Sally Eva

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

I chased up one of these "I missed you" cards because I was definitely in when it was left. I was told that they don't send parcels out with new postmen/women. Presumably in case the temptation is too great. You don't have to go and get it. You can get it redelivered.

I think some of what is happening here is encouraging people to understand (and bear) the costs of their own decisions. If your employees can't afford to commute to London except by car then perhaps they should look for work closer to their homes. Perhaps you should pay them more to cover the cost of a less anti-social commute or perhaps you should pay their parking costs in London. What doesn't seem reasonable is that your business costs should be kept low by the road danger, pollution, noise and environmental damage caused by employees commuting by car from Kent.

Carrie wrote: "We have employees who live in Kent with no public transportation available between their home address and the nearest station. Commuting to East Dulwich by car is the only feasible way for them to get to work, but we will not be able to get permits for them to allow them to do this." No public transportation between their home and the nearest station does not mean that "commuting to ED by car is the only feasible way for them to get to work". Country stations all have car parks to enable their commuters to drive to the station and leave their car during the day. This probably carries a charge. The journey carries public costs which your staff member does not pay. He or she congests the roads, adds to road danger in Kent and London, creates pollution and parks in East Dulwich using road space which is then not available for the customers he or she has come to serve.

you could look at this: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/healthy-streets-for-london.pdf It deals with the sort of holistic approach that you are talking about. Speed humps may be better than nothing to deter rat-running (you may disagree about this) but we all recognise a truly pleasant street to live on. also maybe look at this http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-liveable-neighbourhood-guidance.pdf Low traffic neighbourhoods with clean air are what TfL wants to see and fund.

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Galileo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It?s rather ironic that you have chosen that > > consultation to highlight the Council not > > listening to the responses to consultations. > > Rather than just go on the figures alone I have > > read the decision notice and recommendation > that > > accompanied it ... the reason the Council > decided > > to continue with the proposed changes despite > the > > objections was that the objections were because > > the proposal was to remove parking spaces by > the > > introduction of double yellow lines to improve > > sight lines and hopefully reduce road deaths. > Why > > were people objecting? Parking pressure!!! > > Actually that was the council's spin on the reason > for many of us objecting. I objected to the > additional double yellows on Adys Rd opposite > Nutbrook and Amott as they will better allow HGVs > and coaches to navigate those corners and increase > the use of the road as a rat run for commercial > vehicles. My anecdotal evidence is that since the > double yellows at the corners were introduced we > have had an increase in speeding and an increased > number of collisions with the bollard at the > corner of Nutbrook/Adys. > > My (and many of my neighbours) were clear that our > priority was stopping the use of Adys and > surrounding streets as a rat run and that the > proposed quietway looked likely to make the > problem worse and not better. What do you want to happen Alex? and why?

http://www.murdermap.co.uk/pages/cases/case.asp?CID=904829439 Not really gun crime within the youth community. Shot while breaking into a cannabis factory

I'm sorry I can't find page numbers but fig 5 (all those in the consultation zone) 83 yes, 54 no fig 6 (champion hill and side roads) 80 yes, 32 no Other results are based on total responses specifically including those who provide no postcode or post codes outside the consultation zone.

they are a well-established con. The goods are vastly over-priced and you overpay for them knowingly but thinking you are doing a good deed. They trade on your goodwill. To help ex-offenders (a good cause) try one of these http://bouncebackproject.com http://www.unlock.org.uk https://www.step-together.org.uk/pages/17-supporting-rehabilitation-of-ex-offenders

I'm sure that drivers are too sensible and courteous to be "constantly speeding up and slowing down" over speed humps. This maximises their fuel consumption and (as you say)very likely maximises the pollution which they cause. Most car drivers are aware of the need to keep a consistent, legal speed in order to minimise the cost of their journey and the danger they post to others.

The Community Speedwatch programme has provided evidence of speeding and Southwark police have started doing their own speeding patrols and issuing penalties. I saw them on Blackfriars Bridge where buses and cars coming south reach high speeds. If you want to support policing of speeding, a good place to start is Community Speedwatch which is run by PCSO Kevin Phillips and community volunteers. You can contact kevin on [email protected].