Penguin68

first mate writes:- I simply cannot believe that Councillors are unaare of these factors or that this is not a deliberate tactic on their part to force through CPZ. Yes, of course it is - Mr Barber has long beaten a drum (thank god unsuccessfully last time) for the introduction of CPZs - all councils see this as a nice little earner. It is, of course, a wonderfully socially divisive intrusion - turning one tiny group of roads against another as each resents anyone else's use of what they now see as 'their' road (because they are paying - eventually through the nose - to use it). Turning roads into a gated community has much of the same effect. The introduction of vast swathes of yellow lines (which will incidentally speed traffic but (mainly) reduce parking availability) is another tool in the CPZ maven's toolbox. Their job is to introduce selfish attitudes ('it's my road and only I can park in it') to leverage revenue streams. It is amusing (in an unfunny way) that it is socialists and lib dems on the council who are so in favour of creating and supporting divisive selfish attitudes, and a conservative who is standing out against this. But of course conservatives (with some exceptions) are not viscerally opposed to cars and car ownership. (amended to attribute quotation correctly)

rch writes:- A build out at the Ashbourne junction without a raised table would probably cost around ?15K... I'll talk to the Ashbournes and see if they want to put in a proper CGS bid in Sept. A ped island in the Chesterfield junction would probably cost around ?5K-7K. 15+5=20, which is the same cost as a barrier. I'd really love to speak to an engineer to work out a better way to control the PERCEIVED traffic concerns long that stretch... build outs are so much more neighbourly than a barrier. All this would be true and relevant if the actual interest was in issues of speed - but we all know it isn't. It's about creating an exclusive gated community that can lock itself away from the rest of East Dulwich in their own little zone - nothing short of a barrier will do.

Why do we never hear from the other 2 on this matter. Much as we love the forum, it is not an official communications channel for Southwark, nor is anyone compelled to register or post on it. It is nice when those who can impact our lives do (remember the rail-man who was so helpful?) but it is not an obligation.

Funnily enough I had been expecting to note the onrush of traffic in Underhill - maybe it's because it's the school holidays but I have found that the change from blocked to unblocked has not had the impact I was anticipating. And I am really pleased to see (and even hear) the buses back again. I live in a street which usefully leads to places that I, and others, want to get to. I have been happy to accept that that also means that people will use it. It's a trade-off.

I must admit I also find it interesting (assuming this is true, and I have understood things correctly) that a (or the) chief protagonist of this is not a long standing resident who has found circumstances deteriorating since they bought or rented long ago (who might thus be assumed to have chosen their residence under different circumstances) but someone who has moved in very recently, when the levels of traffic could already have been assessed and were (as I have said) presumably factored into the price of their dwelling.

..posted against wrong thread - oops

This has never been about excessive speeds - or about accidents or danger neither of which have actually been reported as an issue for Melbourne before on this forum - compared with reports from many other roads (e.g. Barry) with accidents happening to support these complaints - instead a cynic might see this is a nimby move to create a gated community and (no doubt) push house prices up (even) more. We live in a town - some of us live in roads which connect with other roads with concomitant traffic - we all bought or rented at prices which factored this in - live with it or move to somewhere else which doesn't have traffic, if you hate it so much (this by the way does not alter my view that some roads are unsuitable for some types of traffic - such as very large lorries and articulated lorries - and could be well marked out as such with warnings). Very large HGVs (save for access) shouldn't be in residential streets, but 'normal' traffic (cars, bikes, vans, small lorries) should have every right.

Are the Met in our area still interested in burglary - apparently some forces no longer do anything other than issue a crime number for insurance claims?

I wish the Council would ban front garden parking spaces This would then put more cars parked on the streets - with fewer passing places on narrow streets (off street parking in effect normally creates a passing space) - and more likelihood of accidents/ damage/ vandalism (all of which has a cost). It would be reasonable, however, to require hard standing for cars to be made out of water permeable materials, either gravel over membrane, bricks laid over sand (bricks are water permeable, unless specially treated) or whatever (you can get a grid which sits over lawn and will support cars, allowing a lawn to grow through it). It is concrete or asphalt which cause environmental problems, creating run-off etc. Of course well-tended front gardens with flowers, shrubs etc. are 'nice' (and are still achievable, depending on the size of space, when where cars are parked-up) but banning parking cannot mandate pretty front gardens - so there is no necessarily aesthetic advantage in such a ban.

The Highway Code is also something that can be learned in an afternoon. And yet - for the last year that there were figures only 51% of motorists (48.7% male, 53.6% female) passed their motoring theory tests - and for motorcyclists it was 74.1% (male - 73.8%, female 76.6%) https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/driving-test-operational-statistics This might suggest that the theory of (safely) using roads was not quite as simple as is being described - it is as important for cyclists as for any drivers to understand, for instance, about stopping distances, and indeed, hazards. I also remember that it takes rather longer than 5 minutes to learn to ride a bicycle - particularly one-handed - rather a requisite if you plan to signal any turning intentions - although, of course I had forgotten that cyclists are excused any requirement to alert other road users to their intentions.

As a consequence of some considerable carnage, it must be said. If bikes were killing dozens or hundreds of innocent bystanders a year? Sure, I'd sign up to that. Well, it's just so good that cyclists don't have any accidents themselves, so that they can ride (untrained) happily knowing that they are invulnerable to bad things happening to them...oh, wait a minute... Many people learn to act safely for purely selfish reasons, so that they don't get injured or die themselves - I am so happy that cyclists apparently are so generous and altruistic that, not being able to hurt people so much, they feel no need to gain expertise, knowledge and behaviour patterns that might, in any way, protect them. Legislation around crash helmets and seat belts (the use thereof) was not designed to save other road users, but the drivers/ passengers of vehicles in use. That wasn't about 'innocent bystanders'. But let's not constrain cyclist freedoms in any way...

Why does collective responsibility and punishment apply to people on bikes in a way that it doesn't apply to people in almost any other way? Why on earth are you assuming that this is part of any argument being put forward? Most people have been careful to suggest that it is a minority of cyclists (as of other road users) that act stupidly or carelessly. Most have been careful to stress that it is a duty on all road users to act carefully (hence applying their strictures, in so far as they have any) on all road users. It is true that many cyclists do seem to claim some sort of moral high ground - that being a cyclist per se is in some way meritorious - since, I assume, it is understood to be both healthy and low carbon (in which case joggers of course morally trump cyclists - as their carbon cost doesn't require the manufacture of a bicycle, or indeed the creation of special cycle roads, hardly a carbon neutral construction) Of course, if you believe that having to be trained and take a test is a 'collective punishment' - well that has been being applied to motorists and motor-cyclists for some considerable time. That you (voluntarily) have insurance and that you have taken a driving test is of course admirable - my experience is that (partly for cost reasons) many young people do not now learn to drive - so proceed on roads without any training - and I have to say without accident or third party insurance either.

The driving test now requires you to be 'hazard aware' - and most driving instructors teach the concept of 'defensive driving' - where you are trained to anticipate stupidity and error in others. Cyclists (those who are not drivers) are not required to be so trained - which might be part of the reason why some are both prepared to take risks, and seem less aware of potential hazards around them - many do seem to cycle as if requiring (which they won't get) thoughtful and anticipatory actions in fellow road users (including pedestrians - also perhaps not trained to be hazard aware) such that this obviates the need for them to act similarly. All road users (including pedestrians) should ideally be aware that they can rely only on themselves - and that actions they take may become perilous in combination with what others are doing. That would mean not darting across roads without looking (or walking diagonally across the road with your back to oncoming traffic) even where you know that you are in the right - not crossing at lights or zebra crossings unless you are sure that oncoming traffic has seen you and is slowing down and so on. Cyclists need to act as if the rules of the road apply to them also - to watch out for signalling or changes in road positioning which might portend a turn in traffic they are approaching etc. etc. Equally, where something is signalling, they should not assume that a turn will necessarily then be made, sometimes signals don't cancel or people change their minds. As a motorist I have been trained (and more modern drivers than me tested) on awareness and anticipation - but many road users (pedestrians and cyclists) haven't. I have to drive to take this into account, but this doesn't let the untrained off the hook as regards care. Or at least it shouldn't. With the massive increase of traffic and concomitant dangers, and with all these special routes being created for cyclists throughout London it does seem to me that the case for only allowing cycling people to use town roads where they can demonstrate some level of skill and road knowledge (and perhaps forcing them to wear protective gear as is required of motor cyclists - and indeed car drivers with seat belts etc.) is becoming increasingly difficult to refute.

Now that has troll written all over it (The OP)

Is it so difficult to inform people? How would you suggest? - remembering that people who use Sydenham Hill do not (necessarily) live locally - leaflet all in SE London? - users will not (e.g.) check Southwark Council web sites, have (the right) twitter feeds, all read the same social media or blogs (i.e. this forum) - or did you want special treatment for forum-ites? In the end they posted notices on the roads advising of the relevant speed - granted the whole system's a mess, with different roads at different speeds, changed at different times - but that's a different issue.

I would guess any fly-tippers are unlikely to be local (they will be dumping from another borough - why sh1t on your own doorstep?) so are unlikely also to be readers of this forum.

The most likely reason for a major outage which is only effecting some people (my broadband service in Underhill has been working fine) is damage to cable plant - as each 'end' has to be matched with the correct end in the other part of the cable (it's not just like jointing a water or gas pipe) making repairs can be very time consuming. A loss of service could have triggered a fault on exchange equipment - those on the equipment but not directly served by the cable/ plant in question would then probably recover by re-setting their routers (as the exchange equipment itself probably had to be re-set). The appalling weather we have been having will also not have been helping any external plant work to be done.

As has been said a million times on here, if you don't want a ticket, don't park illegally. Of course, this is strictly true, but remember that councils always claim that parking restrictions are not revenue generating gimmicks, but are all about keeping roads clear for traffic, road safety etc. etc. (i.e. for all our good). When it is clear that, in fact, it is being treated exactly as a revenue generating opportunity - without regard as to whether actions are, in fact, leading to those 'bad things' the restrictions are meant to be addressing - and when enforcers are clearly acting to screw as much bunce out or motorists as they can - then some disquiet can be reasonably expressed. I may be wrong, but I recall someone in government recently suggesting that elements of discretion be used in these instances. Starting to ticket dead on the hour of enforcement clearly isn't that. As a driving ethos utilitarianism (greatest good for greatest number) seems a better model here than a deontological approach (rules are rules without exception - the means justify the ends - to massively over-simplify)

Apologies, didn't spot the earlier reference.

Sorry - but where did 'racing' come into all this - the OP said that scooters were using it, but until rahrahrah's post this morning nobody has mentioned or reported racing (just 'overtaking' of two scooters, possibly only once). This is the way that logs start to roll - it's just a shame that hundreds of leather clad Hell's Angels are now using this route incessantly with speeds over a 100mph in incessant midnight drag races. Something must be done!

Trees have always formed part of the 'furniture' of cemeteries (yew, very traditionally) and I have no doubts that the oak you refer to was either an initial cemetery planting or may even date back to an original hedgerow oak in the originating pastureland. I would be surprised, if it is healthy, that the council would clear this (their tree officer would surely object, if it was brought to his attention). The area which is now the equivalent of hay meadow covers old graves, now seldom if at all visited, so being obscured by hay in the summer isn't an issue. Cemeteries are long-term investments in the ecology - new burials will, for some time, I'm sure, be kept clear to allow ease of visiting - but over time the reversion of land to a 'wilder' (without being scrub woodland) state is something to be encouraged (and means that the cost of upkeep, not mowing during the summer for instance, will be contained). We need to consider the long-run life(!) of a cemetery - bits will be old burials, bits new - and these will be treated and look different. Trying to freeze in time the look of the cemetery makes no real sense, but a long term plan which is sensitive both to the environment and to the needs of those wishing to use it for its primary purpose does make sense. The continuation of overgrown elements (particularly where access to these is actually hazardous with unstable monuments) really doesn't make sense in this context. Sensible planting of native species in recovered areas (like the dogwood plantation at the Langston Rise end) seem a good option - so Hawthorne and Elder additionally planted once the scrub has been recovered - but in an appropriate position for using the cemetery - again makes sense. Leaving self-seeded shrubs wherever they have happened to self-seed doesn't in a managed environment, which is what a cemetery needs to be. Even the growth in Dulwich Woods (which really are woods, and managed as such, if only secondary growth around a former railway line) have to be tended to carefully. No woods are really wild in the UK, nor would you actually want them to be.

I am very concerned about moves to attempt to further en-forest what has traditionally been meadowland in Camberwell Old Cemetery. OK ? I know this is a wind-up ? but not entirely so. Those who walk in the cemetery will have noted that quite a large portion of the currently-in-use area at the south (ish) end has been left un-cut so creating a hay meadow. With the addition of some wild flower seeds (such as are growing currently in the bed in the Horniman gardens) this would re-create the traditional meadowland (with all the benefits to wild-life, bees and butterflies etc.) that were probably its pre-cemetery origins in the meadowland/ pastureland originally bought from a farmer when the cemetery was first created. This is (in wild-life and ?nature? terms) a far more productive use for the land than the scrub-growth which is proposed for clearance. And is more true to the ?original? land use pre-cemetery. It would also be wholly consistent with its continued use for burials ? hay meadows are traditionally cut-back in late summer ? but can be allowed to grow back up the following year. Thus the objectives of both nature lovers and those who wish the area to continue to be of service to the relics of Southwark residents can be met.

I have slightly re-thought my earlier post - as there is an existing Act (the 1857 Act) it would be possible for an MP to propose an amendment to that Act as a further Private Bill; our local MP might ask her party (which does have the right to debating time) to propose debate on such an issue. Although (considering the time is limited) I cannot imagine that her party would give up that time to such a trivial (in the grand scheme of things) cause. However she could at least be consulted as to how such an amendment could be tabled. But I suspect the Charity Commissioners would also have to be party to this.

For those interested - this links http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/bills/private/ to more about Private Bills - however it would normally be the Dulwich Estate which would sponsor/ initiate this. I cannot imagine there is normally a route for someone else to do so, unless there is clear (there actually isn't here) maladministration. It is worth noting that the various Education Acts offering free education to all children has obviated the need or requirement for the Estate itself to offer free education to local children.

It would probably be unlikely to happen, but a Private Members Bill to reform the Dulwich Estate is long overdue. The 1857 Act took over the Dulwich Estate and another Act of Parliament could do it again. I think you'll find that you would need a Private Bill (a bill which refers only to a specific set of activities or location(s), and does not have national significance) rather than a Private Members Bill (which, other than being sponsored by an individual member is otherwise, in intent and coverage, no different from a bill put forward as part of government legislation. The 1857 Act referred to would have been initiated as a Private Bill.