first mate

Think Blah Blah had most sensible approach, it was an accident, more care required by dog owners, glad no people/children hurt, and it sounded like the OP was concerned the dog was injured and did not want the same happening again.

Okay, well the OP said that had it been him the dog had run into "it would probably have been run over and crushed" that doesn't fit with a cyclist going very slowly does it? Perhaps he meant he would have fallen onto the dog and crushed it but he did say "run over".

Yes, but the slower the bike speed the gentler the impact and therefore injury all round less likely. Not ideal for dogs to be chasing around off lead on that bit of the park but I see way too many cyclists pelting at top speed through both DP and PR. Anyhow, in this case, hoping dog is not imjured and glad child was ok.

Please see lost section for information on reported lost dog Isis, that fits this description.

tortor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I understand concerns about the introduction of a > CPZ- not least the cost. However there has to be a > discussion about what to do about an increasingly > difficult situation... > > It is getting harder and harder to park around > East Dulwich- in lots of different areas. I can > easily be driving around for 20 minutes looking > for somewhere to park... it's not just that there > aren't any spaces on my street, but there are no > spaces within a 10 minute walk, which with 2 young > kids/ shopping etc makes things very difficult. > (Let alone the environmental issue of driving > round unnecessarily). > > But it's also difficult for some local businesses. > One hairdresser told me long standing clients are > just going elsewhere because they can't deal with > the parking situation. > > Things have changed a lot here in recent years > with more popular restaurants, shops which attract > people from further afield with cars (eg M&S) and > more people doing more building work with > associated tradespeople. In many ways that's all > great, but to simply say "no CPZ" without other > suggestions of how to help increased parking > congestion, there'll be no improvement. > > So what might work instead? Your point about M&S attracting people in cars from further afield noted. We were assured over and over again that people would not drive to M&S but would cycle or use public transport. Well guess what.... We are now being told CPZ will greatly improve the parking situation (in part created by those not listening to objections to the above and similar). Why would you believe it?

This 'survey' is deeply cynical and deeply disappointing , but sadly, not surprising.

Be in no doubt, Southark will meddle and tweak with road design and double yellow lines until they get the mass CPZ they intended all along. And it's not just S'wark Labour, James Barber was a major early champion of CPZ in ED and argued long and hard for it here on the forum. The street by street technique is a fave, get one street to go CPZ and soon neighbouring streets will follow.

Lee, yes think you make good points. I have wondered for some time if the anti dog agenda was related in some way to slow encroachment of Harris onto PR. The new imminent PSPOS state that dogs will not be allowed into children's playing areas, so note your comment about Grasslands East and the 'possibility' of a long game with a view to acquisition of parts of PR?

That said, agree with Lee, pretty poor show to see bricks and what not discarded into that stream, whatever happened to cracking down on anti social littering in the borough's nature and beauty spots, especially by a council funded contractor. Agree, disgraceful, why aren't the park wardens on top of this?

Like you Bobby P, I am not falling for the pro CPZ rationale. Parking has become a little more difficult of late but not impossible and I have never expected or been able to park outside my house. If people are physically infirm there is always the option of disabled bays. The majority double park outside their home when there is a need to offload multiple or heavy items- this takes only moments- and then go and find a space elsewhere. I am happy to park on another street if need be and would be surprised if the majority found such a short walk taxing. Really do think any reason at all is being scraped up to justify CPZ.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rupert - Your area will not be overrun by people > when the CPZ comes in. It will get vastly > quieter. > > There will be no overflow from our CPZ to yours > once your own CPZ comes in. I know that I helped > local residents in your area with your own CPZ > campaign (again at their request) and I do think > you are over worrying about the outcome. The > primary driver for a CPZ will be commuters who > need all day parking without risk of ticketing. I > know when I wander around your street at the > moment that it is full of commuters and builders > who use it as a dumping ground. But, if they > cannot park there all day anymore, then they will > go away and park elsewhere. > > > I don't understand who you think these mysterious > drivers are who are going to start using your road > when the CPZ lands, where they are coming from and > why they will appear in your road post CPZ if > they're not there already? Perhaps you can explain > this to me, because I assure you that your road > will be vastly quieter when it happens. > > > The drivers you get are commuters who need all day > parking. Take the ability to park all day away > without a permit (even for 2 hours) and they will > go. Its utterly simple and been proven in other > CPZ - like I keep telling you, if you don't > believe me, go and wander round other 2hr CPZ > zones at different times of the day. It will allay > your fears. Instead you keep going on here about > this rather than just going out and seeing the > reality. The success of your model seems in part to depend on the notion that streets will be quieter with CPZ because drivers ( the builders and commuters you refer to) will go and park elsewhere, on the streets with no CPZ. What happens when everywhere is CPZ, are you absolutely sure all the streets will still be quieter?

Bobby P, spot on. Sadly the council have their 'ways' and the push to get this through has been ongoing for years and our own councillor Mr Barber was one of the early supporters.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > On 19 March Southwark is introducing Public > Space > > Protection Orders with which to 'police' the > dog > > owning public. It will be interesting to see > how > > the policing works in practice, which > individuals > > are tasked with this and how fair it is. The > PCPOS > > are set to be in place for 3 years. > > > > Press around these orders elsewhere has been > > variable and at times highly critical. > > > > PSPOs can also be introduced for littering and > > other anti social behaviour, so it will also be > > interesting to see if Southwark pursues other > > areas of perceived public nuisance in a similar > > way, bearing in mind Southwark's plans to close > > down a significant part of PR for a 3 day music > > festival this summer. > > If it means one can have a picnic in the park > without having their food stolen, or everything up > ended by a dog, well, that would be nice. Rahrahrah, If the intention really is to get irresponsible owners to be more considerate that is fine and it remains to be seen if that is the case? I am interested in who will be doing the policing- there are very few park wardens and community wardens have better things to do, surely?

On 19 March Southwark is introducing Public Space Protection Orders with which to 'police' the dog owning public. It will be interesting to see how the policing works in practice, which individuals are tasked with this and how fair it is. The PCPOS are set to be in place for 3 years. Press around these orders elsewhere has been variable and at times highly critical. PSPOs can also be introduced for littering and other anti social behaviour, so it will also be interesting to see if Southwark pursues other areas of perceived public nuisance in a similar way, bearing in mind Southwark's plans to close down a significant part of PR for a 3 day music festival this summer.

That does not quite ring true for me. An experienced security dog and handler would not have the dog bark at every noise and movement because it would become a public nuisance. I also doubt that humans are sitting out all night, especially in this weather. Additionally, by law, if the premises is being patrolled by dogs this must be clearly stated in signage. The law also says that security dogs must always be under the control of experienced, qualified handlers.

The owner may be in breach od Dangerous Dog's Act Section 3. This should be reported to police.

There is separate law around guard dogs. Any premises with a guard dog on site must clearly indicate that this is the case by way of signage. The dog must also have proper housing by way of a kennel and shelter from damp and cold. A dog that is barking persistently for long periods is unlikely to be alarm barking.

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 was designed to allow intervention before an animal suffers. It states that human owners have a duty of care to provide an appropriate environment for the animal they own. Specifically on dogs; if the animal lives outside it must be provided with "adequate shelter" and a place to hide if it is frightened. Taking out of the equation the fact that dogs are a social species, so being left alone night after night may be causing huge distress, there are many breeds that would not cope with the sub zero temperatures we have outside- a table top would certainly not suffice as adequate shelter. A Husky might be okay outside in current conditions but not to be left alone, night after night. Dogs were not designed as solitary animals, so within the terms of the Act it is arguable this animal is not only being deprived of adequate shelter and security but that basic social needs are not being met. If the dog is barking excessively for hours this may well signal major distress and the RSPCA should know that.

Not to mention the very considerable pollution caused by non-stop building work, much of it vanity projects.

Okay, so how many (fit/ healthy) parents on this forum would commit to never using their car for school drop offs and pick ups, or for shopping/ entertainment? That includes cold, dark rainy mornings when using a car is so tempting?

Not every time. I really doubt that. People tend to go with what is most convenient and would likely pay higher charges until they can change their vehicle. It's a good, workable idea.

RH, I have not said "it ain't so" I have simply said it has not been my experience thus far and from what I have observed. Clearly it is possible for some builders to cycle to their work or for others to use public transport- you and Saffron are evidence of that, it just hasn't caught on in a widespread fashion from what I can see. Perhaps this is mere obstinacy and resistance to change or perhaps there are other reasons.

So what happens in terms of skips and large deliveries of building materials like bags of sand/ bricks etc.., not to forget portaloos, which often end up clogging up sections of road? What wbout various contractors like plumbers and electricians who might be needed just for a few days? Do they also cycle in? I am sure individual builders might manage to cycle but not convinced this reduces the impact of the build in total, where there are generally many builders on site.

RH a nice idea but just not realistic. I cannot think of many loft conversions or extensions that could ever get built your way..( and I speak as one sick to the back teeth with the amount of building and associated disruption in my area). But 'builders on bikes' has a certain ring about it. I see it working perhaps for an odd job man/ woman who lives very locally.