Penguin68

Can I remind people, again, that many of those who travel into Dulwich in cars are here to teach our children, person our hospitals and clinics and surgeries, serve in our shops and restaurants and generally make our lives better. If they live to the East or West of us then they are poorly served, if at all, by public transport, which is mainly optimised North: South. What few East: West buses we have go on circuitous routes and take ages longer than cars driven directly. And many of those who serve us don't ride bicycles, not infrequently because their routes are too hilly for them. And they are not necessarily that young or fit. Amended to add, as regards the last post, that losing those people who work on our 'wonderful high street', would hardly be positive, which could happen if we make it more difficult to get there. And less welcoming.

No, the Council is reporting the increased number of people standing around an area that once had live traffic in it - probably an increase from the time of Covid when we were all locked up anyway, and hardly surprising - people tend not to mill about active roads. The reference to 'footfall' refers to passing pedestrian traffic which then goes into shops - which is what keeps the shops open (assuming they then buy anything). Shops seem to be reporting fewer customers. The two 'figures' are not incompatible. They are measuring different things. Fewer people buying stuff to support the local economy, more people aimlessly milling about on what used to be a road with traffic.

CPZ adds nothing to air quality issues, indeed vehicles driving around to look for parking space or circling whilst someone does something all add to it. And your pro cycling stance is a little single issue, isn't it?

So far as you know... 😄

There are really no more people on the street than one would normally see going round the shops during the day before all this happened. It's hardly Trafalgar Square.

And you know that my comments had nothing to do with being able to recognise Highway Code signs properly displayed, but to be able to see (based on where the signs are) and read (based on the amount of information contained on those signs and the size of the type and the level to which it is illuminated) those signs - where information includes non-standard hours of operation etc. It is not unusual for local authorities to be found to have produced signage which does not met standards, or which is conflicting.

As regards signage, surely you realise that the more confusing and apparently contradictory it is, the more chance of penalty fines. I'm not suggesting that this is an intentional ploy on behalf of Southwark (yeah, really?) - but you will note the lack of speed in their response to complaints about misleading or badly positioned or difficult to read signage.

And 100,000:1 - the 'consultation' will have its timetable extended to take account of the fact that many people were unable to compete it.

Just to note that what is lawful may not thus be necessarily beneficial or e.g. morally right. You need different sorts of tests for that. Face validity would suggest that if there are fewer 'more polluting' vehicles in an area, air quality might improve, as indeed it has been for a number of years in London. Dating indeed to (well) before the introduction of the original ULEZ.

Male wrens build multiple nests to attract a mate, so don't worry if you see a nest built which isn't used. Doesn't mean the wren is dead, just that the jenny wren was picky.

Admin has changed the title of this thread, but actually, at the moment, there is no disruption to traffic, or at least wasn't yesterday. I'm not complaining about what is not (yet?) there. I am complaining about poor planning and apparent mismanagement. Which a lack of any actual work to date, a week into the threatened disruption, would suggest is not misplaced.

Is this a regular occurrence? Is this weekdays or weekdays and weekends? If it is daily during the week, including school hours, is the house in question possibly offering day care? This week the weather has been good enough for children to play out after a dull winter. Is it just a family taking benefit of this? Are they actually screaming or just playing noisily?

Just thought I'd mention that, by 8th March, the only sign of the work being forecast is a sign, literally, saying that 'work starts on 3/03/2025 and will continue for 13 weeks' together with a temporary traffic signal, (not operational) and a little bit of fencing off of one bit of the pub. Work has not started and although it is good that there is no traffic disruption I am standing by my argument that the people responsible for this are 'clowns'. If what has been done to date has taken 5 working days - well the mind boggles. And if it hasn't - well why institute that signage? Will the 'work - and I use that word quite wrongly - take 13 weeks from 3rd March, or is it already running a week late? If project managers working for me had kicked off so publically like that, I'd be at a first warning stage by now. Has anyone noticed whether the forecast closure of adjacent bus stops has also started?

Surely you cannot be surprised. The council's 'consultations' in whatever context (vide the discussion on Gala) bear no resemblance to anything which might imply democratic accountability or any unbiased search for 'truth'. Their object is to grind down protesters such that they don't bother to be consulted in future, knowing it to be a farce. And it's working.

I suspect that it might not, for our cinema, be that good an earner. Which would be a perfectly good commercial reason to can it. If the sessions were making net money then they might have stayed, perhaps. The costs of running special sessions with babies must be higher than for 'normal' sessions, I'm guessing.

Maybe because it's a film you want to see, and you know that a babe-in-arms (not perhaps toddler) is not going to be impacted by it, and you're anyway going stir-crazy. I think, with actual babies, it ought to be parental choice, but perhaps the cinema should give warnings if there are flashing lights, explosions and loud noises, in case your baby is sensitive. But as regards 'content' - a baby will not be influenced by anything said or on screen - they don't have the cognition or language skills to process it, and if adults with tiny children want to get out of the house, and perhaps be with friends, why not? Toddlers however may be a different issue. But remember you're not taking the baby to to the cinema for its benefit but for yours. The sort of things actual babes in arms want to watch (repetitive dancing fruit) are anyway not on general release in cinemas!

If it only doubles you'd have escaped lightly. It is fair to note that all councils are on reduced rations from the centre (National Taxation redistribution) which makes even meeting statutory requirements an issue (hence local fury at what has been wasted in the Village vanity project) - but Southwark will continue to ramp-up what it can out of discretionary charges - i.e. car related and waste collection related. When I moved here nearly 40 years ago, garden rubbish and large items were collected out of 'general rates' (Community charges). And there were no CPZs.

So, Mal, despite not living in Southwark, let alone the proposed CPZ, you decided to influence our lives? You got the working staff link I suppose?

I'm expecting that either their chosen respondents (including staffers whether resident locally or not, it wouldn't surprise me to discover) will be getting the access url that works or they'll declare that nobody much was interested. What they should do, of course, hearing their system was broken (which of course can happen wholly accidentally) is to re-set and re-start the process with a new deadline. Anyone think they will?

I was driving my children back when the snowstorm hit. Not forecast. And rather a spiteful, unpleasant and unthinking statement. I must just hope you're never caught in unexpected and unforecast poor weather. And how does anyone having 4WD hurt you? And the second occasion when I did have 4WD was again an unexpected event where I had to get people home. Certainly public transport wouldn't have helped then.

I didn't, in an earlier snow episode I slid sideways down Sydenham Hill, it had been a sudden snow storm in the afternoon rush with no gritting. Luckily I didn't hit anything, and nothing hit me, but when I changed our my car and there was a suitable one available second hand with 4WD I snapped it up. My kids were in the car at the time and I didn't want a repeat with a less fortuitous outcome.

Yup, think it was. The bus in question was on Underhill at the bottom of the cemetery hill.

And that couldn't remotely mean that this research has an agenda possibly? Recognise that's not something in your normal vocabulary!

And there are relatively few of these real beasts and a lot of sheep in wolf's clothing. By the way, 4 wheel drive is a positive safety issue, without it I couldn't have managed one of ED's hills the last time we had snow, passing a bus that had slid sideways. Just because 4WD is necessary for off roading etc. doesn't make it evil. It may be generally unnecessary on urban roads, but that just means it's an unnecessary cost to the purchaser.

It's noticeable that many car parks are no longer fit for purpose with most modern cars, of whatever profile, being substantially wider than their predecessors. Which is mainly about safety build. Big (real) SUVs are particularly problematic.