kford

Nice idea in principle. Set a live brief to Camberwell Art School. Winning design is used. Get Foxtons to sponsor it so we don't have to pay.

DD is right to suggest a connection - two of the fire happened on building sites owned by Greenacre Homes: http://www.southlondon-today.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=1091&headline=Watchdog%20to%20probe%20Camberwell%20fire

philiphenslowe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I love the building. In my 31 years in East > Dulwich I only managed to go up there for the > first time on new year's day + the views were > fantastic. I always like to see it twinkling in > the distance on a dark evening from the top deck > of the bus when it gets to the top of Dog Kennel > Hill. You're not the architect by any chance, are you?

It's my least favourite building in the area, along with the Haart/Co-op Chemist/old Woolwich block on LL. It looks like that apartment building near Amsterdam's Schiphol airport after that 747 hit it.

Parking restrictions around junctions is the best solution. Traffic lights just make people impatient, especially at night when there's no-one around. Speed cameras, as i've said before, just make people look at their speedos and not at the road. See:

Two or three bulbs out in Hansler; clocks need resetting; timers out.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A happy day when I got back to the motorcycle and > found a parking ticket stuck to the windscreen in > an ENVELOPE saying it was a warning only. > I had parked on a boxing day. > A bit like Sat 26th Dec, Westminster Libraries are > treating it as a Bank Holiday but Westminster > Parking B@stads are NOT. > I ignored the thing and they sent me a reminder. I > sent a photo of the official Westminster Parking > control envelope. > They said the case is dismissed. You're lucky they didn't pursue the fine - they have a ?17m bad-Icelandic-investment-sized hole in their finances to fill, don't they?

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "BTW, if you get a ticket from a private car park, > such as a supermarket or private land, ignore it - > it's completely unenforceable." > > True. But do research so that you know how to > write the correct wording. There are template > letters to be found on various consumer websites. Best not to reply - they'll only put you on the 'live one' pile ;-)

Steady Eddy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > After reading this I am so glad I don't have a car > ::o You don't need to be a motorist to be affected by this increasing misuse of council powers: http://www.expressandstar.com/2009/11/12/fined-75-for-feeding-ducks/ http://www.birminghammail.net/news/black-country/2008/04/16/charges-dropped-against-wolverhampton-woman-in-apple-core-litter-case-97319-20773235/

JTT is right. Appeal every ticket - there are loads of loopholes too: yellow lines should be unbroken; double-yellows should be have a 't-bar' end; signs should be clear and posted a set distance apart and make sure the offence, date and all vehicle and location details are correct, to the letter. BTW, if you get a ticket from a private car park, such as a supermarket or private land, ignore it - it's completely unenforceable.

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I rarely ever get parking tickets, and do > you know why? Because I pay attention to parking > regulations. It's not hard. It is if you come across these signs, of which there are many in central London: http://www.barnetresidentsassociation.org.uk/bra/files/parking-sign.png

Burn it in the back garden. What?

We bought green canvas covers, with brass eyelets around the edges. Just big enough to slip a small padlock through. Reg and postcode marker penned on the side is a good idea too.

Never had real problems with parking, and I live just off LL. Even on Saturdays when everyone's buying their meat, fish and silly trinkets. I've had to park around the corner a couple of times and that's it.

monica Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a shame, the Pavillion cafe in Dulwich park > are always targeted, they fought to get CCTV and > the last I heard it was installed but not working. > Parks need 24 hour security, what happened to the > good old park keeper. Agreed. All CCTV does is record rather than prevent crime. What use is some grainy footage of youths in hoods anyway? It's probably not even admissible in court, as Westminster CC found out recently after installing their multi-million pound system.

It's the time of year for accidents too, with the clocks going back. Still, at least those Scottish farmers get to milk their cows in the light.

Female sparrowhawk

JBARBER Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi kford, > I'm afraid I agree and disagree with you. You're > right to highlight other causes of collisions > including being distracted mobile phones, drink, > etc. But the consequences of a collission at 20mph > vs. 30mph are chalk and cheese. 20mph the victim > almost always survives, 30mph they nearly always > die. > I'm not condoning speeding, and it's a fact of physics that someone hit at 20mph will more likely survive than someone hit at 30mph. But someone alert and sober driving at 25mph is less likely to hit a child than someone drunk or on their mobile phone driving at 20mph. DfT's own figures support that. My point was that - road safety is a complicated subject. We mustn't think: everyone's driving at 20mph - it's all safe and rosy - job done - because it's not.

The road will still be dangerous. Humps do not stop people using their phones, pulling out without looking or driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. Depends how you measure road safety. Edited as meant to be a reply to Loz's post.

If we must suffer them, those tabletop designs are more preferable, like the one which forms a crossing on Peckham Rye. The back roads of Clapham have a few, and they seem to do the job just as well as cushions or full width humps, without the damage to cars, cyclists or spinal vertebrae.

No average speed cameras, please. I'd rather ED motorists have their eyes on the road, not on their speedos. These devices don't stop drivers talking on their phones, drink or drug-driving or driving without due care and attention, which as the DoT's own figures suggest, are the main causes of urban accidents. I'd sooner you lobby for the police to use ANPR to weed out the uninsured, untaxed and unMOTed motorists in the area. According to safety campaigners, they are 10 times more likely to drink and drive and more likely to crash: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4535423.ece

Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Car overturned on Townley at about 3am this > morning (Mr Asset was walking the dog and saw it), > nowt to do with the junction though. > Hope passengers are okay. Those speed humps doing their job then

Didn't mind it when I came across it the other day; the old junction was awkward and necessitated a big crane of the neck to see what was coming if driving from the village and turning right. Must've been tricky for van drivers. Noticed however that tyre tracks suggested someone had driven over the newly-made grass verge, as if the old road had never been removed. As for the kerbs - isn't that a nod towards a 'shared space'?

One on Hansler too

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Kford. That link is worthless as it us very dodgy > assertions by the lib dems. But even if it were > true how much did conductors cost and what is the > net loss really?? I know, those dodgy Lib-Dems, eh. But anyone who uses bendy-buses will tell you they are rife for fare dodging, compared to regular front-loading double-deckers, where it's almost impossible.