DulwichLondoner

rendelharris Wrote: [...] it's more about fighting > staff cuts rather than wages, isn't it? It is about fighting potential job cuts in the long term but, mostly, as Cardelia rightly pointed out, it is about POWER. We in London at least have alternatives, however unpleasant and painful. If you commute from somewhere along the Brighton line you don't have many. What do you do if your end up stranded somewhere near Gatwick and there are no more trains? Get a cab for the remaining 30 or so miles every single time this happens?

@KalamityKel, I never said life is over. I am simply saying that this level of disruption, ongoing for such a long time, is unheard of in the developed world, is not acceptable, and is a material disruption, not a minor annoyance. May I ask if you rely on Southern Fail for your commute, and if you have been affected at all? Before I started to commute by motorcycle for this very reason, trust me, I did explore all the possible public transport alternatives (0verground, buses, etc): none was a walk in the park, I still arrived late lots of times, and there were many evenings when it could take me 90 minutes or more. For a 6-mile commute. And please don't mention pushbikes: in city traffic pushbikes are more dangerous than a motorcycle, I'd sweat a lot (yes, I know many don't, but I do) and it would be a pain to shower at the office (just a handful of showers for the whole building, long queues, etc). @rendelharris , no one is blameless in this. Southern and the Government want to exploit this as a way to crush the unions, all unions. The unions have failed to make a case for how and why driver-only trains would be more dangerous. Maybe they are and the unions are right, but the unions have failed to make a clear and compelling case. Driver-only trains have been around for a while on many lines. Are they really more dangerous? I genuinely don't know, but the unions have not explained it clearly. By this I mean their official websites, their press releases, etc, not just what the press wrote about it. As you will remember from our discussions about 20mph and cycle lanes, I am not convinced until I see a modicum of evidence. The problem with this kind of protracted industrial action is that unions end up causing a lot of damage to wide parts of the society as a whole, more than to the employer. There is a difference between a strike which, says, stops production in a factory and causes a direct economic damage to the employer, but not to the wider society, and something like this, which has a minimum financial impact on the employer (as most commuters buy season tickets anyway; yes, Southern had to refund about a month's worth of tickets, big deal...) but a huge impact on society. What unions seem not to care about is that people from all walks of life use trains: from city traders who make hundreds of thousands of pounds to unqualified workers on minimum wage or zero hours and no job security. By behaving like this, rail workers are causing a lot of pain to people who are way, way worse off than them. If this were about a matter of life or death I could understand it, but it's not; rail workers already have pretty stable jobs , the unions have been successful in negotiating lots of pay rises, their pensions are not under attack in any way, etc etc. Also, there is a very strong chance that their behaviour will be used as a pretext to curb unions and workers' rights in general, to make strikes harder for all, etc.

rendelharris Wrote: > That's a bit apples and oranges: Balham has > sixteen services per hour to Victoria, whereas ED > has four per hour to London Bridge. Ehm, no, it's not apples and oranges, it's the very crux of the matter. Not all areas served by Southern are affected equally. Areas with more frequent connections, like Balham, can withstand these disruptions better precisely because they have more train services to begin with. > [... ] before simply assuming other areas > are better off. I don't assume anything, I simply listen to what residents tell me. Of course there is the risk that residents may have exaggerated the reliability of the Balham line, because almsot everyone seems particularly invested in convincing themselves and others that wherever they live is the best place on Earth :)

So it's all fine except when it's not! :) A lot of areas served by Southern Fail have witnessed a level of disruption, since approximately Nov 2015 with issues at London bridge, which are AFAIK unheard of in the large cities of a developed nation. As a nation, we seem to love making fun of the French and their strikes, but I am not aware of anything even remotely comparable ever happening in Paris. Sure, other areas have it worse; I met commuters from Brighton who were forced to spend many nights in hotels or crushing at friends' in London. But there are also other areas which have been less affected, e.g. Balham, from where Southern trains to Victoria have never run once every hour during rush hour, AFAIK and based on what local residents tell me. There are many things I like about ED. Transport is not one of them. So, no, it's not the same as everywhere else because: 1) areas not served by Southern have not witnessed a comparable level of disruption, disruption which, as this overtime ban shows, is not over yet 2) other areas served by Southern have been less affected This doesn't mean ED is a terrible place to live, of course, but at least let's be honest.

It's not a strike, it's an overtime ban. Yes, it is probably not going to last forever, but, if previous experience is anything to go by (have we all already forgotten that trains used to run every hour in the morning rush hour for most of last summer?), this has the potential to cause severe disruption for a long period!

Is it? My understanding of the websites of SouthernFail and ASLEF was that members of this union will stop working overtime **till further notice**. Nowhere does it say that the ban will last from day X to day Y. Have I misunderstood?

PS Another problem with new developments like Tribeca is that ground rent and managing charge can be very high and spiral out of control.

It seems the improvement to the service didn't last long after all: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1682022,page=26 Overtime ban, new emergency timetable, reduced services, etc. Does it sound familiar?

ASLEF has instructed its members not to work overtime, starting this Thursday, 29-Jun-2017. http://www.southernrailway.com/your-journey/dispute http://www.aslef.org.uk/article.php?group_id=5564 Southern will be cancelling some services, and amending others (eg removing some stops). There are some details on its website, but I wouldn't be surprised if they change again. Based on what is published now, the services from East Dulwich are on the 'brown' lines, which means a reduces service. How reduced, no one knows yet! I feel for the poor people commuting from Brighton!

Let's try to stay on topic, please!

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure I believe that the market is as dire > as suggested. Two of our neighbors both sold their > flats at above asking on the first day of > viewings. Can I ask roughly where, how many bedrooms and what price range? Let me talk some numbers to be more precise. 4 years ago you could buy a decent, non-ex council 2-bedroom flat in ED for ?300-350k and a 3-bedroom flat for around ?450-500 (flats, no garden). I see that 2-bed flats with no garden now sell between ?450-500k (actual sale price, not asking price). I am not sure where 3-beds sell, but I have seen many ads of 'fake' 3-bedroom flats, in which the 3rd bedroom has room for only a cot, not even an adult single bed, at ?700-750k. Is the extra space for a cot only (which I struggle to call a room as a child wouldn't even have room to play) worth 50% more than a 2-bed? Methinksnot. What are your views / recollections / experiences about prices now vs 4 years ago?

Good point. IMHO the key point is not so much whether you manage yourself, but who the managing agents are accountable to. One of the absurdities of the leasehold system is that leaseholders shell out all the money yet have very little recourse. In the best cases, freeholders and managing agents have no interest in keeping costs down as it's not their money. In the worst cases, they can collude (and/or be part of the same group) to inflate prices. Have you heard about the St George Development in Vauxhall and how leasehodlers won ?1MM in compensation from the freeholder? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-2039128/MARKET-WATCH-Flat-owners-win-record-1m-payout.html https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/feb/12/peverel-tenants-fighting-back Something I would like to discuss with my neighbours is to hire these guys, or someone similar: http://www.urbanowners.co.uk/ They can assist you in exercising your right-to-manage rights, and would then manage the block on your behalf. On paper it seems like a reasonable compromise (more expensive than managing yourself, but cheaper than being scammed by freeholder + managing agent). Does any one have experience with these services?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/criminal Criminal (of an action or situation) deplorable and shocking.

Exactly! "These prices are insane" is a phrase most people have been saying for the last 8 years or so; however, as far as I can remember, this is the first time in 8 years that I see so many prices being reduced and properties remaining unsold.

I'm not sure it's the right metric to look at. The relevant ones would be the number of properties sold in a year (which should be publicly available from the land registry) and the unique number of properties marketed in a year (along with avg time to sale), which is probably not available. It could well be that there are more properties now because now it takes longer to sell. For example, you could even have (I'm making these numbers up) 700 properties marketed in 2015, with an avg of 150 on sale at any given time, and, say, 500 marketed in 2017, with an avg of 300 on sale at any given moment.

Could someone make a summary for those ignorant in all things architectural like myself?

edhistory Wrote: > If I have it correctly this building has gone > subterranean and is a special case. What do you mean, exactly?

JohnL Wrote: > If a pedestrian appears in the road for any reason > whatsoever all other traffic should stop (even if > the pedestrain is completely in the wrong - and > could be prosecuted later - he has right of way > for now) What do you mean, exactly? I am certainly not advocating killing them, surely this was clear! The point is not whether we should kill these idiots or not! The point is whether this behaviour is wrong, and should be discouraged as much as possible, e.g. with education campaigns like the French billboards, with making it illegal (as it is in a number of countries) to cross away from a crossing if one is within a certain distance, etc.

I hope this is the right section. I have been keeping an eye on house prices in ED for the last 18 months or so, e.g. I registered with RightMove for periodic emails about new properties. My impressions are that: 1) Volumes have come down massively. There seem to be fewer properties in the market compared to, say, 3 years ago, and it tends to take longer to sell 2) More and more price reductions, which were almost unheard of 3-4 years ago 3) More and more properties end up not being sold at all. I also wonder if sometimes agents report them as sold when, in fact, it?s not true. I checked the land registry for some properties I had my eyes on, and they have not been sold, even though the price was reduced multiple times. Of course I have not measured this ?scientifically? , and, as with all these things, there is always the risk that I may have only seen cases which are, in fact, unrepresentative. What are your impressions? In this context, it seems odd that in the new development near the gym of Goose Green / Crystal Palace road (the ?Tribeca? ? no comment on the choice of name!) 1-bed flats are marketed at ? 480k ? a price I have typically seen for 2-bed flats. OK, it?s a new development, and this always carries a premium, but ?480k for a one-bed flat seems really excessive now. Ah, the same email that notified me of the Tribeca development, also mentioned 4 other properties ? all reduced. Of 5 properties in the email, one was the Tribeca development, 4 had been reduced!

This is what I witnessed in just 15 minutes, during today?s morning commute: 1) Near Oval, I was riding (legally) in a bus lane; the lane next to me was totally jammed. A black cab ahead of me, in my same bus lane, almost hit a pedestrian who ran in the middle of the road, appearing out of the blue because the queue of stationary cars on the right hid him from sight. The cab managed to break in time, but only just. All of this happened about 30 metres from a traffic light. Would it have been too much of a hassle to walk 30 metres to that traffic light, and wait a few second for the green man? 2) On Vauxhall Bridge road, over the space of, I?d say, about 200 metres, two guys (one with a dog!) decide they absolutely had to run in the middle of the road, because they couldn?t have possibly wasted 40 seconds of their previous time walking to the next traffic light. Vauxhall Bridge road is quite wide and busy; this time the two geniuses were clearly visible, in plain sight, not hidden, but this is hardly a justification: they forced about 12 vehicles to brake all of a sudden, which is inherently dangerous, and in fact to cars came dangerously close to hitting each other 3) Near the post office of Vauxhall Bridge road, a mum tries to cross the street with her 6 or 7-year old child; makes a few steps, then luckily realises it?s too dangerous, walks back and decides to walk all the 10 metres (yes: 10!) to the traffic light. This kind of behaviour is, IMHO, criminal and idiotic, because it needlessly exposes those pedestrians and other road users to unnecessary danger. It should be discouraged and, yes, I applaud the interactive French billboards because this is exactly what they do. Does anyone disagree? If so, could they please be so kind as to elaborate why on Earth these individuals could not have walked a few seconds to the next traffic light, especially on those roads, which are always busy, and which have lots of traffic lights everywhere? What is the justification? Note this has nothing to do with speed: I know all too well that people are idiot, that this behaviour can never be fully eradicated, and I will therefore always ride very, very slowly, regardless of the official speed limits, every time there is a situation that could lend itself to this idiocy (e.g. bumper-to-bumper traffic on the lane to my right).

Way harder than I would have hoped: https://www.fsp-law.com/articles/getting-information-on-service-charges-not-so-easy

OK, I should not have used the word nazis. Let me rephrase: the cycle lobby which has been more dedicated to changing the wording on a sign it finds offensive, than to actually make its community aware of how dangerous it is not to respect the common-sense suggestion of that very sign. Forcing pedestrians to cross only at designated crossing, if one is available nearby, would have no impact whatsoever on my speed. I will always continue to ride defensively, i.e. assuming the road is full of idiots who want to kill themselves and me, and lowering my speed in busy areas because some idiot may always materialise in the middle of the road, jumping from behind a parked van etc. Of course, the key questions remain unanswered: * where is proof of the benefits of the 20 mph limits? * could that money not have been better spent elsewhere? * why were councils so keen to rush this through without waiting for the DfT's assessment? * is it so tragic to demand pedestrians walk to the next designated crossing, if there is one nearby, and use that? Such an unbearable inconvenience? Please, please somebody enlighten me as to why this would be so wrong and intolerable. Everyone's silence on this point is simply deafening. By the way, my focus is more on protecting myself than pedestrians. Like I said multiple times, I am all for Darwinian selection: if an idiot wants to kill himself/herself in a stupid way, so be it, let the gene pool improve. My issues are: 1) children, who are not mature enough, should be protected. Right now they get a very bad example from people crossing whenever they feel like it. 2) I would much rather suicidal idiots did not involve me and others, and found a way to improve the gene pool by themselves. You know, your accusations are so ridiculous because what I advocate (staying back from large vehicles or crossing only at designated crossing) is not what I want only others to do, but is what I do myself for the very reasons I mentioned.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DL: "Pedestrians should not be inconvenienced even > if this makes the road safer for all?" > > Substitute motorists for pedestrians and that's > exactly your position re 20MPH limits. Sure. Exactly identical. Except for a few tiiiiny differences: * What I advocate would cost almost nothing - other than possibly the money needed to educate the public - because it wouldn't require changing signs all over the city * The benefits of what I advocate are clear; the disadvantages are as clear and extremely more limited (oh, the trouble of having to walk 60 metres to the next crossing, what an unbearable inconvenience). * There has been no trial with inconclusive results; the government doesn't need to commission a 3-year nationwide study to look into the matter, etc. * Pedestrians' compliance with what I advocate might only waste a few seconda of their time; by contrast, try driving from North to South London at night, when there is no traffic, but you must stick to 20mph, even on wide deserted roads, away from high streets and busy places. * Pedestrians' compliance does not require them to be distracted from the road, like a driver who has to constantly check the speedometer because there is no tolerance in speeding fines * I don't claim it would be a panacea to all problems, whereas the councils and the 20mph campaigns came up with all kinds of ridiculous claims about how 20mph limits would ease congestion (where's the proof?), increase house prices (why? is that even desirable?), etc. Do I need to continue? Do you have children? Do you teach them that it's their constitutional right to cross the street whenever and wherever they feel like it, or do you teach them that, if there is a pedestrian crossing nearby, they should go there and use it? Finally, allowing pedestrians to cross only at designated crossings would be in everyone's interest, as it would reduce congestion and pollution. Have you ever noticed the constant queue of cars approaching the Goose green roundabout, because there is a zebra crossing but no traffic light, so pedestrians always have right of way? Don't you think we'd breathe fewer fumes if there was a traffic light, rather than a constant queue of cars? And I say this as a pedestrian, because I walk there but almost never ride there.

Loz Wrote: > I would go a little further and put everyone in > the cab of a reasonably large van. I've driven > some pretty large vehicles in my time and I have a > good idea where all the blind spots are. I now > cycle about a mile or so in zone 1 and I cringe at > some of the places cyclists place themselves, not > understanding the driver has a very tiny chance of > knowing they are there. Excellent point. There was a video a while ago, I believe made by TFL, showing a truck driver who looks at his mirrors and doesn't see anyone. The camera then zooms out, and shows an army of cyclists that were in the driver's blind spot. It should be common sense, but evidently it isn't. This is the kind of stuff that should be shown in schools, on billboards all over the country, as an ad on all websites, etc. Unfortunately, the trend has been very different. The self-righteous cycle brigade has successfully lobbied to have the "cyclists and motorcyclists stay back" signs removed from trucks, and replaced with something more generic like "mind the blind spot". After all, cyclists own the road, and no one should dare tell them what they can and cannot do, even if it is for their own safety... If a fraction of the time, money and efforts dedicated to this had been dedicated to making more people aware of blind spots etc (eg by showing the video I mentioned) , London would be a much safer city for all. These things leave me extremely saddened and speechless. Oh, and before the cycle nazis have a go at me, let me remind them that I speak from personal experience: as a motorcyclist, I was totally in favour of the "cyclists and motorcyclists stay back" signs, and that (staying the hell back from large vehicles) is precisely what I do all the time when riding my motorcycle.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a small point where > pedestrians have right of way. Cars should slow > down and if someone's approaching the crossing > stop. It's not difficult Do they have right of way even when the traffic light is red for them? Even when they jump in the middle of the road from behind a truck which hides them from the view of oncoming traffic? Even when they jump in the middle of the road forcing motorists to make panic stops which are, in and of themselves, dangerous? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ..after all a careless pedestrian primarily risks > hurting themselves Ehm, not necessarily, no. Cyclists and pedestrians behaving stupidly can cause a lot of damage if other road users have to make sudden maneuvers to avoid them - even if everyone respects the safety distance between vehicles. One of the bike magazines I read had one such story, about a guy who broke a leg and had to write off his scooter because a girl jumped in the middle of the road without looking. From memory, he made a panic stop, lost control of the scooter which hit another vehicle, he hit the road, slid for a bit then hit the kerb. The girl was unhurt but fled the scene.