Jump to content

first mate

Member
  • Posts

    5,033
  • Joined

Everything posted by first mate

  1. Why Rockets, they?re all cycling in from Kent now😉
  2. I had suggested sessions of yoga, tai- chi, etc.. in summer? Quite a few people already go to this area to do this anyway so that could be developed for the community on a pay as you go basis? The ?club? house could be used for massage, physio and perhaps yoga in winter? Perhaps I am way off base but it just feels a natural fit and could benefit all ages.
  3. Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem with tennis courts is that it limits > the number of people that can use the space at any > one time. Even if fully booked, it doesn't seem > like a good use of the space. Also, do we really > want the noise of tennis balls breaking through > the peace of the Japanese and Sexby Gardens? Completely agree. We all need areas of tranquillity, especially in urban areas, why destroy it?
  4. I was not suggesting this was fantasy simply noting that commuter parking, as in people leaving their cars on roads around the station was given as the main driver for CPZ on streets around the station. People would not be parking for long periods for a school drop off or to use the health centre. The main argument was very much about commuters going to work. Time limited CPZ would have dealt with that, as well as school drop offs for that matter.
  5. Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wandsworth have sent out the attached letter > > Can't wait to see how Southwark word theirs > 🤔 This seems to be a more reasonable response, especially in regard to emergency services.
  6. One moment you say you feel for people suffering parking displacement as you know what it is like, the next it is ?sour grapes?? Please don?t pretend not to be aware of the widespread effects car owners living close to a station and choosing all day CPZ, will have on the rest of us.
  7. Yes, well you might but it was always argued that commuter parking was the central issue, this could have been dealt with by the time limited option. Goodness, we had tales of commuter stalkers in cars harassing householders and all sorts. The health centre and schools were never mentioned. The all day CPZ has facilitated CPZ creep in a way that was never necessary.
  8. Yes, but the commuter parking issue, arguably an inevitable and entirely forseeable side effect of choosing to live close to a train station, could have been mitigated by time limited CPZ, which could have meant those living by the station would have had a solution and other nearby streets would not have been made to suffer displacement to the same degree. However, this reasonable and even-handed option was rejected.
  9. Agree, poor behaviour but one would think oil on the roads might also discourage cars..odd thing to do.
  10. ?There was talk somewhere (might have been Oval LTN but I can't find it now) reporting that vandals had poisoned the plants by pouring oil into them. I mean there's being against the closures but poisoning soil and plants is despicable.? Come on exdulwicher, conflating the two is a bit much to make a point. Do you have hard evidence this was the work of anti- road closure protesters? I could say, I?ve heard of a few cars being keyed locally, it?s all very well being anti car but keying them is despicable.
  11. Has anyone else heard shouting that has gone on, seemingly all night in ED? Hard to know where it is coming from, seems to be from the area between Goose Green and North Cross Road? No music so not a party but raised male voices still going strong at 6am?
  12. Rockets, I agree, shared use is the way to go but admittedly it?s a tough nut to crack. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > @Rockets I ah e always said that I disagreed > with > > the council?s approach. But now the LTNs have > been > > created, I believe we should support them, at > > least for the length of the trial. My personal > > view is that we need to start allocating more > > space to pedestrians and cyclists to make it > > easier for people to chose those options for > short > > journeys. Continuing with total car dominance > Over > > every street is going to get us nowhere. > > I don't disagree with you that more space needs to > be dedicated to cyclists and pedestrians - but > closing roads to through traffic is not the > solution. We have seen plenty of schemes across > London to dedicate large parts of the road to > bikes and other non-car modes of transport and > there is debate about whether they have increased > the number of journeys being made by bike or on > foot and how effective they have been. > > A shared road usage plan, paired with a frank > discussion on transport links, is the only way > these issues can be dealt with effectively.
  13. redpost, ?Daily Mail reader? such a cheap shot and so unnecessary. If cycling two abreast slows the flow of traffic, which it may well do if someone slow like me is out cycling with a mate, it probably isn?t a good idea. Saying so does not make me or anyone else a petrol head or a Daily Mail reader; it is a view. In similar vein, I had suggested mobility scooters be allowed into cycle lanes but was told by a pro cycle campaigner that this was a bad idea as it would slow down cyclists. He said mobility scooters should go onto pavements or bus lanes!
  14. Quite. Yesterday, young Dad cycling on narrow pavement down LL, one child clinging onto his bike with him, the other on their own bike with him directing. Doesn?t feel quite right.
  15. Indeed, they went the all day route indicating that a remedy for commuter parking was not the central issue, as we kept being told, instead the council probably wanted large scale parking displacement, creating pressure on other roads, leading to more CPZ.
  16. Rahrahrah, I think your emphasis is wrong. The priority should be to improve and invest in public transport. Cycling too but emphasis should be on the first.
  17. You are not really answering my question though. We all get the theory but we also need to address the reality. Owing to very recent measures there has been a sharp, unprecedented, rise in traffic displacement onto main routes, causing a massive rise in congestion. One effect is to negatively impact those who do need to make urgent journeys as well as reduce access to emergency services. These impacts are very, very recent. Do you view the suffering of some as necessary to secure an ambition to reduce car ownership? Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes, but in the here and now, is it your > position > > that those with genuine urgent needs, as well > as > > requiring access to emergency services should, > > effectively, be sacrificed in the interests of > a > > long-term agenda to reduce car usage and > > ownership? Not forgetting that the overriding > > rationale of that agenda is to reduce pollution > to > > produce a healthier environment? > > You can't improve the lives of those with > "genuine, urgent needs" without getting rid of the > people whose journeys are not necessary. You could > make every road in London a dual carriageway and > there would still be traffic jams and pollution- > demand for free unrestricted road space is always > going to exceed supply in London. Everyone - > residents, businesses and travellers - is going to > have to change (and already is changing) the way > they get around and organise things to some > degree. That's not going to come without some > short term inconvenience and friction.
  18. Yes, but in the here and now, is it your position that those with genuine urgent needs, as well as requiring access to emergency services should, effectively, be sacrificed in the interests of a long-term agenda to reduce car usage and ownership? Not forgetting that the overriding rationale of that agenda is to reduce pollution to produce a healthier environment?
  19. Yet, some people will have urgent, necessary journeys. You?re view seems to be they should just accept this? What about emergency services?
  20. And for anyone who has to make an urgent, necessary trip by car...they must be made to suffer too? Is there a way for emergency services to circumvent these jams? hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This! 👍 > > micromacromonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I have just driven down Grove Vale for the > first > > time since these restrictions were put in > place, > > from Quorn road right down to the harvester > > junction. Traffic is very slow and it was a > > frustrating experience. > > > > And that's great, because my journey was > totally > > unnecessary (one household member was in a > hurry > > thought it would be quicker to drive than > cycle). > > Hopefully all the other people in the traffic > will > > feel the same way and quit labouring under the > > misapprehension that they have a right to be > able > > to drive their car unimpeded wherever they like.
  21. Good point but I am not convinced smoothing things is the aim.
  22. Hi-lar-ious windup. Fireworks are soooo environmentally friendly. Shrieker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gadder Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dogs should be banned in London. They are an > > environmental catastrophe. The average dog has > the > > same carbon footprint as a range rover, on top > of > > the problems with theor owners failing to clean > up > > after them. > > Of course humans dont have a carbon footprint. > > Yep, and then people have the cheek to get angry > because others living nearby have fireworks as > part of a celebration and their precious dog gets > a bit scared.
  23. ?asked the council about them being moved today and it's to do with access for waste vehicles. Emergency services weren't mentioned?. Really, you couldn?t make it up!!
  24. That sounds a nice idea and a heck of a lot better than mini golf.
  25. Hmmm. What sort of timeframe does limited amount of time refer to? Months, years?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...