first mate

But this is probably a desired aim so they can then justify further tinkering because of increased air pollution.

Katykoo, Thanks but many of us feel the council and its supporters have also been pretty adept at spreading misinformation and using slippery statistics. It is quite remarkable that the long-term aims of the council/HSC and (allegedly) short-term solutions to Covid are exactly the same. How convenient. It is nice that you sympathise with people, mostly the elderly, who may not be able to walk or cycle but noticeable you underline they are only 12 percent of the population after all...meaning what? You assume that pollution must be the number one priority for all. Well not necessarily, there may be even more pressing, considerations. Being able to travel when necessary is a big consideration. This is not to say air pollution is not an urgent issue but it must be weighed in the balance against other important factors. Why not direct your campaign to persuading anyone who is young, or older fit and healthy to immediately sell their car and travel only by bike or foot? A better way surely than forcing everyone into a solution that is limited and potentially limiting to some, arguably causing a lot os stress, even if they are only 12% of the population.

Not if they are perceived to be the wrong measures. Measures that reduce traffic in one place and shunt them to another are not desirable. Unfortunately some traffic is necessary, not least because currently people need vehicles for work and others to access services to live. Many who want street closures also want to keep a car which is hardly leading by example. let those who are able to walk and cycle everywhere sell their car and show the way, but the wholesale forcing of everyone else into even more stressful situations with simplistic measures primarily designed to virtue signal and box tick are not the way to go.

Survival of the fittest and all that. jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have and I'm a realist and someone who wants > this country to have a world class NHS in 10,20,30 > years time, which can only be done by sending > people back to work, kids back to school and > having a very blunt conversation with the nation > that points out to people that COVID is horrible, > nasty and unpleasant and if you are at risk you > may want to stay lying low, but like all other > nasty things out there, we accept that it will > kill people and that its a personal decision on > the risk you want to take. > > Sorry, we need to stop pretending hiding indoors > now and utterly shafting our future to save people > today, many of whom would be dead anyway in a few > weeks/months time of the many other health issues > they have is a sensible thing to do if this means > utterly destroying our chance of a credible > functioning health system in years to come.

But then why was it seen as necessary to put in an all day CPZ around the station and not just a few hours to deter commuters? Surely the reason the council did not roll out CPZ everywhere was because consultation revealed a majority of roads did not want it? However, by putting in the above they know it will create parking pressure elsewhere.

Does the council state exactly what these road closures are meant to achieve? It could be that independent measuring of outcomes against objectives will be necessary to hold them to account. Clearly the council and its supporters cannot be trusted on evidence and will lie and fabricate when it suits them.

Thanks Bicknell, this is mega important. Finally, an organised, informed campaign for timed street closures.everyone should read this link https://www.onedulwich.uk/

Parking seems to be classed as an issue if you are unable to park on your own street but can find space on streets close by. This seems a poor reason to cause mass CPZ, which is what the ED rollout around the station has triggered. The reality is there is currently enough space for residents to park, but perhaps not always or even often on their own street, a walk to the car may be necessary. Granted, the council has also systematically tried to reduce resident parking by whatever means they can. But, the demand for CPZ seems to have been largely driven by those, some living close to the station, who expect a parking space on their street close to their home as a matter of course. How ironic that this apparently anti- car council is facilitating and supporting the mindset that a parking space outside our home is a right.

In your shoes I?d seek precedent. Builders and owner break planning policy all over the shop. Some apply for and are generally granted retrospective planning. Who is what you have done going to hurt?

I rather sense that for many social distancing has gone out of the window. I would be very hacked off if huge effort goes into closing off streets on the basis of social distancing only to find most or even many do not bother. Why should everything be geared to facilitate the fittest and healthiest in society (those who can cycle long distances and up and down hills)?

This is interesting when did this advice change and exactly what to? ?London?s walking and cycling commissioner, Will Norman, says there are no citywide plans to implement emergency cycle lanes during the crisis. Norman said: ?The Mayor and the Government?s clear message is that Londoners should stay at home to save lives. Our continued investment in walking and cycling over the past four years is making it easier and safer for critical workers to get to where they need to be and we?ve ensured that NHS staff, care workers and the police can use our Santander Cycles hire bikes free of charge.? ?Any temporary cycle lanes on TfL?s road network would not be effective at keeping people safe without major changes to junctions. These changes would need to be installed by a significant number of on-site workers and the Mayor has made it clear that construction workers ? including those who were constructing new cycleways - should not be travelling at this time.? He adds road traffic has halved, making it easier to take advantage of quieter streets to cycle. Also https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/06/14/people-will-die-says-londons-cycling-commissioner-after-notting-hill-cycleway-scheme-rejected/

The extremely steep hills at either end of ED ( Dog Kennel and Forest ) are quite likely a factor as to why more people do not cycle to commute, even Greendale involves a hill. Add in rain and wind and it is a rare cyclist that?ll go those routes day in day out, especially on a ?heavy? hire bike. This is why it is irritating that cyclists who do not live in the area have been able to access the consultation process to push CPZ. Don?t know why Southwark has been unwilling to invest in Santander bikes elsewhere in the borough though.

I would far rather the council had just waited to see if many more people did cycle...there is a huge health imperative to do that now, and then those left over would be those that really do need to drive, whether for work or personal health reasons. We might anyway have reached the desired low traffic situation locally and therefore have no need of CPZ. I feel the council cannot bear to lose that potential revenue and hence the real reason for school streets etc now in order to create that additional parking pressure, when, apparently, schools are not going back for some time. I am even beginning to wonder if having CPZ makes people more not less likely to hold onto their cars because it amps up competition for car parking spaces and a sense that cars are necessary and a fear that people might lose out.

Southwark cyclists encouraged its members, wherever they live in the borough, to request CPZ in ED.

I do agree, the odd person may get caught short but for there to be loads about is revolting and a health hazard. I have also seen loads of discarded gloves and masks, broken glass (even more than usual) and last but not least, baby nappies full of poo discarded in the street. Take a bag and dispose at home or in the nearest bin. Extraordinary.

And then the parakeets arrived! And they seem to be, literally, top of the tree.

Last night Sir Patrick Vallance referred to this and said it is about balance of risks. There is no scientific absolute rule, as KK says, it depends on context, indoors/outdoors, mask/no mask, physical contact/people or surfaces/ length of time of proximity to other people/ finally absolute risk- is there an infected person close to you. Problem is we don't know who is infected and who isn't and people who are super spreaders may not be aware themselves. so, until we know more about the virus, I'd go for being super cautious but this has to be balanced against harm to the economy and people being able to earn money and live. No easy answer. However, I would add that if the council is blocking off streets to facilitate social distancing (however dubious) then people should stick to a SD 'rule' or else what is the point?

They are objecting to it on Goodrich why not here?

As they are doing on Goodrich we need to object to this. At the very least, it can be a barrier that can be closed for school times and lifted for the rest, that way emergency services can get access all the time. This notion of a ?temporary? barrier using great concrete bollards is Cllr Livingstone nonsense.

Hi, I understand. I will only say that a folding bike is very easily stored and some take up very little room and can be assembled and packed down in a minute. I said in another post, they can be stored in a bag, which gets over the mud and dirt aspect. It seems crazy to spend ?5,000 public money on a hangar if, as seems now to be the case, they are so very easily broken into. Perhaps the council needs to look at a different model or work with the company on security.Since there is this issue I doubt insurance would cover theft from a hangar either.

Tackle your local councillor.

I have had a jay ( garrulus glandalius) visiting - what a stunning creature.

Deleted

Deleted

Deleted