henryb

Elephant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was driving down village way towards half moon > lane at 20 mph at the weekend, tailgated by an > aggressive driver then over taken on the bend just > befor the bridge. Really scary! Also noticed that > the 20 mph limit on half moon lane is not being > adhered to at all very dangerous especially for > the lollipop lady in the morning and the public > using the zebra crossing. This is a crazy > situation not thought through at all, would love > to see the qualitative data and research that led > to this decision. To your last question this is a report on 20 zones from tfl http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/research-summary-no2-20mph-zones.pdf but ultimately it was in the 2014 southwark labour party manifesto and they won the election.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Kids on scooters probably aren't going to knock > you over though! A jogger or a big dog might. Bells on them? The problems is people complain if cyclists ring their bells as well so it is a no win.

lparsons Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We are on Crebor Street (near Dunstans Road) - > anyone else noticing this change or does it come > and go ? It comes and goes for us. The flight paths vary depending on conditions. Have you seen these sites? http://www.heathrowairport.com/noise/what-you-can-do/track-flights-on-maps http://hacan.org.uk/

> And mako, doesn't this completely counter the > arguement that slower speed limits reduce > accidents by increasing the the amount of time > people have to react and make decisions? If we all > drive closer together and the traffic is more > densely packed I think (and no, its not backed by > Local Government reasearch, which of course would > always be of the highest quality, and completely > unbiased) accidents will increase. Nope. It means the stopping distances will be less so drivers are more able to avoid collision from unexpected situations but it also means cars can be closer together safely.

mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cyclists may only undertake generally when > congested at the moment but when cars are driving > at 15-20 this will be much more common and will be > dangerous. > Seriously most cyclists don't go over 20. The average speed for the tour de france winner is only 24 mph. If you are cycling that fast on busy London streets and regularly undertaking cars at speed - then I think you need to calm down a bit. > Please can someone explain that if volatility of > speeds comes down from 0-30 to 0-20 how congestion > doesnt increase? Surely by definition more cars > travelling at the same speed means more congested? I said earlier - lower speeds increases the flow rate because cars can be closer together. That is why they drop the speed limit on congested motorways. Not exactly the same but the same in principle.

mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wulf-you dont mention who these are costs to. Are > they not covered mostly by insurance in which case > it is insurance companies profits you are > describing not a cost/saving to the taxpayer. Are you actually saying we should not spend public money on saving peoples lives because its the insurance companies that pay out on life insurance? I can't say I agree with that.

mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A simple example would be waiting longer at > traffic lights as queues longer. at thirty more > cars would have made it through Flow rates increase at lower speeds because cars can be closer together. > many cyclist on the inside doing the same and turning left for cars becomes dangerous as there is much more > undertaking. Cyclists are not supposed to undertake at junctions. However most cyclists top speed is about 20 the same as the cars should be travelling - so there should be less overtaking by cars and undertaking should only happen in traffic jams.

According this report for TFL 20mph zones lead to a reduction in all casualties of 42%. The largest effect was on 0-15 age group. I am a driver and totally support them. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/20-mph-zones-and-road-safety-in-london.pdf

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not a limit, it's an ambition and a reminder > to slow down. Well, legally, it is actually the limit - but I get your point no one is going to get charged for doing 23 on quiet road, however if you are going over the limit and you knock someone down then you will be at fault.

Were they keeping to the 20 limit?

Especially ironic as the local area is badly serviced by local primaries because of distance.

hopskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am trying to understand or find a simple > explanation of the origins and connections > between: > London Cycle Superhighways > Southwark Spine > Quietways > LCNs > Southwark Cycling Strategy (Southwark Council) > > - What are their origins/history; what > organisation originated them if this is > identifiable, etc > - If and how they overlap at all > The current drive for Superhighways and Quietways comes from Boris. Not sure how they connect to what southwark are doing. I guess the councils can get funding for project from the Mayor if it ties in with his strategy. https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/transport/cycling-revolution

You only really need cycle lanes on busy roads. I think the point of quietways is they try to stay to less busy roads where possible. I use the 22 route a lot and it is a lot better than going the way you would by car. The problem segregated routes is they are a lot more expensive to implement and like you say take more space from other road users. Quietways are a good alternative if implemented correctly. I guess that is the point of the consultation. Clearly the Townley/EDG junction needs a rethink but the rest doesn't seem so bad. I used to cycle some of that route when I lived that way. I welcome it being made safer and quicker for cyclists.

"No, it won't. Local authorities, unlike internet forum posters, have legal duties and obligations and legally defined decision making processes. " I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The council has no legal obligation clear wild wooded areas from cemeteries. "I think every other poster is in effect saying that they shouldn't be functioning cemeteries, because that is the consequence of maintaining all the existing woodland growth. " No it isn't. Hyperbole on your behalf I would say. "I'd be happy to bike lock you to a tree until you learn the meaning of hyperbole." Right back at you.

Have Haberdashers or Charter said how much land they would require for a school? If so has anyone suggested they get less than that?

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I haven't read every word of the surveys, but I've > had a pretty good look at what appear to be the > most important ones. Are these the same surveys > that it was suggested were being kept secret? > > What is clear is (i) a lot of time, effort and > careful consideration has been put into these > proposals and (ii) what they represent is a > suggested return of the cemetery space to a more > managed landscape, allowing for a reinstatement of > the intended use. There is clearly room for > disagreement but the hysterical title and tone of > much of this thread is way over the top. London's > Victorian cemeteries have significant > architectural and historical merit and it is > arguable that there are a lot of interesting > features in the Old Cemetery currently buried > under unremarkable and random growth. Interesting to you maybe other people might argue that they are totally uninteresting and the entire place should be bull-dozed for something useful like a shopping mall or a block of flats. Ultimately any decision about land use will come down to a value judgement on the particular type of usage. Personally I think urban wild and natural green spaces have a great value. Many surveys and studies show trees and wild life and green spaces in general are very beneficial to the quality of life of people living near them. I don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't still be cemeteries - it is just that should be managed in a way that is sustainable in terms both burials but also the trees, wildlife and natural spaces they contain.

The LGA seems to think the problem is getting worse. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30780126

Ok well if other local parents are confident the Harris on LL will cover the gap then I won't rock the boat. The lack of provision took us by surprise in 2013.

> Your argument about knock on effects if a > futher Harris is opened at the hospital site (very > far away from the black hole) It is not that far. 900m or so. That is closer than some parents are sending their children.

According to Southwark 2014 Goodrich catchment was 500m and Ivydale 386m. That is still quite a gap. Don't get me wrong I think the priority should be a secondary school for the site and it should have enough space. However if there is room for primary school as well it shouldn't be dismissed as the current situation of bulging already crowded schools and letting the catholic church take the slack doesn't seem very satisfactory to me. There is on-going population growth in London - demands on schools is only going to increase.

bawdy-nan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But isn't it the case that other expansions are > already planned that more than fulfill any > anticipated shortfall in Southwark in relation to > primary places? Are you referring to the Ivydale expansion? The current black hole of primary provision extends all the way to Forest Hill Rd. To cover that Ivydale's catchment area would need to be 1300m. In 2013 the catchment area was 600m with a 3 class in-take. I can't see how the school will cover 4 times the area with one extra class. What are the plans for the area at the top of Underhill Road? As I understand it none of the schools around there are expanding. I don't think Horniman can take any more bulge classes.

It would not be ideal for either black spot but a school there would be better than none at all. It would have knock on effect on the catchment areas of other schools in the areas.

Southwark are holding another public meeting about the plans: 11th February 2015 Old Baptist Church, Forest Hill Road, SE22 0SG 7-8.30pm An exhibition of the plans is on show from 2-7pm at the same venue. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11485/information_about_public_meeting_on_11_february

Yes and a cctv camera for enforcement.

> Do we have a clear idea of when these plans to cut > down the woodland will go ahead? From here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11301/proposals_for_camberwell_old_and_new_cemeteries it says the plan is to clear an area of woodland on One Tree Hill in Camberwell New Cemetery autumn this year and start on Camberwell Old Cemetery early 2016.