Earl Aelfheah

I don't understand why they don't build speed regulators into new cars. The tech is there - they do it with electric scooters, which are automatically speed limited as they cross into different 'zones'. Why we think it's more important to restrict the speed of a scooter than a 2 ton vehicle is odd.

I don't have a problem with people having 'displays' in their gardens particularly. But the random, single bangers let off at sporadic intervals late at night seem pretty pointless / antisocial. The argument (often used on here in relation to inconsiderate behaviour) that 'it's a big city, people can do what they like' doesn't wash with me. If you live in a built up area then it puts more responsibility on individuals to think of the impact their actions might have on others, not less. If you live in the middle of the country, making a lot of noise may not be such a big issue. If you live in a densely populated street, with people all around you, then it's a different story.

I don't have a problem with people having 'displays' in their gardens particularly. But the random, single bangers let off at sporadic intervals late at night seem pretty pointless / antisocial. The argument (often used on here in relation to inconsiderate behaviour) that 'it's a big city, people can do what they like' doesn't wash with me. If you live in a built up area then it puts more responsibility on individuals to think of the impact their actions might have on others, not less. If you live in the middle of the country, making a lot of noise may not be such a big issue. If you live in a densely populated street, with people all around you, then it's a different story.

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is a revenue stream but TFL are not a profit > organisation so all revenue is fed back in to > improve transport around London (eg new Bakerloo > line). > While people may feel heavily inconvenienced, car > pollution is a real problem. Yep, it?s a positive move imo

They use the same cameras for different types of enforcement as I understand it. So there aren't specific 'ULEZ' cameras, just TFL ones. A map of all the locations is here: https://londonist.com/london/transport/an-interactive-live-traffic-map-of-london It looks like we need more in the area if they're going to effectively cut down on short, local journey's in the most polluting vehicles.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What costs are likely to be paid if a school is > made to close? Do they compensate staff for wages, > etc? In the event of a closure, there will likely be redundancies. I would imagine that most teachers will have a relatively generous, occupational severance scheme. There may also be 'actuarial costs' owed to the pension schemes.

Thanks for posting, will take a look

There are some available on Groupon

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The blame game worked for Brexit, so if it ain't > broke...Johnson's speech stays on course, full of > tubthumping rhetoric minus actual policy. > > However, I do feel that once things start > affecting Joe Public, like the fuel shortage has, > then you will see more reaction. Winter of > Discontent 2.0 looming... I dunno. Conservatives up in the polls. People don't seem to care. Johnson will blame shortages on 'EU intransigence' and the press will hail him as Churchillian and a large number of the hard of thinking will lap it all up.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is West Dulwich, but I don't care, I'm a born > anarchist: old Cafe Rouge site on Park Hall Rd is > being renovated as Walter's, described as a > "Neighbourhood restaurant from the team behind The > Oystermen", which in turn looks like a Covent > Garden seafood bar. That's encouraging that it's > not just another coffee shop, so fingers crossed. > > www.waltersdulwich.co.uk > > https://oystermen.co.uk/ Good to get a seafood restaurant opening up rather than another pizza or coffee place.

Really sorry to see this. Infuriating. Agree with others comments re. Confronting masked thieves holding van angle grinder - probably best not to. Good on the lady for getting a pic at least.

This website tells you where you can get one: https://www.nhs.uk/service-search/pharmacy/find-a-pharmacy-nhs-flu-vaccine-service

From 2009 onwards, motoring on minor roads in London almost doubled from 5.5bn vehicle miles to nearly 9.5bn in 2019. Traffic on main roads remained relatively stable in the same period. Navigation apps such as Waze have caused huge displacement on to side streets. Where?s the outrage over this, significant ?displacement?.

So we should allocate as much space as possible to cars, across as broad an area as possible. No attempt to create quieter routes. The huge growth of traffic on minor roads over the last few years caused by navigation apps must continue. With luck we can ensure every road is equally congested as that?s ?fairer? for everyone. People who have no option but to walk and cycle because they don?t own a car should get one (even if they can?t afford one), and stop ?virtue signalling?. All the research suggest that making driving easier increases the amount of driving. Literally all of it. But until it?s definitive we?ll pick holes in individual studies or data sets, and ignore the emerging picture across a growing body of evidence. Yup, let?s go with the view that making driving as convenient as possible (and walking and cycling less pleasant and / or safe) will reduce car use. There?s no evidence at all for that but, it?s obvious isn?t it?

But let's ignore the growing body of evidence on LTNs. My other points remain: No one has been stopped from driving a car to any destination. But there are now a handful of routes around the area that aren?t quite so dominated by heavy vehicles, which is good for the many people who don?t own a car and need to walk or cycle. Having the options that a (pretty minor) reallocation of space provides, benefits all sorts of people, whether they are older, younger, male or female. Not everyone owns a car. No one is judging people who drive. Many people have to, or simply want to drive. But that doesn?t mean that cars should always have priority, or that we should allocate as much space as possible to motor vehicles to the detriment of anyone else

They?re based on traffic counts. I agree that not everyone likes what the counts show.

Traffic is down 10% (on average -16,201 per day) in the Dulwich area overall. Cycling is up 66% (on average an additional +4062 journeys per day) in the Dulwich area overall. There has been a shift, in particular, of children walking, scooting and biking to school. No one has been stopped from driving a car to any destination. But there are now a handful of routes around the area that aren?t quite so dominated by heavy vehicles, which is good for the many people who don?t own a car and need to walk or cycle. Having the options that a (pretty minor) reallocation of space provides, benefits all sorts of people, whether they are older, younger, male or female. Not everyone owns a car. No one is judging people who drive. Many people have to, or simply want to drive. But that doesn?t mean that cars should always have priority, or that we should allocate as much space as possible to motor vehicles to the detriment of anyone else.

London?s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: An Emerging Evidence Base: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d30896202a18c0001b49180/t/60003fabf3791928a02b707f/1610629036655/LTN+Briefing_FINAL.pdf

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This should have burned itself out by now - why not?? Presumably, people are still buying more fuel than they need 🤷

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But don't other areas of Southwark already have > LTNS in one for or other? Yes, they are many across Southwark and London

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This was in my mail today (along with the DA > thing). I?ll say it again - it?s the deliveries we > need to focus on. There was someone on Sky this > morning reflecting on how many HGV drivers have > switched to more local Amazon, supermarket, > gourmet food box type jobs. The increase in traffic on minor roads is largely down to Google maps and Waze etc. Of course, there is silence on the significant displacement this caused away from main roads onto back streets over several years. Re. delivery vans. - one vehicle delivering groceries to 10 houses, rather than 10 individual cars driving back and forth to the shops, is likely to cause a lot less congestion. I'm not sure why we can't accept the idea that traffic is caused by too many (often single occupancy) cars driving around. 'Rat-running' increases on residential UK streets as experts blame satnav apps https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/25/rat-running-residential-uk-streets-satnav-apps

I agree that public transport in the area is not great by London standards. Absolutely agree with that. That does not mean that a large number of local car journeys could not be avoided. One look at a line of single occupancy vehicles, all travelling in the same direction at the same time, many making journey's of less than 2 miles, tells you that. The 'fix public transport before you do anything else' argument, is a manifesto for in action. I will very happily support campaigns for improvements to public transport, but one can do that whilst also campaigning for safe walking and cycling routes and schemes to discourage casual car use.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So wanting to ban cars is too much and over the > top but wanting to close roads which causes other > streets to be more congested and polluted is fine- > yeah. > > Typical: I will not give up anything for the cause > but happy to sacrifice others' health and well > being. Yes, I think banning cars is over the top. I would like to see us take reasonable measures to reduce car use, and encourage more active travel - but there will always be times that people need to either drive or be driven. You're in favour of banning cars?

It's easy to say 'we should concentrate on improving public transport before we do anything else', because no one is against better public transport, you can avoid any difficult decisions, and it kicks the can down the road indefinitely. Heartblock says he's not against banning cars when public transport is improved. By how much exactly? Do you really think that the idea of getting to say PTAL 4, and then banning cars is a serious suggestion?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahx3 - stop this nonsense about good transport > links - you know that is not true. I pointed out that we don?t have one of the worst PTALs in London. Another assertion by the scientifically rigorous contributor who denies the existence of peer reviewed research by other academics. The PTAL for most of Dulwich is rated ?moderate? (by London standards, which are generally high). I would love to see improvements. But how good does local transport have to be before you attempt to reduce car use? Around 40% of car journeys in London are under 2 miles as we know. It?s an absolute cop out to say, we shouldn?t tackle casual car use until we have , what? A PTAL of 4, 5? Heartblock is talking of banning cars entirely when PTAL improves.. improves to what?! Would you support that? It?s absolute nonsense.