edcam

Too many ssss JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a pledge that all busses will be zero > emitting - could it be related ?

If you'd seen the play you would know what I mean. Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > English person's view of N. Ireland > Would this be different from a Welsh or Scottish > view? The UK is not just England...

Agree re The Ferryman. Very much felt like an English person's view of N. Ireland. It has its moments but overall unconvincing. Some great performances (apart from one) but they've changed the cast now, so can't speak for the new one.

The OP is quite right. That's unacceptable.

One day they'll slip up.

They most definitely should not be asking your age. It's illegal.

M/50/media Yes First 3 mostly All All

This thread is peak stupid.

They are quite noisy but I like them.

Erm - is it too much to ask that the council pays for the jobs it is expected to pay for from their revenue? One of these jobs being to keep our roads in a useable condition. Yes, it's not a cheap proposition but this is what we pay for. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Rollflick, > I thought it was very clear that step lan is to > reopen the road as it was before - one lane > controlled by traffics lights. > The consultation I thought was about whether to > instead keep it closed. > The lead Councillor was reported in Southwark News > giving this context and view - from memory he > expected it to reopen on this basis. > > The problem is going about 3 tonnes would require > ?1M and a number of train line closures. If > someone wanted to organise a crowdfunding to raise > that ?1M the council I'm sure would be happy to > spend that money making the bridge permanently > able to carry any legal weights. > Otherwise I think it is perfectly reasonable for > the council to NOT spend your and my tax money > doing this. > > Hi ITATM, > It was stated Camberwell Grove was a main road. It > isn't.

As a former resident of CG, I can tell you that we found it pretty inconvenient when it was closed before, so not even all the CG residents approve of the closure, just a vocal minority. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "My sense is that while its jolly nice for the > local residents, its a huge inconvenience and > negatively impacting far more people than it > positively impacts. I strongly support reopening > the bridge as soon as possible." > > Well put .

I agree. The A/B road argument is irrelevant here. It's a road that's used enough for there to be an unreasonable strain on smaller surrounding roads if it's closed. Which is why it should be reopened. If the closing of the Grove was part of a wider strategy regarding traffic in the area, then there might be some sort of justification but it wasn't and so there isn't.

DO the Ganapatti bit but ditch the Franco Manca.

Not so nice for anyone in the surrounding roads though. It would seem that some of those who use CG to cycle don't give a rat's arse for anyone else. James Barber Wrote: > > Hi edcam, > Camberwell Gove being closed in the middle has > made it much more attractive and pleasant to cycle > along - or at least it has for me when I'm huffing > and puffing southbound homeward bound along it.

Quite. They haven't thought this through, have they? taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are Southwark Cyclists supporting a position > which acts against the interests of cyclists who > use different routes in that immediate area?

Definitely not what I said though, is it? Try reading the posts to which you respond. rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Is this for real? Lovely car drivers who all > stick to the speed limit at all times making those > awful dangerous cyclists moderate their speed? > Let's have cars driving in the cycle lanes to > encourage cyclists to behave!

As a sometime cyclist myself and the partner of a daily cyclist, I can confirm that there are good drivers/bad drivers and good cyclists/bad cyclists. Any of these permutations are permissible as topics, no? Anyway, back to the point. Reopening the Grove won't have an adverse effect on cyclists and will benefit them in the surrounding area. Beulah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh excellent, this is heating up properly now. The > anti-motorist conspiracy theme developed quickly, > but I'm surprised it took so long to start on > "dangerous" cyclists.

Well of course everyone is entitled to an opinion but the fact remains that although it might be "more pleasant" to cycle on CG, it was hardly a chore before. Actually, since the closure, I've seen cyclists going down the Grove at dangerous speeds on frequent occasions, so having to share the road with cars may have a positive effect on the poor behaviour of that minority of cyclists by moderating their speed. As cookie says above, CG wasn't unsafe for cyclists when open to traffic, so it's not as if reopening it will have negative effect. I'll also echo the point that cycling on the surrounding roads is much more hazardous under the current conditions. rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm fully aware of that thanks as I ride through > it nearly every day. Reopening the bridge will > return traffic to pre-closure levels, are cyclists > not allowed to comment on that? It's certainly > been a lot more pleasant to cycle on since the > bridge closed - previously going from the bridge > up towards DKH, with parked cars on the right, > there was a lot of tight/risky squeezing by, > especially by vans. I'm not necessarily saying > that's a deal breaker, but cyclists will be > affected by the reopening or otherwise of the > bridge and so, much as it seems to annoy you, they > do have a right to offer their opinions on the > matter.

The point is that the Grove is open to cyclists whether the bridge is closed or not, perhaps you're unaware that cyclists can get through the blockade as things stand, so in this instance, it is an irrelevance. rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edcam Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Big yawn re "Southwark cyclists". Cycling up > and > > down CG was fine when the bridge was open. We > did > > it for several years until we moved round the > > corner, both before and during the last width > > restriction. > > > > James Barber - I don't think anyone is lobbying > > for unrestricted access. There should > definitely > > be a width restriction, the street can't cope > with > > larger vehicles. Cars and bikes are fine but > this > > attempt to hijack the consultation by the > > irritating cycle lobby is an irrelevance. > > This is a public consultation and cycling > organisations are quite entitled to make a > contribution to the debate. They are not > "hijacking" the consultation, but expressing their > point of view as is their democratic right. Try > this sentence: "The road should remain closed and > this attempt to hijack the consultation by > motorists is an irrelevance." Would that be OK?

Big yawn re "Southwark cyclists". Cycling up and down CG was fine when the bridge was open. We did it for several years until we moved round the corner, both before and during the last width restriction. James Barber - I don't think anyone is lobbying for unrestricted access. There should definitely be a width restriction, the street can't cope with larger vehicles. Cars and bikes are fine but this attempt to hijack the consultation by the irritating cycle lobby is an irrelevance.

So the best solution here is to reopen the Grove, so that the traffic burden is shared. The number of people in the area who own cars is irrelevant here. wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So just to be clear, we mostly agree that traffic > is undesirable (even those who claim not to mind > it aren't exactly queueing up to encourage more on > their own road), and yet most people are unwilling > to cut back on contributing to said problem, or to > support measures encouraging or compelling others > to cut back? > > It's like complaining about the amount of litter > on the street yet being unwilling to inconvenience > yourself slightly to put your own rubbish in a > bin.

Yes, because the road will still be a public highway, albeit only partly accessible. Let's hope it doesn't come to that though. nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If Camberwell Grove is permanently closed and part > of the public highway becomes inaccessible to many > road users, will Southwark Council still be > responsible for maintenance, road sweeping and > lighting?

This is a great argument for reopening Camberwell Grove. Granted, it's also residential but it's more of a main artery than the roads which are currently clogged up by its closure. Reopening would even things out greatly. Beulah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But that's kind of the point...The non-residents > using your street as a daily short-cut aren't part > of the wider community, unless you take in all the > millions of Londoners. > We're not talking about main roads here, these are > residential roads for people to live in. > Why should drivers' rights take precedence over > your peaceful enjoyment of where you live? > Surely their insistence to drive fast and pollute > your road is just as selfish too.

But it won't lead to traffic calming measures in the surrounding area. Current conditions show that very clearly. Beulah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My point is not that the current situation is > great: It's not. > I'm hoping that by keeping CG closed it will lead > to other traffic calming measures in the > surrounding area that will create a less-polluted, > quieter and safer environment for more residents. > Surely that's got to be better than encouraging > more traffic to use our residential roads? > You may be happy with vehicles using our streets > as a rat-run, I'm not.

I suspect the threads will be merged but as I said on the other thread, we used to live on the Grove and have experienced it closed, open to all traffic, open only to cars. I think the vocal minority living on the Grove is really quite small but it's vital that people take part in the consultation and lobby to reopen it (to cars only.)