kford

These old railway cottages are lovely. They're definitely worth keeping.

It's not a limit, it's an ambition and a reminder to slow down. Taken in that context, it's a good thing. No-one will be pulled up by the police, no cameras will be set to catch drivers doing 23mph (not yet, anyway). It's a shame we're not metric, because 40kph (25mph) is a much more useable, and yet safe speed.

I think speed humps and a no-right-turn onto ED Road. Someone set up a consultation.

Houses in Shawbury are different to the pic.

I'd say it's Lytcott Grove, going by the detail on the door lintels, which resemble those on nearby Melbourne Grove. It was flattened by a V1.

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This only incentivises people bringing their cars > into the area from outside at a time when it's > practically at breaking point. It took me 20m to > find a space within 6 streets of my house today - > we need a CPZ as soon as humanly possible. Just a > one hour restriction in the middle of the day is > required, nothing more. It works absolutely > everywhere else in London and I don't believe the > circumstances of ED are so utterly unique so as to > buck that fact. I've lived in CPzs all over London and they don't work. You'll still be looking for a spot, except now you'll be paying through the nose for it.

I agree Penguin, the questions are far too simplistic - an hour is better than 30 mins, but not better if the restriction now applies on a Saturday; and it's certainly not better than unrestricted, especially in the case of LL.

This is the thin end of a CPZ wedge. Resist at all costs.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kford Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > The solution is to create uncertainty and > > encourage eye contact between motorists and > > pedestrians. > > > > This is the essence of the matter. As a pedestrian > I need to be woken up at this junction and as a > driver I need to be made uncertain. The problem is > that as a pedestrian I am so used to being > molly-coddled in LL that I just walk without > thinking. As a driver the absence of control is > tacitly taken as an invitation to go forward > blithely. > > Rationally, this really is a problem induced by > too much regulation - but the only practical > answer we can collectively imagine is more > regulation. That is a one way street. What in fact > is the evidence of accident incidence in those > European towns that have abolished all road > markings together with the difference between > roads and pavements? Indeed. I've suggested on here that the simple removal of white lines on roads like Barry Road will reduce speeds without the need for unproven, intrusive and eye-wateringly expensive SPECS cameras or clumsy back-shuddering humps.

The traffic lights have caused a problem. They create a false sense of priority when green and encourage rat-running across the junction when red. This didn't happen before, and I speak as someone who has motorcycled, driven, cycled and walked across this bit of road every day for 10 years. The solution is to create uncertainty and encourage eye contact between motorists and pedestrians. So: Lose the lights. Build a table-top raised junction across LL and the end of EDG to slow traffic down. ZEBRA crossings where the Pelican crossing is, and across the mouth of EDG. A half box-junction on the EDG side of LL. Enforce with a box junction camera if you must, like TfL does in town.

It was covered - the cover blew off

1982 Lancia Gamma Coupe. Worth about ?5-7k with the tyres pumped up.

Just bin them, and any other correspondence from repo-type companies, which, surprise, surprise often have the same PO Box address as the parking thieves.

This is that plaque with 1997 on it:

The plaque on the church they film is dated 1997.

I think that's by design. That's why there are low earth bunds, or banks around the edge of the playing fields, to contain a flood and stop it affecting local properties.

10 brilliant little Thomas and Friends stories. Books in great condition with a couple of them dog-eared. ?7

Lots of cars have them now. It holds you steady on a hill until you drive off and then automatically disengages. Hard to do handbrake turns with them though.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kford, are you referring to the LL/Townley Road > junction? On the contrary, this junction does need > lights, which indeed is something that we were > going to suggest to Southwark. If you're referring > to the Townley/ED Grove junction, you clearly have > forgotten (or don't remember) the chaotic > situation at that junction before lights were > installed. No, the junction which is the subject of this thread - East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale. The other end is fine as it is, with the crossing and central refuge. Lights just make drivers speed up, especially when they turn to amber. Watch how courteous and calm drivers are when traffic lights are out of action and they have to go back to old-fashioned eye contact.

This junction doesn't even need traffic lights

Remember the old government information film about treating treating bikes as if they are a small car? That.

But they will still issue a PCN for the 'offence' of not displaying a valid permit. Hence the OP's fine.

A CPZ wouldn't cover cinema parking as they typically run from 0800-1830. As someone who could be greatly affected by extra parking from cinema-goers, I'll accept that as a trade-off for the convenience of being near a cinema.

A ground anchor and substantial chain (not the cheaper, thinner Oxford chains) should keep them at bay for a while.

You'll still get a fine, for not displaying a permit. Happened to me once when mine fell off on a hot day.