Penguin68

The very moderate Herne Hill scheme apart (as far as I can see) CPZs are about one thing only - revenue generation. I have found few people who have lived inside 'heavy duty' CPZs (as I have in the past) who have discovered that their own parking is now any easier or less fraught - indeed in the main the way it is wardened increases stress and anxiety of residents (exacerbated by the fact that they are having to pay for an increase in stress). The ultimate twist to the torture is micro-zones - where you are buying access only to a tiny portion of the road - and where trying to park even in the next street - sometimes in long roads even the next section of street - places you on the same footing as the most casual of visitors - allowed only to do so well into the evening, if at all, and forced to rise at dawn to find a legitimate parking space. Ciy hall control freaks love this sort of thing, they'd tax the air we breathe if they could think of a method of doing so; our role must be to scotch their desires at every turn. Believe me, if you live now in an over-parked road you will see no change, other than a reduced bank balance, in your lives if it is introduced. No, I correct myself, you will find some local businesses closing or having to charge more because of the disruption to their trade, but then so will those not trapped into this lunacy who enjoy ED facilities. So, broadly, you may be able to infer that I'm probably against CPZs

I thought the point was to catch commuters parking in Melbourne Grove - 15 minutes is ample time to catch someone who has been parked there since 8.30 and won't be back until after 5.00 - they won't have a permit (sorry about using the word ticket, oh how annoying that must be) - anyone parked at that time without a permit gets booked, anyone else doesn't. If some wardens won't take a job for half an hour, or fifteen minutes even, then find someone who would - it would be a great job for soemone who has children at achool and nothing much to do mid morning. I am really really not interested in creating efficient traffic nazis - happy to see that job go completely to the wall.

Whilst being wholly against any CPZs (anywhere) the restriction time must be placed sufficiently late that staggered time commuting cannot take place (if that is the point of the CPZ) - 10.00-10.30am might be a little early - but 11.00-11.15 (say) would effect hardly anyone entering the zone for purposes within the zone, but would drive (!) commuting parkers away, wouldn't disrupt local lunch trade etc. etc. A CPZ 'parking ticket' could be sent out automatically free each year with the Council tax demand (would thus go to locals and save posting costs) - with additional tickets sent at a nominal fee (??5) for households with additional cars (proofs, i.e. photocopies of log books with correct address might be required). Anything other than that smacks of revenue generation, not of consideration for locals. Tickets would be household, not car specific. People who 'vote' for CPZs are frequently simply voting to be taxed and fined - which I resolutely refuse to do.

Either be more explicit (which restaurant?) or don't post such an unfocused warning, it excites curiosity but doesn't requite it - by the way, I do hope you are better now.

It's because local traders refuse to do this that I question their honesty. 'Honesty' - they may be being lazy, they may consider asking customers intrusive questions may appear nosy and put customers off, they may wish simply to avoid the issue they may... but honesty? That is over-egging the pudding. The most you might be able to question is their intellectual honesty, but only if they had entered a debate (which I don't think they have) and obfuscated. Why, if someone doesn't do what you have advocated (on a web site) are they being dishonest? They may consider they have better things to do with their time. Outwith this forum I don't believe (but am very happy to be corrected) that there are currently concrete proposals to introduce a CPZ in ED.

With fee based residents parking not only do you have to pay an annual fee with no guarantee that you can park near your house, or at all, but visitors and tradespeople become equally restricted in visiting you and parking - some schemes allow you to buy visitors tickets, but in the main they are used as revenue generating devices, not really as methods of restricting parking to residents. Around much of the area that you would want to use the restriction they also have the effect of reducing, sometimes dramatically, vistors to local shops. Once such schemes are introduced they tend to spread out from the areas which initially are very parking congested to other areas (as vistors themselves spread out to find spots to park in, once restrictions are introduced). As someone with off street parking I am less personally effected by this (save for visits locally to other parts of ED) and I would see the price of my house rise - something I am happy to forego if it avoids the introduction of these pernicious restrictions.

Re local blood taking - while it is true that the Dulwich Hospital waiting time is generally intolerable, it is also true that the phlebotomists there are generally expert, quick, painless and unobtrusive - I have had blood drawn by the inexpert which has required several goes, has been painful, and has left extensive and long lasting bruising. Locally drawn blood (in surgeries) in my experience requires a high volume of patients and a dedicated phlebotomist if the result is to be generally happy - occasional and inexperienced blood drawing is not to be recommended.

It is very easy to be 'statistically responsible' when you are not sitting in the midst of the statistics - if you've been burgled (or mugged or whatever) not only are you experiencing a 100% incidence, but any news of anything similar happening reinforces your own fears. It is known that such things as burglaries do actually 'cluster' (i.e. it's not a statistical anomaly) - burglars will recce an area, see where it's vulnerable, and then turn-over as many houses as possible in a short time before security is improved. I have already noted on an earlier post that burglars will also revisit a burgled house once the victim has replaced lost goods so that they can then steal virtually new DVD players etc. So individuals may well feel that that they are in the middle of an epidemic of crime and be right so to do - whilst only streets away nothing much is happening, and the district 'average' remains steady and low. That may be because little localised pockets of crime are actually the norm, so from one period to another little seems to change, once outcomes are 'smoothed' over a wide enough area. Nobody publishes crime stats for a 6 or 7 figure post code for you to really compare your immediate locale now and e.g. 6 months ago. Personal experiences of being in the midst of a crime wave may be accurate, but the wave may be one in a very small pond.

Actually, driver error can be mitigated by good road design, exacerbated by bad design. So while 'tweaking' the junction will not necessarily avoid driver error, it may make that error less disasterous. When crash barriers were put into motorways, driver error still took drivers into them on occasion, but not, then, across the carriageway and into oncoming traffic. There have also been a number of posts about the effect of the traffic lights encouraging a false sense of security in drivers, perhaps precipitating driver error.

That's only true for vehicles travelling towards Peckham Rye - for those travelling from Peckham Rye towards the Plough the lights would then be, again, on the other side of the junction. Of course there is a longer 'run' travelling towards the Rye, so maybe speed has picked up well by then - but wherever the lights are they will be on the wrong side of the junction for someone.

The junction being talked about is a crossing point for 2 roads carrying buses - i.e. I would have thought non-trivial roads - the reason they both carry buses is that they are 'useful' - i.e. high traffic, roads on routes which leads to places many people want to go. The fact that there are lots of collisions there is a function of the fact that there is a lot of traffic using them both. Add poor visibility at the juntion (with vans parked obscuring the view 'up' Barry Road) and speeding cars along Barry because coming from the Plough end it is downhill and straight and you have a recipe for problems. Add to that the fact that both at this point are relatively narrow (Underhill indeed being intentionally made more narrow, Barry being narrowed on a regular basis by bendy-buses stopped at the bus stop) and the fact that the corner of Underhill is now a building site with large parked vehicles making it even more difficut to negotiate and you add Pelion upon Ossa in creating a hazardous crossing. The last thing we should be seeing on this board is any surprise when yet another collision is reported. Of course some of these are down to simple driver error, but this is an unforgiving junction where any driver error is punished. Unless we live in some cloud cuckoo land where driver error is going to be eliminated, then this is a spot where a fatality is waiting to happen.

Probably - but it was also probably 10 years ago now, or a little less.

A child was abducted and held in the empty house, if memory serves.

The clowns will see to the trees, count on that.

The flats are inordinately ugly, with unusable picture windows (overlooking a cemetery, great view) that offer no privacy unless heavily netted (and then what's the point?) and the house has lost any 'garden' space it once had. The history of the site (and what happened in it when the subsiding orginal building stood empty) is hardly auspicious. At the offer price it sounds appealing (if you haven't seen it), but only as a buy-to-let investment - the design means that it could never be economically converted to single occupancy as a family home - which is still (thank goodness) the most common tenancy at that end of Underhill. If the owners are sensible they will be hoping that the squatters end up burning it to the ground (obviously with no injuries!), that way the insurance might pay for rebuilding a saleable property.

It is highly unscientific, but my impression of ED autumn colour this year (vide the comment on the plethora of berries) is that it is more vivid and vibrant, particularly the reds, than I can recently recall. This may be because more acers etc. are now planted in roads and front gardens but even then I can remember these being quite disappointing in the past. Some roads have an almost New England air about them, particularly when the sun catches the leaves.

'Chugging' actually refers to companies who appear to be undertaking market research but then 'mug' you for Charity - it is an extension of the coining of 'sugging' - selling under the guise of research - used to be a favourite ploy of insurance companies, who would start off apparently collecting information for a survey, then steer the conversation towards sales. When in doubt about MR ask to see the interviewer's badge/ ID - all interviewers working for kosher MR companies will have Market Research Society ID. A number of charities do use professional (paid) agents to collect donations - often via pledges - and this is what the Daily Mail report is picking up. This is entirely different from companies passing themselves off as charities (actually, that's illegal, what they do is to let you think they are charities without actually making that claim). That is what this company appears to be doing. There is no chance with these companies that donations or donated goods will ever be used charitably - not true either of chugging or of professional collectors for real charities.

It used to be that daytime burglary (around midday) was school kids getting a spot of B&E in in their lunchbreaks. Often they gained access through unlocked windows or doors (people tend to be less security minded at lunchtime).

Out of interest, when the Post Office (which then included the Telecommunications Division) was moved from the Home Civil Service to being a nationalised industry, the pension fund (which had hitherto been the standard civil service one, i.e. non contributory and non funded except through current taxation) was vested as 2.5% Consuls at face value - when these were actually then trading at a huge discount to face value. This was inevitably going to lead to an eventual pension deficit (it was as if every pound you had 'saved' was suddenly worth only 17p). This deficit was exacerbated as the Post Office took a number of pension holidays when the value of the fund (at a time of bull markets) exceeded the immediate sums necessary to fund pensions (this was before FRS17 changed the valuation basis of pension funding) - which meant that while employees kept on contributing 6% of their salaries, the employer didn't. (There were taxation rules which meant that employers were not allowed, even had they wanted to, to over-fund pension funds beyond what was then deemed necessary). When BT was sold off from the Post Office the government had to indemnify the sale against pension fund default - an indemnity which has just been ratified by the Courts - amazingly for all employees and not just those in employment at the time of privatisation, which had previously been the Government's worst case scenario. So the problems with the Post Office pension fund are absolutely not to be placed at the door of the employees, and probably not even at the door of the management, but were a function of the way that the Post Office was initially nationalised out of the Civil Service.

A lot of businesses (I don't know if TalkTalk is one) 'hire' salespeople, or hire sales firms that hire sales people, often paid just commission, to drum up trade - there was a lot of it about when power and telecoms were first de-regulated. This woman may not therefore be a con woman per se, but a (possibly) unscrupulous but otherwise legitimate sales person. Be particularly wary if you are asked to sign something saying that you have seen them, or heard their offer - it often turns out to be a sales agreement.

I get really angry about how dangerous cars can be and whenever any curbs are put on people's 'freedom' to drive, motorists are up in arms. Cars, lorries etc are lethal weapons and there should be a rethink about whose rights are more important, the driver's, or the rights of other inhabitants of the planet! It is obviously true that half a ton and more of metal, driven at any speed, can be a 'lethal' weapon - however it is also true that not all accidents are caused by drivers - I have no idea what was the proximate cause of this accident, neither, I would guess, does the original writer. In fact drivers' rights are actually no more nor any less than those of 'other inhabitants of the planet'. Care needs to be taken by drivers, as it does by any road user, which includes pedestrians using roads. I learned (and have tried to teach to my children) the concept of 'defensive driving' which, broadly, assumes that the other bloke is an idiot and will cause an accident, so drive with that in mind and don't assume that all road users will act rationally and sensibly. From that also stems the concept of defensive walking, defensive pedalling and so on - that is, treat roads as dangerous places and take care. The same principle applies to fell-walking, mountaineering, kyaking and so on - bad things can happen, so be wary. There are huge advantages to individuals and society in motorised transport - 'turning the clock back' and posts which imply this would be good are simply disengenuous. Read old reports of accidents with horses and horse drawn transport - look at how societies which relied on people power alone for transport and carriage fared against those who didn't. We have to live with drivers and cars. We have to accept that some of these will not be as careful as others, however much we may deplore this and rightly want these motorists properly punished for transgressions. We may have to design roads to make them safer and obviate the excesses of the poor and careless driver, but moaning about the car and the driver as a entire class is a dreadful waste of time.

I have just 'missed' a delivery from the private carrier Hermes (in the sense that a note was pushed through the door, but an adult daughter sitting downstairs heard no attempt to ring/ knock). It's a general problem about delivery individuals (on occasion) not really caring - it's certainly not restricted to Royal Mail staff - neither are these staff always, or even in my experience frequently, at fault. It's hugely annoying when it does happen. If I am expecting a delivery (I wasn't, today) I put a note on the door to urge the driver to 'ring and knock loudly, there is someone in' - this does seem to work. But I can't do that when the delivery is unexpected.

Whereas elsewhere, such as Italy, for instance, drivers have got well-earned reputations for caution and hesitancy.

When I passed the car was taped off - it was partially blocking Barry Road traffic tavelling West (bendy buses will have a problem passing) and making it very difficult to turn west out of Underhill (from either direction). It's front was pretty badly damaged; I suspect it won't be easy to move (isn't towable as far as I could see) so it will need to be winched onto a low loader to be recovered. No obvious sign, thank goodness, of anyone injured - the passenger 'box' looked OK.

In that case, why do so many other people think they're revolting?