first mate

Spider69, News to me. Could James Barber confirm that TFL own cameras and that they are all set to 30? Does sWark own any cameras and if so what are tbey set to? If all cameras are 30 moh no wonder all the buses do not adhere to 20. Is the reality that 20 is just something the council would like but cannot enforce?

Huggers, Afraid so. First offence is ?100 and 3 points. I have got a suspicion that S'wark, whilst stating 20 mph is self enforcing, may sneak in the odd camera with a view to maximising revenue opportunities. Obviously, if they said it was going to be enforced everyone would be a lot more careful, but I suspect by deliberately creating confusion they hope to fine more people. I wonder if it would be possible to get info on what cameras are operating and where? It seems unfair to me to state it is self enforcing if they plan to then enforce but without telling people. I have said before if safety really is the motive then tell us where it is being enforced. At least in those areas everyone will drive more carefully.

rahrahrah, Because they want the money and they want it now? Again, smacks of political expediency and short-termism.

Lobbing that one in is a nice distraction ( a separate thread perhaps, or tip off the press) but this is about how those works came to be and then managed. We need to focus on that. I look forward to seeing details of Worldwiser's FOI. In my humble opnion a week's worth of work was strung out to over two months, this has to be followed up by James. He is our Councillor and must hold to account those responsible for the fiasco. I for one think mentioning parties is an obvious play and cheap (though I am sure it won't be!).

EP, spot on.

Oh well, that's that then. I guess we just have to vote in your lot in next time to get something done with the pavements. James, are you being serious, with respect that sounds defeatist on your part. If half the energy was put into basic stuff like this, as to road barriers and so forth, I feel sure pavements could be improved. I keep hearing arguments about how 20 moh and more cycling will improve the lot of the elderly and vulnerable by making our streets safer, not much point if they can trip on paving and break a hip the moment they step out of the front door.

Abe, come on, not helpful. It defintely feels more dangerous, especially at night. We need solutions that work and removing the politics would help.

It is also the case that family responsibilities may require multiple journeys to areas outside of London that become impossible without a car, in that such journeys can be last minute and unpredictable and where the costs of using a combination of trains, buses and taxis, as may be the case, is too expensive to be feasible. Use of club cars requires a degree of planning, so not useful in such cases.

James, why is so much being spent on the area around Nx? Is it anything to do with imminent arrival of M&S? The endless and infamous Nx junction path works are now complete and I feel distinctly undewhelmed...really what was all that upheaval for? Have you had a look at the paths along Ashbourne, Chesterfield, Blackwater, Melbourne, lately? .Appaling, as they are in other side streets. How about a bit of money spent on these? We are all sick of the vast puddles that accumlate at the slightest bit of rain. An elderly lady was complaining to me about dangerous some of the paths are too and so easy to lose footing or trip on uneven paving. A nightmare if you are disabled.

P68, I agree, it is this moderate, considered approach that is both required and realistic. Far too much seems to be about chasing and fulfilling idealistic manifesto pledges, come what may

Yes and it is worth looking at the detail of this particular site instead of just spouting generalisations( not you P68). The developers have 0 interest in providing homes for the community, if they had they would now be building 8 flats on two floors instead of pushing now for two floors of offices with two penthouses on top, having earlier argued very hard with planners that there was no call for office space.

Umerton, The police were consulted. They objected to it and thought it was a stupid idea, in that it would create confusion,probably leading to more reckless driving. How right they are. I also think the police indicated they would not enforce. s'wark Labour launched this with the bonkers idea that it would be self-enforcing. I try hard to stick to the limit but find it very hard to do when cars accelerate and suddenly pull out to overtake or when they tailgate and falsh their lights in an attempt to force you to go faster. Cyclists also regularly whizz past down th hill and weavw in and out. I too am increasingly resentful at being made to endure this.

James, Many thanks for getting to the bottom of this. I do think it shines a little light on the way some things are getting done. Okay so this was a very small change but I remain a little disturbed when even small things do not got via "the normal decision making process".

Beulah, Let's not get into an us and them. There are a lot of aggressive drivers (and buses) and whatever the cause clearly cyclists are not immune from the "it's all about me and my need to get from a-b just as fast as I can" mindset. Thus far, it seems to me that efforts to supposedly fix the problem are backfiring massively by heaping on pressure all round. As RCH and others have suggested, we need an overview of traffic in the area, proper consultation and useful solutions. Current "solutions" seem more driven by somewhat idealistic political agendas rather than what is practical and works for most road users and pedestrians.

On the stretch of road after Sydenham Hill, towards Crystal Palace, speed camera was going off last night. Yesterday evening traffic through Dulwich Village was really bad, lots of private buses and lots of cyclists weaving in and out. It is especially diffcult when cyclists do this at speed and from both sides. If you are moving forward with cars close in front it is very difficult to monitor blind spots either side. Quite aside from aggressive car drivers, I am seeing much more reckless and aggressive cycling.

Agreed.

In my experience some of the very worst offenders are buses. They do not seem to adhere to 20 or even 30mph.

Yes, residents are outraged at what is being forced onto them by some bright eyed bushy tailed planner in cahoots with an anti car, pro cycling organisation. The Council is also making as much money as they can by fining people who are getting caught out by the chaos.

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Greendale route is already a quietway and can > be used without problem by children, older folks > and women at the moment and this has always been > the case. > > What gets up my nose is the idea to make Champion > Hill one way. Why? it does not represent any > danger regarding road users and never has. I moved > there is 1958 with my family and cannot recall any > traffic problems or accidents over the years to > now. > > Traffic has not grown in such volume that things > needs to be done. All that is happening is this is > today!s idea which is taken up by certain sections > of the community like a holy quest. > > I am all for change for the better but not for no > good reason and a one way system is not required > to alter a safe stretch of road to achieve a glow > of sainthood. > > The last time Southwark did anything was to put in > traffic islands down to Denmark Hill which only > made the road narrower. They were not ever > needed. > > So please do not keep flogging a dead horse over > the Greendale quietway and how nice it is, it has > always existed, always been nice, always been used > by all and has been blocked off to cars for many > many years. In fact many children learnt to cycle > on this bit dirt road which it was in my day and > was open to all traffic. > > Champion Hill is used by all manner of pedestrian > and wheeled transport without any problems and > does not have a great volume of traffic that would > cause a problem to anybody. > > As I mentioned before if people cannot use the > short stretch of road that is Champion Hill they > should not be on the road. Spider, well said. Too many of the changes currently being shoved through have the whiff of fanaticism and social engineering about them, forcing people to adopt behaviour that it is deemed by a select few to be for the greater good. It is dangerous and it is wrong.

Mark T, thanks just hope the Committee do not just roll over. There is in the last application a very detailed objection and it looks as though part of the plans objected to actually creep over onto land that does not even belong to the developer. Access is also a major problem too and there is a smashed bollard at the entrance of the site showing how hard it is for large vehicles to move in and out, but one of the planning officers did not feel that this could necessarily be linked to vehicle damage, a conclusion that I find extraordinary.

The owners may not be aware of their dog's distress. First step is to identify house and let owners know. If, as may be the case, they have no idea their dog is behaving like this they may be grateful to ve told and, it is hoped, get some help for the dog.

James Barber said the additional floor application (taking it up to four stories) was to be called in. He has not declared on the forum if this has happened yet and if it has qhat the result was; if it has not when is it to be called in. He said it was to be called in quite some time ago but silence since. It would be good to know if a fourth floor with penthouses is to be a added to the existing floors and whether the application for the other floors to be offices will stand? Note an earlier application was passed for 8 flats in the area that on the current application is marked out for offices (thereby giving housing in the form of two penthouses only). So 8 flats on three floors has been passed over by the developer in favour of two penthouses on four floors, with floors 2 and 3 for offices.

Yes that stretch of road is increasingly comandeered by developers/ builders on both sides. At times the road is totally blocked by various builder lorries parked up both sides on the road, since the sites face each other. It is dangerous for pedestrians and especially for the elderly, disabled and mums pushing buggies. I also feel very sorry for the shops along that parade whose trade must be affected. The larger site is large and has already been allowed to temporarily take over the whole footpath. Why then is it allowed to park endless large vehicles and equipment outside the temporary barrier blocking the road? Why has permission been given for two different builds, right opposite each other, to go ahead simultaneously, especially when both are treating the public highway as an extension of their respective building sites?

That SUSTRANS questionnaire/feedback form is one of the most disgraceful examples of skewing I think I have ever seen. It might as well have said if anything in your world is not 100% perfect please sign here.

James, It is stated in the email from the Council official to you about Consolidation Orders, that double yellows were "extended" on Chesterfield Grove, and that you were consulted on this on 10th April 2014. The email also states that other roads like Ashbourne had double yellows put in the same place they have always been, that is not extended. We need to find out the rationale for extending on Chesterfifield, where the idea came from and who ok'd it? Perhaps you never repsonded and unwittingly let it go through?