rendelharris

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you want to avoid giving off the impression of > being rude and offensive, prefacing your posts > with statements like "OK, you may find this > question offensive..." isn't exactly helping your > cause (post 79 of this thread, assuming I can > count correctly). That's somewhat disingenuous to quote that and not the following section which said "sincere apologies if you have a disability and need to use your car..." or similar. Perhaps I should have said "You may find this question offensive..." That doesn't indicate that I think the question is offensive, it indicates that I know that some people, as it involves what they will perceive as a challenge to what they believe in, will choose to take it offensively. It's not as if I said "You may find this offensive but fuck off", is it? > I also saw that comment on Saturday, by the way. I > don't particularly care if you are > confrontational, I know I can be just as bad on > topics I feel passionately about (and this is the > internet, after all). But the fact that you edited > that post the next morning suggests that you know > your comment went beyond the line of just > disagreeing with someone, and it was genuinely > rude. No, I didn't edit it as I thought it was rude (unless I remember incorrectly, the bit I deleted was commenting on the fact that the OP employs a nanny to drive her children to private school, wasn't it?) but because I knew on reflection it was offering the OP and others the opportunity to accuse me of being off-topic, personal etc to distract attention from from the hypocrisy and weakness of their position. Which they have now successfully accomplished.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with Texas. You do it again and again > Rendall on many threads stifling debate with petty > point scoring, determined to get the better of any > poster who views things differently from you. I > agree with much of what you say on many subjects > but you make it all so unpleasant. Jolly good, anyone else want to join in? Sally Buying, you'll surely want to join the gang? Look, I join in debates on here on things about which I feel passionate - pollution and unnecessary selfish car use being one of them. When people are propounding a selfish, destructive argument for their own selfish ends, yes I will oppose them and point out where they're wrong. If that's "stifling debate", tough - if people don't want silly, unsupportable or hypocritical views pointed out, perhaps they should keep those views off public fora. If you don't like what I say then feel free to skip over my posts. If my posts are in contravention of forum rules, feel free to report them to Admin for deletion. Otherwise, I'll continue to comment as I see fit on what I wish in whatever way I (not you) feel is appropriate, as is as much my right as it is yours. Cheerio!

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "It's so good of you to be so unselfishly > concerned about others and not about your own > ability to send nanny on the ratrun." > I think comments like these are rude . They add > nothing to a debate about Southwark's actions with > regard to traffic management or pollution in > general . IMO they detract from that debate . talfourdite started this "debate" with an OP frankly scaremongering, trying to persuade people from a wide catchment area to object to the CH closure by saying people like him/her would have "no choice" but to drive through their neighbourhoods (which as pointed out above, isn't true in their case at all). S/he has made great play of being concerned for the impact of pollution levels on children etc, but has failed to point out that one of the polluting vehicles, as is obvious from his/her previous advertisements on this forum, is/was driven by his/her nanny taking the kids to private school (and yes that is relevant, sending children to private schools a distance away is a choice). talfourdite's main motive is not protecting neighbourhoods or lowering pollution, it's keeping the ratrun open so his/her kids can get to school more quickly. If pointing out hypocrisy's rude, so be it.

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just to say Rendel that you did post a very rude > reply to the OP on Saturday night which was > probably read by lots of people on the forum but > was then edited the following morning. Absolute rubbish. But then in your weird Passiflora-aggressive way you think anyone's rude if they disagree with your "let me drive whenever and wherever I want" outlook. It's much easier to accuse people of rudeness than produce a substantive counter-argument, isn't it?

talfourdite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, for all other people who think there is a need > to have some roads in London that can accept > traffic, and wish to live in the real world, > particularly those disproportionately suffering as > a result of this closure, please do fill out the > Southwark consultation. Over and out. It's so good of you to be so unselfishly concerned about others and not about your own ability to send nanny on the ratrun. Does you credit.

That would be smashing if you could, thanks (Champion Hill is not my road, by the way). Yes it would be wonderful if all traffic bar access was kept to A roads, good idea, well done. Can I just ask you to think about this: Champion Hill was, before this closure, experiencing rush hour traffic levels equal to those on the adjoining A roads of Grove Lane and Champion Park. Living on Taulford Road, you're adjoining an A road too, (A202 Peckham Road). If 50% of the Peckham Road traffic suddenly started ratrunning up Taulford, I presume you'd just accept that without demur?

Indeed, life is all about choices. And when people make choices about their lifestyles - where they want to live, work, send their kids to school etc - that necessitate polluting and congesting other people's neighbourhoods, they shouldn't be surprised if other people exercise their right to make choices in terms of asking them not to and asking for environmental protections. Still waiting for you to justify calling me rude - again, one single instance from this thread where I've been rude to (rather than disagreed with) you please.

talfourdite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Rendel, I > definitely don?t want to make this personal (as > you seem to keep doing with your little barbed > comments) but you seem very judgemental on every > one else?s life and what they should/shouldn?t be > able to do with no real knowledge about their > circumstances. I personally find it quite rude, > ill informed and offensive. AKA I don't like anyone disagreeing with me and so will make unfounded accusations against them. Kindly point out a single instance in this thread in which I have been rude to you - not just disagreed with you but been "rude and offensive". Just one. I personally find it rude and offensive that some people believe their "right" to drive when and where they please trumps other people's children's rights to live in clean and safe environments.

It doesn't come under my understanding of "better transport choices", no.

talfourdite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is that a question to someone? Well yes - to you I think...

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think Ireland could beat Wales. I don't think > Scotland can beat England. Agree - in fact I would go 70-30 on Ireland winning and the same (or more) the other way on England-Scotland. In a strange position of wanting England to win the 6N but being happy for Wales to get the Slam, so be happy either way!

talfourdite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- We need to encourage better > transport choices But not discourage school-running two miles every single day?

Still all to play for, if Wales play as they did today can't see them taking Ireland - could come down to the wire!

talfourdite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- In my case, we > still drive and and have to drive twice as far, at > two thirds of the speed to get to the same end > goal. OK, you may find this question offensive, and I sincerely apologise if you have issues which make any other form of transport unviable, but is it strictly necessary to use your car to go two miles from Talfourd Road to Dulwich Village? That's a distance that can be cycled in ten minutes by the most unfit of riders. If you have a disability that mandates your using a car, then fair enough, I would never want to have that proscribed. If you're just using a car for the school run or because you find it a convenient option, I can't offer you too much sympathy about congestion, because you're part of it.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you believe that there should be absolutely no > measures to control car use in residential areas? > - I didn't say that at all. The 20mph restriction, > ULEZ, pressures to move towards electric, hybrid > and hydrogen powered vehicles all contribute to > either safety or air quality. However removing > parking spaces and hence potentially increasing > (albeit illegal) speeds may actually add to > dangers. Just as an example. > > Road closures such as this simply displace traffic > to other roads, often thereby actually increasing > traffic of those roads and increasing pollution > and possibly decreasing road safety on those > roads. Fine for those living in the newly > 'protected' roads, not so for others. > > So my plea for all roads which are actually > passable to be used is all about spreading > discomfort which may actually decrease 'per > household' dangers and pollution. Of course you > can plot to make your household particularly safe > and pollution free, but only at the expense of > others. I'm more in favour of 'equal pain' than > 'my gain'. This represents a fundamental difference in approach: you seem to regard car use as something inevitable, essentially an unavoidable part of the human condition, and so while its huge negative effects must be mitigated, car usage must be facilitated as much as possible. I and others would argue that we have only had mass motor vehicle ownership for around fifty years or so, in which time we have surrendered our public spaces and air quality to them to an insane degree. To enjoy a decent quality of life, car use will have to be restricted. All over the world numerous initiatives to restrict car use, from single street closures to banning cars entirely from city centres, are enjoying considerable success. Sooner or later we are going to have to take the decision as a society to attempt to improve our environment or simply accept the mass premature deaths and illness being inflicted upon the population at present. There's a great line in the Half Man Half Biscuit song "Breaking News", which concerns a number of people arrested for "annoying the nation". Amongst those held are "People who complain to the council about litter, never stopping to think it is people who drop litter, not the council." It amazes me that so many people on here complain vociferously about congestion and pollution, blaming car-restriction measures, never stopping to think it is cars that cause congestion and pollution. Yes, we know that a number of people have to use cars, but I wonder how many, in reality, of those fuming in their cars on Champion Park, or fuming on here, are really aggravated by the fact that their short, unnecessary journeys are being inconvenienced?

Good tip, thank you edp - I shall take advantage to go and look at the work of my ancestor - Hamilton Owen Rendel, who designed the original hydraulic mechanism. Yes I am just showing off, but very useful information nonetheless.

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > uncleglen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > cella Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Are people still really paying cash to > builders > > > these days? > > > > And where do you think most of that cash goes? > > Not sure what you imply? I'm more concerned about > people not contributing their full tax. Unclehate has a long-documented obsession with immigrants sending money home to their families and draining the country of cashflow, apparently, as I recall, because a bloke in a pub once allegedly told him they were all at it. Somewhat ironic for someone who would whine like a stuck pig about Big Brother if he was ever told he couldn't do as he pleases with his wages, but there you go.

Southwark Council housing repair enquiries: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/housing/repairs/reporting-housing-repairs?emailUsContact=1056

Yet again, symptomatic of the bizarre New Age trope that anyone who has problems must somehow have brought them upon themselves and has only themselves to blame if they can't cope with them. Unhelpful, solipsistic drivel.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...and a cyclists and emergency vehicles and if > necessary busses free for all - yes. So, just to get this straight, Penguin (and with the caveat that I generally respect your posts and think you speak a great deal of good sense), you believe that there should be absolutely no measures to control car use in residential areas? That's going to create (is creating/has created) a very, very unpleasant (and for many, fatal) environment for all. You surely can't conflate buses, first responders and cyclists being allowed to use all roads with allowing private motorists to do the same?

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually (and ignoring the spat above) no. The > more roads are permanently closed or restricted, > the fewer 'alternative' routes exist (for > motorists, public conveyances or emergency > vehicles) in the case of accident, or, more > frequently around here, road closures following > infrastructure failure. Every road closed is an > 'in emergency' route blocked off. Which means that > problems will inevitably be exacerbated. As a > local I used to know many routes which allowed me > to 'get through' incidents - these are fast > disappearing. That can surely be to no one's > benefit. I am generally always against reducing > flexibility. So by that argument no road should ever be subject to control measures to make it healthier/safer/more pleasant, everywhere should just remain a motorist free-for-all?

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What all of these photos show is that absolutely > no one has been encouraged to walk or cycle. Not > one pedestrian or cyclist in all the pictures! Clearly cyclists won't be going along DKH/Grove Lane/Champion Park when they can use the newly controlled Champion Hill, so the fact that there are no cyclists in the pictures proves nothing.

sdrs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you seriously implying that residents of > A-roads should expect serious road accidents as a > matter of course? I?m really shocked by your > comments, with their implied disregard for the > residents of these roads. We live on an A toad so > should be content with sky high pollution and a > soaring accident rate? I'm not implying anything of the sort as you well know, you're inferring it in an extremely hysterical manner because I don't agree with you about the Champion Hill closure, which is, frankly, cheap.

Just to reiterate, CPR is not part of the Quietway (TfL initiative) but the Southwark Spine (Southwark Council initiative).

Hope everyone involved not too seriously hurt. Given that this morning's delays were the result of accidents (and there have always been accidents, as one would expect on a busy A road) they're irrelevant to the question of the CH closure, aren't they? Still can't see why accidents were "surely" caused by congestion (worth remembering the words of my motorcycle instructor: "What's the biggest cause of accidents, black ice, bad road design, poor visibility? No, it's people.").