Earl Aelfheah

Monkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It will be disruptive for residents but, living > opposite a local school and being witness to the > utterly idiotic and dangerous driving of quite a > lot of parents on a daily basis - even when the > police are around - i?m 100% supportive of this > new scheme. ^this (as someone who also lives opposite a school).

If you buy a house next to a train station, you must expect some commuters to park near it (You yourself will have no need to drive to a station of course, but would still like to store a car there during the day - apparently something which deserves priority). This whole thing feels a bit like chucking your litter over the neighbours fence. You move somewhere it's hard to park, campaign to privatise the road (giving Apcoa the right to milk a public amentity for their profit) and push traffic onto roads further out. How about we just accept that people have an equal right to use public space. The best way to encourage people out of their cars is to improve public transport provision (something which probably is less of an issue if you live next to a train station, but isn't so convenient for everyone).

Perhaps we could build a wall around ED and stop anyone from driving here. We want local roads for local people.

tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe they cannot get a job near their home - > hence the commute? Exactly. The idea that there should be a right for residents to keep a car, but not for anyone to actually use one doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

This is the problem. We're discussing the particulars without actually nailing down the principle first. If we're going to create a hierarchy, in terms of who 'deserves' use of the public highway most, I can see no reason why residents should come at the top of that list? I keep asking, but still have not had anyone explain this to me. It is no more 'legitimate' in my opinion, that I use the street to store a car outside my house, than for a teacher to use it for getting to work? CPZs seem to be predicated on there being an 'entitlement' on the part of residents to exclusive, or at least priority use of the bit of road outside their property. Yet the roads are paid for through general taxation and intended as a public amenity.

You can guarantee that in the event of 'no deal' brexit, the first people kicking off will be those that demanded it in the first place.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the point about whether or not Southwark will > actually listen to the outcome of the > consultation, this may be instructive. It's > another project in East Dulwich that will result > in the loss of a large number of car parking > spaces... > > "You Said > We received 463 responses: 28% were 'satisfied' or > 'very satisfied', 63% were 'dissatisfied' or 'very > dissatisfied'. > ..." > > The scheme is going ahead as planned. That's what > we are dealing with here. > > > https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment > -leisure/eastdulwichtopeckham/ Wow! Really what is the point of consultations? Such a waste of money and they're completely ignored anyway.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenny1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > malumbu Wrote: > > ----------------------------------- > > It would be surprising if > > > COBR was even being used at this moment > seeing > > as > > > we are not yet in crisis. > > > > Yes. But the reference was to potential future > > action. As to the specific role of the armed > > forces. I see the Times Defence Correspondent > > saying the army doesn't have the training to > quell > > domestic unrest at the moment as it's too long > > since they were active on the streets of > Northern > > Ireland. This means army and defence insiders > > she's spoken to in recent weeks are cool about > the > > idea. Thus reinforcing your comment that it > would > > likely be the job of the police to deal with > any > > civil unrest post No-Deal. > > A few of us remember 2011 - there was about 100+ > policemen in a line outside my flat in a row with > riot shields - for some reason my flat was the > point of defence - I couldn't get home, the pubs > closed so I wandered and watched the looting of > East Dulwich Road Tesco's. The riots were pretty scary and demonstrated how thin the veneer of order actually is. Police numbers have significantly reduced since then. If there are delays to supply chains and shortages in the shops, I don't think it would take much / long for people to kick off.

I think it's the only pub in the area that I've never been into.

A CPZ is not going to reduce traffic on Lordship Lane.

How many of the 'commuters' parking near ED station are driving from within the proposed CPZ? Will they still be able to do this post introduction, or will permits be 'zoned'?

Admin - have a word. How many threads do we need on the same topic?

You can?t go over most speed bumps at more than 10 miles an hour without knackering your car. If you kept a constant speed of 10 mph you?d probably get lynched.

Rules which restrict parking for limited periods during the day are not about the environment, or the elderly and infirm. They're about some residents wanting the 'right' to make short local journeys by car (many of which could likely be done on foot), and be able come back to a space outside their house. It's about a fundamental belief that this is a more legitimate use of a car than people travelling into the area for work, or to shop. I wish people wouldn't claim noble motives when it's really about their own convenience.

I use a big black sack with 'swag' written on it to do my shopping.

Thanks Sally

We need cameras and actual traffic police (remember them). Instead we just get speed bumps, which are treated as sport by the white vans and 4x4s and cause frustration for everyone else.

Can we put items in our grey area?

I can sell you a bottle of water which will cure magical thinking, but it'll cost you ?5.

Brexit is going jolly well isn't it?

Sidll1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is an extraordinary first world thread. There > are,you will be surprised to know, many non car > owning people living in the proposed zone. Many of > these are elderly, many do not own their > properties, many are not very well off and some > are not very internet savvy. They rely on visits > from children, grandchildren and friends. A CPZ is > not going to help them one bit and the cost of > visitor permits may be prohibitive. > Get over your ?I deserve to park outside my castle > attitude? think about your less well off > neighbours and see if you can help them fill in > their forms to oppose this scheme. Well put

It all comes down to whether you think residents have a greater entitlement to make short hops in their car during the day and come back to a space, compared to local workers, or visitors, or shoppers, or even commuters. Or whether in fact, we all pay for the roads which are a shared public amenity.

Do people who work from home need to use their cars for short journeys during the day? Even for longer journeys, we have exceptional public transport - people drive in from Kent to avail themselves of it apparently. Residents with limited mobility can get a dedicated space already, if they need one. But even if we accept that those groups you mention have needs equal to those travelling to ED to work, as you suggest, then we probably shouldn't introduce a CPZ which would discriminate between them.

What if I'm in the shop to buy a calico bag?

.. which leads me back to the question I posed above.