Earl Aelfheah

Whilst it?s quite possible that a barrier on this road may be appropriate / positive, I don?t think we can even begin to debate the matter seriously without a clear rationale, based on some proper comparative data and an idea of how it would tie in with plans across the wider area. I am all in favour of reducing car use in town - improving public transport and getting more people using their bikes. I am not against radical interventions to achieve some of this, including road closures where it's part of a coherent strategy (for example, to create proper quiet routes for cyclists and pedestrians into the centre). What does annoy me about this proposal though, is the fact that it seems to be predicated almost entirely on the wishes of a small number of people with a vested interest in the outcome. It does not seem to me that a view has been taken about traffic issues across the area and as a result, this road identified as an appropriate candidate for closure. I get frustrated at what I perceive to be a disjointed, reactive and knee jerk approach from the council. The Council shouldn?t just be acting in areas where a group of residents make the most noise or are the most organised, the should be acting strategically, planning and managing traffic across the whole area.

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This Ros Atkins? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ros_Atkins I don't think it's helpful to pick on individual residents or to personalise the debate.

I would love to see more traffic police targeting speeding and dangerous drivers. Instead we just get humps and road closures.

.

Forgive me if this has already been posted somewhere on this thread - but has anyone got a link, or any further info on the survey which is purported to show that "76% of vehicles were speeding along Melbourne Grove". I personally find it very hard to believe.

I often walk home down Melbourne Grove (am I allowed to do that, or is walking on 'someone elses' street rat scuttling?). It had never occurred to me that this was a particularly busy road, or that there was a problem with excessive speed. In fact the reason I walk this way is that it always seemed like a quiet route. Anyway, since this thread began I've been giving more attention to it. Now I know this is a completely partial and subjective observation, but a few things have struck me about the traffic on MG. It is a narrow street and it's difficult for two cars to pass each other at any type of speed. There are also speed cushions. What is noticeable however (now that I have had my attention specifically turned to it) is the number of motorbikes which do seem to go down the road pretty quickly. This makes sense as they are not impacted by the speed cushions (which don't got right across the road) or the narrowness of the road. I wonder whether speed surveys (when done using those monitoring strips across the road), differentiate between bikes and cars / vans? I have no idea, but it would be interesting to know. The reason I say this is that if bikes account for a significant proportion of the speeding traffic (assuming there is a lot of speeding traffic - I personally remain unconvinced of this), then the 'solutions' may be very different to those applied to cars, or larger vehicles.

The UK response to desperate people fleeing a war zone, is shameful.

It's gone over 100

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Someone tole me there was an article in The Times > (which I do not subscribe to) that all the Boris > buses in service will have no conductors. Would > love to know what Heatherwick, the man behind the > design, things of that. > http://www.valshawcross.com may be able to help > anyone who wants to complain about the buses or > offer suggestions. Yep. Heard this too. So the 'hop on, hop off' feature will be completely removed. What is left is an extremely expensive folly / vanity project.

That seems ridiculous. I certainly haven't received such a letter.

I may land a plane on Lordship Lane - a reasonable response to the lack of a local airstrip I think we can all agree.

Blah Blah - where would you put this dirt track out of interest? I imagine those living near to it will be delighted to hear and smell the two stroke engines whining all away all day. Also, I think it's naive to think that the cat and mouse game with police, helicopters whirling overhead and the donning of balaclava's etc is not part of the thrill. Building a dirt track isn't going to solve anything.

Yeah, its all about a dearth of youth clubs. Pull the other one.

Eric bristow

Surely painting '20' on the roads will stop this though

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wonder if it was thought that the publicity might > glamourise and encourage more outings ? Yes good point.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was at Frank's last week and overheard someone > saying, Peckham was just like Shoreditch now. Which is a ridiculous thing for anyone to say

Crazy. Surprised it didn't make the news

Any problems on the ELL today? Tfl says it's ok, but their journey planner only produces bus options for travelling between Peckham Rye and Canonbury?!

I am ambiwinkerous

Sounds annoying. I would have a word with your neighbours.

For those that like their wizz planks there is a skateboard emporium opening in the arcade next to Bussey... 'Southern breeze'

Totally agree with Jeremy. All for getting people out of their cars, but you have to have decent alternatives available. Get the tube, Boris bikes an some decent segregated bike lanes and then, by all means, start making it more difficult for people to use their cars.

Good stuff. Can't beat a good burger imo

Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you ;-)