Sally Eva

Or you could go on the bus. Four bus routes run up the west side of the Rye and two run up the east side. The 78 and the P12 run to the northern tip. If you are a runner then you might consider it within walking distance of four railway stations: in distance order nearest first Peckham Rye, Nunhead, East Dulwich and Honor Oak. Henry_17 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Great, now i must pay ?6 to run the Saturday 5k

you can buy them in Nunhead. You need a better local high street. Nunhead has an excellent independent supermarket, Ayers bakery, Sopers fish, a proper greengrocer, a proper butcher, a post office, a chemist/hardware shop, a bike repair shop and a great coffee shop. Why go anywhere else? snoopy17 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can't buy king Edwards in the local high > street.

All traffic lights are managed by TfL.

anyone can catch a train from East Dulwich to Tulse Hill -- takes 5 minutes. https://www.thetrainline.com/train-times/tulse-hill-to-east-dulwich

Also the 37 bus

I don't know -- depends how old you are now obviously :) -- but social change comes quite quickly I think -- it hits a tipping point. Even 2-3 years ago only the environmentalists (and the EU) talked about pollution. Now, here we are discussing it. Reminds me of the laws against drink driving in the 1970s -- probably hard for younger people to realise how hotly these were opposed -- death of the country pub "I drive better when I've had a few" "I know when I've had too many". i remember sitting (as a journalist) in a country magistrates court hearing one of the first cases of "drunk in charge of a car" against a salesman who had passed out in the driving seat of his car with his car keys in his hand. The magistrates apologised for having to take away his licence. The difference in public attitudes in that 50 years is overwhelming and it came quite quickly, I think. As you imply the young already care about pollution. My daughter and her husband chose their house because it was well away from the main road and pollution would be less. The argument is over.

don't I remember a row about Boris Johnson redefining ED as an inner city area and thus raising its housing density?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health public health england "PHE medical director Paul Cosford told the BBC: "We should stop idling outside schools and we should make sure that children can walk or cycle to school." PHE said 28,000 to 36,000 deaths a year in the UK could be attributed to long-term exposure to air pollution."

If your reason for opposing this scheme is that it is too small perhaps you would like to propose a larger scale scheme which you would support.

what is being discussed is called a Parking Charge Notice because it is issued by a private company on private land. It is therefore a civil claim rather than a fine. If it is correctly issued by a company entitled to get your details from the DVLA and the notices are correctly displayed etc then you can be taken to court for debt and bailiffs can call to collect it. Advice here: What to do is here: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/parking-tickets/appealing-parking-tickets/appealing-a-parking-ticket/

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are you now deciding what is an essential or > non essential journey. Surely that is up to the > person making the journey. You and others would > not know the reason. > > When I last checked cars cannot drive in or around > Dulwich Park, except for a few disabled people, > the rest go from the main road to a car park and > then not moving, hardly taking pollution, road > noise and danger into the park. I think the essential/non-essential distinction is quite objective. Essential journeys might be to buy food, as part of your work, to visit the doctor. In an emergency to take someone else to the doctor or help a neighbour. Inessential journeys might be to take the dog to the park, to take the children to the playground, to visit the park cafes, to have a picnic. These are enjoyable and satisfying activities but not essential.

Buses are not free and neither are cars. People who own cars and use them for non-essential journeys impose a cost in pollution, road noise and danger on the rest of society. There seems to be no reason why people who decide to take their pollution, road noise and danger into parks should be able to do that without paying.

People are saying that they approve of the decision because their own priority is the environment. Southwark's reasons are set out in the decision. If you believe that the council is being misleading the remedy is judicial review.

An analysis will be published. The council publishes all consultations on its consultation hub and then (some time later) the analysis and response. The Hub is here: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk with an explanation of what happens next.

I think this Cars = Freedom is a common feeling. Personally I think the advertising promotes cars as freedom because each individual brand is virtually identical. The problems arise because cars often do not equal freedom. The freedom to get stuck in a jam. The freedom to have your own personal liberty blocked by other people's attempts to exercise their personal liberty. The freedom to watch buses sail passed you in bus lanes, to be overtaken by cyclists. Residents get stroppy and want to infringe your freedom to drive passed their front door. Pedestrians get stroppy about speeding and pollution. This (IMO) is why the perceived rights around driving unleash so much rage. Drivers are being impeded by maths -- the area of the circle diminishes towards the centre. We can't all drive,let alone park in central London and it's going the same way further out -- but we all feel entitled to do so. No one likes being stopped from doing whatever they want and the fact that it is impossible without polluting the planet to uninhabitability is super-annoying. This is why (IMO) discussion of this topic arouses such anger.

There was one like this on the Heygate. I'm afraid that lollypopping requires courage and dedication to child-welfare. Complain to your councillor and Apcoa. The council funds them to keep children safe. If they are not doing that then the money is not being spent properly. The council can tell Apcoa to get real. Lollypop people have to go where it's dangerous not where it's safe.

People are not necessarily driving their children to school from very far away or going on to work. About 15 years ago I was in a school gate conversation about how parents parked on the zig zag lines and double parked all over the place and this was dangerous and the school couldn't get them to stop and traffic wardens could only come occasionally because this was happening at schools all over the borough and there weren't enough wardens. This Mum (ex-teacher) confessed that she drove her daughter to school although they lived 10 minutes walk away. Her daughter didn't want to walk and somehow they were always late. This Mum didn't go on to work. She drove home. Since they lived so near the school this probably wasn't even quicker with getting in and out, parking etc. I think it is fair to say that some of those driving their children will just stop. Those who drop their children off on the way to work will be able to drop them off further away because it will be safer for the children to walk the last yards to the school gate.

replied by private message

An address within the zone is not required. I put visitor and my home post code and was allowed to move on.I do not live within the zone. I asked for bike parking at the Copleston Centre.

The closure doesn't stop parents from driving their children to school. It stops them from driving their children to the school gate. In other words it keeps traffic a certain distance from the school gate so that children can approach the school gate more safely. It also reduces pollution around the school gate at arrival and departure times.

This is OT really but if a school has been oversubscribed for 10 years and assuming that most people have 2 or 3 children 2 or 3 years apart,then the sibling group will last about 10 years. You can see that if people move away when the first child is at the school -- or lived quite a long way away when it was less in demand -- that the sibling groups will gradually come closer and closer to the school gate. If people do move away and/or have a child a long time after the first then they may put the later child(ren) into a school closer to where they now live or where the eldest child goes to secondary school. My daughter is in bristol but the local state primary has a catchment area of 350 yards -- Goodrich used to be similar and probably still is. At secondary level many schools don't take siblings as a matter of policy.

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DuncanW Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm a Bessemer Parent; I am delighted with the > > road closure and would recommend the initiative > > being deployed at other schools where > practical. > > From what I can see, the school tried several > > methods over a sustained period of time to > protect > > the children from the inconsiderate and > dangerous > > habits of a minority of parent drivers. This > seems > > to be the only thing that has been effective. > > > > From what I notice, there hasn't been a massive > > shift in parking issues to surrounding roads. > > Parking around there has always been tight and > > remains so (I guess that's part of the reason > some > > people park illegally by the school). But as I > > continue my onward journey up Woodfarrs or > > Dylways, there generally seem to be some spaces > > available. Further, the number of legal spaces > in > > the closed area is minimal as most of it is > > covered by the school zig-zags. > > > > With regards to the school's expansion and the > > distance that parents travel; according to the > > 2017 intake data, it's oversubscribed (the > > most-applied for school in the borough) and the > > furthest distance offered was 1223 metres. So > the > > number of parents travelling from distance > should > > be reducing, not the other way round. > > Obviously you do not live in the area but as a > bike rider of course you would be delighted with > the scheme. This message in support of the Bessemer Grange scheme starts "As a Bessemer parent......". Later on it says that the catchment area around the school is small and reducing. The claim to be a parent might not be true I recognise but if the message is taken at face value the straightforward implication is that the writer lives near the school. He does cycle.

Try your councillor. The council funds them. I think Apcoa actually employs them. It does seem odd -- that road is the most dangerous to cross so you have to cross it by yourself. Seems a misunderstanding of the purpose of lollypop people.

Southwark Cyclists website report on School Streets https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/school-street-trial-goes-permanent-more-coming/ I think one of the important points is that this follows "soft" attempts to stop parents driving their kids to the school gate: the zig zag lines, traffic wardens, school publicity campaigns and banners, and now temporary barriers. The schools have to work quite hard to implement the closures which suggests that the staff place a lot of importance on the benefits: cleaner air, road safety and encouraging active travel to school

Or close Adys Road to protect St John and St Clement