Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think it depends on what time of night it is. Walking along lordship lane I would say would be safer than the back streets, I keep to the main road as much as possible and avoid dark unlit streets if I can. Just be aware of what's going on around you, and dont listen to music/ipods on the back streets so at least you have your senses!

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> Nowhere is 100% safe but I have been walking home

> every night for 8 years without a hiccup

>

> My girlfriend walks home on her own as well and

> ditto

>

> You'll be fine - fear of fear is worse than what's

> potentially out there


i,ve been walking home every night for 16 years with manys a hiccup.

Hi Josefa...I moved here around four months ago and had the same reservations about walking home at night but have had no problems at all. In fact, i feel quite safe now. As everyone usually says, it's all about common sense and being aware of what is around you. Stick to the main roads as in any area and you'll be fine.

Have fun in East Dulwich!

we provided the The East Dulwich Police Safer Neighbourhood Team with 500 personal alarms for East Dulwich ward residents. I'd be amazed if you ever needed to use one in East dulwich but just knowing you have it to hand late at night walking home would probably make you feel safer.


Please do contact them if you'd like one: 020 8721 2447 or 07920 233912

There's your answer: it would probably make you feel safer. Probably. Feel. SafER.

I walk home through Rye Lane sometimes, and whilst always aware of my surroundings, if I walk positively and confidently and don't have my mobile or purse available in my hand to be snatched - I'm fine. probably.

For the love of a God I do not believe in, would the government and councillors stop ramming cycling down our necks as the be all cure to all the world's ills.

Some Of Us Can Not Cycle For Lots Of Different Reasons! Mine's health! Cycling is Probably Dangerouser than walking... ;)

I have been here 2 1/2 years and feel quite happy walking at night here - I do tend to stick to LL rather than the backstreets and wouldn't use an ipod / mobile, but then I would use the same precautions anywhere.


I have never felt unsafe here but am aware of my surroundings and ensure I do not stick out as a target!


Welcome to ED :-)

You would never ram anything down anyone's necks would you PR?


He just suggested it - he hasn't forced you to do anything. has he even done it in a councillor's capacity or maybe as a human being. He isn't going to come round your house and insist against your health that you cycle a bike



Sheesh, overreaction...

Thank you Councillor Barber - I like your information regarding the alarms. And I also think cycling is a great evening safety option. Of course, it is not for everyone, but, I think it is an excellent suggestion.


I personally feel very ill at ease coming back in the evening alone as I do live close to where there were some serious issues in the beginning of the summer. The bicycle clears my anxiety as I feel quite speedy and on high perception mode whilst on it. In fact, I sped home last evening very late without any concerns...

Had to laugh re the advice on avoiding the backstreets, as don't most people live in them?!


I've lived here on and off for twenty years, and in the off times I have lived in small places like Ditchling, Oundle and a farm near Leominster, and I can honestly say that I feel just as safe walking around at night here as I did there.


You have to be careful anywhere - as people have said above, hide your purse and mobile, walk confidently, know where you are going and be aware of who is around you and be ready to deviate from your planned course if that feels safer.


I never get round to it, but I do keep meaning to carry a spare purse with a fiver and a few old cards from closed accounts in, to hand over should push come to shove. Oh yeh and make a note of all the numbers on my mobile ......


The only time I have ever felt unsafe round here was a month or so ago in broad daylight, just as I had left my house, when a guy passed me and then kept turning to look back at me (not in a good way). I felt really spooked, and I actually turned round and went home, and waited twenty minutes and made sure he had gone before going out again.


Basically, better safe than sorry is what I say, which doesn't mean staying in all the time, just being careful and going by your gut instinct.

Agreed. Never really felt unsafe at all. I tend to stick to LL as well as it is well lit and busy. I also walk with a purpose and don't fiddle with my phone etc, etc.


The only time I have ever felt scared was walking back in the dead of night (4am after a party!), and was going down the side roads off Landcroft. It can be quite dark there.


I think as long as you use the common sense precautions you should be ok.

So far this all sounds pretty positive and I hope it reassures the OP - but:


If one or two people who have had unfortunate incidents happen to them posted on this thread would that make people reading it think "oooh it's really unsafe around here now"?


ie - on what do "we" (those reading and wondering perhaps) base our feelings of it being safe?

  • 2 weeks later...
East Dulwich has always felt safe over the last 11 years (am I allowed to call ED home yet?!), but the only road in ED that I would not advise any girls to walk along alone at night is Townley Rd. Such a stunning road by day (one of my favs), by night it's not well lit (The street lamps are far apart) and as it's only residential Lordship Lane end it just seems a long, dark, quiet road. A friend was mugged at knife point three years ago, she ran in terror to the police station but it was closed.
Funnily enough Townley gives me the willys at night as well - it's the feeling exposed on either side by a lack of housing I reckon. Sorry to hear about your friend's actual mugging there tho. I suspect most roads on ED have a similar mugging story (or several)

HAL9000 Wrote:

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

> It?s only safe until the random hand of fate

> decides otherwise.

>

> We are just fish in a barrel - someone has to be

> the next victim.

>

> Past experience is not a reliable guide to the

> future where crime is concerned.

>

> Personal safety should never be taken for granted.


Spoken like a good computer Hal. Surely you could come up with more accurate stats than the fish in the barrel concept though?

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

    • Robin's tree ideas in Village ward described by here inspired us East Dulwich Councillors to have the cherry trees planted on the northern section of Melbourne Grove and elsewhere in what was then called East dulwich ward and now largely Goose green ward. 
    • Anyone know what’s happened on the Lordship Lane Estate? Lots of police, ambulances, areas cornered off, police tape everywhere. Lordship Lane side of the Estate near Melford Road.
    • This is my take of the scheme and planning committee report: Railway Yard Scheme 402 objectors and 22 supporters. Huge local concern about this proposal. The scheme is out of character and contrary to The Southwark Plan and Suburban zoning for the site. The adjacent schemes 18-22 Grove Vale is ground and three stories, The Charter School North Dulwich is 3-4, the Tessa Jowel Health Centre is ground and two stories.  This proposed scheme is significantly higher and bulkier. And the corrugated iron looking top floors will be visible for some distance from the site. All the views in the report demonstrate how out of keeping with the Suburban zone this scheme in. What is the point of having such policies if they are ignored? Council officers and members have agreed the site must be redeveloped with an indicative capacity of 53 new homes. The proposal is 3 to 4 times bigger than that with 53 homes and 360 student rooms and additional shared spaces. (2.5 student rooms equating to 1 home). The officer report incorrectly talks about buses going to Brixton, which makes me concerned about the PTAL calculation which partly I would imagine officers have based their acceptance of this over development.  PTAL 4 for the site. TfL PTAL calculator. The social housing will likely be 3.  The assumptions are crow flies. If it is time to access public transport then much of the remainder of the site becomes PTAL3 and the rationale for the officers recommends would be incorrect.  Student accommodation demand comments appear to date from three years ago. Since then various research showing significantly reduced numbers which have not been included in the report. BBC 5 March states 14% drop in foreign students. The House of Commons library 25 March states most foreign students are now postgrads therefore questionable if this accommodation would meet their needs.  ONS reporting that the number of children who will become students has been consistently falling. That Southwark itself is in the process of closing up to 17 primary schools! This will feed through to reduced undergraduate numbers.  The report suggests circa £10,000 is spent by each student in the area. I would suggest vast majority is on accommodation and not circulating in local shops and facilities or indeed Southwark more widely. Additionally they receive free public transport so will not be contributing towards any required improvements.  The report then suggests each student residing at this scheme would be spending around £5,400 in the immediate East Dulwich area each year. This seems extremely unlikely.  The report states members should give some consideration for daylight and sunlight loss with 21 minor, 8 moderate, and 20 substantial adverse reductions. A good scheme would have avoided this.  Any normal school in the Subriban South Zone would have avoided this. Overlooking. Officers state this as minimal. That the reduction in living conditions is acceptable.  That is so easy to type in a report. Many objectors have stated the reduction is not accepted by local residents. Objectively the average person has reached a different conclusion.  Members have the unenviable task of telling ordinary people they are wrong if you approve this scheme.  I would suggest the residents who would suffer this as disagreeing! The blocks will loom over houses nearby. Down to 8.2m gaps on place! If the scheme were to be approved then corridors overlooking 18-22 Grove Vale, Railway Rise scheme proprerties as a minimum should be opaque or angled away. No one wants lots gawping students! I was amazed to see under fire safety a stay put policy would apply. Really? Could a Southwark Planning Committee post Lakanal and GRenfell approve a scheme that relies on that - especially when many students could have English as a second language.  The trip generation stats. From the 53 homes and 360 students stated they would generate 0.76/78 trips per am and pm bus. The am buses are already rammed. And extra 2.4/2.5  people on each peak train.  That would be 33 students and residents across 42 buses serving the 40/176/185 bus routes 7-9am each day. The P13 & 42 would be incredibly inconvenient so can be discounted. Plus only 9 trains 7-9am  going into london so that would be 22 residents and students. So each working day officers have agreed with the developer only 55 people of the 360 students and 53 social homes would be on public transport in the peak times.  This appears quite the fiction. The 53 homes alone are likely to have more than 53 people in employment!  The report talks about limiting student moving in and out times. But the surrounding streets Comtrolled Parking Zone doesn’t cover weekends. Each weekend day we can anticipate an extra 50-100 vehicles needing to park before and after dropping students at this proposed development. This issue has not been covered and is unsolvable to the satisfaction of local residents.  The report even talks about the local tube station which we don’t have! It would be hard to spread this into weekdays as that would risk clashing with the adjacent school start and finish times placing pupils at risk.  This also requires the disabled parking spaces to be relinquished for several weekends each year. How does that work. Part time disabled? Real risk the controlled parking in the area would need to become 24/7 as a number of residents may have cars and they try and park outside the current CPZ operating times.  402 objectors and 22 supporters. This peaks volumes. 
    • If you have lost your Zip card and your first name is Emma or you know Emma please PM me and I will tell you where to find it.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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