jimlad48

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are you posting here? Yes sadly some cyclists > jump red lights. This is a societal thing unless > we want to live in a police state. Write to your > MP, the Met Police, your Borough, the Times, > rather than on this site. Then when you've got a > response you can discuss that. > > Today I saw a motorist forward of an advanced stop > line, a pedestrian cross the road whilst looking > at their smart phone, and a car across the > pedestrian crossings whilst the lights were red. > Just a normal day, nothing to see here people, > move on. Why here? In the vain hope that the utter idiot who risked his childrens lives will read it and think about the stupidity of his actions. More to the point, if this offends you so much, why did you read it except to make some sarcastic patronising comment?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Blah Blah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > How can a five year old 'shoot' anywhere? > They > > > just do not cycle that fast. > > > > Even more reason not to cycle through red > lights > > on a junction into the flow of traffic then? > > Please tell me you are not seriously trying to > > justify this? > > > To be fair, neither you or I were there. I am > questioning the detail of what is an anecdotal > account. Nowhere have I written anything that > suggests condoning anything, I just find a paradox > in a suggestion that a five year old 'shot' > accross a junction. What is more likely to have > happened is that the father saw a clear junction > and ignored the lights. Whilst I do not condone > that, that is very different to 'shooting' accross > a junction with oncoming traffic in sight and > making two five year olds do the same. One is > relatively risk free, the other is not. There is > an embellishment to this account, that is > suggested by that contradiction, in my opinion. Actually I was there, standing about 5m away from the situation and watched the whole thing. The language 'shot across' was entirely accurate. I can also confirm that due to the position of the cars on the road and the visibility at that point, the father did not have clear view of the road and the different junctions there. Unlike you, I witnessed the event and the phrase 'shot' is totally correct. Your desperate attempt through semantics to comment on an event you didnt witness feels like you are trying to lessen the impact of an extremely poor decision by an idiot.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How can a five year old 'shoot' anywhere? They > just do not cycle that fast. Even more reason not to cycle through red lights on a junction into the flow of traffic then? Please tell me you are not seriously trying to justify this? I accept before the inevitable 'all road users are idiots' begins that drivers, cyclists and pedestrians can do foolish and risky things. BUT, I am appalled that a father would encourage his very young children to do something so breathtakingly stupid simply to avoid waiting maybe 20 or 30 more seconds - what was he thinking?

Just seen an appalling case of red light jumping at Half Moon pub. Roughly 1645 today, I was on foot and watched as a guy with what appeared to be no lights, reflective gear and it appeared no helmet brazenly shot through the red lights by the pub towards the pizza express opposite via the very busy main road. The reason I was so shocked was because I watched him in the twilight gloom actively encourage his two little children who didnt appear to have been more than a few years old (at a push I'd say 5-6yrs old) and did not not have reflective gear or lights either, to jump the red lights / green man and shoot across the road. If you are a grown adult and wish to cycle through red lights on a busy main road where traffic is unpredictable, then thats your call. To willfully encourage your little children to do it, simply so you can scoot across the road into a restaurant and save a few seconds defies belief. Either wait for the traffic to turn in your favour, or dismount and use the plentiful pedestrian crossings there. It was a bloody miracle his kids weren't killed tonight. I did look around for a policeman to report the behaviour too in the hope that they'd be able to get the message through, but sadly no one was about. Who on earth risks their kids lives to save 30 seconds on ordering a pizza for gods sake?

Its never a revenue raising exercise. This is a tired old myth. The council is prevented by law from profiting from CPZ enforcement. If anyone has any evidence that such profiteering is ocurring, then they need to speak to the police urgently as it is a criminal offence. Dog Kennel hill is really suffering as a couple of extra CPZs have started recently. I was up there the other day and it was stupidly busy, with no parking spaces anywhere, mainly as its the last uncontrolled space left in this part of South London.

The Toastrack CPZ is definitely live - was due to have been 2nd, but slipped to 9th, and is now fully operational. Its made a massive difference to our lives, and the parking spaces we're enjoying is astounding compared to a few weeks ago. Its made us realise how many non residents were clogging up the roads. Sorry to other areas - anyone wanting to organise a CPZ campaign then delighted to offer tips on how to do it. Grove Park gets one soon too, so the pressure will increase even further on the few free zones left.

CG has long had a weight restriction, so this is unlikely to cause much frustration if its reopens. The fundamental problem is that between Bellenden Road and DMK, it is the only means of getting across the railway between the Grove Park and Camberwell Road. It functions as a vital artery to stop traffic clogging up camberwell high street doing 3 sides of a square to get up to CG, or having to divert via a rat run on tiny roads to get to the same spot. The only people who directly benefit is the relatively small number of residents on CG who will no longer have as much traffic going past their house (e.g. the bit between grove park and the bridge). For everyone else, going over dog kennel hill to Camberwell means either going round via Camberwell (slowing traffic there), or going down part of CG and through grove park. I don't own a car, but found that when I did, CG functioned as a critical artery to keep traffic flowing sensibly throughout this bit of London. The significant increase in traffic on other local roads, which are narrower than CG and less appropriate for heavy use (e.g. bellenden road and many side roads) is a direct impact of the closure. My sense is that while its jolly nice for the local residents, its a huge inconvenience and negatively impacting far more people than it positively impacts. I strongly support reopening the bridge as soon as possible.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Before it was closed, there were lights in both > > directions to filter traffic and a pedestrian > > crossing with green man. Closure has shut the > > lights, meaning that now there is no way to > safely > > cross the road. Reopening would put the lights > > back to help ensure all road users should (in > > theory) stop. > > The pelican crossing was a little way down from > the bridge, opposite the opening of the > cutthrough, wasn't it? I don't see why that > shouldn't be reinstated anyway, with or without > the bridge opening - it'd not only stop any poor > cyclists (hopefully) but also perhaps slow those > drivers who take the bend from McNeil Road > absurdly fast, to the detriment of both > pedestrians crossing and cyclists coming down over > the bridge. Completely agree. Most people now cross at the old bridge point, partly because the traffic islands make it safer to hop across - the problem with barriers is also that visibility is very poor uphill, particularly at night. Again, highlights need for cyclists to have lights/reflective gear as it can be difficult to see them due to obscure view.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > If a car is up the hill and travelling at me, > then > > I will consider whether I have time to safely > make > > the 3 steps from the traffic island to the > other > > side (that being the case here). In this > instance, > > the cycist was some distance up the hill, I had > to > > make 3 steps and was already some distance from > > crossing point when he passed - despite this he > > still shouted abuse. > > Well then he was a twat, get 'em everywhere. I'm > still missing your point about the opening or > otherwise of the bridge making any difference > though? Before it was closed, there were lights in both directions to filter traffic and a pedestrian crossing with green man. Closure has shut the lights, meaning that now there is no way to safely cross the road. Reopening would put the lights back to help ensure all road users should (in theory) stop.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jim, would you step out in front of a car, where > there wasn't a crossing, if that car was going to > have to brake to let you cross? If not why would > you do it in front of a cyclist? > > That doesn't excuse anyone being abusive, but many > people in recent times have decided that cyclists > must adhere to a higher standard than car > drivers. > > Reopening the bridge will not slow cyclists down > when the lights are green in any case - in fact in > many circumstances it will increase speed as > currently one slows down to enter the narrow > corridor left. If a car is up the hill and travelling at me, then I will consider whether I have time to safely make the 3 steps from the traffic island to the other side (that being the case here). In this instance, the cycist was some distance up the hill, I had to make 3 steps and was already some distance from crossing point when he passed - despite this he still shouted abuse.

I would welcome reopneing the bridge, mainly because the lights will hopefully slow the lunatic cyclists on there at present. Currently they use the lack of lights to accelerate at speed over the bridge, just at the point where pedestrians cross, and refuse to slow down. I had unprovoked and vile abuse thrown at me the other week by a cyclist as I crossed the road, even before he reached the bridge to go down hill, because it forced him to brake slightly. I would strongly endorse any measure that reopens the bridge and slows the cyclists down to prevent the minority lunatic militant in lycra killing someone because they are going too fast. I know plenty of cyclists do cycle responsibly, and plenty of pedestrians can at times be foolish, but the current set up, which forces cyclists down a narrow channel at speed, without forcing them to slow, means it is only a matter of time till someone is very badly hurt or killed. They need to get the bridge open again, and this is before we consider the huge amount of extra traffic it generates elsewhere. If CG were a minor side road, such as the one by DMK station by Phoenix, then I'd be more chilled. But its a major road and transport link and it needs to be kept open, not shut.

mancity68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All of the dropped kerbs in the recent Talfourd > etc CPZ have had double yellow lines painted > across them that extend way beyond the width of > each drive. So not only is that parking space lost > to the whole street, at least 1/2 another space > per dropped kerb is lost too. And even if the > house holder gives permission, if you park across > the drive you'll get a ticket. But given cpz implementation sees traffic usually reduced by 60%, its not like there will be a lack of spsces to round!

Seveeal new CPZ have justventered force elsewhere in Southwark - looks like this is the new location for the commuters to go to.

The problem with disabled bays was there were a tiny number of bays, and more people who needed them than bays. Absolutely great residents can park. For others who are disllaces why cant they use public transport instead.of driving?

Actually 15% is considered high for local govt turnout. Prior consultations voted 'no' on lower turnout and that was seen as democratically acceptable.

While people complqin about small numbers in favour of yes votes, the same is true in reverse for no votes. When an area votes no, the council respects that decision until locals ask for change. Democracy works both ways, i doubt anti CPZ campaigners would complain if they won by the same results as we won it. Democracy is about a majority of those who vote - if you dont get the vote out then there is no point complaining.

No offence, but given I and many others fought hard for a CPZ (and secured a statistically large reply for the consultation), I am not going to do anything to risk it. The CPZ is making a life changing difference to myself and many others, so its nothing personal but I will leave it to you to work out what to do. All I will say is the council are historically reluctant to review or change outcomes shortly after a previous consultation.

Completely agree, but I suspect your window for opposition has passed. The chance was during the consultation, and I suspect that having put it in place, the chanves.of it being rescinded are zero now.

I campaigned for the CPZ - there are a lot of.residents who actively supported the yes vote. The CPZ is going to make our lives so much better. Delighted it is here.

I am a toastrack resident, and I helped friends in DKH who campaigned for this result. Their accounts sounded truly horrific about the parking, even after thinking the toastrack was bad. In two weeks multiple new CPZs will kick in, and suddenly DKH is going to be one of the few areas left without parking restrictions - stand by for an influx of commuters and other workers - because this is what happened to us, and took our streets from firm rejection to enthusiastic support. 15% sounds high to me - most CPZ campaigns go through on less. If a majority of people have spoken then thats it, job done. I always suspect those moaning about turnout never moan when previous low turn out favoured a no vote...

As a veteran, I'm always very cynical of people who claim to be veterans when soliciting help...

He was back tonight - its an odd thing. There are support mechanisms in place for real veterans, and its worth noting that in the US a lot of people claim to be veterans to help beg cash.

I had a toy gun as a kid, all my friends did too. Running around in the woods shouting 'bang' was great fun. Didnt make any of us mass murderers (yet)...

MissWiggy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone know when the CPZ is being introduced > and what the procedure is for obtaining visitor > permits? > > Sorry in advance if I have missed the answer to my > question in the above posts. > > Thank you 2 October - 4 new CPZs 'go live' on the same day in Southwark, so stand by for carnage and carmageddon. Look on Southwark parking website for all information you need to get permit - it can be done online.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > red devil Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I see that the Pantomime Toff has stated that > > he's > > > totally against same-sex marriage and > abortion > > > (even when rape has occurred). That should > > > hopefully put an end to any ideas that he'll > be > > > the next Tory leader... > > > > Oddly even though I find his views utterly at > odds > > with my own, I have a bit of respect for the > fact > > that he's prepared to be open and honest about > his > > beliefs. He's not lying, changing them to be > > 'right on' or otherwise trying to pretend they > > don't exist. That is unusual for a politician. > > Some peoples beliefs do evolve though - as they > gain > life experience and hear other viewpoints. I completely agree, but I do find certain politicians seem to evolve their views about as often as it takes for them to appeal to a new cross section of voters - they must be terribly open minded :-)