Penguin68

I would guess sufficiently few that they travel singly and not in groups, as a start. Their recruitment was based on 100% CPZ in Southwark, which they now don't have and are unlikely to get at least in the 3 southernmost wards. For the forseeable future.

And it's so near Christmas - when pressures are on people. Parking offences are, frankly, victimless 'crimes' - so creating Christmas victims to met a budget overspend fuelled by hubris is exactly what we might expect this council, who despises us, to do.

Oh, come on - this thread is about "Local travel related questions and issues - trains, buses, cycling, LTNs, CPZs etc..." - I know you have managed to derail it from 'General ED issues' in your attempt to get the whole topic of local traffic lounged - but this surely is a step too far, even for the Southwark Council fan club?

When Helen Hayes has written on my behalf I have received large amounts of undelivered mail - but then the service has again deteriorated. Letters from MPs are treated as urgent (historically, pre-privatisation, they might. if ignored, end in a PQ (Parliamentary Question) which nobody wanted - and that is still a mind-set in the Chairman's Office. Letters from councillors are ignored.

Your arguments about kinetic energy are simply stupid. If a bike travelling at 30mph hits an oncoming car travelling legally at 20mph the combined speed will by 50mph. The car and its driver will emerge unscathed, not so the bike rider. Additionally, and here you are quite right, bikes riders tend to damage less than they are damaged. Which would suggest that the careful and wary bike rider would adhere as much as possible to the normally accepted 'rules of the road' - like matching traffic speeds where mandated, like signalling, like having lights on etc. I am far less at risk of an injury in a modern car, yet I still drive defensively - assuming the other B is out to get me - yet a minority, and on some roads that's still quite a large number, of bike riders ride as if they were invulnerable - perhaps a mindset of 'the rules don't effect me' is partly to blame.

Slightly under 30k killed or seriously injured in 2022, and of those around 1500 actually killed. Both figures down by 3% since 2019 (pre pandemic). Still too many, of course.

And for many privatisations the current beneficial owners will have leveraged debt, loading up the company bought with debt which is costly to manage (to the privatised company) whilst taking revenues as dividends. I'm not sure of Royal Mail's indebtedness - but that's absolutely the route to riches for e.g. privatised water company owners. On the original topic of the thread, I've had no normal post delivery since 29th November (previously I was getting 3-4 deliveries a week in the south end of Underhill). Nothing yet in December, which sets fair to be a repeat of last year, when I received 5 cards before Christmas and around 70 afterwards, deliveries dribbling to a close in early February. Oh, and periodicals were also a month and a half late - Christmas editions are fairly pointless at the end of January! Forget about a Universal Service Obligation - an any service obligation (in exchange for the exorbitant stamps) would be nice. The un-privatised Royal Mail managed to make 3-4 deliveries a day over Christmas (including Sundays) for the princely sum of 2.5d (not p) an item, if unsealed, when I was young(er). And still, I believe, was solvent.

For most privatisations the money goes to HMG - who is selling the asset on 'our' behalf. It's not like an IPO. But a significant amount of money I believe was subsequently taken by the (new) shareholders out of the company (as dividends).

As even the 'experts' admit that the measurent system of traffic was flawed, being positioned such that slow moving traffic didn't register, and we know that proper 'before' measures weren't made across all the relevant routes this '"conclusion' is fatally flawed.

That certainly would explain a short term need. But this will take time to build. Surely the Halls of Residence issue will be sorted before the student rooms are available here?

Other than Kings Hospital there are no (close) university or tertiary teaching sites close by - is this the best place for student accommodation given demands locally for long-term housing for e.g. families? Southwark is finding places for the homeless in Croydon - could they not use this sort of development for places closer? I know that these sort of tenants are not nice little earners for developers, but maybe a site such as this should be considered for council intervention. I am all for more housing locally, but I am not sure that a need for student housing locally trumps other housing needs. Students moving away from home to study won't necessarily free up space where they have left from (they may return home during and after their studies, ours did) - indeed graduates back living at home because they can't find anywhere else to live is a story of our times. It's not the building I object to, we need more housing, it is the intended use of that building I feel is problematic.

Sorry, hadn't picked up on that. I'm amazed that Wandsworth would have launched a scheme so swiftly identified as illegal.

Whilst it is true that speeding offences have traditionally been the purview of the Met, Wandsworth is running its own speeding cameras, as a trial, and councils have always been able to put up 'advisory' signs which flash when speeds are exceeded, even though these don't have powers to fine. Southwark could do the same if it wanted.

You are excused!!!

Why are you always looking for a fight? - that really is the mark of the troll. Speeding on Barry Road has long been a problem, which simply setting a 20mph limit has not addressed. Residents/ those using the road as motorists or pedestrians or cyclists have asked for a number of additional measures, including speed cameras, and these have all been turned back by Southwark/ TFL (it's a bus route so they have some say). Either Southwark does wholly manage Barry Road, in which case problems are all theirs, or it's also a TFL issue (it is a road with a number) - either which way pointing out that it has long been a problem, which isn't resolved (as a later sarky white van man comment supports) is simply factual. Nobody that I have read on these pages has suggested that 20mph for Barry Road is not an appropriate speed limit, nor that it shouldn't be observed/ policed. But it isn't (either). Are you such a supporter of Southwark Council that you will brook no criticism of them under any circumstances? A Council which isn't even 'yours'. What devotion!

The actual thread was initially about living in Barry - this was hijacked to make it about traffic. - Oh, and the Barry Road Race referenced by Malumbu was actually a thing - it was a pedestrian race in Barry Road, in the old days when we weren't a divided community.

The reason for speeding in Barry is two-fold - the first is the actual topography of the road - it is straight and downhill which encourages speed, even on person-powered two wheelers as they pick up speed heading towards The Rye - and the second is the resistance of TFL to anything which stops the progress of their buses, so many types of speed restriction are reduced or resisted. Long before Southwark bothered themselves with traffic issues local people have been complaining of safety issues around Barry, to absolutely no (or very little) avail. Indeed some of the build-outs have made the situation, regarding safety, actually worse.

This must be understood in the context of the council's additional stated desire to 'drive out private car ownership' from Southwark. So presumably intending to draw revenues in future from non-Southwark residents who have the misfortune of crossing the borough's borders in their cars. Not much chance of doing so through the ever truncated public transport services of course. Or maybe their thinking isn't really joined up?

I can now access 'through' my VPN. If that wasn't just Cloudflare correcting itself, thanks. Cross posted. Yes, what you did worked. Thank you.

My phone is protected through using Nord VPN - this morning Cloudflare blocked my attempts to log-in - and immediately allowed them as soon as I had 'paused' my VPN. Normally this isn't a problem. There used to be a board to report e.g. technical issues, but as that now seems unavailable I have posted (quite inappropriately) here. Do you have an issue - clearly VPN use is generally a far safer option than e.g. using unknown or public WiFi?

Thank you. That's my end but he probably wasn't in my block. Just checking whether and what I need to check in my garden.

Which end of Underhill?

Remember too that they plan to destroy trees in the park so that contractors can put in more drainage, the trees don't have to be removed for the drainage scheme but it makes it easier (cheaper) for the contractors. The improved drainage is to make the site more sellable to events. Let's just stamp out ugly trees if there's a profit in it. Think on that next time the council pleads their actions are about 'saving the planet',or being eco friendly.

I believe it was Queen Mary (formerly Princess May of Teck) who was enamoured of the park.

Because of discussion on this (and the related CPZ thread which purports to be in favour) I thought some clarity is needed. 1. CPZs have nothing to do with climate change or pollution, or the avoidance thereof. Legislation which allows Councils to introduce CPZs does so in cases where there are parking pressures such that local residents are unable to park near their properties, and where residents show themselves in favour of such measures. Charges for administering of such schemes (cost recovery) can be charged to residents who get the benefit of being able to park;, should there be any surpluses (not an object of such a scheme) they can only be used to benefit local roads and road users. There is no legal right for Councils to create such schemes for revenue generation, only for the benefit of local residents under parking pressure. Had the recent blanket proposals gone to court (where Southwark was pretty clear that this was revenue generation motivated) it was possible that a ruling would have declared all of Southwark's schemes illegal on the back of their declared objectives this time round. The lack of real consultation, including the opportunity to say 'no' won't have helped either. 2. Suggestions that parked vehicles in some way add to climate pressures or poor air quality is of course madness. If a vehicle is parked it is (outwith 'costs' of manufacture), inert climate or pollution wise. Indeed, other vehicles driving round to find parking spots (which have otherwise been denied it) are actually polluting. I suspect (I do not know) that Southwark's legal advice based on the case already being made against them was sufficient to warn them away from this blanket scheme in its entirety. They are face saving by putting forward more limited schemes which might get local approval, hoping that they can cascade parking pressure, a lost cause I think for Dulwich Hill (where I live) which has no 'destination' - such as a station, that people would like to park near.