Penguin68

You will find that the older and frailer you get, the more wedded you are to driving when the alternative may mean simply not going out at all. You can be frail without being technically disabled, and anyway, for Southwark it would appear that disability is no excuse. I am wedded to driving when, for instance, public transport doesn't go where and when (e.g. late at night, or east: west) I need to go, or takes (e.g. hopper busses travelling east: west locally) up to 5 times and more the journey time of using my car - when you don't have that much life left, wasting it on hopper buses isn't my preferred call. I live {and yes, I live in East Dulwich} a 25 minute walk (for me with hills) from any station, and a 10 minute walk from most useful bus routes (and there aren't buses to some of the places I would want to go). People like me visit me. I am elderly. There are no parking issues where I live, so my equally frail friends can visit, as can people working etc on the house. And yet Southwark plans to make my life far more restricted, for no better reason than that they'd like the money, and don't like people with cars. Or don't care about them enough to consider their needs, or to consider their needs important. I have seen cities (Ljubljana for instance) who have LTNs and CPZs but who also plan in a joined up manner, so they have multi-story car parks (charged) on key roads into their (broadly traffic free) center, good (and free in the zone) public transport, free bikes, intelligent road blocks (automatic access to emergency vehicles, key-code access to service vehicles - plumbers etc.). They have built an integrated system which is thought through and city-wide. Achieved, as I understood, through genuine consultation. Owning a car, and driving it, is not a fundamentally evil thing - although you could hardly tell that by reading some of the posts here. Drivers are not criminals or terrorists or mass murderers (ditto). Cars (particularly electric ones) are not weapons of mass destruction - air quality in London (generally) is much better than it was if still, (in patches, and at times) testing higher than existing targets. The current proposed blanket CPZ in Southwark is a political (and revenue generating) policy and has nothing to do with either quality of life or health issues. Indeed it militates against the first and makes no claim on the second - save if you believe that transport which is privately operated (however 'clean' it is) is inherently more evil and injurious than that publicly operated. Which is an interesting take on a marxist approach - so I suppose no surprises there.

Rubbish. Cars are driven round and round looking for places to park where parking is reduced. Or someone gets out to do something and the car is driven round till they've done it, if there are two people. Try living in the real world where people have to get stuff done.

Oh really... do grow up. The council wants to move to 24/7 CPZs because that way they make way more money - not because motorists will 'breach' the rules - what, by parking ad lib when and where it's legal to do so? In what way is that breaking any rule? What I think CPR Dave was saying is that to maximise revenues, and to 'justify' employing loads of contractors you need to maximise the time they can catch people out and fine them. Herne Hill seems to have no problems with a two-hour window of CPZ - but then theirs was justified on the basis that it actually was aimed at commuters in an area of parking stress. There was an actual (parking) problem and it was actually and effectively addressed, without destroying local trade and livelihood. In the areas where the CPZ is now proposed there is no parking problem. So there is no remedy necessary. So this is just a fiscal land-grab. Oh, and just to remind everyone, parked cars don't pollute. Because they have no current emissions. So clean-air mavens may just as well complain that we have garden walls. And if they're not polluting, and they're not competing for space to park (and if they are not being driven they are not putting anyone else on the road at risk) then the CPZ proposal is actual about envy and greed. So let's have a shout out for that, eh?

Just to annoy - and it is the 'unentitled' marque of car (and their owners) which the ULEZ extension is particularly targeting - modest (working) people with modest cars aren't wanted here. Only the wealthy, with expensive modern cars. You might argue.

With this council, very simply - particularly if they set their agents targets on fines and incentivise on revenue. Which they will.

If it's a permanent structure in a conservation area then I think you will need permission - even though I suspect outside a conservation area you wouldn't. Your objective (secure storage for a bicycle in a non-obtrusive structure) may well be nodded through - it matches the council's own world-view - but if it hasn't had permission then any complaint would necessarily cause the council to take action. That's what a conservation area is there for. And there will be a local prodnose who will choose to complain. My daughter had such a private complaint (for different sorts of work) against her upheld by the council who demanded a huge fee for restoration, until she reminded them that it was their workforce who had done the work, against her advice (as it was a conservation area!) - luckily she had the email audit trail as evidence! In that case the 'works' part of the council were working off different conservation area maps than the conservation department. Not Southwark in this instance.

No, not on roads designated as having pavement parking (there are a handful, typically in very narrow two-way residential roads quite far from any public transport where car ownership may particularly necessary e.g. for elderly or infirm residents ). I recognise this as one of them. Otherwise Southwark officials are particularly keen on booking cars with even part of one tyre on the pavement.

That has certainly been the case for the original (actual parking pressure caused) CPZs. And it would be the most effective revenue earning choice here (which is what this is all about) - but in reality, where there isn't any actual parking pressure having a much wider zone would make perfect sense - so, I suppose, don't expect that. Ideally the council would issue many more permits than in any one (limited) space zone thus guaranteeing more fines! Offering a much higher per diem revenue profile. But actually I don't believe the council has declare any formal decision here. Of course, they will be aiming for as close to 24/7 coverage for the CPZs as they can - but will the extend the time period for existing CPZs to whatever the maximum will be in the bits of Southwark that aren't under parking pressure - as they are so sold on equity? I wonder how well that might do down?

But not to make no provision for expenditure on roads but to use your budget to spend on other things. That's the problem with such hypothecation. It's meant to be additional expenditure, of course, but there's nothing in law to stop it being wholly substitutional. Southwark intends to make the 40-50% of households (more in the south of the borough) with cars pay for the whole of the road and pavements in Southwark. Those without cars still get full and untrammeled use of those roads and pavements of course... What price equity, eh?

The link actually says:- Parisians have voted to rid the streets of the French capital of rental electric scooters, with an overwhelming 90% of votes cast supporting a ban, official results show. ... The ban won between 85.77% and 91.77% of the votes in the 20 Paris districts that published results, according to the City of Paris website on what was billed as a rare “public consultation” and prompted long queues at ballot boxes around the city. The vote was non-binding but city authorities have vowed to follow the result. So - not that different. True, it is still legal, but the authorities have said 'they would follow' the result.

Although I believe, when asked, that a majority of those in the Dulwich LTNs did actually oppose them. As well of those in the surrounding roads. But of course, it wasn't a referendum, just a 'consultation' which didn't come up with the 'right' answer.

I believe the council has just announced that they plan to reduce to 0 minutes (it used to be 5) the 'tolerance' for parking breeches. This, in effect, means that anyone expecting a simple delivery (Amazon, supermarket etc.) will need to buy parking time anywhere in Southwark if the delivery agent is not to risk a £60 fine. Or, in other words, I suspect, it will mean that many carriers will refuse to deliver in Southwark. Oh, and don't expect the Post Office to continue to send out vans with post in them from Peckham, when they won't be able to park-up in SE22 to deliver 'ED' Delivery Office mail. Or even to collect mail from post boxes. Because we know the agents employed to 'police' the new CPZs will be encouraged to fine everyone to generate the revenues the council wants, and they'll go for the easy targets. The - well I was going to say 'unintended' - but of course the council couldn't give a damn - consequences of this disastrous set of council decisions will be dire. And, before anyone weighs in about the environment - whilst environmental intentions may be admirable - it is the actual impact of those which are key. The Aztecs ripped the hearts out of people to ensure the sun rose each day - well it did - but perhaps not as a function of human sacrifice. There is no evidence at all at the moment that the actions of the council have had any net benefical impact on the environment. Oh (just to wind certain people up) - the current suggestions that it is only 'fair' that people in the south of the borough pay for roads as those in existing CPZs do in the north - as has been pointed out on a number of occasions, car ownership in the (very well served by public transport) north of the borough is comparatively low - so there are lots of free loading no-car-owners taking benefit from the roads which they use (buses, taxis, shared usage) without paying a red cent for them, as it is clear that the hypothecated revenues from the car owning community are now, or will be, paying for Southwark's roads. Where's the 'fairness' of that? (as if fairness, rather than a hatred of the kulak class was the driver in our branch of North Korea).

It is targeted at those who are identified as being, or having been, smokers, and who are now aged between 55 and 74. After confirming that you wish to participate (telephone interview) there appear to be 2 possible stages - first (universal) is a telephone triage with a nurse and second, for some, is a CT scan. The scan will be offered where the nurse triage indicates a continued risk of having developed lung cancer where early (and very treatable) signs of cancer can be identified. I suspect that the results of this exercise will form a study, and may also inform future triage question sets. One indicator of not proceeding is where you already have e.g. a CT scan scheduled (for any reason) to limit X-Ray exposure. I'm not sure, where this is so, whether they ask you to come back later.

I have been an active road user (initially cycle) since 1958, but only passed my test in spring of 1967. In that time the number of idiots on the road has increased, as of course have the number of road users. I would estimate that by now only 10% of road users (of all types) are idiots - but of course I don't know which 10%. So driving as if the number is 100% allows me to act cautiously and anticipate, so much as I can, idiocies. The assumption of idiocy, when you are driving, ensures continued caution. It makes me treat other road users with care. Amended to replace 'drivers' with 'other road users' in final sentence.

Cycling, we know, can be dangerous, with poor road conditions (pot holes, ice in winter, standing water during downpours) and (quite often) poor driver behaviour by other road users (particularly large lorries and artics, in my experience). Which is why it astonishes me that some cyclists put themselves at even greater risk by poor road usage themselves (poor or non existent lighting, no signalling, no safety clothing, inappropriate use of pavements, ignoring traffic signals etc.) I was taught (when both driving and cycling) that you should (a) proceed defensively - assume all other road users are idiots and act as if they are out to get you (b) make sure that other road users were clear about your intentions and (c) treat other road users (including pedestrians crossing roads) with courtesy . It is the blithe assumption of (some) cyclists that they are invulnerable - and that if they aren't it's somebody else's fault - that annoys me. And their frequent (again only some cyclists) lack of courtesy to other road users. Schools used to sponsor (some may still do) cycling proficiency courses - maybe parents on this board may wish to encourage the schools their children go to to take this up, if they don't. Proper and safe road practices, properly taught, would be of huge benefit, in my view anyway to road safety locally. There are some things in the non-academic curriculum which could well take a second place to safe road usage.

This is very much what your predecessor did when Covid became a topic de nos jours. However - I hope that threads on e.g. vehicle related crime (theft from or of, vandalistic damage to etc.) will continue on this board, and I also hope that you will allow announcements of unplanned travel disruption (roads closed because of incidents, stations shut, rail lines closed, buses on diversion) to occur here - this is I believe for many the first board viewed and such announcements are there as a public information benefit and not for the purpose of debate.

Where you can, hard wiring using ethernet is the most successful and easy distribution method. You can use your ring main to port the signal using 3 pin ethernet adaptors (they have to be synced into each other). And then wireless for less data speed-critical applications. Link added for illustration, this isn't a recommendation, or not. https://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-Link-TL-PA4022PKIT-2-Ports-Passthrough-Powerline/dp/B07J652QRY/ref=asc_df_B07J652QRY/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310776295886&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=13382404225903241858&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9045890&hvtargid=pla-587909909470&psc=1&th=1&psc=1

Says it all, really. Shouting people down isn't nice, of course, but it demonstrates real levels of unhappiness. If we'd been in France there would have been vehicles set on fire by now, and real riots. It heartens me that people in South Southwark (old Borough of Camberwell) are still sufficiently un-cowed to show their anger at a wholly undemocratic set of actions. When the apparat don't listen, we have to shout harder.

Actually, I believe there are specific rules about placement of fixed speed cameras - which must be properly signed and visible and can only be placed where there have been RTAs where excessive speed has been a contributory factor and/ or I think where 85% of passing traffic is travelling over the statutory limit for the road section. They are there to discourage speeding as a safety measure, not specifically to catch speeding motorists as a revenue generator (which would very much be our council's choice, I'm guessing). People slowing down (in 'dangerous' spots) is their precise aim.

I think you'll find that advisory speed limit notifications are a thing https://www.carbuyer.co.uk/tips-and-advice/166095/what-is-the-national-speed-limit#:~:text=The ones that flash in,enforceable speed limits per se.

There are specific rules about where and when speed cameras are allowed, based around the number of incidents - and their seriousness (and they have to have been identified as being caused by excess speed) and the %age of people travelling over the permitted maximum speed (85% I believe). They can't (or shouldn't) be randomly plonked down or moved. Some speed indicators are advisory, not statutory.

Brenchley Gardens already has a speed camera, placed in a good position to catch speeding drivers. You are right that people speed there, but that camera seems inactive at times. It is not just the presence of cameras but how they are managed which is key. Brenchley arguably has a different risk profile from heavily built up residential streets.

I think it's not so much manufacture as tuning. Many (most?) engines can be retuned to drive 'comfortably' at 20mph. Though proper tuning is a non trivial exercise. Sorry, but that's rubbish. My 'average speed' in London is somewhere between 10 and 11 mph (I have an 'app on my car which notes this). But I do go well over 20 mph on e.g. the South Circular which has a 30 mph limit for much of it. You need absolute speed cameras on the relatively short London roads to catch those exceeding 20mph in residential areas. Average speed cameras are only effective for quite long stretches of road (miles) where traffic is not constantly stopping or turning.

When I was working in this area (Road pricing) as part of a national plan it was always understood that road pricing would be a substitute for Vehicle Tax, and thus a tax on usage, not ownership. This will inevitably be in addition to that, which is an entirely different proposition. We may expect to see, as car owners in an area acknowledged as being relatively poorly served by public transport (poor PTAL score) to be charged for the miles we drive, the roads we park in, entering Central London (congestion Charge) and having old vehicles (ULEZ). AND charged through Road Tax for ownership. On a (not entirely different note) figures published today suggest that London (as regards CO2 emissions per capita) is the area which contributes least to anthropogenic global warming per capita in the UK (and almost half the per capita contribution of Northern Ireland, the worst contributor). Not that you'd have guessed that by the noises being made.

Openreach has been pulling fibre around much of ED to local ducts and poles - I suspect BT/ EE (the retail arm of the BT Group) will be trying to sell full fibre (FTTP) to customers - you might expect other retailers who use Openreach as a wholesaler to be doing similar.