Penguin68

There's also a question in mind that if everyone gets electric cars then the government will get VAT on electricity plus under this proposal a payment per mile driven thus taxing drivers twice No changes from the position with petrol and diesel cars where government gets fuel duty and VAT. In fact, as HMG also taxes car ownership outwith use (vehicle excise duty) government will be taxing motorists through 3 routes, not just two. Unless they change the tax structure. Since cyclists and pedestrians want more and more road space for their exclusive use, perhaps they could be charged as well - or do motorists have to pay not to have access to roads - which indeed they are effectively doing on LTNs.

Just to make things clear - even before the recent changes I had right of way, as a pedestrian, at a zebra crossing. I did not exercise that 'right' until I had ascertained that the oncoming motorists had seen me and had reacted to that (forget about cyclists, for whom too many acted as if that 'rule' did not apply to them). I was not so stupid as to believe that stepping off into a road at a zebra crossing would automatically preserve my life or limb because I was 'in the right'. I already see too many taking no notice of road conditions (i.e. by looking at phones etc.) before stepping into the road. The new Highway Code revisions do not paint a force field around pedestrians to make them invulnerable to traffic. Forget about the blame game, if they step in front of traffic that is still moving they will likely be hurt. I would rather not be hurt than have the posthumous satisfaction of a driver being convicted of dangerous driving by 'breaking' the new code.

I believe that these rules are incredibly dangerous, if they encourage cyclists and pedestrians (and indeed horse riders) to assume that every other road user will be wholly wary of their existence. When I learned to drive (55 years ago, when road traffic usage was lighter, but drink driving laws hadn't been introduced with mandatory levels of sobriety) I was taught 'defensive driving' - i.e. drive with the assumption that every other road user is an idiot. That included, but wasn't limited to 'don't believe a signal until the driver has committed to the action being signalled'. I see pedestrians regularly cross Lordship Lane in the daytime (when traffic is heavy) walking a long diagonal (to remain on the road as long as possible, and with their back to oncoming traffic) - wholly reliant on drivers seeing them (because they can't see the drivers). Also people close to, but not at, zebra crossings, suddenly darting in front of traffic that might reasonably assume that they would use the crossing if wishing to cross the road. Remove responsibility for their own safety from any road user and pretty soon we will be into an anarchic situation. While the concept of hierarchies of vulnerability is logically sensible I'm afraid that this will translate into 'it isn't my fault, it's yours - my 'rights' trump my own sense of personal vulnerability and care'. And new drivers will carry that mind-set into their own car use. If you train yourself not to care about or consider other road users - because you are cock of the vulnerability walk - how will you re-train yourself if you move up (or is it down?) the vulnerability scale?

She was right, dead right, as she walked along But now she's as dead as if she'd been dead wrong! Natural selection works slow, but thorough

Late into this I know, but I have a relative by marriage who is quite far along 'the spectrum' and has almost no filter - she is likely to express opinions which sound (but which are not meant) as intrusive and personal. I can quite imagine that someone who is sensitive could well respond very badly to hearing her, even though the last thing she would want to do is offend; she just doesn't realise when she is doing so. So whilst there are certainly people out there who are intentionally rude and offensive there are also those who come across as such, but quite unintentionally. The 'problem' is theirs, and not those they have offended. The original remark recorded may very well have been intentionally unpleasant, but I can also hear my relative saying it without any intent to offend, but simply as a thought she has voiced out aloud, probably without even really realising it.

I was told by my postie yesterday that my 'walk' had now cleared its backlog, let us hope further problems don't arise. The reductions in times needed to isolate for Covid once symptoms and tests are clear must be a positive step regarding staffing levels.

Before the delivery office moved to Peckham, there might have been the occasional item "lost in the post". In fact for several months before the final DO closure the service from Sylvester Road was deteriorating - as staff moved on and weren't replaced. Cover for sickness, leave and rest days was already lapsing. So the 'crew' that eventually did move to Highshore road as the SE22 DO were already depleted - I imagine it was hoped to back fill vacancies (or at least cover them) from the original Peckham DO staff, but I suspect many did not want to move onto walks which required them to drive out to East Dulwich - cutting them off from the normal DO facilities (such as lavatories). So they have remained as two separate DOs working out of one site. And not helping each other. Unionisation is still comparatively strong in the Royal Mail, so management directives to work together (if not covered by agreements) would be ignored.

I wonder what the function of the managers actually is, if they are ineffectual. Post-people are most likely to 'know' first and 2nd line managers (those actually directing them). Their roles will be allocating work, work-rostas, coverage and so on. Also immediate disciplinary matters. And probably involved with recruitment and needs for casuals, although authorisation is likely to be at more senior levels. Overall tactical management will be at third line and above, who will not (perhaps) be much involved in day-to-day management. Strategic management will be at regional level. It was initially a failure of strategic management (involved in closure decisions for Sylvester Road and transfer of work to Highshore Road) which started this mess, I'm guessing. First and second line managers may be being identified as 'ineffectual' because they can't get more senior managers engaged in problem solving; authority for which probably doesn't lie with them (the junior management). You only see that your managers can't solve the problem, not that the blockage may be higher up.

Now the coronavirus crisis has all but finished. Obviously. I'm sorry, but it really hasn't. Cases are still very high (much higher than in the summer following Delta) and the 'new' Omicron variant may be less deadly (to a triple jabbed population) but is still very dangerous for the unvaccinated and clinically vulnerable. And almost certainly won't be the last variant on the block. Certainly I know very many more people personally (close friends and family) who have caught it this time round, even if only one was severely ill (but wasn't hospitalised). We now know far more about when people may be most infectious, and how infections spread (close contact, unventilated, indoors) so that many of the past restrictions are no longer so necessary - but it still makes a great deal of sense, if you are symptomatic, to test (lateral flow) and if you aren't, but have been close to someone who has tested positive, to test yourself if you are likely to be in 'vulnerable' situations (particularly indoors and spending time with someone). So having lateral flows available is still a very good thing.

15 items of post today (our regular postie is back) including 4 Christmas cards. No cards yet for 2 January birthdays. Royal Mail is reported to be sacking 700 managers as a cost saving exercise. Glad they're focused on priorities.

We do need to distinguish between those who are anti-LTN as a matter of principle and those who believe that (1) the specific LTN actions in ED have been very sub-optimal - in terms at least of reducing pollution in areas where the most vulnerable are based and/ or (2) that the council's high handed approach, ignoring and belittling local opinion has been inappropriate. Subscribing to either/ both (1) and (2) opinions might be sufficient to vote against incumbent councillors in the upcoming elections without placing you in a 'anti-LTN come what may' box. The good news is that respondents to these threads (and pro-LTN activists) who do not live in the wards concerned will not have a vote in these elections. Neither of course will the antis who are not local residents.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Update on Wood Vale traffic calming measures > > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryH > ome.aspx?IId=50026426 This is an extraordinary document, not least in its failure to note at the start that not only are there two Southwark wards effected, but that the East Side of Wood Vale is in Lewisham.

Pointlessly ,but out of curiosity,I'd like to know more about the sorting process and at what stage items are franked . I believe that franking is part of the automated sorting process, so will take place at the first point of aggregation/ sorting of collected mail (business mail may be franked at source). The only unfranked mail that you receive where the fault may lie locally will be that posted locally - i.e. I believe that which in our case goes to the Croydon Sorting Office (remember SOs are different from the Delivery Offices (DOs) where our problems lie).

What Loki286 writes is entirely consistent with what my local posties are saying, which suggests that he/ she is writing from an informed position. This does seem to be a failure of local management, and it is not surprising that they are hiding under the cloak of Covid - and probably hiding their failure as much as they can from Head Office. That the failure was precipitated by the closure of Sylvester Road - and the lack of capacity locally to move the work effectively - may be a function of Head Office cost requirements, but equally Sylvester Road had been identified, both by management and unions, as being well past its sell-by-date both in terms of coping with changed postal usage (more parcels, fewer letters) and in terms of staff facilities there - which were as Victorian as its design. It now appears, from press reports, that the Regulator (now Ofcom) is at least aware that there are issues, although I suspect they will be looking more closely at the general failures of delivery over the last few months; but the concentration of problems in London have not gone unnoticed, and local/ regional management may still get focused on (fingers crossed). Helen Hayes at least is aware that the problems locally well pre-date Covid, and will have the documented evidence to support that.

I've now had (yesterday) my missing 'Christmas' magazine issue, 2 letters dated 21st November and some 'current' mail. So it does look as though they are delivering current plus a selection of backlog mail. And seem to be getting down to the bottom, as far as my mail is concerned - unless they are starting from there for their catch-up. They did employ casuals over Christmas (not enough, evidently) but the old habit of employing teenagers for Christmas post has long gone - when they stopped 4 Christmas deliveries a day, and Sunday delivery, those casuals went.

I am getting a mixture of very old stuff and up to date mail - it feels as if they are getting out current mail and a bit of the back log - when they are delivering, together with parcels (inc. lateral flow kits). To be honest, if I'm right, this does seem a logical prioritization. The oldest stuff is already very much past its sell by date - and almost just of historical interest. Once Christmas is passed, cards are always going to be annoyingly late, however late they actually are. The only thing I now know I'm missing is a 'Christmas' issue of a periodical. The rest is probably catalogues. And some thank-you cards I might have expected to get.

Actually, the process could be far more simple. Diversion signs where the road is blocked (or where it's convenient to do so and switching off the cameras pro-tem would allow traffic to be diverted - although if through areas with planters these would need to be moved out of the way. There is no need to change traffic orders etc. - a road blockage is normally allowed to trump these where necessary to allow free(er) flow of traffic, which would include emergency vehicles. Any authority worth its salt would do this, even where the blocked road was not in its technical jurisdiction (as the South Circular isn't). Southwark once again shows that it despises its electorate (and its tax payers). And Dulwich local councillors show that they share the Council's views wholeheartedly. They do not represent us - they represent the apparat to us. They are not our local councillors, they are Tooley Street's. We don't have councillors. Amended to add - What happens to ULEZ where innocent drivers are forced into the ULEZ zone because the boundary road is closed? Is this another nice little earner for City Hall?

I've had no deliveries at all this week - neither I think has anyone on my walk. If a postie is away then he/ she is not covered any longer. This shambles much pre-dates Covid, but of course is exacerbated by it. When the Sylvester Road DO was closed a number of staff did not transfer/ did not want to transfer to Peckham. The local management clearly thought they could get away with employing fewer staff and failed to recruit back to establishment. Once Covid did strike- and so many staff were either ill or isolating - they had no chance of offering an effective service. And made little attempt to try. I have found no post-people (actually walking the streets) to be anything other than helpful - but they have been hard-worked and are not responsible for sorting out the management's mess. I note from FB that the local labour party is trying to get into the act - running some sort of poll (don't trust it, based on their past 'polling' record)- probably an attempt to refocus local ire away from LTNs. The key thing is to separate the Covid-woes (which Royal Mail will pray-in-aid as much as they can) from the problems which pre-date it and are simply made worse by it. This is a management cock-up (probably at local level) but it means the Royal Mail locally is failing (and has been failing) its QOS requirements. Its failure to meet its Universal Service Obligation locally has been longstanding and egregious. This is an issue for local councillors and our MP to take-up with the regulator. Routes for remedy with the Royal Mail itself have resulted in some partial action (normally to find and deliver post in the name of a formal complainant, as in my case a year or so ago) but no long-term remedies have been put into place, nor is there any evidence of attempts to do so.

We need to go out of Southwark to post them - any idea which area is better? The 'mail centres' (sorting offices) in SE England are Croydon, Gatwick (Crawley), Greenford, Home Counties North (Hemel Hempstead), Jubilee (Hounslow), Medway (Rochester), London Central (Mount Pleasant). I think, as we are 'inner London' that our post goes to Mount Pleasant (although I suppose it might be Croydon). Post from Pillar boxes, Post Offices (including sub post offices) and businesses with a contract with Royal Mail are collected and brought together to the Mail Centres, for initial sorting. There is no evidence that the problems with individual Delivery Offices have spilled over to the mail collection service. If you are worried I would suggest taking mail to pillar boxes outside (or in the wall of) Post Offices, where regular collections are most likely (these are the priority boxes which Covid PCR Tests can be posted in).

This is a much cheaper and easier way to reduce your energy bills, especially in Victorian properties. Most Victorian (and Edwardian) properties are single skin (no cavity for cavity wall insulation)- so not that easy to insulate walls, and too much 'draft proofing' may well lead to undue levels of condensation. Draft proofing and then inserting air bricks to reduce condensation is a very round-about way of getting things done. Much of the local housing stock is not (in terms of its build) optimised around achieving zero carbon.

The trees were all being collected along Underhill this morning, by the normal kitchen/ garden waste crew - but they do, I believe, have to go back to the depot more frequently as their truck fills up far more quickly where the trees are left out whole. The 'rules' say that they collect whole trees under 6ft, but over 6ft the householder should cut them to leave pieces less than 6ft. They do advise those with garden waste contracts to cut their trees to fit into the brown bins, but (apart from me) I don't see many do that. Wooden ring 'stands' should also be removed. Last week the crew was a day late in collecting in Underhill, but this week they've been very prompt. Locally I can't see there's a problem.

I do object the very idea of the LTN as it had made my life much worst - more traffic, more pollution, more noise in front of my home. No, you are objecting to a specific LTN - the one that diverts traffic passed you. Not to the very idea of LTNs - everyone else of which does not impact your home at all. If you said it made everyone else's life worse (which you don't, and which it would be difficult to substantiate) that would be objecting to the 'very idea' of LTNs.

I see the whole area covered by the sorting office is now described as SE22. No, you see the whole area covered by the DO (Delivery Office) now described as SE22. Yes, by Royal Mail, and correctly. The ED DO was moved to Peckham, but remains the ED DO. The two work forces (and work) are separate. Delivery problems are for us in SE22 - the Peckham side is working, if not well, at least sufficiently better that deliveries to that postcode are not identified as current blackspots. [Delivery Offices and Sorting Offices are different - posted mail goes initially to Sorting Offices - mail which has been processed goes finally to Delivery Offices for final distribution to customers]. The problems for ED (SE22) deliveries started well before Covid (indeed before Sylvester Road was even closed, as the workforce was run down) - so the petition is appropriate as identifying a specific, non Covid and non seasonal problem, even if it has worsened recently linked to Covid.

It is clear there are a fair number of people that object to the LTNs. Just for the record, objecting to the specific LTNs imposed on East Dulwich and objecting to the principal of LTNs is not the same thing. And Councils maintaining some LTNs whilst substantially changing or removing others (following trial and requests for feedback) is not the same class of activity as Southwark making very minor changes, but otherwise maintaining all their LTNs - which I believe they have done, at least as they impact us in ED - outwith and ignoring any local feedback which doesn't fit in with their plans. The principal of lower traffic neighbourhoods, where for instance traffic is diverted from passing schools or neighbourhoods where previously there has been very high level of particulate pollution leading to lowered health outcomes, is very different from LTNs which divert traffic away from leafy areas of the borough and towards schools. People who object to specific LTNs should not, necessarily, be pilloried as those wholly against alleviating traffic caused health issues. Walking or cycling may contribute to personal health regimes (for those fit enough to walk or cycle) but encouraging personal fitness is very different from litigating against the alternative - which LTNs may well do.

I am simply going on what I was told, that there was a pay differential between being based in Sylvester Road and Highshore Road. Southwark certainly counts as an inner London Borough, although I suspect Camberwell might not have, before they were joined. We're clearly at the very fringes of 'inner London' in ED.