rendelharris

No I was replying to singalto, posted at the same time as Cardelia. Yes the council can decide on shorter distances, but following the Highway Code seems a fairly reasonable position.

The extended yellows are surely only enforcing the Highway Code stipulation about parking near junctions? In which case cars should never have been parking in those spaces in the first place.

Jeremy Hardy - spoke with him once after a benefit at the Half Moon, he was a charming, self-deprecating man who had time for everyone. Friends who lived on the same road as him in Streatham found him a delightful neighbour. Plus, of course, he was astoundingly funny, especially when improvising on shows like The News Quiz and ISIHAC (and nobody will ever forget his singing!). A great loss.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would not meet the new Emissions criteria laid > down by Mayor Sadiq Khan > planned to extend to the South Circular in April > ?? (is that right) No - the ULEZ comes into force in the congestion zone in April, but it's not being extended to the South Circular until October 2021.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The picture of Champion Hill in the consultation > looks a very very pleasant place to live. And the caption reads "Taken at 11.30AM", hardly peak hour.

Y'all know half the world's starving, yeah? Just checking.

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The EU officials are really showing their true > colours. They've said that in the event of a no-deal if we want them to keep paying out for research projects etc in the UK currently funded by the EU, we'll have to keep putting money in. That's not only perfectly reasonable but sensible, otherwise current projects will be cut off without funding and concomitant loss of expertise, waste of work already done etc. What else do you expect them to say? If you leave without a deal of course we'll keep funding projects in your country with our own money? If you look at the bottom of the article John linked to even May has said this is an issue on which she could move.

Good for him - we're all very vociferous from our keyboards but I don't see many of us (including me) putting our spare time where our mouth is, so to speak.

Am I missing something here? Under what circumstances would an able-bodied person need to drive from St.Francis Road to Lordship Lane, a distance of less than half a mile and with a choice of no fewer than six different buses that all go there from the end of the road? We live almost exactly the same distance (slightly further, in fact) from LL and have driven there precisely once, to collect a writing bureau from the St.Christopher's shop. There are many pertinent arguments about the LL CPZ on here, but complaining that it'll curtail the ability to make one-third of a mile car journeys won't get much sympathy, I fear.

eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So that's a serious worry for people living in St > Francis Rd and areas near the station. It's not as > if buying a resident or visitor permit will even > be an option then. They'll no longer be able to > drive to events in ED and park in the streets. Why on earth would someone in St.Francis Road need to drive to events in ED (unless disabled, in which case blue badge users can park anywhere in the CPZ without penalty)? It's a third of a mile away!

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where we are now as opposed to two weeks ago..... > > *May opens the exit door* "Can you see the > unicorn?" *the answer overwhelmingly* "Nooooooo" > > *May closes the door and Brady says* "Can you > imagine a Unicorn?" *the answer mostly* "Oh yes, > I can see it" > > There ends my life as a political correspondent. Brilliant, pinching!

TaVa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a > residential street, thus customers (often with > babies and toddlers) chatting there all day would > be a real nuisance. And with the EDT just across > the street, what would stop drinkers to use the > parklet in the evening generating even more noise > (and rubbish)? Even if the CPZ goes ahead, that > parklet should not be implemented! I know, people with babies drinking coffee and chatting, what a bloody nuisance! When oh when will the police step in to stop this hell on our streets? And then in the evening the risk that drinkers in a perfectly nice and comfortable boozer will buy their pints, cross a busy road and walk fifty yards up a side street to sit on a bench! That's going to happen. There have been many good and articulate reasons posted on here against many aspects of this scheme (even if I don't agree with them) - yours are mean-spirited and bonkers.

Check if you have wooden studs in your walls, if so it should be a relatively simple matter to fix hooks etc into them (if you look on any bike website like Wiggle or Evans you'll find a multitude of hanger options - my neighbour uses one of these, pricey but looks very funky: https://www.wiggle.co.uk/cycloc-solo-wall-mounted-bike-holder-1/?lang=en&curr=GBP&dest=1&sku=101003883&kpid=101003883&utm_source=google&utm_term=&utm_campaign=Shopping+-+All+Products&utm_medium=base&utm_content=mckv|sfSiwTQ1G_dc|mcrid|295292024608|mkw||mmt||mrd|101003883uk|mslid||&mkwid=sfSiwTQ1G_dc&pcrid=295292024608&prd=101003883uk&pgrid=60972124962&ptaid=pla-521465611169&gclid=Cj0KCQiAkMDiBRDNARIsACKP1FFWsi0cwdDIda77JdFqg__dgOouPyKmb1s2mbpj0_AtBHBCEDhJZmYaAtYIEALw_wcB). If you have metal studs then something like this should be sufficient for fixing: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Heavy-Duty-Plasterboard-Fixings-Brackets/dp/B01315VZ9U.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The journey carries public costs which your staff > member does not pay. - other than through Road Tax > (or whatever it's now called), fuel duty and VAT > on fuel, general taxation, community charge for > local roads... - where do you think public > expenditure comes from? Even business rates and > corporation tax are eventually charged out to the > paying public through prices. 'Public' expenditure > eventually comes out of someone's private pocket - > even government borrowings have to be paid back > eventually, so maybe your benefit is paid by your > children or grandchildren, but then you're paying > back a benefit to your grandparents. And public > (rail) transport in the SE is directly supported > by taxation subsidy. I think you've misunderstood Sally Eva's point, she wasn't referring to financial cost but "He or she congests the roads, adds to road danger in Kent and London, creates pollution and parks in East Dulwich using road space which is then not available for the customers he or she has come to serve."

I know it's hard to accept when people disagree with you Charles, but disagree they do, it has been voted on (every resident on Champion Hill was given the information pack and the opportunity to vote and 71% of those responding were in favour) and the trial is going ahead, gripe about it as much as you wish. ETA Found those figures for you, 83 Champion Hill residents voted yes and 32 no. Still not worth the paper it's written on, I'm sure.

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As it is most residents that use this road to > leave and reach there homes I find that hard to > believe they want it closed. > > Please supply the figures that confirm this. What is it about "71% of residents in Champion Hill were in support of the trial" that you find difficult to understand?

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How many people does 71% represent? Like RPH how > many said yes and how many said no. > > Please supply. The funny thing is, it's not noted on the report how people from RPH voted, nor is it noted how many people from numbers 17-35 voted, or any other daft arbitrary measure - perhaps the survey took the controversial view that everyone living on the street who has to live next to it and get their cars out onto it and walk along it with their children, whether they live in one of the lovely big houses or in a block of flats, has a right to have a say? Perhaps they even thought that residents' views matter more than people who want it preserved as a rat run so they can shave 100 seconds off their journey from one area to another? Controversial but I think I can almost see their reasoning.

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If it was needed I would support it 100%, it is > not speaking to residents they do not want it or > see why it is needed. Southwark consultation: The majority of people (57%) within the consultation area were in support of the trial with 71% of residents in Champion Hill in support. Facts, jolly inconvenient, aren't they?

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You do live there any more. Do I? > No first hand experience only second hand > opinions. So using the road three or four times a week gives me no experience? Do you live on Champion Hill? No you don't, but you feel entitled to give your opinion. > No need to reply Yes you've tried this before, you'd like to remain in your pro-car echo chamber and avoid all opposing opinions. Tough.

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You moved sometime ago, how do you know what the > conditions are now 24/7? No doubt your views have > not changed. I walk and cycle up and down the road several times a week, and I have friends in RPH whom I regularly visit and who talk about the situation. You don't live there but it doesn't seem to stop you giving us your tuppence worth, but apparently I shouldn't because...oh, because I don't agree with you.

Funny that as I avoid it on DH game days as it's absolutely packed after the game.

We moved there in 2006 and left in 2016 (when all the traffic measures currently in place were already established) - in 2016 the road was neither pleasant nor safe, particularly at rush hour. As someone who worked from home with my desk at a window overlooking the junction, I feel I might have a better overall view of how the street worked than someone only using it once or twice a day.

Not when it comes to whether or not they're allowed to endanger children's lives because they hold fatuous unsubstantiated beliefs, not really, no.

Then why mention their distance from the road at all?

Come off it, with your statement "how the flats of Ruskin Park House, with most way off the actual road, voted" you are clearly implying that their votes should carry less weight than those who live right on the street.