DulwichLondoner

Has anyone used Roberts & Denny's for a removal? In the past we used Harradines and were happy with them. Howeverm Roberts & Denny's quote is quite a bit lower, so I was wondering if anyone has used them. Please understand, if you have only just registered to the forum I will ignore your feedback, as the odds that your 'review' is a fake is simply too high. Thanks!

Me too, but a paddling pool is open in Brockwell park, which seems odd

Does any one know if the kids paddling pool in Ruskin park and the water play section of the Peckham Rye park are open? Thanks!

That's interesting. I have, in fact, often wondered if we have too many minicabs, and if reducing the number wouldn't improve congestion and pollution, especially in zone 1. Minicabs are currently exempt from the congestion charge - whereas in fact they should pay a much higher congestion charge than an ordinary car, I'd think.

lilolil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps someone on > the forum can enlighten me... > Why, when I didn't have a polling card and only > gave my name and address was I not asked for > identification?? The tricky part is: if you wanted to ask for ID, what identification would you even ask for, in a country in which there is no compulsory form of ID? Passports and driving licences would presumably be accepted. But what about those people who have neither? Plus driving licences do not show citizenship. If you think of it, this (the lack of compulsory ID and lack of a population register) is the key reason behind the Windrush scandal, which could have NEVER happened in most countries in continental Europe, as they tend to have compulsory ID and a population register, often listing whether you are a citizen or a foreign resident in the country. In fact, how do you even prove citizenship without holding a passport? Windrush has shown that, in many cases, you don't - indeed British citizens were deported illegally! It's also why foreign parents (especially European) of children born here and entitled to British citizenship are strongly advised to apply for a British passport straight away, since proving the settled status of the parents, which entitles the children to citizenship, can be hard if not impossible if done many years after birth.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do understand the point you are trying to make > DL If you did, you would have admitted from the beginning that leave vs remain was never a binary choice >but there really is no point in going over old > ground and as a dogmatic remainer you wouldn?t > listen anyway as your examples have shown. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!!! > > After three excruciating years and an inflexible > EU, Inflexible EU? the EU has been adamant and consistent from the very beginning! The EU is a club with its own rules/ Don't like them? Fine, leave. But don't expect the EU to give you the benefits of staying in without the obligations! > Britain is faced with 3 choices > > A) Leave on Brino terms (worse off than staying > in) > B) Leave on WTO terms (and the Irish border is now > the EU?s problem) > C) Revoke Article 50 and risk civil war > > B is now looking the most likely option given the > chaos in Parliament I may be mistaken, but I seem to remember the current parliament does not want a no-deal Brexit. Also, having a border in Ireland would very much be a British problem, too Sure, there may be a snap election and the parliamentary arithmetics may change, who knows. If B happens, it will be interesting to see how Brexiters will explain the chaos that will follow. Eg all those who export to the EU, what will happen to them?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is the question you are trying to ask DL? > > If it is ?Do you want to stay here or leave here?? > It is a simple binary choice. How can it not be? > > If more people want to leave than stay then there > is a majority for leave. > > Simple if you think about it. A Brexiter who doesn't answer explicit, direct questions. Why am I not surprised? How do you implement "leave" if the leavers cannot reach an agreement on where to go? If all leavers said "fine, go wherever, it doesn't matter, as long as we go somewhere" then OK, but that's not what they have been saying. They cannot reach an agreement on what leave should mean! Again: if 48 want to stay put, 26 want to go to Manchester and 26 to Brighton, how do you turn the desire to go somewhere else into action?

ashleywlkr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was very nearly injured yesterday when a BMW > sped past my drive as I was pulling out in my car. > he was travelling in excess of 50/60mph. Sorry to hear that. However, that has little to do with 20 mph. A reckless driver will continue to be reckless regardless of speed limits. In fact, the most sensible argument I can think of for 20mph limits is that, maybe, with 30mph limits many people may speed up to 4, so with 20mph many people may speed up to 30... What is the tolerance for speed tickets? On many analog speedometers it is virtually impossible to distinguish 20 vs, say, 22 mph; would 22 mph in a 20 zone mean a ticket? Possibly points on the licence?

keano77 Wrote: > > Depends what the question was. If the question was > binary, ie do you want to stay put or not stay > put, then not stay put won. Are you serious? Are you in bad faith or do you genuinely fail to see the flaw in your reasoning? How do you implement the "going elsewhere" option, if there is no agreement on where we should go? PLEASE EXPLAIN!!!

exdulwicher Wrote: > > At no point in any of the previous 3 pages have I > specifically said "I am in favour of them". exdulwicher, I confused you with the other user who replied "says me". I apologise!

One has to love the Brexiter's logic, and their insistence in repeating the same old drivel while refusing to answer very clear questions. Was leave vs remain ever a binary choice? Yes or no? Can leave mean multiple, incompatible things, yes or no? Have Brexiters reached an agreement, 3 years on, on what leave should mean, yes or no? Is Brexiters' utter failure to agree with each other on the meaning of Brexit the Remainers' fault, yes or no? If you think your comparison about watering down alcoholic drinks was funny, it wasn't. The fact remains it was not a binary choice. Period. On what planet is "something other than the first option, even though we cannot agree what this something else should be" a feasible option? If 48 want to stay put, 26 want to go to Brighton and 26 to Manchester, what does the majority support? To go somewhere else even if there is no agreement on where??

So you are in favour of 20mph limits even though you have no idea: if they really reduce accidents (the DfT report says the evidence is inconclusive) what the environmental impact of longer journeys is if that money could have been spent elsewhere (eg improving roads / potholes /new road layouts). Remind me, then, WHY are you in favour of the 20mph limits?? What's your thought process?

JohnL Wrote: > > https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/kings-colle > ge-london-probe-after-senior-lecturer-in-mental-he > alth-filmed-poking-remain-campaigner-a4149331.html That kind of behaviour cannot and shouldn't be tolerated. Why should it be OK to shout insults at someone who disagrees with you? And this is regardless of who the victim is - the idiots who shouted abuse at his children saying things like "your daddy is a horrible person" are no better than this guy

The fact that the average journey is short is a technically true but practically often irrelevant piece of information the cycle lobby loves to spit out whenever it can, typically to claim that more people should use pushbikes and that therefore more road space should be given to bikes. That?s total complete utter nonsense. A TFL report on the topic also said that, surprise surprise, both car ownership and car usage were much lower in inner vs outer London. If you live in certain parts of zones 3-6, or of Surrey/Kent, just inside or just outside the M25, you often need the car even only to go to the supermarket, or to take kids to school, or to go to the train station. You often don?t have an alternative. If you live in zone 1 and take the car everywhere, by all means, that kind of use should be penalised, but just looking at the average journey, as if it were representative, is totally misleading. Back to your point. First of all I said from the beginning that, at rush hour, I would expect 20mph limits to make little to no difference. You seem to focus on the little inconvenience that would probably derive from lower limits. I was trying to focus on the environmental impact. Yes, if our journeys only take a few minutes more it?s not the end of the world. But how much is that in %? If every journey outside of rush hour takes, say, 20-30% longer, that?s car engines being on and polluting for 20-30% more time. What is the environmental impact of that? I do not know, but I think this point should have been addressed before rolling out 20mph limits eft right and centre. Sadly, it wasn?t. The inconvenience is probably for those drivers that need to drive, outside rush hour, longer-than-average routes that must pass through the centre of London, e.g. many east to west or south to north routes. Think of all kinds of vans, delivery vehicles, HGVs, etc. I am not of these drivers, but, if I were, I?d be furious.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Beautifully put DF. > > To use some Remainer logic (sic) if Man City and > Liverpool both win tomorrow and City get 98 points > to Liverpool?s 97, City should not be crowned > Champions because of the narrow majority and > because Liverpool fans won?t like the result. You are forgetting that remain vs leave was never a binary choice, because leave can mean vary different, incompatible things. It is not Remainers' fault if, 3 years after the referendum, Brexiters still cannot agree on what leave is to mean! Is it hard Brexit? Norway? Canada? Switzerland? May's deal? BRINO (Brexit in name only)? In fact, the option which did win the majority was to remain! If 48 people want water, 26 want beer and 26 want wine, yes, a majority wants some booze, but they can't agree what booze, and the option with the majority is, in fact, water!!!

renard Wrote: > It's a report on the impact of their > implementations in these area (the 20mph > signposts)- Of course - that's the whole point of the study! >it's not a safety study of the actual > speed (of course 20mph is safer!). Yes, that is banally self-evident. It is also NOT the point. Yes, being hit at 20mph is better than being hit at 30mph. And being hit at 10 is better than being hit at 20. So where do we set the limit and why? 10? 15? 20? 25? 30? The answer to this question should be based on a study like the DfT's one, which looks at the situation as a whole. How many accidents are caused by speeds > 30mph? Clearly all the accidents caused by drunk driving, by cars reversing, or any low-speed accident would not be affected by the speed limit. What are the key factors determining accidents? Is it just speed? Road quality (eg potholes)? Road layout? Are there any downsides to 20mph limits? Are pedestrians incentivised to cross like suicidal idiots if the limit is 20mph? What is the environmental impact of cars going slower and journeys taking longer (at least outside of rush hour)? A study on this is underway and should be completed next year, as the DfT report mentions. How much does it cost to introduce 20mph limits? How else could that money have been spent and which is the best use of that money? I do not have the answers to all these questions. But I think we need them before deciding what to do. Otherwise it's just blind ideology with no connection whatsoever to facts and evidence.

exdulwicher Wrote: > You don't count the number of people swimming > across the river before you decide whether or not > to build a bridge over it - it's fairly self > evident that building a bridge will lead to more > people crossing the river. Totally irrelevant comparison. Cycle lanes are not about building new roads instead of unused land. They are about diverting existing roads away from buses (remember, many bus lanes were removed!) and other road users to make way for bicycles. > As a rough general rule, efficient transport > systems often look empty. Even at traffic lights? > Cycle lanes often look empty compared to a road > becasue cyclists are smaller than cars and because > they move far more efficiently, they just flow > better. > Therefore the system looks quieter. I can tell the difference between heavily used cycle lanes during rush hour, and mostly deserted cycle lanes outside of rush hour. How many passengers fit on a double decker bus? 80 to 90? How much space is occupied by a double decker bus vs by 90 pushbikes? Removing bus lanes to make way for cycle lanes means more congestion and more pollution. That's idiotic! > about 70% of the people movements (note PEOPLE, > not VEHICLES) is pedestrian and cyclist at peak > times yet the pavements and bike lanes don't look > as busy as the carriageway. Another totally irrelevant comparison. Start by taking pedestrians out of the equation. They have nothing to do with this. The point is: what is the best use of the limited road space we have? Is it cycle lanes or not? You see, I am not saying that I know for certain that cycle lanes are a bad use of that space. I get that impression, but I don't know for certain. My point is that, before rolling out more and more cycle lanes, this should have been measured, both during and outside rush hour. It wouldn't have been hard to do, yet it wasn't done. Why??? > > And in terms of cost benefit - cycle lanes are ? > for ? the most efficient and best value thing a > city can build: > https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-br > iefings/cycling-and-economy What a load of unsubstantiated nonsense... Have you read that link? Strenghtening local economies, supporting property values, enabling disadvantaged groups to gain skills and access employment opportunities... Anything else? Will cycling beat cancer, too? Most of all, where's the proof? Some data, something, anything? I skimmed through the PDF linked on that page. You cannot comapre Copenaghen to London. London has more people than the whole of Denmark!! These cycle lobbies were also the same that told us that 20mph is safer. Guess what, the DfT report doesn't say that, it says the data is inconclusive! These lobbies were also the same that complained heavily against the use of the stickers "cyclists and motorcyclists stay back" because they were deemed offensive, so you will forgive me if I don't deem them particularly sensible nor reliable. Disclaimer: as a motorcyclist, "stay back" is what I do out of self-preservation! I repeat, the Transport Watchdog expressed big reservations against cycle lanes because it was worried on the impact it would have had on public transport. Of course the cycle lobbies totally ignore this point. Cycle lobbies forget a couple of key, crucial points. I am all for disincentivising private car use. But, honestly, between congestion charge fees and the cost of parking, how many people drive to work into central London? The point is that there are a number of vechicles which are simply necessary: buses delivery vans construction vehicles tradesmen's vans etc. Even in the greenest city ever, these cannot be replaced by bikes. Also, London is so huge that a number of east to west or north to south routes MUST pass by the centre - a problem which smaller, more cycle friendly cities like Amsterdam or Valencia do not have.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...So, the jury is still out. However I think > there are no doubts that impacts on pedestrians or > cyclists at 20mph are likely to be less severe > than at 30mph. Of course, that is self-evident. It is also not the whole story. Is there any downside? E.g. is it an incentive for pedestrians to cross dangerously in the middle of the road, even if there is a traffic light 100 yards away (or precisely because there is one and they don't want to wait)? How much does the introduction of 20mph limits cost? How else could this money have been spent? I think Lambeth or Southwark spent something like ?700-800k. How many potholes could have been fixed? How many injuries (especially of cyclists) are instead caused by potholes? Etc etc etc. No such assessment was ever done. There was an ideological drive to push the 20mph limits, with no kind of cost benefit analysis. Also, what is the environmental impact of travelling at 20mph vs 30? At rush hour probably not much, but outside rush hour, at night, etc? I genuinely do not know. The report says that another study is being done and will be completed around 2020. I am very worried when ideology trumps facts. At the very least we should acknowledge that the jury is still out, and that all the claims made by the councils about the "clear benefits" were all bull**** - nothing is clear, in fact. Similar story for cycle superhighways: where's the cost benefit analysis? The Transport watchdog complained they would increase journey times for busses, but was ignored. Detractors claims the cycle lanes are empty outside of the 7.30 - 9.30 am peak time, but cause congestion the rest of the day (especially where bus lanes were removed to make way for them). This is my impression, too, but I don't know for sure. Why didn't TFL monitor usage throughout the day before rolling out new cycle superhighways? It would not have been particularly difficult nor expensive.

KidKruger Wrote: > > A 20mph restriction makes roads for drivers and > > > pedestrians safer. > > Says who? > > Says me. > As a driver, pedestrian and cyclist. It's hard to argue with such a well-explained argument. But let me try... The Department for Transport commissioned a long study into 20mph limits. The results were published about 6 months ago. First of all, why did so many councils rush to introduce 20mph limits BEFORE this study was concluded? It's hard to shake off the suspicion they thought the study would not support the new limits, so they wanted to introduce them first - because by now it would be very messy and expensive to remove them. In summary, the study says that it is INCONCLUSIVE whether 20mph limits really make roads safer. There was a reduction in one case (Brighton), but in all other cases the results were inconclusive. There are also lots of caveats about extrapolating the Brighton results more generally Don't take my word for it - go to the source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/20-mph-speed-limits-on-roads Page 66 of the headline report: ? This study has found no significant safety outcome (in terms of collisions and casualties) in residential areas, based on the post implementation data available to date. Due to the small sample sizes and variability in the data, the statistical analysis undertaken to date indicates that the real change could be positive or negative. In addition, it has not been possible to draw any conclusions regarding the relative change in fatal injuries, cycle casualties, and casualties involving older people. In the case of both the residential and city centre case studies, further data is required to determine the longterm impact of 20mph limits. Collision and casualty rates are known to fluctuate from year to year, and the post implementation data currently available may not be indicative of the longer-term trend.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A 20mph restriction makes roads for drivers and > pedestrians safer. Says who? There were a few discussions about 2 years ago here, on how there were lots of different studies with inconclusive results. Sure, being hit at 20 mph is better than being hit at 30 mph, but there has been little to no actual conclusive evidence that 20mph zones mean fewer accidents. I also wonder about the impact on pollution: at rush hour the 20mph limit probably makes no difference to total journey times, but it does at night. Is it really better to have an engine on the road for longer?

malumbu Wrote: > I did some research a few years ago based on the > ksi (killed and seriously injured) published by > DfT. Cyclists causing injury to pedestrians is > pretty rare and the data does not say who is at > fault I am not particularly worried about cyclists injuring or killing other road users. I am VERY worried about cyclists doing something terribly stupid and borderline suicidal next to my car or motorcycle, them getting hurt, and me taking the blame. E.g. every time a cyclist tries to undertake me when I'm about to turn. I think Darwinian selection is a wonderful thing - I'd just wish these people darwinianly selected themselves without involving me.

On a related topic, what I find insane is that so many bus lane signs all over London are almost hidden from view. Take this one, coming from Camberwell rd towards Denmark Hill: it is almost always hidden by buses and trees https://goo.gl/maps/P7ATWWPsjLv Yes, you do see there's a bus lane, but what the hours of operation are, or what vehicles are allowed, is often impossible to understand. The total inconsistency on hours of operation and on whether motorbikes are allowed is also hard to understand; I do wonder to what extent it is intentionally designed to catch people out, or if it's some kind of pissing contest because councils hate that red routes are managed by TFL. Either way, it's actually distracting and dangerous to have so many rules in the same city - a typical example of why it's dysfunctional to have so many councils each with their own rules. Unless someone can prove that allowing a motorcycle on the bus lane opposite the Denmark Hill station is dangerous, but allowing it on red routes is safe!

@ianr, no, I'd never do it, I was just saying it to rant! @zebedee, yes, that's very frustrating. Many of us now wait on the footbridge for that very reason, but older people, people with disabilities, parents with pushchairs etc would probably struggle to get to the right platform at the last minute. I'm just glad I'm leaving the area because public transport has become unbearable - we pay zone 2 housing price to get an out-of-the-M25 kind of service. Shame, because with better public transport Dulwich would be a great place to live.

ed26 Wrote: > A more equitable model would be to agree a listing > fee for a price that any monkey could sell for > (say ?800K in this example) and then, say, 10%-15% > of every ?1 above this level. This way, the estate > agent would be more realistic about the likely > sale price and be incentivised to get the best > price for their customer. I have tried to negotiate something like this this year (the higher the price, the higher the commission) and only 1 out of 4 agents contacted would accept it

An Aussie website? Does the price include flying to the other part of the globe? :)