jimlad48

northlondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A grand total of 216 people out of the 2,148 > properties surveyed voted in favour of your > scheme. > > If the vote had gone the way I had wanted i would > have been glad - but wouldn't have performed the > intellectual gymnastics to persuade myself and > others that it was anything other than a bullshit > result of a bullshit process. And? The people asked for it, the people got it. Not enough people voted to give you what you wanted - the people you want to be angry with are those who didnt want it and didnt vote. Don't blame me for getting off my backside, investing huge time in persuading people to support this and vote in favour of it. Its the lack of a no campaign that failed you. Personally I'm really glad of the role I played in introducing this CPZ and I'm delighted at the vote. The funniest thing is, for unrelated reasons, since this all started I don't even own a car anymore, so I've got the result I want and I'm not even out of pocket as a result. :-)

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.

northlondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > How exactly is the consultation 'bogus'? It was > > asked for by the people, voted on by the people > > and supported by the people. Or in your eyes > was > > it the wrong sort of people? > > The phrase "the people" commonly means a > groundswell of opinon or a popular movement. > A 52 per cent majority of an 18% turnout sounds > more like "some people" rather than " the > people". > How many of "the people" were cryigng out for this > "consultation"? > > And if by "emotional" you mean "objecting to > wishes of a tiny band of agitators being foisted > on the rest of us" or "irritated by a miniscule > minoruty presuming to speak for 'the people' > "...then so be it. > At least have the grace to acknowledge that there > is litte popular support for this scheme. For the council, they required a 250 person signature petition to consider reopening the consultation. A nearly 350 person signature from Shenley, Bushey, Crofton and the three side roads was presented asking for a CPZ in those specific roads. This triggered the consultation. This required a lot of support from the local population which rather throws a spanner in the works of your 'tiny band of agitators' line - in fact my experience was that there was huge support on the doorstep, and judging by the number of emails I got on this through our community email page, there remains strong support. Parking remains a total nightmare on these streets - this morning at 0720 there were zero car parking spaces on Shenley or the three 'cross' roads and plenty of cars stalking looking for one. People are fed up of this and the misery it is causing, hence the strong popular support for the CPZ. You make out there is little support, I would simply refer you to the council report which comments on the statistically high levels of support for this scheme in the consultation which it said was substantially higher than normal. When turnout is enough to get this comment (and remember local democracy consultations very rarely see high turn outs, Lambeth recently put a CPZ in on 5% turnout of the population), you realise this CPZ has clearly got strong support. Its also worth looking at the breakdown on the publicly available information, that is so clearly well hidden that its in plain view on the South 'Peckham Road South' parking consultation website (damn the council and their efforts to hide information in this devious manner), which gives a road by road breakdown of turnout and how they voted. The council itself recognises that some of the numbers are skewed because they include a large estate which already requires permits (and where turnout was accordingly almost zero). You are assuming that everyone who didnt vote automatically didnt want it to happen and that they shouldnt adopt the proposal. What evidence, as in actual statistical evidence, do you have for this? The simple fact is that democracy in this country is decided by those who bother to vote. If you dont vote, your view doesnt count. So I have zero sympathy for your argument about the silent majority, because they're not. They could have voted YES or NO, but chose not to. Ultimately democracy has won here, if you dnt like the result then by all means go and try to persuade the council to hold a vote to change it. But until then sulking that you dont like the democratic process because it didnt give you the result YOU wanted is a bit childish. I suspect had it been a NO vote on the same turnout you'd have been delighted for democracy - strange how democracy fails when it doesnt do exactly what you want isn't it!

From memory it was something like a 60% yes vote overall, with a strong yes majority in some areas, and the odd no vote. The council view was that if it left out the small number of roads voting no (Denman) then they would quickly be overwhelmed by traffic as being literally the only road in a very large area that had free parking.

How exactly is the consultation 'bogus'? It was asked for by the people, voted on by the people and supported by the people. Or in your eyes was it the wrong sort of people? You're getting incredibly emotional because a group of local residents used the democratic process, engaged their council, put a compelling case forward and persuaded the council to hold the consultation. Thats democracy in action. You're getting incredibly emotional because there was a statistically higher turnout than usual, of whom the majority favoured an outcome you didnt want. Sorry, but thats also democracy in action. Serious question - if you assume 'silence equals consent', why then did the council not put a CPZ in for many years over multiple previous consultations? After all a tiny majority of people voted against it then, but following your logic, if silence equals consent, why didnt the council ignore these repeated NO votes and put a CPZ in place anyway? Would you be complaining now if an 18% turn out had been a NO vote because the selfish wishes of a miniscule minority were being imposed on the rest of us? I highly doubt it. Simply put, this was a fantastic advert for local democracy. You are sulking like a petulant toddler and insulting the excellent Southwark council parking team and council simply because the majority of residents who chose to vote held a view different to your own. The only person here who seems to be anti-democratic is yourself.

I have lived in a CPZ, regularly got to park and had no problems at all - its not difficult to work out - Particularly now its all digital. I do think some people make a huge drama out of a very simple thing.

We're about to get a CPZ and frankly given choice between filling in the odd online form and paying a few quid to be certain someone can park, versus the utter lottery of not knowing whether or not the delivery will arrive, the workman can come etc with the current overparking situation, give me a CPZ anyday. Its not difficult to use the online parking system!

Ultimately there is nothing you can do. Its legally parked and taxed and parked in an area without a CPZ in force. Accordingly I'm afraid you're stuck with it for as long as people can park where they want. The only point you'll get interest is when the tax runs out. Yet another reason why CPZs are so valuable!

I used to own a flat in Lewisham - the flat below mine was let to a social housing tenant family who were the tenants from hell. Moves were made to evict them for many breaches of the tenancy agreement (pets in house, late rent, very anti-social behaviour and drugs among minor issues as well as major arrears). Night before eviction they left of their own accord - having turned on all the taps full blast, and put plugs in the sink before walking out the door. :-(

It is totally illegal - get photo evidence and report it.

I think grove park will go yes - they have a lot of problens with station and KCL parking according to friends.

Maybe you could introduce a Car Parking Zone to reduce traffic flow to residents and their visitors? ;-)

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rupert james Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Question. Large Victorian house 3 adult > children > > and 2 parents. each has a car, as is the norm > > these days, what then? > > If that's the norm (I suspect it's not, over half > of London's adults don't own a car at all) it's > about time it was broken. I can't imagine > circumstances in London (might be different in the > country if all had jobs in different towns) where > it would be necessary for a house of five adults > to have five cars. Too much discussion of > transport is geared towards determining how things > can be changed to accommodate our ridiculous > excess consumption, rather than determining how > our excessive consumption should be changed to fit > our environment. If a family of five demand five > street parking permits they should, quite rightly, > be told to take a hike. Totally agree- while I am sure some families may have more than one car, I can't imagine very many families have 5 cars. I'm afraid in some of those cases they're unfortunately going to be out of luck. Its a shame, but do you really need 5 cars in London?

Strange how democracy becomes North Korean when you don?t get the outcome you wanted! I campaigned heavily for a YES vote and the truth about what happened is simple. The council was not remotely interested in giving a CPZ consultation as previous toastrack votes had always been ?no?. The parking situation had got vastly worse and several residents, including myself had independently been setting up campaign groups to get the situation looked at again. We all worked together very effectively to talk to the council who made clear the only way that a consultation was happening was if over 250 local residents signed a petition asking for a consultation to happen and acknowledging the cost. This led to many months of work on peoples doorsteps and leafletting trying to build local support for a CPZ. We were overwhelmed by responses, and presented a petition to the council at a public meeting last summer where the case for a CPZ consultation was put to them. They voted in favour of the peoples request (e.g. they listened to the will of the people and acted on it). I also spent a lot of time during the month long voluntary consultation campaigning for a yes vote and to a lesser exent during the statutory one too. At each point the message was clear, the democratic majority of the people voted yes not no for a CPZ. The council commented in writing that there was statistically significant turnout at the voluntary consultation (far more than usual which is about 5-10%). Ultimately this went through because people campaigned hard for a Yes vote and the No vote didn?t try to campaign against the CPZ. I appreciate not everyone likes the CPZ result, but I find the suggestion that its being imposed by a tiny number is simply not true ? this has been an intensely democratic process with the people setting the agenda and the council acceding to their requests. I am delighted that the CPZ is coming and cannot wait for the peace quiet and calm that it will bring to the Toastrack. I cannot wait for the life changing difference it is going to make to elderly residents, disabled residents and parents with young families, many of whom have told us (often whilst deeply upset) about the stress that not being able to park is causing them. This is not about not being able to park outside your house, its about getting palliative care nurse visits cancelled. Its about people spending upwards of an hour waiting for a space to appear nearly half a mile away with tired toddlers and then trying to handle shopping. Its about people withdrawing their child to nursery because there wont be a space for the other mobility impaired child on their return (who doesn?t qualify for a disabled badge). Its about another elderly almost housebound resident with limited mobility being unable to park and soiling themselves in the car while they waited for a space. Its about not having to call the police because of fight s breaking out between non resident drivers over parking spaces. I am over the moon that this will all soon be a bad memory. I am only to happy to pay a tiny amount of money for the peace of mind that it will bring and the difference to peoples lives it will make. Thank god for democracy, it seems here to have been thriving and flourishing and anything but 'North Korean'.

If it helps on Lyndhurst Grove, the new CPZ has been approved and will be coming into force in September, which should massively reduce the amount of traffic on the roads around there.

Southwark parking are very good - and has a map of the various zones. I've found their parking projects team respond within hours to emails. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/4385/guide_to_parking_and_loading_in_peckham This should help give you information, but as long as you are a resident you can qualify for an annual permit at ?125 - this has gone up by ?5 in 7 years, so don't worry too much about major price increases.

A few have appeared on 'the toastrack' as well - not optimal given how bad our parking problem is, but at least it looks like we're getting a CPZ in a few months time when it will go away. Given our parking woes, I suspect anyone picking up a Zipcar is going to spend a fortune in hire charges as they try to find a parking spot for it in our neck of the woods - plenty of residents spend 45mins - 1hr looking for any space anywhere within the free parking area on most weekdays.

Well sorry but its the truth - I'm a terribly boring law abiding citizen who doesnt break speed limits or get points on my licence.

Yes I drive and no on both counts to speeding. I don't like breaking the law or the highway code and thats why I dont like cyclists on pavements. There is no 'grey area' - the rules are clear, much like the rules are clear for speeding and drink driving. You may not like them but they are there for a purpose. By riding on a pavement you endanger my and every other pedestrian presents safety and I don't appreciate that. Please stop being so selfish and ride on the road where you are supposed to be.

But if I were to say "I wasn't risking his safety though. I was driving just over the legal limit for alcohol t where there was plenty of room for both" then people wouldn't accept it. There is no excuse to cycle on pavements as an adult, there is no defence for doing so - saying "but I wasnt risking" assumes that the other person acts in a rational manner - what if they'd sprinted in front of you, or stopped - or thrown their arms out to the side to stretch and hit you by accident? You should not have been there, you are in the wrong and there is no defence for your actions.

Titch that wasnt me but I would express same sentiments (minis the swearing). You are a road user and by riding on a pavement you risk my safety. Please stop doing so. Your argument about confide ce falls down as you would surely not argue a car driver post accident should drive on the pavement to regain confidence? Cyclists are road users, not pedestrians and need to act as such.

I don't mind kids doing it, but nothing annoys me more than cyclists doing it - there is absolutely no excuse or reasons to ride on a pavement - if you need to be on the pavement dismount and walk with the cycle. I was running last night and a cyclist kept coming down the pavement towards me - I matched his course directly and said politely but firmly 'this is a pavement, ride on the road'. I was delighted to see I forced him off the pavement and hope he learned his lesson. There is no excuse for riding on a pavement - its up there with jumping red lights as a deeply anti-social and potentially very dangerous thing to do. I always 'call out' to cyclists who do this, politely but firmly and they almost always respond with a four letter tirade of abuse. I refuse to swear back, and always keep my cool - when I say to them "If I am driving and go through a red light and hit you, I will likely injure or kill you. If you are riding and go through red light and hit me, you will likely injure or kill me too. Please respect my safety". None of them have an answer to that beyond a torrent of foul abuse.

As you say, every car is different, but on the cars I've driven, trying to keep them to 20 involves either signifantly overrevving the engine in 2nd, or borderline stalling it in 3rd. I, and plenty of other people I've spoken to about this find that driving at 20 is actually far more distracting to the driver than driving at 30 because it paradoxically adds more work to monitor the car than would be the case at 30 where you can keep it in 3rd and not worry to the same level. I fully appreciate everyones experience is different, but as someone who has driven for 20 years, I'd say that I find 20MPH limits more challenging than 30MPH limits to drive safely in. I would be very interested to see the stats on accidents - ultimately if a driver is more focused on the speed he is doing and processing the cars speed, he is not able to focus to the road to the same extent. As a driver I don't speed, don't break posted speed limits and drive defensively and anticipate likely changes to the road - but I still find driving at 20MPH more challenging than 30MPH because of the extra workload involved in managing to keep the car below the limit and not be done for speeding. Personally I think 25MPH would be a far more sensible half way house.

Biggest problem that I have with the 20MPH limits is that I find myself spending more time monitoring the dashboard than the road to make sure I don't break the limit. Its a very difficult speed to keep the car at - it naturally wants to be going a bit faster for the engine to justify going into 3rd gear - 20 is for my car the point where its struggling to keep in 2nd, but struggles to stay in 3rd - its also a speed that, particularly with cameras, has low tolerance for even a slight excess (e.g. a slight over revving by accident means you can easily breach the 10% + 1 rule) and find yourself fined / points on licence. Consequently, I find that when in 20MPH zones, I have to spend a lot more of my driving time focusing on the speedo for fear of breaking the limit than I do in a 30MPH zone where the car is comfortably driving along and where you don't need to worry to the same level about going over the limit by accident. I personally think 20MPH zones are more dangerous because drivers who want to drive within the law have to spend more time focusing on their speed, and not on the environment around them.

You may want to register the car to the address too?