rendelharris

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Excellent news indeed, but I fear it?s probably an > open invitation for a large chain cinema to now > bid on the downstairs space as the security of a > longer lease beckons. > > Louisa. Fear not Louisa, Peckhamplex has a very long lease (much longer than the other entities on the site), the only way they would be removed is if their lease were compulsorily purchased to enable redevelopment which, thanks to the excellent work of PeckhamVision, isn't going ahead.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a serious note I?ve often wondered why GG and > other roundabouts (especially larger ones) are not > used as public spaces for picnics and exercise. > Some roundabouts are beautiful, and it seems a > complete waste of land. > > Louisa. Perhaps we could have a roundabout zoo a la Royston Vasey?

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/council-drops-proposal-redevelop-peckhamplex-multi-storey-victory-local-campaigners/

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, he's full of it. He'll just say anything or > do anything if he thinks there's a vote in it for > him. Thank God we have May and Boris in charge for us then, they've never hypocritically shifted their positions on the EU to stay in power, have they?!

Westerham is nice with good walks and Chartwell and Hever Castle close by. Great views of the Weald from Churchill's terrace.

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Roads like water need need to flow not be > restricted. Interesting simile - if the Thames was allowed to flow unrestricted large parts of London would have been flooded by now...instead roads have been allowed to flow unrestricted and large parts of London are choked...

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's one thing to think that there should be a > strategy for encouraging people out of cars (I'd > agree) and another to just close one or two roads > (regardless off the knock on effects). This is not > going to lead to a step change in car use, it's > just going to concentrate the impact of cars in > certain areas. That's why an area wide strategy is required, definitely just closing one road won't do it. But once one road is closed, why not look at how the additional traffic in other areas can be dealt with by more road closures (as I suggested earlier, for example, closing off some of the toastrack roads to keep traffic on the main arteries) rather than just campaigning to reopen that road? All reopening Camberwell Grove bridge will do is concentrate the impact of cars back in that area, that won't lead to a change in car use either. Nobody has mentioned in this discussion the effect (back on topic, taper) the bridge closure has had on the traffic outside DKH primary school - where once there were queues stretching back to the Grove and beyond, now it's rare to see more than a couple of cars waiting at the lights. A before and after comparison of playground pollutant levels would have been interesting.

I beg to differ, Penguin: the GLA estimates that 48% of London's air pollution comes from road transport. 75% of carbon monoxide in the urban environment comes from cars - not just diesel cars - and is particularly hazardous to unborn children and those with asthma or other respiratory problems. Furthermore, in terms of particulate pollution, 20% in London comes from the brake discs and tyres of all vehicles, not just diesels. Diesel cars account for 11% of NOx pollution, but petrol cars account for 7%. Certainly restrictions on diesels are to be welcomed, but don't kid yourself that petrol cars are a good healthy alternative - they're just less bad.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Try being... asthmatic... Does one really have to draw your attention to the irony in that statement? Two thirds of people with asthma have their suffering increased by air pollution! Nobody is trying to ban cars for everybody, despite what certain people here believe. That does not mean that it's wrong to campaign to limit car use, promote healthier and more environmentally friendly alternatives and to restrict cars to major arteries where possible instead of allowing free for all ratrunning through anywhere their drivers please. "I am in favour of a mixed economy, where different road users are allowed to coexist, exercising their choices on how to get about." Which is all very libertarian, but when one particular group of road users' choices impose negatively on the health, safety and quality of life of others then free choice for all becomes patently foolish. To pick up an analogy used earlier, if I want the freedom of choice to throw my refuse out on the street rather than put it in bins, is that OK? Just because you might believe we'd have a healthier and happier society if we all used bins, why can't I exercise my freedom of choice not to?

Very well said and well put Wulfhound - except for your calculations about wattage, on the flat I go around 20-22mph in ideal conditions, putting out around 190 watts - if I could put out 500 watts I'd average over 30MPH and would certainly be going in for agegroup racing! Chris Froome's peak power in tests is 525W, his power in forty minute sessions is around 420W! Just nitpicking an otherwise very lucid post, thank you.

Why don't you put forward some form of argument or other contribution to the discussion, instead of just needling and trying (and failing) to get a rise out of someone who disagrees with your point of view? It's a bit sad that you are eschewing argument in favour of trying to demonize those who don't agree with you.

I'm quite aware of what an analogy is, thank you: I'm also quite aware that silly people like to draw analogies between entirely different things for the purpose of causing annoyance. Your analogy is both inapt and petty and clearly chosen simply because you don't like my point of view, rather than to advance any argument.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That sounds a bit like a kipper saying "I don't > have anything against immigrants. After all, I do > like a good curry after the pub on Fridays. And > that Nigerian bloke who drives the 176 is a decent > geezer." > > Let's face it, in any debate involving roads you > are just going to take an anti-car line. You hate > them. Yes, it's just like that, I'm impressed you know me so well. My wish to see reduced car traffic and to have cleaner, safer streets and healthier air for all Londoners makes me the exact equivalent of a racist. On second thoughts, maybe you're being a little bit silly.

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.

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?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > We're never going to agree, because you see car > driving as > > some sort of inalienable right > > ... whereas you hate it with a vengeance. Not quite, I see the place for sensibly used low emissions motor vehicles; if you mean I hate their lazy, selfish, unnecessary and inconsiderate use to the detriment of the health and quality of life of others, then yes, yes I do.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a pedestrian I could also argue that my life > would be safer without any traffic, including of > course bicycles. Why should they be excused 'no > entry' into cul-de-sac roads - they are vehicles > after all, with expensive dedicated roads for > which they do not have to pay. Funny that, because last time I looked I paid council tax and income tax, a portion of both of which goes towards the upkeep of local and national highways and cycleways.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course they do but demanding their road is > closed to all traffic other than their own is a > very extreme anti social solution. Whereas demanding the right to drive down other people's roads in dangerous polluting vehicles as one pleases is lovely and social. We're never going to agree, because you see car driving as some sort of inalienable right, despite its many and obvious negative impacts on the community.

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.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?Denmark Hill, at least up to the top of Ruskin > Park, is nearly all shops and hospital > premises...? > > And Ruskin Park to Herne Hill? Is a four lane highway with the majority of houses being very well set back from the road; obviously, unfortunately, some roads will have to remain as main arteries when they're wide enough.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And of course once a 'main' road was blocked by > road works or whatever (as for instance Underhill > and Barry both have been during this year alone) - > the sealing off of 'residential' roads save for > the lucky few would lead to complete gridlock, > with individuals unable to get to their own homes > because they are blocked from passing others'. > > If people want to live in cul-de-sacs they should > buy houses in them. Not retro-fit cul-de-sacs > around them. Would it be totally impossible to design a barrier which could be removed as necessary for diversions? So if people have houses or flats that are not in cul-de-sacs they have no right to campaign for their streets to be cleaner, quieter and safer? Gotcha.

That would have to be something decided on a case by case basis, I'd say. Somewhere like Dog Kennel Hill, with virtually no houses facing onto the road and estates for which the road is not the primary frontage, would surely qualify? Denmark Hill, at least up to the top of Ruskin Park, is nearly all shops and hospital premises...width of road would be just as important, with the ability to handle large traffic volumes (which Camberwell Grove arguably has at the bottom but not at the top). Of course it would be a contentious process deciding which roads were allocated "resident cars only" status (for that would be effectively what they would be) and, as this discussion shows, there would be much anger and resentment from those who didn't get it. But one feels it's a discussion worth having, rather than resigning oneself to every residential area being a free-for-all in terms of motor vehicle access.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What if toastrack residents wanted to access > McNiel Road? > > They would have to use Peckham Road or does the > south end have a barrier? Yes, they would have to go out and round the block in exchange for having their road rendered virtually traffic free. That would be a matter of personal choice, obviously; personally, living on Copleston Road and having to go round the block to get to Lordship Lane, rather than driving straight out onto Grove Vale, I'm delighted with the tradeoff in terms of traffic calming. ETA in reply to your edit, I guess there could be an openable barrier but not sure how practical that would be in terms of cost or logistics. As I said, if I lived there I'd be more than happy to have an extra couple of minutes added to certain journeys if the tradeoff was a 90% traffic reduction.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is either naive or disingenuous. The choice > in the consultation is to open the bridge or keep > it closed. Southwark Cyclists are arguing to keep > it closed. Traffic calming measures elsewhere are > not in scope. I don't speak for Southwark Cyclists but as I understood from Sally's posts they are in favour of keeping the bridge closed as a first step to wider traffic calming measures. ETA I was being neither naive nor disingenuous, I was replying to a question from Charles Notice asking how residents would access closed off roads.