Nigello

Much of the council's work could be done for it if every individual did not make as many motor vehicle journeys, with or without consulting documents on "modal shift". I doubt that a cycle hangar being delayed will stop someone from making a quick trip to Tesco's. To labour the point - the only way of reducing traffic and emissions is to drive less.

Do you have to pay a penalty each time you shift via Flipper?

Exactly - people don't like being made to acknowledge they are doing wrong, so react nastily. All a bit childish, but the reptile brain probably has somethign to do with it. In the meantime, those plastic barriers and perforated kerbs outside Heber, for example, are left to deplete themselves so the restriction is now just a trip hazard.

I agree with you about idling - I ask adults (often responsible looking or, unbelievably, in liveried vehicles) to stop idling of engines and I get success about 60 percent of the time. Schools could do more - do they, for example, send out notes to parents in letters/post on social media, do they have teachers asking drivers to not do so? I suspect not, even though this would be a very simple and very achievable thing to do. Priorities....

I used s/he so as not to identify the person. Yes - s/he took it upon themselves to plant the trees, which I admire, mostly (and I thoroughly don't admire that person/people who pulled them up).

I spoke to the person who says s/he was the one to plant them who also said that people had purposefully pulled them up. When I suggested that the council, to whom the land belongs, ought to be consulted s/he said Southwark was not interested. My takeaway is that it is good to plant trees but not without the input of experts who are, on the whole, pretty sympathetic to improving green spaces, albeit within rules and budgets. I don't think that the trees (species of oaks) are likely to grow so fast and furious as to block out views this side of 2070, especially as they were planted in places this would less likely happen, so whoever pulled them up, for whatever reason, ought to consider their actions. (I suggested s/he talk to the local councillors who may be up for collaboration.) The person mentioned that the area was once part of a great wood, meaning, I think, that it ought to return to that state.

I want this to be shared equitably: protecting schools, nurseries and hospitals above all else - Given that pupils and teachers are only there for a certain part of the day and on certain days of the year, do statistics take this into consideration when working out exposure? If someone lives on a road that is suspected of being polluted, do the statisticians make out that that person lives on that road all the time and sleeps with the windows open? I am not being provocative for the sake of it - I would really like to know waht constitutes exposure and how it is measured.

So, filling in this form just gives you the right to receive info and/or participate in consultations?

Romnarz - why not find out for us all and let us know? You can contact Southwark easily - they'll let you know whether you are right or wrong. Happy knowledge hunting!

The GG roundabout repairs really clogged things up, to be fair, but I agree that Melbourne Grove and Court Lane are lacking in life. Walking is a good option - it's about twenty-five minutes from The Plough to DH station and you can even make use of the empty wastes of Melbourne Grove!

Spartacus - maybe the reduced grant is to make people think twice over buying any vehicle.

Fair Air - cleaner air is only achievable if fewer emissions are made, which means fewer journeys. It is up to you, fundamentally, if you own a motor vehicle of any kind and, to a much lesser extent, use taxis and delivery services, if you want to have fewer noxious particles in the air/people's lungs.

LTN featuring on R2, Vine show, 1--2pm.

Yes, that too. I offered it in teh spirit of solution finding. It need not detract from your experience, unless you want it to. It is bad that someone has stolen your bikes but to think that my offer of a suggestion on a public forum should somehow reduce your experience is not a logical conclusion.

How about registering cycles, and buying basic insurance included in the fee? ?10 a bike, discount for more than one, for a year, all done via an app or online? (I have no bike or car, so don't feel that invested.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-56419277 (not the first time it's appeared on BBC Online) I have to say that I don't see a lot of cycling or walking (hardly any, in fact) down the streets at the end of which there is an LTN, even at peak commuting time. Timed/camera LTNs and a concurrent campaign to help pedestrians and cyclists would work better, I think, or LTNs only in places where there is more need (however that is assessed, ie. proximity to dense social housing, college, hospital, etc.)

The council is good at responding to fly-tipping, in my experience. Just go to the website https://www.southwark.gov.uk/street-care/fly-tipping - no need to leave personal details, just skip that bit if you want.

They would have to pay overtime, I would think, so that makes it more expensive. Anyway, a great opportunity for those to try another option..(though I feel for the emergency services using this route).

Otto2 - "who need to do a double drop" = "who prefer to do a double drop". It really is a matter of choice and convenience vs inconvenience. Nobody NEEDS to do a double drop, it is a need only in his/her own context and set of values, preferences, benefits, disbenefits, etc. Nobody forces people to live miles from schools, buy over-large cars and use them without thought of consequence. It is all a choice. Parents - please consider stopping driving your kids to school: organise car sharing, or at least walk the last mile or so of the journey, etc. It really is down to the individual. Yes, you may need to get up twenty minutes earlier, but that is just a bit tough, really. (If your child has a disability that reduces mobility, then it is fair enough that you should drive them, likewise if you are ferrying neighbours' kids, that is helping reduce congestion and emissions. Otherwise, you are still part of the problem.)

If all the shops had shutters inside (like some do) there would be a much reduced incidence. It seems that all shops now have them; it was rare to see a generation or so ago. Is it compulsory re insurance, or do people just follow on and think "she's got shutters on her shop so I should as well"? Shops are being cleaned - the top of Melbourne Grove had some properties afflicted that are now clean.

Landlords, and not shop managers, are sometimes the problem so it is not simply a case of saying "that shop is X, Y, Z" when it may be out of their hands to paint the property, etc. (One business that models itself as community asset told me that they though the vandalism was worthwhile because it was a valid form of self expression...) I had liked the shop and had bought stuff from it for years. No more...

Children in Japan, amongst other places, which has a climate that is on the whole more severe than ours, both summer and winter can be seen walking, taking the bus or train, to school from very early ages. More of that, please, here.

Yes, ta - it?s just that I start the DD on 01/04 and don?t want to pay by card then get debited. You know how sloppy some big organisations can be, especially ones you can?t actually speak to.

Write to the councillor for your ward. They?re responsive - to some things. https://www.writetothem.com/ You can also ask the shopkeepers to clean up their acts, asking the council to help them free of charge. Just get them to ring the environment line or switchboard. Retail needs all the help it can get so a bit of self-interest may persuade them to act.

Thanks - if you were paying with DD, do you then just cancel the DD and inform Southwark, or just cancel and move on?!