little impact on their journey time. 'Oh look fat johnny they have changed the speed limit, shall we walk today?'. Its just not happening.


I guess we will have to agree to disagree on your 'proof' of little impact on journey times. I think it seems generally agreed that it will be 15-25 seconds a mile longer on average. I think this accumulated over every journey taken in the borough is a significant amount of time, whilst you do not. On a personal level the main reason I object to any time being added to my journey is I believe these changes are more likely to do harm than good, and are politically motivated not safety motivated, a view supported by the police who didnt want it either.

So the council consulted with hardly anyone, ignored seven objections, to two for, including an objection by the Police! I never saw a more blatent example of a council cabinet committee pushing through personal agenda over consultation. Disgraceful.
As James says, consultation does not mean referendum, it seems really to be a technical part of process the Council are obliged to do when seeking to make changes they believe are for the best, but the exact meaning of which is unclear. I am also beginning to think that the process is regularly used in quite a cynical and undemocratic way.

I dont know if there is evidence of large numbers being obese as a result of being driven to school



There's mountains of evidence of kids (and adults, ahem) not being active enough. Walking or cycling to school is one way, albeit not the only way, of combating that.



but if this is the case I think it incredibly unlikely that they will stop being lazy as a result of a speed limit change that you think will have little impact on their journey time. 'Oh look fat johnny they have changed the speed limit, shall we walk today?'. Its just not happening.



No, but I'd imagine "they've locked up the boy-racer tw@ts and cut the accident rate in half" will be enough for a few more kids to be allowed to walk to school on their own.



On a personal level the main reason I object to any time being added to my journey is I believe these changes are more likely to do harm than good, and are politically motivated not safety motivated, a view supported by the police who didnt want it either.



Politically motivated how? It was in Labour's manifesto, which they won on, which presumably gives them the confidence to bring it in without much of a consultation - they already have a democratic mandate from the people. I'm not sure why there is a political gain from imposing it if it's not effective though? If they don't think it'll work, why would they put it in the manifesto?

Wulfhoud said: "No, but I'd imagine "they've locked up the boy-racer tw@ts and cut the accident rate in half" will be enough for a few more kids to be allowed to walk to school on their own".


You see, I just don't think that is going to happen- and believe me I would like it to. Instead I think you'll get the iveterate speeders getting even more wound up when they are stuck behind someone like me who tries very hard to maintain 20 mph. The tw@ts then tend to react by driving even more recklessly. The police don't wnat to/have no resources to police this and Southwark seem to think it'll be self enforcing. I actually think a lot of money will have to be spent on speed cameras to make this work.

dbboy Wrote:

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

> Can someone explain why the newly erected traffic

> signs turning from Forest Hill road into anonbie

> road say the speed limit is 30mph when the area is

> supossed to be 20mph?


I guess because Canonbie Road is Lewisham, not Southwark.

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

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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