Earl Aelfheah

chuck it over the fence.

@Galileo - I guess that it's more difficult to park during the week because people tend to go away at the weekend and during the day, people drive into the area to work (teachers, carers, doctors, etc). I'm not sure a CPZ will necessarily change this.

'lifestyle kitchens'!?

Just received the consultation through the post. It?s a huge set of documents. How much is this costing?

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although a staunch Remainer (hardened after May's > red lines), I, and I suspect a lot of Remainers, > would've initially accepted a Brexit that > reflected the closeness of the vote, i.e. > something akin to the Norway deal, whereby we keep > the benefits of being in a CU, thus solving the > Irish border problem, and also maintain FOM. But > Brextremists like Johnson and Davis got greedy, > egged on by a frothing right wing press, and > pressured May into her Mansion House speech and > those red lines. Add in triggering A50 without a > plan, then losing her majority at the snap GE, we > have ended up in the mess we have. All of their > own doing. Meanwhile, the Brextremists have > continued to move the Brexit goal posts so that > they're now on a completely different pitch with > talk of No Deal. This was never the form of Brexit > that was proposed pre-referendum, so it's > unacceptable to propose it now, and hopefully > Parliament will ensure it never happens. However, > it's the legal default if May's fudge deal is > rejected as seems likely, so the only way out of > this impasse is to revoke A50. There isn't enough > time to do anything else. There's talk about > extending A50 to July, but the EU have previously > indicated that they would only do that for a > genuine reason such as a GE or 2nd ref, not to > carry on kicking the can down the road. > Until Brexit came along the world saw us as a > sensible, pragmatic nation, we could do with some > of that now... I completely agree.

The government has spent almost 3 years focused on little other than Brexit. It's already cost us huge amounts of money and who knows the additional opportunity cost. We can't even agree the withdrawal terms. We haven't even started on our future relationship. That's when the real fun will start (assuming the withdrawal agreement get's the wave through). We're at a total impasse.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If a CPZ makes drivers think twice about using > their cars for short journeys and reduces the > amount of cars circling trying find the last > remaining space that?s worth paying ?125 (?2.40 > equiv per week) I'm not sure it's going to do either of those things.

I really object to all the drop curbs. As if we don?t give over enough public space to motor vehicles they also get the right to drive across the pavement. The integrity of pedestrian space should be preserved.

After all, ?cyclist? and ?drivers? aren?t different people. They?re the same people moving around in different ways.

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think part of the problem is that those > cyclists > > that do break the road law - and they are very > few > > comparatively - know that they?re doing it and > > have it already justified in their mind; as > such > > they respond forcefully to anyone who > challenges > > them. > > Isn?t more that cyclists can be challenged because > they?re not in a sound isolated metal boxes? The > driver who almost ran me over as I was crossing > the zebra crossing on East Dulwich Grove was > completely oblivious because she had her iPhone in > front of her face. I?m sure she knew she was doing > it and had justified it to herself somehow, I?m > sure she?d have been forceful if I could have > challenged her, but of course I couldn?t. > Similarly the red light jumpers at every crossing > or the majority of motorists that speed, they all > are choosing to do so, but cannot be challenged in > the way cyclists can. Exactly. If it were possible to challenge motorists about their behaviour in the same way it often is with cyclists, then I?m sure the responses would be similar.

All the activity on making car ownership mildly more inconvenient or expensive, whilst doing little to offer alternatives, feels a lot like displacement activity.

I wish the council put half the effort they have into pursuing CPZs over the years, into lobbying for better public transport. It seems everything is being pinned on cycling, which, while an option for many, does not something that appeals to all. If it was a case of using a bike to make a short trip to the tube, that's one thing. But not everyone want to, or is capable of, cycling into the centre of town. Just making it easier to cycle to Brixton (our nearest tube) and safely leave a bike there (by replicating what they have done in terms of secure bike parking at Finsbury Park), would be a massive boon. Why, when the Santander bikes expanded in every direction, Did Southwark decide not to fund them coming to the SE? Why is there no Cycle superhighway in SE London? If you look at almost any transport map of London (tube map, cycle superhighway map, hire bikes), SE appears as a blank space. The only exception is long distance, suburban rail lines, which are run according to the needs of those commuting in from outside the capital. The train services are not bad to be fair. But there should be other, more regular and convenient alternatives and the Council should be lobbying on our behalf.

Haven't been to Liu's for ages. Really fancy it now.

Look, it's pretty clear that the council want controlled parking across the borough. It's been pretty clear for a number of years now and one way or another, they are going to push it through eventually. It's easier to make private transport more difficult than it is to increase and improve the alternatives.

There is a question along the lines of "..if nearby areas vote in favour of a CPZ, would you then like one too (CPZ tend to displace traffic into neighbouring areas)." So that's nice. If your neighbour lobs their rubbish over the fence, would you like to chuck it over the other side.

The 'consultation' period is pretty short, no?

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Food for thought over this discussion > > With the proposed ultra low emmision zone set to > be introduced in 2021, cars in East Dulwich will > have to meet the new emissions standards, be > electric or have a daily charge imposed to use > them. > > This should reduce the number of diesel and older > polluting cars in or entering the area > > It will also lower the out of area commuters using > East Dulwich as they will have to pay to get here > unless their cars meet the new standards > > Will this be enough to reduce the particulates > element behind some people wanting a CPZ ? > Especially as a CPZ won't be introduced until just > before 2021 so proving if the CPZ worked or if it > was the ULEZ will be difficult as the results will > be intertwined. > > With the argument that the businesses will or > won't be effected, has anyone asked them for input > and support (either for or against) > > Maybe this is a call to action for the East > Dulwich Action group as they claim to represent > the traders 🤔 > > Regardless people should get online and do the > survey to get their views represented otherwise, > like most things, if the result isn't what you > want there can be no whinging after if you didn't > put your official response in. I actually think the ULEZ will do more to reduce the number of vehicles in the area than any CPZ will do.

... apologies for my inability to type btw.

The reality of course, is that cars cause a much bigger problem than cyclists in general. They kill a lot more people, which is about as antisocial as one can get. So perhaps uniquely, there is something about the mode of transport itself that is problematic. In terms of people travelling by bike, there are some that act like asshats, but they probably act like asshats even when they're on foot. These threads always bring out claims of almost constant misbehaviour by huge numbers of people, specifically when they're travelling by bike. Who was really, nearly runover three time in a week on the pavement? I've never had it happen to me, (except once, as it happens, by a car cutting across the pavement as it careered at speed around a corner) - these are rare occurrences. The point is that the people who behave like idiots in their car, probably also act like idiots when they're on their bike. I think the real problem with the perceptions of cyclists is probably more subtly psychological. It's seen as 'out of place' and a bit other. Like I say, when we see a car speeding down a quite road (which is incredibly dangerous) we think 'what a prat', not 'bloody car drivers'. The same is not true of bad behaviour witnessed of someone on a bike.

@sue - it's a fair point about 'complimentary' medicine. I used the term 'alternative' because I was responding to another post which had used that phrase. As a compliment to traditional medicines it is likely that other 'remedies' are likely to do little harm (other than making you a little poorer). That said, I do think that any effective treatment should be capable of passing the standards of a clinical trial. I don't have an issue with people taking placebos if they wish. I do still feel uneasy about people who make a living selling compounds off the back of unproven claims of efficacy.

I like Voodoo Rays. Nice pizza, by the slice

Let's be open about what 'alternative medicine' means. It's an alternative to evidence based medicine. Does that sound good anyone? Why would someone want to sell you a product that they claim will make you better, but not present robust evidence that it will do what they say. If the substance works, why not prove it in a clinical trial.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe everyone has a responsibility to use the > road in an appropriate manner. Drivers should > exercise due caution, pedestrians should not > dawdle or walk out unexpectedly, and cyclists > should not jump red lights or ride on pavements. No one would disagree > My unscientific observation is that many cyclists > when politely challenged on clearly breaking these > rules become exceptionally aggressive and > offensive from the off, even though they are > utterly in the wrong. This is not my experience. I have seen plenty of 'road rage' drivers. It is probably more often that cyclists are confronted about their behaviour, simply because they are not sealed off in a car. Clearly it is wrong to behave aggressively however one is being transported. I just don't get the point in these types of threads. Clearly no one is going to defend criminally irresponsible behaviour, but how often do we see cars tearing down the road at speed, or accelerating through red lights? We don't think 'bloody car drivers', we think 'what an idiot'. Why with bikes, uniquely, do we associate the transgression with the mode of transport?

Maybe linked to the drop in the value of the pound?

hellosailor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My point was very much about adults > who balance kids on their bikes without seats > which is not an uncommon sight Really? This fells like a very uncommon sight to me. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?