rodneybewes

@Tessmo, absolutely I think we both want the same result - a local democratic system that at least lets all voices be heard and encourages input and informed debate by all. I just think it happens quite naturally that those who push themselves out there will be more heard than those who don't. It was ever thus and will probably ever be. That's why it's crucial to play an active role rather than waiting for local government to reach out to you. Which, let's face it will become even less likely with the cuts they will probably be facing over the next half a decade. There will probably be quite a lot less reaching out, not more unfortunately.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Zebedee Tring Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Is "the Gazette" the London Gazette? An > official > > UK journal, in which it is required that > certain > > statutory notices should be published. > > > Yes, ZT it is, though I had not felt it was > something I needed to peruse on a very regular > basis in order to find out about proposed major > changes to my locale. Do others read this often? > Perhaps I need to start. You can register with the gazette and save your search, even have it as an RSS feed. Select Southwark Council as the local authority etc. It's a pain though. I rely on special interest groups to tell me when my local council is doing something that affects me though, it's a bit more focussed... :D

Tessmo, I think you are right that there is a danger that only the most organised get heard. The Italians have a saying, cheap shoes squeak loudest... However I'm willing to bet that the level of engagement in the majority of local consultations is very low, unless it's an issue of massive concern (the closing of Lewisham hospital a&e being one I can think of). Local residents should be a lot more actively involved in local decision making, it's a crucial part of our democracy. But actually most people don't. I think that's our fault as a nation, we've had democracy longer than most and we tend to take it for granted. I don't there's a lot that local government can do to be honest. There is a whole section on the Southwark website about consultations and petitions, for example, it's quite easy to get involved. Ask not what your nation can do for you, but what you can do for your nation and all that. If one feels strongly enough about something then one can join an interested group, you don't have to start your own. The reason these groups start in the first place is because enough people care about the issues involved. What it boils down to is this - if you feel strongly enough do something about it. And if you don't do anything about it you can't really have felt that strongly, can you?

The thing about special interest groups is that they get out there and care enough about the issues to get involved and have their interests heard. That is essentially democracy in action. If you care enough about keeping the limits at 30 you need to mobilise yourself and get out there to challenge it. If you carry more support than those who campaign for the opposite you've got a chance that your argument will carry the day. It's no good blaming special interest groups for being arsed enough to have an opinion and carry it through.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So next time I labour up Sydenham Hill with a > string of irate, hooting drivers right up my > number plate, I will think of you Bawdy Nan and > your kind advice. That image did make me laugh!

mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying > the Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2012 > Annual Report is a joke publication? > > Yes that is what I am saying. A joke as in > distorting data to present a view rather than > facts. Obviously it isnt funny. Well, obviously you can twist stats to fit any agenda but that report looks pretty neutral to me. It's certainly not a joke. At least it backs itself up with hard facts.

mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These are the sort of joke publications that the > ideas are based on (along with a study H of what > happened in a few weeks in Hull) > https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa > ds/attachment_data/file/269601/rrcgb-2012-complete > .pdf Not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying the Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2012 Annual Report is a joke publication?

The reductions in accidents are a lot more than I actually thought they would be, especially the figures for deaths and serious injuries (and even more so in children).

Rolo Tomasi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So I'm off to the Tate Modern tonight and I need > to get back to Peckham Rye for about 10pm. What's > my best option, Train from Blackfriars or the 63? The walk from the entrance of the Tate Modern to the south side of Blackfriars is about 2 mins. I'd go there, check the boards on the wall and if it's up the spout head to LB.

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thank you providing the link. However, the points > made in the "broader benfits of 20mph" read just > as subjectively as most of our arguements against > 20mph on this thread. > > I feel closer packed traffic makes it less easy > for cars to turn into traffic. He feels it makes > it easier for cars to turn into traffic etc etc. I > won't go through them 1 by 1, but hasn't done > anything to convice me. > > I think introduction of blanket 20mph speed limits > is an easy way for local government to give the > appearance they are improving road safety for > constituents without really having to do any work, > and one that is hard to disprove its said benefits > as there is little useful research available. Don't agree that there is little useful research available on the basis that you just don't approve, but even if you do dispute the stats it's only heading one way and probably won't be going back. In twenty years time the next generation will be looking at us askance for not having computer controlled cars. In the meantime we'll be living in a much safer, much duller world.

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Speed will not be the main cause of death and > destruction but sitting behind a long line of cars > with the front car being PC and letting the speed > drop to between 15/20 mph with drivers not being > able to move quicker with a empty road ahead. > > Frustration and anger will then kick in. Example > Sydenham hill then along to CP is a prime example > of blinkered thinking on road speed. > > It's a pity that people cannot think out of the > box. > > To test this just drive for a time at 20 with an > empty road in front ignoring traffic behind. > > Common sense is far more important and relevant. I'm not sure common sense has worked in the history of motoring so far. Hence traffic lights, box junctions, level crossing barriers, speed restrictions etc. And your first sentence doesn't really hold up.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bawdy-nan, the congestion charge was supposed to > reduce congestion. Not only is congestion still > there, excess congestion was simply displaced to > outside the zone. People are far more attached to > their vehicles than you might think. Some of the > evidence you refer to is anecdotal. The truth is > that Southwark doesn't know if and by how many, > accidents will reduce until the scheme has been in > place for a measure of time. Traffic calming > measures already exist in areas where young people > are most likely to be at risk, like outside > schools, residential areas etc. The only strong > evidence is that of the seriousness of injury vs > speed, because that can be tested, in a controlled > environment. What can't be tested though is how a > given driver will behave in a given situation. Congestion may still be there but it's miles better than it used to be in central London. With the increase in cars on the road the strategy isn't to make things easier for cars to move about London, that's an incentive to drive. It's to make it more expensive and less convenient, so as to decrease the incentive. Of course the missing piece in this is the god-awful transport system we have which makes the slow, inexorable change in habits excruciating all round.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rodneybewes Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'd second right-clicking's suggestion of the > > sansa clip. Will do what you want and cheaply. > > > I had a look at that and if memory serves it was > aimed at people exercising and jogging etc ?? You can use it for jogging but it plays lots of different filetypes and you can have playlists, you can put a sd card into it to beef up the memory if needed, and all you have to do is plug it into a sound system through a jack and it will play straight through it. Super cheap as well. Great little device. There's one here currently going for ?11.50. Stick a cheap sd card on and off you go. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SanDisk-Sansa-Clip-SDMX18R-Black-4-GB-Digital-Media-Player-/181651745492?pt=UK_AudioTVElectronics_PortableAudio_MP3Players&hash=item2a4b49aad4

I'd second right-clicking's suggestion of the sansa clip. Will do what you want and cheaply.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > at council assembly last week it was announced > that the 20mph policy is costing ?450,000 to > introdunce the signs - publicity, pre traffic > speed monitoring (44 locations in Dulwich area) > That before 12 months are up speeds will be > recorded and then ?792,000 spent on physical > measures where speed are higher than 20mph. I > suspect that will hardly touch the sides for the > speeds people are still travelling at but a start. Thanks for that James, I think that is very positive news.

lozc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Virtually all the arguments advanced here for > 20mph limits could also be advanced for 15, 10, or > even 5mph. > The reality is that a compromise must be struck > somewhere. The only absolutely safe roads would > have no moving traffic on them at all. > > Whatever people's views on the limit, my main > concern currently is the conflicting and confusing > signage, meaning that all the limits are widely > ignored. True, there's nothing worse than it not being clear where the changes are. I doubt it's any consolation but it won't be long before the whole whack is 20mph.

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What would happen to these figures if people > became more aware and took responsibility for > their own actions. Be more aware of their > surroundings and not be engrossed with talking on > the telephone, drinking takeaway coffee and > generally ignoring all what is going on around > them. > > Pavements are for pedestrians when you need to > cross the road use designated crossing points. > Following the instructions. When at zebra > crossings wait until all traffic has stopped. > > If you need to cross apart from the above use the > old tried and tested method "look left , look > right and left again" if clear cross. > > Roads always have been for moving machines going > at what ever speed. On london roads that is not > fast. Care is needed > > Perhaps bringing back a man walking in front of > traffic with a red flag is what we could all work > towards. > > All it needs is for people to take responsibility > for their own actions , however I do think we are > asking for the impossible. > > Why put forward in depth reasons when all that is > needed is the above. Because in practice that doesn't happen? And in this imperfect world it won't? Your making it sound incredibly simple doesn't mean that it isn't in fact very complicated to achieve that. Good work with the red flag bit as a comparison, try to make the reduction in the speed limit sound absurd. You nearly had me too.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The vast majority of drivers never hit anything, > but we never seem to consider that. I stand by my > earlier points that emphasis is in the wrong > place. Unless something is done to imrpove the > standards of driving by those drivers who fall > short, no amount of speed limit tinkering is going > to address the real cause of the problem. Well, they should probably do both but I'm betting it's a lot cheaper to get effective results lowering the limit than to embark on a programme of training the nation on better driving skills. Particularly in South London! I'd love it if everyone could be a good driver as you say but in reality they are not, and aren't going to be without the big stick hanging over them of penalty points and fines.

I drive quite a bit and I'm going with the 20mph too. It felt frustrating at first when there is no other traffic but it's worth it for the benefits and to be honest I used to find having to put on my seatbelt to be a pain too when they first made that compulsory; now I don't care. Actually, I have started to feel more relaxed driving at 20.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > First of all numhead man, I am not a speed freak. > I cycle mainly and am fully aware of the problems > of congested roads and inconsiderate road users. > BUT speed is not a factor in most accidents (or > collisions if you want to be semantic about it), > that's well documented. Error of judgement or > wrecklessness is the main cause of collisions. > Speed only has a bearing on the consequence. So my > argument is this. If councils, government etc > really are concerned with reduicing accidents, > then tinkering with speed limits is illogical. It > does nothing to make poor road users into better > road users. In fact I'd argue that it will only > serve to increase the impatience of the already > wreckless driver, add to the frustration of the > already frustrated driver etc. The point is that the slower you are going the more time you have to correct your error of judgment (and possibly avoid a collision) and the less catastrophic the consequences. So reducing the speed limit lessens the harm. There is nothing illogical about reducing speed limits in order to reduce harm. Your last sentence makes no sense. It's like saying you shouldn't refuse to serve an abusive drunk more alcohol because it will make them more abusive.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 7.30-3.30... sounds good... is your employer > hiring any developers at the moment? Probably but all the IT guys work in our Leeds office!

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would poor peak-time transport encourage people to > take advantage of any flexi working at their work, > or ask their employer to introduce it? I know only > a certain amount of people would be able to do it, > but if the commute is debilitating then shifting > the hours of work would be a solution. I moved my hours from 9-5 to 7.30-3.30 in part to work with Australian and Asian colleagues but also to deal with the poor commute. This works for me but wouldn't necessarily be ok for everyone's role. And if you've got kids you are stuffed. The company I work for is moving to a new office with a smaller footprint per person which they want to offset by expanding flexible working. The consultants they have been working with have apparently been pointing to studies showing that commuting in London will get significantly worse over the next twenty years as nothing that is planned will deal with the projected increase in people going to work in London. I can't see really how it's going to change unless they come up with something radical involving completely segregated cycle superhighways that people actually feel safe on and/or double decker trains etc. Be interesting to see what effect the east-west Crossrail link will have.

Trader Vics, under the Hilton in Park Lane. Tiki themed... http://tradervicslondon.com/drink/

Just walked past him in the street, having his picture taken with people and generally laughing and joking. Seems a genuinely nice bloke, friendly with everyone about him.

They wouldn't be far off from the truth!...