Earl Aelfheah

So I read somewhere that black cabs account for about 30% of the pollution in London. So why are they exempted? Makes a bit of a mockery of the whole thing imo. I also find it hard to believe that a person travelling by motorbike causes the same amount of pollution as one driving by car, but perhaps I'm wrong?

Willard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > cella Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why? > > > Because they help ease congestion and hence > already alleviate pollution. > > It is hard to take this scheme seriously when > disgusting noxious old black cabs are allowed to > continue to pollute. I had to walk through the > Euston station underground car park recently, past > a line of 50 odd black cabs waiting for customers. > All just sat there with their engines idling. I > had to put my jumper over my mouth to stop myself > being sick. I can't believe that Black Cabs have been exempted - they're heavily polluting and drive around all day looking for fares, or sit with their engines idling. They must make up a significant percentage of the pollution in Central London.

Not necessarily. If they've got planning permission and had plans drawn up etc - then they may be selling it on to a developer for more than the bought it.

seenbeen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sick of speeding cyclists- they are silent, > they speed around bends, I have had a couple of > close calls and my sister has a permanent injury > to her foot because of a cyclist who did not even > stop after he mowed her down.... I've see some inconsiderate cycling and some extremely dangerous driving. The latter clearly causes significantly more harm and represents a much more serious problem generally, though both are unacceptable. It is often the same individuals who behave badly whether they're travelling by bike or in a car of course.

... or, there is loads of space around Elephant tube and a lot of development (with Section 106 to be leveraged); Southwark could have built a secure bike park like the one at Finsbury Park. Lambeth could easily have done something similar at Brixton (where again, there is a lot of planning gain to be used).

@wulfhound - but without improvements to public transport / alternative transport infrastructure, there simply isn't going to be a step change in the way people commute. Re. Santander bikes - they would be pretty useful for getting to Brixton tube from ED, or for getting to Oval / Kennington / Elephant from Camberwell or Peckham. This might help reduce the number of people driving into Central London. Instead Southwark seem to think the answer is speed bumps !?!?

... All this talk of healthy streets and encouraging people out of their cars means nothing without proper efforts to bring SE London 'up to standard' in terms of public transport.

There is a new TFL map that shows all the Satander docking stations and all the cycle superhighways. It mirrors the tube map in that the whole of London is covered except for a massive hole over SE London. It's just not good enough. Why is there such a dearth of transport infrastructure in SE compared to every other comparable part of the Capital?

It is a bit much to buy a house right next to a train station and then complain that's it's hard to park. Overtime all that traffic is going to be displaced to those further and further out, as the CPZ inevitably expands (impacting those without a train station on their doorstep!)

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The house was Originally put on sale with the > proviso it should be for community use. There were > some shenanigans which resulted in it being a > private sale. ?250000 Perhaps those with a better > memory may recall This is my recollection - that there was some controversy at the time at it's privatisation. Not sure of the details though.

The problem is that a particular road wanting a CPZ completely ignores the fact that it has knock on consequences for neighbouring streets. It's the council's job to take a broader view based on the interests of the wider community. Politicians are representatives, not delegates to take instruction; this is what got us into the Brexit mess ;-) It's all reminiscent of the Melbourne Grove saga, where a shouty minority almost got a road closed to traffic with no reference to the knock on effects, or any strategic planning.

There is a lot of street clutter. I'm not a massive fan of these banners either, but not the end of the world.

Sounds a bit similar to the Peckham Coal Line.

They did privatise the house in the Southwest corner of the park though, so there is precedent.

.

gumshoe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Leaving aside the way that this has been > communicated to residents (including the assertion > that it is only ?fair? for people to pay for the > services they use - looking toward to my refund on > adult social care then!) I can't bare this argument. It is often deployed for student fees as well. It's basically an argument for total dismantling the state.

I have always voted Labour. Until recently I was a party member (I have left the party over their Brexit stance). I will be voting Lib Dem and strongly urge previous Labour supporting Remainers to do the same. As things stand Farage is going to storm the EU elections . We have to send a strong, united anti-brexit message.

Thanks Johnie, I hadn't seen this - it's really helpful

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'll be out on my bicycle at school let-out time > today looking out for my children and others as my > heart is in my throat. They need the freedom to > walk and not have annoying mums by their sides so > I'll be in stealth mode (I promise my stealth mode > will be more attractive than the fellow above > 😂). I'm freelance so I can do this today, > but, not every day. If any other > mums-or-dads-on-bikes with kids too old for > parents to walk with them want to make this a more > formal thing, pm me. Call it a cycle club of > sorts. I realise there needs to be other solutions > but this is one I can think of that might be of > use and it is better than feeling helpless. I'm > not proposing confronting anyone - just having a > presence, and, the ability to call 999 if needed. Surely this is what the police should be doing - increased presence around school finishing time.

Who to vote for if you?re a Remainer? Would be interested in people?s views.

Lisa Taylor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is just so frightening, why do our children > have to feel like this? I can't imagine how scared > they must be especially seeing that photo, I would > be terrified if I was approached by that complete > scumbag. > So sorry for your son Otto & hope he starts to > feel a bit more himself soon. I agree entirely. It's not acceptable that this is happening.

Agree about the need for a cycle lane on sydenham hill.

Let's not let this descend into an argument. It's awful that such a young lad has been victim to this. That it's happened twice now is really quite shocking. I hope he's OK. I wonder what can be done to reduce these types of incidents?

The 20 mph limit on Sydenham Hill is a bit unnecessary in my opinion. Almost everywhere else it's in force, I'm massively in favour.

That said, at least they're trying to take an area wide approach rather than the usual 'he who shouts loudest' one.