Sally Eva

I always feel that "locals" is less respectful than "local people". Like calling people "blacks" or "whites". It misses out the most important aspect of other people's humanity

the Highway Code says drivers should not park less than 10m from the corner. As we know this is completely ignored both by drivers and PCSOs. The HC is taken into account by courts when deciding on negligence and compensation but this is of course after an accident. So the council is introducing 7.5m double yellows on corners in order to control this behaviour without waiting for someone to get hurt. I think it should be 10m myself. its HC rule 243 and it is discussed here: https://www.drivingtesttips.biz/nearest-you-can-park-to-a-junction.html

You are thinking of this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21040410 important thoughts

plus 1 paint has few protective qualities and occasional speed bumps don't stop people racing from one to the next. Speed cushions make life a lot worse by pushing fast oncoming traffic into the middle of the road. Sinusoidal humps do slow traffic because they are unavoidable but, as you say, the accelerate, brake, accelerate, brake effect is not very wonderful. They work when put in at very high densities. Southwark doesn't put them in at high densities. This report discusses pollution and speed humps: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38156778

well yes, a verbal agreement is binding but do you really want to insist on having a landlady who doesn't want you? you surely aren't thinking of going to court? She can just deny it. Then it would obviously be her word against yours -- and you would be spending lots of money on court fees even if you didn't pay a lawyer.

sorry I meant to send a private msge

Hi TE44, I don't think I posted a link. I know nothing about this man personally so I am not commenting on his situation. I am saying that homeless people who apply for council homelessness assistance are considered on their "priority need" which is their vulnerability. Their alcoholism or mental illness are factors which make them more likely to be deemed to have a priority need, not less likely. People who are refused council assistance may be referred to charitable hostels and may not want or be able to go for various reasons -- one of which that they are not eligible for Housing Benefit or the often frightening conditions in these hostels (as people have described to me). The council takes wrong decisions on vulnerability. If you know someone turned away by the council whom you think should have been assisted then send them to Citizens Advice. St Mungos is a great organisation which does wonderful work. Anything they say will be important and correct.

Hi TE44, No one will be given a council or housing association house without going through the homelessness system. That is the system. Council run hostels which are part of the homelessness system do not demand rehab, psychiatric treatment etc. The system is hard, housing is in extremely short supply. Don't give people the idea that there are more obstacles than actually exist or those who could qualify will not apply. Many homeless people do not like the over-night charitable hostels because they are full of mentally ill drunks. This gentleman does not sound mentally ill or drunk and that might be why he does not use them. He may not be vulnerable enough to qualify for council assistance or he may prefer a life under the stars.

This article is about the US and Canada. It doesn't apply to the UK or to this gentleman. In the UK homeless people have a right to housing if they have a priority need ie if they are old, sick or mentally ill. They don't have to promise to be a fit, well, sober or clean-living person. If this gentleman fulfills these criteria ie he is old, sick or mentally ill then Southwark should house him. Renata is looking in to this. If he fulfills these criteria and Southwark don't house him he should go to Citizens Advice. But all this only works if he wants to be housed. As Pugwash said.

there's a lot more discussion including action by the councillor in this thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1855002

London Borough of Southwark North Cross Road Market The London Borough of Southwark (prohibition of Vehicles and Waiting Restrictions) (North Cross Road Market) Traffic Order 2017.Th e council of the London Borough of Southwark will make the above-mentioned traffic order on 19 October 2017, the effects of which are described in the attached notice. If you wish to be sent copies of this order or relevant drawings, in either a digital or paper format, please contact me using the details below. If you wish to make any comments regarding these proposals, please send them to [email protected], quoting reference ?TMO1718-North Cross Road Market?.

Legal commentary on "finders keepers" etc. Personal anecdote -- about 30 years ago my handbag fell off my bag (not properly secured obviously). The person who found it handed it in to the police and I got it back. About 40 years ago as a very young person I left my purse on the bus with my week's wages in it (?11 :)) and the person who found it handed it in and I got it back. I can feel very fond of the human race. They can be very caring and careful for others, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8129534.stm

boss of Deliveroo tells MPs that giving workforce minimum wage, holiday and sick pay will add ?1 to each meal https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/10/deliveroo-workers-rights-uber

Lots of trains https://www.thetrainline.com/train-times/bromley-south-to-east-dulwich

sounds like the owner needs this: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/prevent-japanese-knotweed-from-spreading

OK, I will thanks

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A new CPZ has come into effect on the area > surrounding Lyndhurst Grove, Crofton Road etc. > "The Toastrack". > > Not sure if this will effect you but many roads > with free parking off of Bellenden Road seem to be > solid. > > I can confirm that Chadwick Road and Grove Park, > free parking at the moment, is solid. Move and you > will never get back. No joke. > > It used to be that traffic moved in the evening > now ever since this CPZ cars just sit and never > move. > > Even untaxed/no mot are just left by Southwark > even if reported. One less space to be used > > It certainly appears that Southwark want residents > to request CPZ's as they move the problem > elsewhere. It is residents who request a CPZ only > because they have inherited someone else's problem > not that they actually want one. this CPZ hasn't been put into operation yet (or at least there was no sign of it two weeks ago). I think it's scheduled to start in the New Year. So it cannot be the cause of problems elsewhere. Possibly it will be but it can't be yet.

There is no plan or proposal to re-open Camberwell Grove Bridge to "most traffic". The consultation is whether to open it as it was before the latest closure -- to one way traffic, cars only. Sally first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh well, I think a fair few on here want CG bridge > back open for most traffic. There's been no really > persuasive or compelling argument to suggest > otherwise. Hoping common sense prevails.

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > All roads are through roads going somewhere" With respect, that is plainly not true. We can all think of roads which are not through roads. There are several in the toast rack. Lots of people are lucky enough to live in roads which allow them to access their own home but do not lead through to anywhere else.

"taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > See previous post. The closed bridge makes > Lyndhurst Grove, Lyndhurst Way and Bellenden a lot > more treacherous for cyclists using those roads. > Camberwell Grove is fine with the bridge half > open." Hi Taper, sorry for the delay. Our suggested response to the consultation says: "It is unsafe, and arguably unfair, for improvements to Camberwell Grove, Grove Hill Road, Dog Kennel Hill and Champion Hill to mean pushing traffic to the diversion route along Lyndhurst Grove, Lyndhurst Way, Bellenden Road and Chadwick Road. A permanent bridge closure should be combined with improvements to all the residential roads between Camberwell Grove and Rye Lane. These should ensure through-traffic stays on the main roads and cannot take short-cuts down residential streets. The result will be improved road safety and lowered air pollution across the whole area." So we have your needs well in mind. It's all here: https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/camberwell-grove-bridge-re-opening-draft-consultation-response/

I wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Why do we all need to campaign to keep the roads > where we live open to people who want to take > short-cuts down them? > > We know that roads that don't take through traffic > are much much nicer than roads that do. It's > quieter, the air is cleaner, we can open our > windows and hear the birds sing. No one disputes > this and you are not disputing it. > > Why is it so wrong to want it? Why, in this > particular case, are "other road users" wishes > more important than our own?" macutd Wrote: > It's because we all share the same roads. and it's > selfish to think that yours is just for you. > we would all like "nicer roads"!!! ------------------------------------------------------- thanks for this, nice and clear. The roads belong to the Queen -- it's the Queen's Highway and she graciously delegates management of the roads to her government which delegates it to (in London) TfL and borough councils. It's an offence to obstruct the highway but this how this is dealt with varies. If you take parking, many people like to leave their car outside their house and in quite a lot of places this is freely available -- but there are controls like double yellows, time limits, CPZs etc. And if you want to leave a skip you need a licence. So, what happens next is a balance of rights -- personal, economic and environmental. Let's express that as two: a) the right to drive wherever you like by the route you choose -- the moment we express it we can see it is hugely interfered with -- buses can go places cars can't and cars are allowed to use streets that lorries aren't. Speeds are limited, streets are one-way only etc. This is a mix of personal rights (visiting auntie) and economic rights (tradesmen, deliveries etc) b) then there are environmental and other personal rights -- cleaner air and quieter streets might be considered environmental but they are also personal (we all like clean air and peace as you say) and economic -- dirty air makes people ill, needs cleaning up etc. Dangerous streets reduce people's personal freedom to walk their children to school or children's access to liberty taking themselves to the library or to school. So -- going back to the highway -- her Majesty's subjects have conflicting needs, desires, wishes etc -- some of them are compatible (cycling is compatible with clean air and noise reduction) -- people in delivery vans taking short cuts may not be compatible with peace and quiet. Unless we express our wishes they may not get taken into account. The desire for peace and quiet may not win out over the desire for short-cuts but it's not wrong, selfish or foolish to have it. Going back to your point. No indeed the road is not mine. Neither does it belong to people with four wheels. It belongs (in so far as it does) to all of us. Residents are not necessarily right or wrong, neither are drivers -- as so often it's a bit more complicated than that.

Could you be more specific?

macutd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well we would all love our roads to be cordoned > off, who cares about other road users!! thank you. That's the paradox in a sentence. Why do we all need to campaign to keep the roads where we live open to people who want to take short-cuts down them? We know that roads that don't take through traffic are much much nicer than roads that do. It's quieter, the air is cleaner, we can open our windows and hear the birds sing. No one disputes this and you are not disputing it. Why is it so wrong to want it? Why, in this particular case, are "other road users" wishes more important than our own?

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > In my view the only > consideration here should be whether the bridge > closure adversely affects residents living in the > vicinity of the bridge . > > Hopefully southwark will disregard responses from > people with a postcode outside the immediate area > so that the convenience of road users, of any > sort, doesnt end up taking priority over the > people who have to put up with the consequences. I can agree with this. It seems a bit unfair that it is not allowed to apply to the residents of Camberwell Grove but that's a cheap point really. If we consider the underlying point it seems to be that residents should get greater consideration than the people who use the roads " the convenience of road users". Ok. I can agree with that too. Let's traffic-calm the whole area of the toast rack and the area bounded by the railway line. Transport planners could draw up a scheme which would put off through traffic while still allowing residents access to their own home -- Telegraph Hill is a good example of this. Cyclists would certainly support it. We would also be able to use it. It would be cleaner, quieter and safer than roads used by motorised through traffic in a hurry (which is currently most of it). People living within it could cycle safely, their kids could cycle to school -- it could be really good. I reckon a lot of people on this list will immediately attack this comment. The interesting question is Why? I'm interested in the answer to this.

Abe certainly makes a fair point. Southwark cyclists have always believed that area wide traffic planning is the way to go. We want to quieten roads, reduce air and noise pollution and make streets safer for residents generally rather than just "outside the mansions of the rich". I'm afraid we do favour keeping Camberwell Grove closed even though it's got big houses on it but we would want to spread those good things to people in smaller houses and even those in flats. Our draft consultation response is here: https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/camberwell-grove-bridge-re-opening-draft-consultation-response/