DJKillaQueen

Really Davidh? Cars travelling too fast along a road to a dead end that no pedestrian accident has ever occurred on? Compare that to the neighbpouring Peckham Rye....that's were you'll see cars speeding, that's where accidents have occured (including to myself). The more I read on this thread the more think that this Strakers Road nonsense is the result of lobbying (probably by FOPR) and is based on no evidence or common sense whatsoever.

I know someone who was very involved before it's closure as a 'social club' and that person has a very different take on the story given by the father that closed it all down. Bit of a cheek if you ask me to now ask the local community for ideas after ignoring the suggestions and views of the community that were using it before.

I agree to have missed the velodrome is a shame but I also don't think it really matters too much given that the Torch is passing close enough to ED for anyone who wants to see it. I for one will walk down to Peckham to cheer on those carrying the torch. For them it is a once in a lifetime experience and entirely in the right spirit of things to go and cheer them on.

I totally accept those points Polmoche and you are right, that is perhaps where the real issues lie.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi DJKQ, > We shouldnt need people to be injured to know it > makes no sense allowing people to speed through > the park environment. James WHERE is the study undertaken to prove that speeding is a persistent problem along Strakers Road? I've lived opposite it for almost 22 years, have walked accross Strakers Road 3 or four times a day for most of it.....I think I would notice if speeding was a persistent issue. 5mph is good enough for > Dulwich Park which is enforced by restricting > people from driving through the park. And there is the difference right there. Dulwich Park can be DRIVEN THROUGH. Not comparable imo. Peckham Rye > has a car park further in so the road needs > calming. WHY? The car park effectively makes it a cul-de-sac. > So what would be your long-term solution Frist of all I'd like to see a meaningful survey done to establish if there is a marked problem. People are aking all the time for traffic calming in places where there is a blatent problem and it falls on deaf ears. Also to place a hump every 50 metres on such a short road is also excessive. If you bothered to monitor the road in question you wouldn't fail to notice that it is speeding along Peckham Rye by some, that is a more worrying issue (and yes, the thousands of pounds spent adapting parts of that road has actually made the problem worse). When you or Ranata can point to the survey undertaken to base this decision upon, then we can have a debate based on fatual evidence. At present it seems the decision is based on 'impression' and no doubt 'lobbying'.......and you of all people James would the the first to criticise money being spent in this way.

Is it one of these? They are common in the UK and the recent humid wet weather would be very appealing to them. http://w.openphoto.org/projects/wetland/20061018/viviparous_lizard_sun It's called a Viviparous or Common Lizard.

I think the wrong questions are being asked but 'rightclicking' touches on some of the real causal factors. The question should be 'why are so many in work unable to meet basic living costs?' (basic living costs being rent, food, utilities and taxes and travel to and from work). If we look at what proportion of below average saleries (and even some average ones) are spent on what it becomes blatently obvious that housing inflation has had by far the biggest impact over the last 30 years, followed by fuel. That tax has to be used to subsidise so many in full time work (namely to help with rent) is also the sign of a badly balanced economy. I agree Jeremy with the importance of a decent minimum wage and education. But what I would also say is that there needs to be more investment in and a longer term view towards job creation. At present we basically just don't have enough jobs in most parts of the country. Living amongst the affluence of London can blinker the reality of life for the unemployed. And any job creation has to also be the right kind of job creation....not everyone is able to pass exams. I can't see any government having the balls to address housing inflation (as we have also seen regarding a return to the regulation of banking). And massivley raising the minimum wage is fraught with potential problems for employers too. So for now it looks as though subsidising the lives of the working poor will have to continue.....which means what exactly? That we all will continue to pay the mortgages through our taxes of some property investors. As immoral as that may seem, it is not as immoral as squeezing the poor into even greater hardship.

I totally agree with the above two posts. The dangerous dogs act is flawed and clearly does not work given the number of attcks by truly out of control dogs every year (few of which are pit bull types). The emphasis of any law should be on owners. It is they that have the responsibility of making sure they know how to own an animal. When the owners are responsible, the pet usually is too (and Lennox was an example of that). There is no excuse for death threats etc but that too also highlights the gap between how we view people who are out of control and animals. We abolished capital punishment for very sound reasons. It's a pity we can't show the same value for the lives of animals.

But Sue does have a point. The majority of drug users don't commit crime to pay for their drugs.....because they have and hold down good jobs. Like many things, when something goes wrong, it goes badly wrong and then everyone gets tarred with the same brush. Recall the thread on plans to move a YOS to ED, or the more recent thread on beggars....they all have the same shades of prejudice, ignorance and unfounded fear. For me the issue of drug misuse and anti-social behaviour are two seperate issues. Crime and anti-social behaviour is committed by all kinds of people and not all people who drink or take drugs commit crime. I would think that anyone going to the needle exchange out of hours will be focussed purely on getting what they need in a safe environment......not on causing havoc to the nightlife of ED. If any issues do emerge then I have faith in the local police and other authorities to deal with them. And if no UK studies exist exploring the impact of needle exchanges on local communities, then that suggests to me thet there isn't any problem with such facilities within the UK.

LOL I guess mentioning that my cat sits over a grid to crap is now off topic?............

LOL...."I hate that 'get over yourself' line. Why arent you out doing important things instead of posting threads and then being suprised when some people on a forum don't share your view. If you've got a bunch of cats camping in your backyard and your answer to the cat owner is to keep the cats in, instead of exploring their territory....you're funny"...........blah blah blah...... I've never worried about the typical idignation of some posters to opposing views any forum. How cats and dogs view territory is different to how us far more destructive humans view the overpriced bit of garden and brick and mortar some of us enslave our lives around. I completely accept your point Loz. The truth of it all is that too many of us live in too small a space and whilst we set boundaries for ourselvs as humans, animals don't. If it's not cats, it's foxes. If it's not foxes it's something else. Some people expect the tranquility of a rural outpost......just simply not realistic in a mega city.

Having had both cats and dogs in my life can say that both have their pros and cons. There really are more important things to worry about than whether a night time wandering cat is giving the bird to a couple of dogs.....geez. Day or night, cats will wander, just as some dogs will bark at them and other won't.

A: Cats bury their crap. B: Most cats are pretty useless at catching birds and squirrels have never been the natural prey of cats.

You seem to think cats and dogs are the same. They are not.

lol Rosie.....I did once have a cat that could open doors by swinging from the handles. Was quite a shock to find my unlocked front door wide open one morning :D I also make sure mine are in before I gotto sleep. I tend to think that if they can't come in when they want to come in then they are more likely to have accidents. Most cats when they go out just patrol the same route and come home...a bit like going for the daily walk (although cats are more nocturnal because that's when their natural prey comes out). And mine too won't go anywhere if they don't like the weather. At the end of the day it's about balance. Every pet is different. The key is to let them be themselves whilst not putting them at any undue risk. That way they have the best chance of having a happy life.

James is right. Otherwise why isn't there a rush to implement speed humps on all roads with a limit of less than 30 mpr. I'd still like to why in the light of NO accidents on Strakers Road there seems to be a belief that humps are needed.....Has any data been collated regarding the average speeds of motorists on this road? I would certainly have expected a survey to be in existence to show that speeding is a problem on this road. Where can we view the findings of such a survey?

Cats who want to go out find a way to get out eventually. They can not be trained in the same way dogs are, and I've had both cats and dogs throughout my life and know the difference. Similarly cats require less attention and looking after than dogs. Where I live it is perfectly safe for cats to roam.....no dangerous roads for them to cross and backing onto the reservoir and nunhead Cemetary. Equally I've had cats that don't like to go out much. As long as the cat is speyed/ jabbed and chipped, it seems ridiculous to me to suggest it should not be allowed to go if it wants to, and the area is relatively safe for it to do so. The equivalent would be to suggest never taking your dog for a walk! Most cats don't roam very far from their homes anyway, unless they are unneutered, which is why a high percentage of cats that are run over for example are unneutered males.

The requirement is only that speed limits are applied. That can be via a road sign. There is no requirement that says humps (or any traffic calming measure) 'have' to be installed, any more than local authorities are 'required' by law to enforce speed limits.

Found this great page on Southwark's website for comparing maps of Southwark back to 1896. Suprised to be honest to see how little has actually changed in ED in over 120 years. http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?mapcfg=Historical_Selection&tooltip=Hist_tips

Hi Renata... Where is this statutary requirement you refer to? There is no statutary requirment in law to put traffic calming measures on all roads with low speed limits. Traffic calming measures are however 'permitted' under law and there are statutary requirements regarding 'process and form'. Southwark council doesn't exactly have a glowing record either in this area, with many 'improvements' in the area having to be dug up and ammended. Strakers Road is a dead end. There have been no accidents on that road that I am aware of, (and no building being shaken by vibration) so maybe someone can point to the data that absolutely proves the need for humps and how the council came to the decision it has. And it could also be said that when meaningful public services have been cut (like staffing the One O'Clock club) that it's suprising to see so much money atill being spent on road humps. It's not as though the borough is free of potholes or poor road either surfaces is it.

It is a baffling case. The thing I find most ridiculous is that there has been no conclusive test done to determine that the dog is indeed a pit bull terrier. We are not even talking about a dog that has shown himself to be dangerous in behaviour either. Tragic for his owners and makes the legal system look idiotic.

Where it stops? Isn't it supposed to stop at the Olympic Stadium?

LOL....you are right!

I just had a little chat with Twiggy (a cat of mine that loves to roam at night)and she told me it's foxes that usually bark at her. She also told me that if ever I kept her in against her wishes, she'd scratch my eyes out while I sleep. Dogs can be trained not to bark at cats, just as they can be trained not to chase them.

It's not a rat run as it only leads to the Park's Car Park and the road itself is perhaps just over 150 metres long. In reply to Jeremy, there are speeding vehicles on EVERY road, so do we put humps on every road in Britain because there might one day be an accident? No we don't and most people would see the stupidity in the suggestion. I've lived opp Strakers road for 23 years and have never been concerned by the interaction of drivers and people crossing it. I cycle down it most days and have never felt worried by other drivers but could give you countless examples of roads that do see near misses every day. IMO all local authorities have gone speed hump mad.