jimlad48

Trust me, take the commuters out of the equation and the problem quickly reduces dramatically. Commuters are the main issue for the local area due to the bus/train network - you really won't have a problem with it.

Dont blame us on the toastrack - we blame Vestry and Southampton Way for starting it! 11-1 does make a big difference as all the commuters stop coming - its actually easier in some ways than other areas, so you've not done too badly. Just wander around the areas where it is already in place and you'll see the difference.

Our zone is all day long. Previously we had commuters and hospital parkers - they've now gone elsewhere. I'm sorry for the areas that got them instead, but thats not my problem. I want peace and quiet on my road, not suffering so someone else can have it. Yes thats selfish, but after years of hell, I am revelling in the peace that a CPZ brings.

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course parking fine revenues are greater than > the immediate cost of enforcing the regulations. > As I understand it, the requirement is for > councils to 'invest' net revenue raised into local > transport improvements. > > But (a) improving transport is already a > responsibility of councils and (b) cash is > fungible, so diverting parking revenues to this > activity means other cash can be freed up. So > economically, it is indistinguishable from > maximising parking fines to generate revenue for > the council. > > Implementing a CPZ will reduce total parking > spaces available (more yellow lines), will not > guarantee a space outside your house and will > incur additional hassle and cost when dealing with > tradesmen / visitors / skips etc. This may be > worth it but it really depends on how many > non-locals / commuters are parking in your street. I have heard this rubbish a number of times from people opposed to the CPZ I helped campaign for. Strangely though we have gone from an area where noise was intolerable at all hours due to commuter cars finding spaces, and where we regularly could not find a space among 6 streets over a roughly 1/2 mile area at any time of day to suddenly having peace, quiet and more parking spaces than has been seen in over a decade 7 days per week. Getting a CPZ has made a life changing difference to our area, spacea are up, noise is down and stress levels decrease dramatically as suddenly only residents are allowed to park. I cannot emphasise enough.how goood it is to be in a CPZ.

The problem on DKH is that a couple of other CPZs started up this year, which started in response to parking pressure from other CPZs elsewhere. There is real competition for space during the day, so its not surprising the residents voted for it.

How many times does it have to be said that Southwark gets no profit from CPZ. Anyone with proof to the contrary needs to contact the police with this evidence. Dog Kennel Hill parking is a major issue at the moment, so not surprised it is going in.

We're on the toastrack and have also been having intermittent problems due to 'low power' too. Seriously thinking about other options now too.

To be honest, if you can afford to smoke these days, you can probably afford the fine. It always struck me as an astronomically expensive pasttime.

I raised this on a railway forum where others were talking about this. The view there is DMK is likely operating on some very risky 'risk assessments' that could potentially cause huge embarrassment to the operator.

The really scary thing is that the new station is actually an improvement! Before you all used to have to squeeze through one tiny door in the corner of what is now the entrance to the coffee shop. DMK is an absolute scandal and needs urgent fixing - the tight corner as you come in means that if one person stops, the whole thing grinds to a halt. The ticket barriers make it worse too - they slow people down all the time, and only move when they are open for anyone to come through. If they added an entrance on the footbridge it would make an enormous difference as suddenly there would be a means of getting in/out without using main entrance. It would make little revenue difference as I've often seen ticket evaders swan past the gates, report it to staff and they take no action...

On the toastrack, a former pub closred down at the end of Shenley Road - its never reopened, but above it they put in a couple of air b&B type flats without planning permission. It essentially functions as a cheap hostel - not a major problem, but annoyimng when it was done illegally.

I find now that its actually faster to run home from where I work to near Denmark Hill than it is to take the train. I am also very worried about the physical condition of the station, which is dangerously overcrowded - the recent ticket office rennovation was a missed opportunity to install extra entrances, and the ticket gates caused huge levels of overcrowding as people jostle to get in and out of the station. It is only a matter of time before a serious incident happens there I fear.

Am military, not dog handler, but have spoken to dog handlers. General procedure is to rehouse wherever possible - there has to be very good reasons why the dog can't be rehomed for this to be seen as the only option left open. This may be because the dogs cannot settle or adjust to home life, or because they pose a significant risk (don't forget military working dogs are often used in security roles - they're known as woolly alligators for a reason). The military ADORE dogs, and most armed forces offices are dog friendly, in that they are crawling with dogs who come to work every day. The people who have made the 'put down' call will have done so as a very last resort and are likely to be deeply upset by this - they will not want to have done it. Like I said, there will be a long history for each dog (whose welfare is paramount) and they will have tried everything possible to help them - the problem is that this isn't public knowledge, so we don't know the specific risks or challenges each dog poses. As one wag I know put it though - many of the people demanding these dogs are saved will be the same ones demanding 'something must be done' when the dog attacks and kills a small child... Harsh, but possibly accurate.

I've got some significant military experience, so perhaps I can offer some context here. The Army does an exceptional job of rehousing animals, and it is very unusual for this to occur. These things usually only happen when there are very good reasons why the animals cannot be rehoused. This is not a faceless officaldom simply disposing of animals uncaringly, the people at Melton Mowbray adore their animals and will have done everything humanly possible to find them a new home. That this hasnt happened suggests there are issues the public are not aware of that preclude rehousing. Be wary of jumping on this bandwagon until the full facts are known - at present only one, highly emotive and not necessarily factually accurate, side of the story is out there.

Went to a wake at the Lord Northbrook, by Lee. Its a roughly 20 minute walk from the Crem and IIRC they did a good job of hosting and providing food during a difficult time.

If someone has dark skin, then presumably they are a black person? Trying to find a witness is important - details like this matter. Its not racist to state someones skin colour.

Dieter - well said. As former military officer, I applaud the move by DC to rebadge. Mrs Eversons diary is a moving publication on loss and grief too.

Link to report is here - https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/camberwell-grove-bridge/supporting_documents/Camberwell%20Grove%20consultation%20report%20v1.00.pdf Hooray- council got reasonable response rate and 73% of respondents wanted bridge to be opened again. Looks like this is going happen - hooray!

In this case, the reason I posted was because I was genuinely appalled at the behaviour and practises I witnessed. It was a busy junction, controlled by red lights in a location where two roads join an extremely busy main road and all the junctions are signal controlled. Traffic moves quickly, unpredictably and vision is poor - it is hard to see what all the different parts are doing at different times. To knowingly go through a red light, crossing a very busy main road without full visibility of what is going on, without wearing appropriate protective gear, lights or reflective clothing and then to encourage your two small children to do the same thing is not sensible. It is not safe, it could easily see a child injured or killed. I don't own a bike or a car. When I had a car I went out of my way to look out for cyclists to be certain that we could both use the road safely together. I am happy to call out bad behaviour by road users regardless of if they are car, bike or on foot. My own personal experience is that cyclists are by a significant margin the worst offenders, but I also accept different people have different views. Sadly some people seem determined to turn this into something its not - I personally saw some appallingly dangerous road use that put two small childrens lives at risk. Its as simple as that.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Having literally just been repeatedly called a > > '@#$%& four eyed c*nt' by a cyclist for asking > > politely why they were going through a red > light > > right towards me,as i was crossing my goodwill > to > > them is reduced right now. No excuse for that > kind > > of behaviour. > > So you have an obsesion with this and again you > are asking people to believe your account at face > value. My goodness, you really are quite an unpleasant individual aren't you?

The problem with every CPZ consultation is that, as with all local democracy issues, it often attracts low turnouts. In the case of the Toastrack, we'd had several consultations over several years where the result was a resounding NO, and this was respected by the Council. Not once did you hear a peep out of people suggesting that the low turn outs involved represented a hijacking of the democratic system. Strangely its only once a YES result emerges, often on a much higher turnout that previous NO votes, that people imply its a stitch up and affront to democracy. You can't have it both ways.

While I agree, having within the last hour had a cyclist repeatedly threaten me and my safety, scream foul abuse in public at the top of his voice and put my safety at risk, simply because he was politely challenged, it is hard tk be sympathetic to cycliets as a group. I have lost count of the times that cyclists who jump red lights immediately become abusive and dangerously aggressive when politely challenged. Perhaps a better description would be to say that I have no sympathy for the specific group of cyclists who willingly and knowingly jump red lights.

No - the kids incident was yesterday. The cyclist was this afternoon.

Having literally just been repeatedly called a 'f*cking four eyed c*nt' by a cyclist for asking politely why they were going through a red light right towards me,as i was crossing my goodwill to them is reduced right now. No excuse for that kind of behaviour.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I disagree - I don't own a car and hold no brief > for the motor industry, indeed I've long believed > > the 'law of the sea' (big gives way to small) > should apply on roads > > At sea, it's generally seen that 'might has > right'. In reality, power gives way to sail and > small gives way to large and there are rules as to > which applies when. > > Obvious, really, as smaller and/or powered vessels > are more manoeuvrable - if a small outboard is > approaching a cruise liner, which do you think can > change course or stop quickest? Reading your post gave me flashbacks to doing Rules of The Road exams in the RN. Shudder...