Earl Aelfheah

richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think what Rupert was saying the above are only > example names he had come to mind and not all the > roads in East Dulwich. Almost every street has similar spots, which aren't directly overlooked, that's the point. take almost any street and a quick Streetview will uncover a bits which aren't located directly outside someone's front door.

The shared bike pedestrian lanes are nearly always a nightmare. They've created one at Elephant outside the College of Printing which is clearly going to lead to accidents. The bit at the north end of Rye Lane is a nightmare, largely as the result of pedestrians ignoring it. I would definitely support a redesign. To suggest simply 'banning' bikes is clearly ridiculous though.

rupert jones Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I must be walking round another Ed. > > E.g where would you put them on Shawbury Road, > sylvester Road, Melbourne Grove. East Dulwich > Grove etc Literally spend 30 seconds on Google Street View and you'll find that all of these streets have stretches which are not directly overlooked by houses. For example: Shawbury Rd: Sylvester Road: Melbourne Grove: But really, one could equally complain about having to overlook cars/ vans etc. The only difference is that we're used to the latter and these hangers are new.

You need to have a solicitor to sign the 'advisors certificate' in order for a settlement agreement to be binding - which is why the OP is asking I imagine. I can't recommend anyone local I'm afraid.

My dad was enraged at the Bike Hanger on our street, describing it as "a load of leftie, tree hugger nonsense" and "a waste of taxpayers money". There was no point arguing frankly. It is funny how people react to any attempts to make cycling easier. Personally, I blame that twonk Clarkson.

The hangers take up about half a parking space and there are very few of them. They house 6 bikes each. It's hard to see how it's 'pushing out' cars. I drive a car, but I also cycle. anything which makes it easier to cycle (like not have to carry a bike through my hallway every time, is likely to reduce the number fo local car journey's I make. I'm sure this is true for others to. so it really will have an impact on congestion, albeit a small one. I just cannot see how it could be a bad thing. It's a tiny intervention and the impact will be small but positive.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Medicine and law have always been seen as > lucrative, respected and stable professions by > parents, but as with most things it depends on > speciality. This reminded me of George Osborne's comments, where he said of his ?20,000 a year private school, St Paul's, that it was "incredibly liberal" because "your mother could be the head of a giant corporation, or a solicitor in Kew."

Your car securely locks itself though. The council do of course maintain the roads, allowing on street parking for cars and are doing the same (well in an extremely limited way) for bikes.

... if you look at what they've done at Finsbury Park ( http://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/finsbury_park_cycle_parking_1_.pdf ) - that's exactly what is needed at Brixton.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > anything that would encourage people to ditch cars > in zone 2 and replace with bikes has to be a good > thing. > > No it wouldn't. Public transport in SE London is > bad, and wanting to travel East: West is > appalling. SE London is hilly, and wishing to > travel, especially in winter, any real distances > by bike is not always (sometimes ever) possible. > Many people, with children, with infirmities, > racked with age (I've worked through all three of > these!) finds car travel, at times, a boon, and > cycle travel an impossibility. At weekends, when > the bad public transport is even worse, car travel > can be even more necessary. But if those who can cycle, do, it reduces congestion on both public transport and the roads generally. It also reduces pollution. It's win win. That's not of course, to say there shouldn't also be major investment in public transport.

The single biggest way to increase cycling in SE22 is to provide secure, covered and controlled cycle parking near peoples homes and at South London Tube stations (particularly Brixton) IMO.

macutd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what happens if one is sited outside your house > but you need a skip for building work? You locate it 3 paces in either direction

Oh, and the state needs to do fewer things and do them really well.

We need to raise taxes and we need to increase retirement age imo. Most importantly though, we need to pursue policies which reduce the cost of living, particularly housing (which means a much more regulated housing market / bigger role for the state).

I've never heard of it before, but you have piqued my interest. Will be tuning in.

I have no opinion on Jerry Hall, but Murdoch's influence on the world is far from positive IMO.

Wow, looks like it's reached it's goal already.

Zena Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd look at the links that come with cross rail - > Charlton, Woolwich, Royal Arsenal or even out to > Abbey Wood. That's where the best investment > areas/bargains are predicted. I guess that depends on whether it's an investment property, or a home. Personally, I'd look to live in an area you like and which is convenient for work, friends, familly etc.

You have to apply for a key and pay a small annual fee.

They aren't exactly pretty, but then staring out at a battered old van isn't necessarily any better (although I agree I wouldn't want it right outside my front door). I've seen some of the Lambeth ones have had trees planted either side which makes them look more appealing (see: http://www.cyclehoop.com/product/cycle-shelters-and-canopies/bike-hangar/ ) Over all though, they've got to be a good thing.

Yes, they are part of a pilot and I think they're a great idea. Lambeth have a number of them.

There are plenty of properties in the UK to supply homes for all of the population. The problem is one of an unbalanced economy, with unequal distribution of wealth, opportunities and demand and also rampant speculation and profiteering.

More covered, secure bike parking near people's homes and at public transport destination would get. Lot more pool cycling than tinkering with road layouts. Why can't you park a bike safely at Brixton, our nearest tube for example?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The new flats are likely to be more commercial > > (i.e empty investment vehicles) than truly > > residential. > > While it's common knowledge that some investors > leave their investment properties empty > (particularly Chinese who don't want their > property to become "second hand"), I don't think > this is the norm. That is true, but there is occupied and occupied. I would bet that the type of 'luxury' 1 and 2 bed flats which will no doubt go up will be either someone's pied-?-terre (so empty at weekends), or else buy to let investments offering the usual insecure, overpriced and unequal tenant/landlord relationships. It's not what Londoners need imo. But it is what speculators and developers want, so lot's of Londoner's money will be poured into it regardless.

bil Wrote: If there were some > innovative plans to regenerate OKR area like > Techcity or kings cross I would feel less > disappointed. In reality it's likely there will > be numerous expensive blocks of flats like > Bermondsey spa and what's happening along new kent > road/walworth road. Exactly this.