DJKillaQueen

What....is that the price of a main course there e-dealer?

Yes.....this topic was done to death in the Drawing Room last year and I provided plenty of data (much of it from the fire service itself) that shows it can accomodate the first 5% cut - due to a reduction in the number of fires and accidents over the past decade, and due to the fire service themselves coming in under budger the previous year.

The proposed changes to the fire service would not have affected the fire services ability to respond to this fire.

The top half looks ok Rosie but below looks very strange indeed :O

Average speed cameras don't work james for the following reason. If a vehicle breaks the limit on one stretch of road and then sits in traffic on another, then the average doesn't show a speeding offence. And just as a sat nav warns of an approaching speed camera, it is possible to fit a device that shows average speed (some sats navs do it). So the motorist with disregard will use technology just as they do now.

Average speed cameras won't work for various reasons. They work on motorways or long stretches of single speed limit roads, but not across areas where traffic stops and starts, using roads with variable speed limits.

I don't have any objection to say the section between Goose Green and Northcross Raod being 20mpr (it is most of the time anyway) because that makes some sense....but all they way to the Plough? C'mon...really? Lordship Lane is a main road, NOT a residential one. And compare the accidents data to other main roads in London and you'll see it's not anywhere near remarkable for accident rates.

It's such a shame. Hopefully the damage to the museum's collection won't be too devastating. Will be curious to see what the cause was though.

It looks like a serious blaze. Did the building have a sprinkler system in place (James/ Renata)?

LOL.....libertarian is an interesting word when we are by far one of the most bureaucratic countries in the world (with everything from having the most CCTV in operation to the daft health and safety mandates that stop children doing most of the things you and I did as children). And we all know you want 20mpr accross the entire borough which IS nannying. Personally I think you are over reacting to a problem that doesn't exist. As countless people have already told you, you would struggle to get above 20mpr most times of the day on the lower end of Lordship Lane. The vibrant economy already does the job of making drivers slow down. And the data shows LL to be of average for minor accidents with serious accidents nowhere near the status of blackspot levels. In fact, looking at the data, improvements to specific junctions and sight lines from them (something that many on here have been arguing for) would be far better use of your time.

So you think nothing should be done to curb the behaviour of pedestrians? Are you now also saying that drunken pedestrians wandering all over the road is some kind of acceptable traffic calming measure? I think you are just anti car James. Passion is fine, but passion without common sense is something else, and there's far too much of that within local authorities as it is. To put all the emphasis on drivers and ignore the other factors and the roles that the behaviour of certain pedestrians, cyclists etc play in all of this is just blatent bias and I have little support for those kinds of arguments. Like others, I'm getting increasingly irritated by this need to 'nanny' everything. Don't you guys have far more important things to be passionate about?

'The likes of people such as yourself stridently fighting 20mph limits often do speed though.' Where is your evidence of this James? You really must stop making assumptions about people who take an opposing view to yours. There IS a lot of lunacy in the management of roads by local authoirities. Those of us that try to bring common sense into the debate are not advocating speeding or anything of the like. Now how about my suggestion that you lobby for some roadside barriers to protect drivers form the masses of intoxicated people that fill the lower end of Lordship Lane most evenings, when traffic might just be able to get above 20mpr (because the rest of the time it can't).....or do pedestrians bear no responsibility for their behaviour. Oh and in case you think I am barking... here's my reasons for making such a suggestion.... http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100202152019/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme3/alcoholandpedestriansno20?page=3#a1011 So when I read results like alcohol levels are excessive in 66% of pedestrians injured by vehicles...then I can be frogiven for thinking the emphasis is completely in the wrong direction. When you combine pedrestian accidents with pedestrians not using designated crossing points then you really do start to get a good picture of the real cause of pedestrian accidents with motor vehicles...and speed has nothing to with it.

Agreed e-dealer, but what can the Police do when under 18's who commit burglary are only given a slap on the wrist?

Again, most pedestrians, drivers et al get through life never being injured or worse still killed by each other. There will always be accidents no matter how much the state interferes. Just for information though, where pedestrians do clash with vehicles, a high enough percentage of them (the pedestrians that is) are intoxicated for alcohol to be recognised as a major factor. Maybe it's time drivers were protected from the menace of drunken pedestrians and not the other way round. I therefore might suggest you add pavement barriers outside the many drinking establishments along Lordship Lane to your prospectus for a safer high street James ;)

Unless you survey every single driver then it can't be taken as fact (there is no indication of the number of participants in the survey). I can see with my own eyes when driving that the majority of drivers do not speed. I've driven, cycled, riden motorbikes.....and seen it from all angles. We have one of the lowest accident rates in the world.

I agree with you TJ and have also pointed out to James that accident data doesn't give the kind of detail to know if speed would have made a difference. The vast majority of accidents are just that, minor accidents, often at speeds within the limit, caused by driver error. Most minor accidents are sorted by the drivers themselves (with no attendance by other services) through the insurance which DRIVERS PAY FOR, not the state. So the costs associated with most accidents are irrelevant in a discussion regarding the impact on community and state. The UK has some of the lowest accident and road fatality data in the world.... http://internationaltransportforum.org/irtadpublic/pdf/09brochure.pdf Statistics show an average of just 4 fatalities per 100,000 population for the UK, or if you like 0.004%. I do think we've evolved into a society where many people have nothing better to do and I especially think that is the case with local government. The level of bureacracy and complexity of it is ridiculous compared to some other European nations. It's one of the reason the UK is becoming an increasingly expensive countries to live in (whilst producing less). Most drivers can be trusted to drive according to the rules and the conditions....let's stop treating them like idiots James.

I'll be going to Wembley but think it a disgrace that one of the main broadcasters won;t be showing it.

'Reducing the legal limit will do nothing to affect that minority of drivers who already disregard the speed limits and the safety of other road users as a result.' This is absolutely the point. Poor drivers are poor drivers...end of. It is also why I perfer speed cameras as a method of controlling limits over other methods....because speed cameras do not impact on the vast majority of drivers who stick to the rules. I also like lowlanders idea of flexible road speed management according to the conditions. Motorways already use this system and some traffic lights are also automated to read traffic flow. H I will give the ap thing a go to satisfy intersest and report back when I've done it with the results :).

A slower speed would definitely make the journey longer. There are many sections that can be travelled at 30 or more in a car (because of the time of travel and the hours of work - having to be there by 7.30 am and not leaving until 7.30 pm) and on a motorbike, I can get there in an hour. People who call for 20mpr speed limits boroughwide forget that traffic varies according to the time of day. Now if someone were to suggest blanket 20mpr speed limits at peak times, then I'd have more time for that as a proposed method of improving traffic flow.

This is madness...are we to make entire swathes of London 20mpr throughout? Travelling accross the city would be ridiculously slow, and yes some people have no choice but to drive through and/ or around the city. What world do some of you live in? Maybe you should try having the kind of job that takes you out to Shepparton from South East London six days a week (to work 12 hour long days) or have the kind of job that is shift work, and then you'll understand just why some people have to use the roads and their own transport. We are not faced with ridiculously high rates of carnage on ours roads....nothing of the sort. So some common sense would be appreciated. Average speed cameras would never work in this way anyway as certain A and B roads will never be reduced to 20mpr for obvious reasons.

The problem I have with crash map data is that it doesn't account for volume. Minor accidents can be anything from a car reversing into another car, to an emergency stop gone wrong. A 20mpr won't necessarily prevent accidents, because it doesn't challenge driver error. I would say in fact that -1 serious crash per year on a busy A road is a very low occurance. If you remove the slight accidents from that crash map then you have a clearer idea of what's going on. The serious accidents are usually near to junctions, but don't happen often enough imo to warrant forcing all vehicles to 20mph the length of Lordship Lane. Where the data would support that though seems to be between Grove Vale roundabout and East Dulwich Grove (but I've never got above 20mpr on that stretch anyway). Move further up the map and take a look at the serious accident rate on London Road and around the junction of East Dulwich Common. It makes the southside of Lordship Lane look like nothing to worry about at all. And it gets more interesting still when seperating the types of casualties involved. For example, a good proportion involve pedstrians not using proper crossing points. That is in fact the highest group injured in the serious section after other motorists. And it also has to be said that serious accidents still happen on those residential roads in between the A roads that are already under 20mpr rules. It's hasn't stopped serious accidents at all and the number of them is proportionate in traffic flow terms to the busier A roads. And having said all of that, the vast majority of people using Lordship Lane manage to navigate it every day without having an accident. And edited to add....two of the minor accidents involving cyclists on that map are where I was the cyclist. In neither case would a 20mpr enforced speed limit have prevented the accident or changed the outcome. That I think illustrates the problem with crash map data being used to justify a reduced speed limit. There is no way of knowing...without looking at the corcumstances of every accident if a reduced speed limit would have been of use. Assumption that speed is a factor in the severity of every accident is a red herring.

I agree that where data supports it TFL may consider it, but Lordhip Lane is not an accident or fatality blackspot, and as someone pointed out above, natural congestion already controls speed along the parts most densely populated.

John K is right. It would require TFLs say so and they are unlikely to grant it for an A road.

Just had a look, there is no secondary application as far as I can see to vary hours of sale of alcohol from 23.00 hrs to 05.00 hrs. http://app.southwark.gov.uk/Licensing/LicPremisesAppliedResults.asp?TypeDesc=Premises%20Licence&RegisterType=LPA&CaseNumber=&TradingName=&ApplicantName=&StreetName=Lordship+Lane&PostCode=%25&Ward=&batch=5&submit=Continue