Sally Eva

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].

There are many benefits for non-car owning residents: cleaner air, quieter environments and safer roads. These benefits are enjoyed not only by residents in the CPZ but by residents on all the routes by which drivers arrive at the CPZ.

It seems a bit mean to knowingly allow a small number of streets who vote against a CPZ to have all the outflow of commuters from streets around them that vote to have one. That is after all what a great deal of this thread is about -- complaint that one CPZ moves the parking pressure onto neighbouring streets who then need one. This is a community decision which means some people are always going to either have a CPZ who didn't want one or not have a CPZ who did.

There's a question in the current consultations as to whether people who don't want CPZs would change their mind if streets around them had one.

I reported a flasher in Nunhead Cemetery a few years ago to the police. I was with my children and he didn't just flash and run, he hung around until other people arrived. As a single woman, I experienced a flasher many years before that in Windsor Great Park. I ignored him and he ran away. I didn't feel I should ignore it this time because of the children and because he didn't run away. Two policemen came round to take my evidence and, as with you, they said that they were concerned about these events because they could lead to worse. They caught him. Young women can get used to this sort of harassment and learn how to deal with it but they shouldn't have to and this guy may have more success with more vulnerable teenagers. By reporting him now, you help protect them.

tell the police. Did your daughter have the presence of mind to take his registration number? What a horrible experience for her. Your daughter has a loving family. A more vulnerable teenage girl might have felt flattered. This sort of thing is predatory.

If you believe that the document has been modified to avoid embarrassment, you can ask for previous published versions via a Freedom of Information Request.

MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendelharris > I think it occurs in the opening paragraphs of > several sections eg > DS 114 1.2.b. "Stopping distances vary with > vehicle type and speed. However, research now > suggests that providing excessive visibility can > also introduce dangers as it may increase the > speed that people drive or ride at." > > I noted this some while ago, so I was citing it > from memory, my apologies if I have overstated the > concern. > MarkT I don't think this is demonstrating the point you are trying to make. The phrase used is "excessive visibility" which is said to cause increased speed. This would make sense as part of a debate on whether the double yellow lines should be 10m (the distance advised in the Highway Code) or 7.5m. The council is proposing 7.5m. There is no reason to believe that it considers 7.5m to be "excessive". The SSDM does not say that 7.5m will increase speeding. The bollards are there to protect pedestrians against drivers who are unable to control their vehicles on junctions. I agree that this must be a concern. A point-closure would seem a better way of dealing with drivers who are unable to adapt their driving to the road conditions. Plainly making it harder to see where they are going is unlikely to improve their skills.

HMG has put out a "strategy" to tackle wood-burning stoves amongst other sources of pollution. Not clear if it's a green paper or a white paper or a discussion document https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46823440

OTOH the air will be cleaner, the environment will be quieter and the streets will be safer with fewer cars driving round in circles looking for parking spots. The roads on the way to free parking also benefit because they are not clogged up with traffic heading for a free parking spot.

car ownership is expensive. Many people don't have cars because they cannot afford them, this is true, but an inference that those who walk and cycle are poorer than those who drive may not be true. Not having a car is a money saving decision in itself. That money then becomes available to spend on other things.

The TfL research is here: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/walking-cycling-economic-benefits-summary-pack.pdf Take-away messages: people who walk and cycle spend up to 40% more than those who drive to their local high st walking, cycling and public realm improvements (such as those suggested in this consultation) increase business on the High St by up to 30% making it easier to walk and cycle and improving attractiveness of high streets increases the number of people who use them -- even though businesses often don't believe this There's a lot more on the same lines -- all in pictures :)

they are relatively new -- maybe 5yrs ish

Walking south from the station down Rye Lane to catch the buses again outside Tesco would take about 5 minutes. Late at night the back streets might well feel safer but up to 9pm the market stalls are open, cyclists are coming through and people are still coming home -- there should be enough people around to feel safe KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Walking back to ED from Peckham Rye in evenings > should be OK if you stick to main roads, > presumably there?s many people from ED in same > boat so you may have company on your walk ! > > ETA: This post is not intended to ignore people > who can?t walk, people who may be able to walk now > but won?t be able to at the time they need to make > the walking journey, their friends or relatives > who might take offence, nor any other fantastical > scenario that can be extrapolated as offensive.

re the gas man's observation about cyclists' journey time -- the problem is not time but danger. The Copeland Road route is about the same distance (how could it be otherwise) but parts are narrow and dark and the whole route is heavily trafficked. Rye Lane OTOH is safer. Cyclists are much influenced by their likelihood of surviving their journey.

I was down there about 2pm. The only traffic difference was the absence of buses, -- cars and vans still coming and going from Blenheim Grove, Bournemouth Road, Choumert Grove and the south end of Rye Lane. Some of them, as you say, at great speed. No attempt has been made to close any of them. Pedestrians wisely staying on the pavement.