mako

As for 'never said otherwise' it is a direct quote from your post of 8.36

A simple example would be waiting longer at traffic lights as queues longer. at thirty more cars would have made it through

I'm sure those pro 20 limits everywhere merchants cant drive a modern car. modern cars are not suited to long periods of a twenty limit. this means that to avoid speeding you must travel at 15-18 for much of the journey or sit staring at your speedo, neither of which are great options. What gear are you lot driving in?

strafer "due to the impatience of people not wanting to drive so slow" aka criminal activity Neither impatience nor not wanting to drive so slow are criminal activity, only actually exceeding the limits are. Wulf-you dont mention who these are costs to. Are they not covered mostly by insurance in which case it is insurance companies profits you are describing not a cost/saving to the taxpayer. All the talk of it is only another x minutes on a journey is time multiplied by hundreds of thousands of journeys so if you are making it a financial debate you have to include this loss of work hours to industry. and everybody must understand that the average speed currently (influenced by central london not dulwich)includes being able to go at thirty. Make that 20 and congestion increases and travel times will increase dramatically

Wulf are you also claiming that traffic accidents in southwark cost 15million a year? If so what are these costs?

Wulfhound. You state the arguments for twenty are only strong because of the very minimal impact on journey times. Yet the only way in which it can have minimal impacts on journey times is if it has minimal impacts on speeds in which case it is a pointless waste of money. A limit 50% higher is obviously not minimal but a huge difference.

What a complete waste of money. absolutely disgraceful. after the monitoring is up perhaps it should be considered why in some areas limits will be exceeded. For example because conditions make it sensible to rather than because of perceived dangerous driving.

Well said Lozc

A shockingly bad idea, muddled through and currently more dangerous than before. cars arent suited to drive at 20mph for long periods and it will result in drivers looking more at their speedo trying to stick to the limit, rather than concentrating on the road and what is going on. Unless cameras are on all roads drivers will find routes without cameras and drive faster to make up for lost time. The impact of the rarerity of the 20 limit that protects schools etc will go. Its bad for emmissions and sound polution. as for the 'it may save a life'-how far do you take it? Banning cars would result in no road deaths but that doesnt make it a good a idea. hardly any mention has been made of the other impacts. Previously you could drive 50% faster. journey times must be longer, industry lost and stress and frustration will be increased.

we dont need more speed humps on lordship lane. speed cameras fair enough but not humps

does anyone know if the arsenal baggies game will be shown before todays match in the clubhouse? thanks

mustard please say you have something better to do than read firework laws or else i might cry. To put your mind at rest no-one is stockpiling fireworks for their younger siblings to let off 16 hours a day.

Mustard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Going to displays is different than letting them > off mindlessly in your back garden as long as they > are supervised or done by competent people. What about going to a display in a competent persons garden. Surely this is ok

Perhaps it is a really clever move from a fireworks company as despite not being that keen on fireworks, it has given me a strong urge to go and mindlessly set some off in my garden. 24,000 not really a significamnt number in relation to the literally millions who spend their hard earned on fireworks/go to displays.

Mustard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mako Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Has this petition been started by a clever > > marketing company who want a mailing list of a > > certain type? > > According to the petition it was started by a > woman who is a dog owner and trainer. Is that not what the marketing company would say to get their group?

Has this petition been started by a clever marketing company who want a mailing list of a certain type?

Agree with gubodge-very sensible

'Sunday Sunday' Blur

'Neither is my garden, in winter, but I don't feel any obligation to give it up to a third party.' But Penguin you are presumably not claiming to be a chairity for local schoolchildren so your comment is completely irrelevant.

Townleygreen. The fields on the left hand side of the road if you are coming from LL are very hardly used at all.

Am I right in thinking that bursaries are just a discount in the cost. So if you put the prices up by a couple of thousand and then give everyone a discount you are fulfilling the 'we give bursaries'. Surely its who gets these discounts that makes it a charity not that you give discounts at rates that most are still priced out?

Legal alien you arent making much of an argument. Why are you surprised that I wouldnt expect you to choose to send your child to a poor quality school if you have the option of Alleyns? I hope you havent lazily assumed that just because I think some excellent local state schools can provide a better education than Alleyns that I would think that any state school would be better than Alleyns as that would be a ridiculous assumption.

You surely arent arguing that there is more socioeconomic diversity at private schools?

Legalalien, you may well have plenty of life experiemces but you can only have one background and one set of views. A childs own experiences, environment and peers will also have a great influence on them and at schools like Alleyns this is much narrower than at many good local schools. If you were inner city, middle of nowhere or had a failing local school then I can see why someone who could afford it may send their child to Alleyns. However for many children in Dulwich they would be better prepared for life by having a broader experience by attending their local state school.

'I don't think anybody (or at least anybody who is not blinded by prejudice) is seriously suggesting that private schools don't generally deliver a very good standard of education'. I think there is a problem that too many people see exam results and education as the same thing. I don't think private education prepares children to have empathy with all of society which can be a problem when those children go on to run the country.