Earl Aelfheah

There are a few big problems when it comes to discouraging dangerous driving: 1. too many 'passive measures' which don't encourage individual responsibility and can increase frustration and aggressive driving in some 2. little to no policing of speed limits 3. very, very lenient sentencing on the rare occasions that people are charged

I had someone right on my bumper this morning on Sydenham Hill, driving really aggressively. They overtook me at speed after tailgating for some time. The 20mph on that particular stretch is counterproductive imo (at least whilst it remains unpoliced as it currently is). It leads to even more dangerous driving.

There are plenty of people who travel a lot faster than 30 on the side streets of ED. The real problem is that there is no enforcement officers - Just speed bumps and the odd camera in fixed and visible locations.

I have experienced a few instances of people shooting out of side roads, or careering round corners recently. I nearly got taken out a few weeks back by someone doing just this as I was crossing the road. I do think it's possible that the extended yellow lines at corners might encourage more risk taking. When you can't really see round the corner, you're forced to stop. When you can, some people will glance without slowing down. It would be interesting to know if there is any assessment of the real life impact of these changes taking place?

Boris loves playing Churchill. Pathetic.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenny1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > HI RH. Clearly Gavin Williamson is MORE mad. But > I > > still think the tone of Corbyn's comments was > > ill-judged. There would have been a way of > > sounding statesmanlike about this. And he > didn't > > manage it. > > I agree he could have sounded better - his best > mates wouldn't call him a great speaker - though I > would add the caveat that it's rather difficult to > get a reasonable point across with the entire Tory > party shrieking "traitor" over you. His article > in the Guardian is perhaps a better vehicle by > which to judge him: > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar > /15/salisbury-attack-conflict-britain-cold-war It's actually pretty difficult to argue with much in that article.

The road closure signs for Carlton Avenue are really inadequate. Traffic from the Village backing up as people have to do three point turns in the road, whilst others continue to drive up behind them.

I just don't have the energy to debate Brexit anymore. There is no point in discussing it with those who have the same view and for most Brexiters, there is no logic or reason involved anymore. It's now an article of unshiftable faith. What is the point.

se22cat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally, I have never had any interest in > football and have never been to see DH play. > > BUT I will be there to show my support; the team > have brought a wonderful energy to the area in > recent years, the youth playing and training there > come out full of positivity and it's just really > nice seeing the fans, both local and visiting on > game day around the area. > > Shame on Meadow! Hear, hear! Meadow have behaved like absolute bullies. It's outrageous. I hope there is a good turn out for the rally this Saturday in defense of this local asset.

You should see what's going on in Forest Hill. Loads of marble and slate going in all over the place. Looks like it would have cost an absolute fortune.

TTW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve heard stories of disabled people soiling themselves > because they can?t find a place to park near their > home. For us, the CPZ can?t come soon enough. ?You have heard?. Hmmm. Disabled residents can get a disabled bay installed in front of their house. This is nothing to do with a CPZ. ?It?s not that I want a CPZ, it?s just my concern for the disabled?. Right

It's privatisation pure and simply. A small number of entitled people want to 'reserve' a part of the road for their use, at the expense of others who may be visiting, or who cannot afford the additional parking tax.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > Except there has never been any shortage of > space > > on Quorn road right opposite the station, which > > suggests there isn?t actually an issue with > train > > commuters.. > > Errrr....Quorn Road is hideous most mornings once > commuters have parked up - totally jammed with > cars regularly parked dangerously close to the > corners. It will very shortly be getting a CPZ to > address the issue, alongwith the rest of Dog > Kennel Hill including St Francis Rd next to the > station. I don't necessary approve of people driving to the station, but the fact is that there are spaces on quorn road in the morning and this is one of the nearest roads to the Station. That suggests that that commuters are unlikely to be parking on streets further away from it. Of course, once the CPZ comes in, they may well be.

apmuso Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've seldom been able to park on the same road as > I live, let alone anywhere near my front door > during the day for 20 years. The naysayers should > try lugging a big shop and small children across a > busy road, hundreds of yards to your door. I don't > feel I have a given right to a space right outside > my home, but if we were to simply demotivate > commuters from driving and parking near the > station by introducing a 12-2 parking zone, the > spaces would be freed up. Except there has never been any shortage of space on Quorn road right opposite the station, which suggests there isn?t actually an issue with train commuters..

Yes, well said, Penguin68.

Jacqui5254 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah yes, the money-making CPZ...and here it > comes....'visitors permits'...?49.50 for a book of > ten. Yay! > > Southwark need to cream off as much money as they > can. > > Next will be 'extending the parking restrictions > from 2 hours-a-day to all-day' as this will bring > in more money, too. > > Ripe for the picking. > > And vouchers are not just for 'family and > friends'...how about.. > your cleaning lady, > the decorator, > babysitter, > tradesmen and women, > counsellor, > vicar, > health visitor, > estate agent, > removals, > people who come to look at your sofa that you are > selling on the EDF, > 'someone who drops your kids off and just wants to > chat for a couple of minutes'.... They'll all need > a voucher if you don't want a ticket. > > There is a huge price to pay for MAYBE parking a > little nearer to your home and that includes it > occupying a large amount of your thinking as it > infiltrates your daily life. Exchanging one stress > for a much bigger one. > > > And, once all the residential streets of ED have > been sucked up, the independent shopping of > Lordship Lane and surrounds will be tied down with > limited parking spaces. > There will be one or two hour slots, ticket > machines, loads of wardens and endless number of > people trying to get their shopping or have a meal > within a time limit, not wasting time browsing or > relaxing, in order to make sure they don't get a > ticket. Never mind the impact on the local > shops... > > And, once it's in place, there will be NO GOING > BACK. Absolutely this

It's crazy that it's only in the over 65 group that 'leave' voters are in the majority. As those in the over 65 group pop their clogs and more and more in the under 18 age group reach voting age, the swing to remain is going to grow. It makes the prospect of a significant and increasing remain majority at the end of the 'implementation period' quite likely.

Realistically there is very little we can do.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On 19 March Southwark is introducing Public Space > Protection Orders with which to 'police' the dog > owning public. It will be interesting to see how > the policing works in practice, which individuals > are tasked with this and how fair it is. The PCPOS > are set to be in place for 3 years. > > Press around these orders elsewhere has been > variable and at times highly critical. > > PSPOs can also be introduced for littering and > other anti social behaviour, so it will also be > interesting to see if Southwark pursues other > areas of perceived public nuisance in a similar > way, bearing in mind Southwark's plans to close > down a significant part of PR for a 3 day music > festival this summer. If it means one can have a picnic in the park without having their food stolen, or everything up ended by a dog, well, that would be nice.

It's not inevitable. People could refuse to 'play the game' and stop pushing problems on to the next person. It has to end somewhere. If Southwark were in anyway serious about getting people out of cars, they would be lobbying a lot harder for transport improvements.

bsand Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The truth is buyers are paying top dollar for > shoeboxes in ED with it's relatively poor > transport links because it has an indefinable 4 > quid latte / 5 quid loaf cachet. Some first time > buyers must be saying I can get a 3 bed house and > big garden in Bexleyheath with top state schools > for the price of a 1 bed garden flat in ED , and > it's quicker to get into the city. I have just > cashed out and made such a move couldn't be > happier. Enjoy Bexleyheath.

CPZs are an example of lobbing your sh1t over the fence. Please don't support the privatisation of our public spaces, out of territoriality.

Unfortunately many dog owners are a law to themselves.

The drops in Wandsworth are at least partly to do with all the awful 'luxury' riverside apartments / money laundering units not selling so well as they have previously.

.