Sally Eva

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.

In the morning rush hour generally there are crowds of cyclists and v few peds. In the evening the cyclists are more spread out and there are lots more peds. Is it working OK between 4.30 and 7pm?

I don't know where they will put it but I agree -- wherever they put it they will do it very well. I must ask about the sheets :)

Depends where you start from. If you are in East Dulwich then Tractorlad has nailed it. If you want to go up the Canal Path then Bellenden, Highshort, across Peckham High St to Melon St and then right to the Path or left to Sumner Road which goes to the same place without babies, loving couples, shopping trolleys etc If you are on the east side try Gordon Road right to the bottom (ie past the Spike) 90 degree bend back to Consort -- personally I would be trying to avoid the narrow passage under the bridge on Copeland/Consort -- dark and intimidating. Earlier today I'm told cyclists were going up Rye Lane and then walking (under police supervision) around the works. That seems the best plan if it is still operating.

I may mean Highshore Road near Lidl. I understand the police are down there now trying to control cyclists/traffic.

The council is suggesting the bus route ie Copeland hanover park but this includes a dangerous pinch point under the railway bridge. There are no facilities for cyclists at, ie no special arrangements. The area to the west of Rye Lane is full of one-way streets. The barrier is the railway and next way under the railway is the Bellenden Gyratory and then Lyndhurst Way or Bellenden Road to Lidl. If you go straight across at the junction of Peckham Road by Lidl you get to Melon St which is closed to motors ie safe. If you turn right at the end of Melon you are back on the canal path. If you turn left you are on Sumner Road which takes you straight up to Burgess Park and is negotiable with care. If you want more detail then PM me or ask here

Birth -- straightforward delivery -- is ?13,000. More probably privately -- that is what the NHS charges if the mother has no right to free treatment

The Motor Insurance Bureau insures cars damaged by hit and run drivers. I should contact them. I would think that they will speak unkindly to Churches. Afterall the implication is that all their vans are so damaged (all the time) that they cannot tell which one has recently been in an accident If they can't be bothered to do that they will have to pay up themselves. https://www.mib.org.uk

There's a new packaging-free shop in Nunhead (near Ayres and Sopers) which does washing up liquid (as well as lots of other things) https://www.southeast15.com/peckham-and-nunhead-shops/byo-plastic-free-shop-nunhead

I should contact your councillor

If your aim is to get rid of it, you can report it as abandoned once it has one flat. No need to screwdriver all four