DulwichLondoner

Many other councils seem to be way harsher than Southwark on this. If you still own a property that you lived in at some point in time, many councils assume that's your main residence, so you cannot just rent for a year or so then move back to the family home. Merton and Wandsworth come to mind; their schools seem to be more oversubscribed than ours, but maybe it's time for Southwark to catch up?

I understand that Goose Green Primary is now an academy, and that therefore its admission statistics are no longer published in the Southwark booklet on primary schools. Is data on number of applications, number of sibling admissions, and maximum distance under the distance criterion available, by year? Can I ask the school? can the school refuse to share this data? Or is it already available somewhere? For example, Wandsorth Council publishes these statistics even for academies and other schools which are not under the direct control of the council: http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/downloads/file/10616/previous_years_admissions_for_wandsworth_primary_schools I'd like to understand if something similar for Southwark exists. The PDF here: http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2483/primary_school_admissions is less detailed and does not include figures for academies, like Goose Green Primary. Thanks!

Aaaaaanyway... After debating the safety of pushbikes vs motorcycles, the merits of cycle lanes, and the number of overpriced organic eateries required to make an area officially 'not rough'... let's try to get back on topic! :) A very good thing about ED are the schools: there seem to be some decent state ones, and are not as oversubscribed as those in Earlsfield and Wandsorth in general. Over the last couple of years they opened a Harris primary on Lordship Lane, one near Bellenden road, and the new charter secondary on the Dulwich Hospital site. Wandsworth schools, instead, are, together with those in Chelsea (but who can afford Chelsea anyway?) the most oversubscribed in the capital. The catchment area for Earlsfield primary was ca. 220 metres last year! The situation will probably improve (although it's impossible to estimate by how much) now that the council is enforcing a new sibling policy: a sibling gets in if the family hasn't moved since the other child got in, or if they moved but are still within 800 metres of the school. If they moved farther away, no sibling priority. Except for this, the compromise between Earlsfield and ED seems quite clear: the former has almost no high street but way better transport links, the latter the opposite. Tough one!

Some people who bought here 15 years ago are always telling me how rough it used to be, but, to be fair, their definition of 'rough' might simply be a working class area where no one sells overprice organic kale juice :)

Elphinstone's Army Wrote: > I lived in Balham, in a garden flat in Ritherdon > Road, How long ago was this? Did you find catching the tube on weekdays was feasible? We would probably commute by train, but, just to get your thoughts. We know people who live in Clapham and commute by bike or bus because they say there is no point in even trying to take the Northern line in the morning. Do you have experience of the Balham to Victoria line? Reliable? In what do you find ED different compared to Balham?

Ever heard of http://forums.pepipoo.com/ ? A forum where you can ask for advice on precisely these things.

Not sure about primary schools in Brixton, though, compared to ED, Earlsfield and Balham

Fair points about Earlsfield :) How do you people feel about Balham, assuming we can stretch our budget to buy there (not certain)? The high street seems comparable to Lordship Lane. We would probably not use the tube for commuting, just the train, and the fact it's Southern scares me.

@rcmacf : 20 minutes! Was that in the morning rush hour? You must be so much better than me at filtering! :) Neither with a 125 scooter nor with a motorcycle has it ever taken me less than 30-35 minutes. 20 minutes only at night, with no traffic whatsoever.

rendelharris Wrote: > There never was a bus lane heading south. > Vauxhall Bridge still has four lanes and a > northbound bus lane, exactly as it did before, > plus now it has a cycle lane. The space for the > cycle lane was achieved by removal of the central > reservation and narrowing the existing lanes > slightly. In the image you posted, the red lane is the northbound bus lane. Isn't the greyish one the southbound bus lane? It's not too clear from your picture, but if you go on google earth and zoom to the maximum, you will actually see the text "bus lane" in the southbound greyish lane, too. Also, this PDF from TFL's website mentions that "Segregated two-way cycle track replaces central eastbound bus lane" https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/79cb7538/user_uploads/section-4---vauxhall-bridge.pdf

Elphinstone's Army Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If this is where you live then THIS IS WHERE YOU > LIVE and not a dormitory. For myself I find it > hard to credit that anyone would leave these leafy > environs for Earlsfield. Why? It's a genuine question - don't misunderstand me. In fact, we all sort of got off-topic a bit, debating cycle lanes and alternative travel options; my initial intention was to compare thoughts and opinions on other areas, on why people chose those areas over East Dulwich or viceversa, etc. I am not sure what you mean by "this is where you live". I am not married to East Dulwich. My vows were to my wife, not to Dulwich! :) > You have presented a prolonged argument for a > ready made decision inviting validation. No. See above. I may have been a bit unclear, but I wanted was to compare thoughts and opinions on other areas. Something like: "Area X has good schools but almost no high street. Area Y has good links but no parks" Something to help me make a more informed decision. With respect to East Dulwich, I like the state schools, the parks, the baby-friendly activities (at the libraries, at the local pools, etc) and the high street is OK. I don't like the transport links, and am terrified that the SouthernFail shambles will continue for a very long time. I very much doubt it will be possible to find a clone of East Dulwich, with much better transport links, and comparable prices! Of course I'd have to compromise on something. Earlsfield is an option I considered because the trains are way more frequent and AFAIK more reliable. Commuting and getting around by public transport at weekends (to Victoria, Southbank, battersea Park, Putney and all the area easily reachable from Clapham Junction) would be much easier. Parks are nice there, too. The high street sucks compared to Lordship Lane, so that would be a compromise. Schools are a big question mark; I get the impression Wandsworth schools are more oversubscribed than those in ED, but need to look into it. Of course there may be some major flaw about Earslfield I have overlooked - this is the whole reason for this post! We considered Forest Hill and Tulse Hill before buying in ED, but the prices there seemed almost identical; we like ED better, and at the time the connections in ED didn't seem worse.

Beulah Wrote: > Please stop describing people who are killed in > road accidents as "stupid" and "idiots", they are > almost always not. I really struggle to follow you. I never said that every single individual who gets killed in a road collision is stupid. But some are. A pedestrian crossing a 3-lane, 40-mph road when it's red, a cyclist or motorcyclist intentionally undercutting a large vehicle which is turning left and had very clearly signalled its intention to do so, a motorcyclist who dies because he was doing a wheelie at a crazy speed, these are all cases of stupid behaviour which causes avoidable tragedies. How would you describe these cases? If maybe 'stupid' is too harsh for you, can we at least agree that these tragedies are the fault of the individuals, not of society, road layout, the government, the council, etc? You'll notice I made examples of multiple categories because I wasn't trying to single out any group, but to point out that raw collision figures don't tell the whole story, because some of those tragedies depended on stupid behaviour of the individuals involved, not on the inherently dangerous nature of the form of transport, of the city, or of whatever else. > [...]HGVs with huge blind spots that cyclists > are not aware of; Cyclists are not aware of blind spots? If they aren't, it's their fault! I won't mention common sense, but, with all the publicity involved, and with 99% of large vehicles (busses, vans, etc) displaying huge stickers warning cyclists not to undertake because of blind spots, I really struggle to see how any cyclist with half a brain cell couldn't possibly be aware of blind spots. Oh, by the way, blind spots are one of the first things taught to those learning to ride a motorcycle. > [...] What you term "stupid behaviour" may actually be a > logical outcome of those factors. I didn't exactly follow every single point you raised, but, yes, of course, there are accidents which are not the cyclist's fault. This is self-evident. I have never said the opposite! The point stands: cyclists and motorcyclists should stay back when a large vehicle is turning. They have no excuse not to!

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >There are a mass of other factors which > also affect traffic flow - the huge rise in > delivery vans (especially as people are apparently > now taking to having Amazon deliveries made to > their offices instead of homes) Totally agree! I also wonder if we have too many minicabs in London, contributing to too much congestion. >there > were four lanes on the bridge before, there are > four lanes now, yet sit on a bus in a jam on > Blackfriars and it won't be long before someone > says "If that bloody cycle lane wasn't there..." I am not as familia with that road. The examples I made were of clear cases in which the bus lane was removed to make way for a segregated cycle lane, which has two effects: buses waste time entering and exiting the bus lane (when the bus lane ends, they have to move to the right into another lane, and this wastes time), and of course they no longer have a lane to themselves. This is the case from Oval to Vauxhall, and on Vauxhall Bridge southbound. I think they're doing something similar along Hyde Park, between Marble Arch and Bayswater, too.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't understand why people don't get the bus > though. It's comfortable, reliable and gives you > time to relax with a book or music. The extra 15 > mins it takes to get in are a luxury to me rather > than a chore. Maybe because it's not always a feasible option? Maybe because in many cases it takes way more than 15 minutes longer? If it only takes you 15 minutes longer you're lucky - just don't assume everyone is in your same situation Am I the only one who often sees busses along Lordship lane and Grove Vale so packed they don't even stop? A few times I had to go to Vauxhall by bus in the morning it took me about 50 minutes, once I managed to get on; that would mean at least an hour from here to Victoria + the time to wait for a bus you can actually board. Compared with the circa 12 minutes from Denmark Hill (let's say 25-30 if you do ED - Peckham Rye - Victoria), it's a big difference; of course, when trains don't work properly it's probably over an hour both by bus and by train! Last time I went to Waterloo by bus (on a Sunday, early afternoon) it took me 1h 15 min. According to google maps, that's exactly the time it takes to walk from here!

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm obviously not going to change your mind so I > won't go on too much, but... I hear you. Just to be clear, of course I don't want to convince anyone - I was just explaining why I don't cycle to work. My gripe is not with people cycling, but with priority given to cyclists over bus users (bus lanes removed to make way for segregated cycle lanes), because it benefits a minority to the detriment of a majority of users, as all cyclists can take a bus, but not all bus users can cycle.

Beulah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was a gross generalisation. > It's pure victim blaming and calling them "idiots" > is disgraceful. > I'll give one specific (and local) example: [...] I cannot and won't comment on specific cases I do not know. Where is the generalisation? Did I maybe say that all pedestrians / cyclists / motorcyclists who die in a collision deserved their fate? I most certainly did not! What I said was that ***some*** accidents, however tragic, are entirely avoidable and depend only on the individual's stupid behaviour. All of this to say that the raw number of accidents is not a particularly indicative measure of risk and danger, because some accidents are perfectly avoidable, some are not - and only the latter are a true reflection of risk and danger. What is wrong with this line of reasoning? PS You talk about road layouts; like I said I cannot comment on specific cases I do not know, but, generally, what kind of road layout do you think would avoid cyclists being crushed by vehicles turning left? Is it too much to ask that cyclists and motorcyclists stay back when a big vehicle is turning? Can a big vehicle still crush a cyclist or motorcyclist who stays back?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There used to be some others on here but now it > feels like it's just me who think that East > Dulwich's poor transport links are part of its > appeal - far less transient and more local. There is a difference between infrequent and unreliable! Trains every 15 minutes can be (sort of) fine if the schedule is respected.

Beulah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You really need to retract this: > There are many, many reasons why accidents like > this happen. > Perhaps you should actually bother to find out why > first... ? Why on Earth should I retract? I'm afraid I was misunderstood. Let me try to clarify. There are some accidents which, however tragic, are perfectly avoidable and depend entirely on the stupidity of the people involved. I see pedestrians trying to cross Park Lane, the northbound bit, when it's red for them: a 3-lane road with a 40mph limit. If they get hit by a car, yes, it's a tragedy, but a perfectly avoidable one, and one that was entirely their fault. If a bicycle or motorcycle tries to undercut a big vehicle, like a bus, a big truck etc, which is turning left, it has only itself to blame if it gets crushed. If a motorcyclist has an accident because the bike is too powerful and he can't control it (controlling a powerful bike is much harder than controlling a powerful car), or because he rides too fast, or because he does a wheelie, etc, none of this means that motorcycles per se are dangerous, but simply that the motorcyclist in question was an idiot. All of this to say that simply looking at accident numbers doesn't tell us much. If many accidents are due to stupid behaviour which is perfectly avoidable, well, simply avoiding that stupid behaviour will make us much much safer. If many cyclists die because they are stupid enough to undertake big busses, it doesn't mean we have to suffer the same fate: all it takes is enough brain cells to realise we don't have to undertake a big bus turning left! Same story for pedestrians crossing the rod dangerously, for motorcyclists behaving like idiots, etc. In other words, the true measure of risk is not so much how many accidents there have been, but how many would have been unavoidable even with unreprehensible behaviour, eg when the idiot is someone else and not you. When people tell me that cycling in London is dangerous because vans and busses are always crushing the poor cyclists, I disagree because all it takes is to *stay back* (which I do on my big, loud and powerful motorcycle, which has a higher chance of being noticed and of accelerating away if needed). I think it's dangerous for the other reasons I mentioned: no protective gear, less visibility, effectively silent, everyone always trying to overtake, etc. Clearer now?

@Cardelia, thanks. In fact, AFAIK the unions have failed to prove that the many routes with driver-only trains are more dangerous. Equally, Southernfail has failed to answer the union's point about all the extra duties of non-driver staff, like helping people on platforms, helping the disabled, etc. Although, to be fair, I have never seen a wheelchair board a train on the Dulwich to London Bridge route - I'm not sure it would be feasible at all.

@rendelharris, the one gym near my office only accepts annual memberships; I don't remember the exact price (>?1k), but I remember it was more expensive than an annual oyster pass. As for showering, if you are lucky enough not to need one, I envy you. I sweat. A lot. Even cycling at a moderate pace. The fact that speed limits do not technically apply to cyclists (which is wrong, IMHO) does not mean they cannot be fined for dangerous cycling if they are too fast http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/26/banker-who-cycles-to-work-to-relieve-stress-leads-police-on-20-m/ Thank you for explaining your commute to the City. I was wrong assuming a commute to the City. The commute to Mayfair is a different story, though. The segregated cycle lane is only from Oval to Vauxhall, plus on Vauxhall Bridge, where going north I on the motorcycle have access to the bus lane. In fact, I have access to most bus lanes on the route, except that from Denmark Hill to King's College Hospital. On park lane going north, where the speed limit is 40mph and there are few traffic lights, I am substantially faster than a cyclist in Hyde park or in one of the parallel roads. I see cyclists in my lane, too, but riding a pushbike uphill on a street with a 40mph limit doesn't seem particularly wise to me. As for accidents on pushbikes vs motorbikes, I explained my thinking previously, but let me elaborate. First of all, comparisons should be made on a like-for-like basis. What does "London" mean? Does it include A roads and motorways which cyclists cannot access, on which speed limits are > 30mph, etc? A collision at 70mph on the M25 is likely to be more serious than an off at 10 mph in an urban road, but cyclists cannot access roads where the speed limit is 70. A comparison should be done on routes which are similar; adding routes which cyclists cannot access skews the results. Also, how comparable is the use of pushbikes vs motorbikes? If motorbikes are used more than pushbikes with 'adverse weather conditions' which make the road more dangerous, it is not surprising that motorcyclists suffer more accidents. If motorbikes are used for longer commutes than bicycles, then of course motorcyclists will suffer from more accidents. Also, what are the causes of these accidents? When a cyclist dies because he decided to undertake a big bus which was turning left, it's not because bicycles per se are dangerous: it's because he was an idiot and what happened was Darwinian selection. The very same applies to a motorcyclist who dies losing control of his bike doing a wheelie at 60mph in the city centre, or, more banally, because he was inexperienced, the bike was too powerful for him, etc. TFL publishes quite a lot of data on road safety: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/road-safety If you look at 'casualties and serious injuries', one of the metrics TFL tracks, the picture is very different: in 2015 there were 387 with cyclists, and 535 with powered two-wheelers (scooters and motorbikes). Sure, still more accidents on motorbikes, but the difference could easily be explained by the factors I mentioned above. The bottom line is, there are so many ways to skin this cat, it is impossible to 'prove' much with these statistics, because too many important factors are unknown and impossible to estimate reliably. What I did substantiate, however, was that, unless almost all of the journey is in some kind of segregated cycle lane, a motorcycle ridden by a prudent and competent biker is less dangerous than a pushbike because: * motorcycles are bigger and easier to spot * pushbikes are effectively silent; motorcycles can he heard approaching * it is easier for a motorcycle to accelerate away from an imminent danger than it is for a pushbike * motorcycles have mirrors; sure, there still are blind spots, but having mirrors is better than not having them. There is a reason why they are compulsory! In theory pushbikes could install them but I never see any. * motorcycles are more stable, handle the road better, and have better brakes. If a motorcycle and a pushbike are both going at 30mph on a wet road and they have to do an emergency brake, guess which will stop in the shortest distance? When there is heavy wind on a bridge, I am way more stable, on my 210Kg motorbike, than the pushbikes I see pushed left and right by the wind. * bike helmets offer little protection to a very limited part of the head; motorcycle protection (full-face helmets, abrasion-resistant fabrics, armour on the back, knees, hips, elbows and shoudlers, etc.) can be way more comprehensive. And no, it's not true that you don't need this protection going at 20-30 mph; in fact, that is possibly when you need it most, because this gear won't help much if you have a collision at 70 mph! The tarmac can be a cheese grater even at 25mph; you don't want your flesh to be the cheese! Of course, if I wanted to be an idiot, it would be much easier to kill myself and others on my motorcycle than on a pushbike; similarly, motorcycles are harder to ride, and riding a powerful motorcycle in a competent and prudent manner takes years of practice, but none of this makes motorcycles more dangerous per se.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You spoil your argument with gross exaggeration. > The trains are not cancelled constantly, nor are > they always late. I decided to start commuting by motorcycle in early 2015, after, for a period of almost 3 months, my commute back home took 1 hour instead of 1.15. Last summer, trains from East Dulwich to London Bridge in the mornings were one per hour. This lasted many months. I have been late at multiple important work meetings because I took into account that one train might be cancelled, but not two in a row. Apparently I was wrong. We have in multiple occasions messed up our nanny's plans, or she messed up ours, because we arrived home too late or she arrived late in the morning. Not to mention all the people I know who missed flights at Gatwick because trains after trains were cancelled. What can I say? If my experience is not representative, I must be very unlucky!

I commuted from ED to Canary Wharf for a couple of years. In the morning, I preferred the train to Peckham Rye, then the overground to Canada Water, then the jubilee. It sounds like a lot, but door-to-door it was less than 45 minutes. The overground from Peckham Rye tended to arrive few minutes after I got off the train from ED (it would be the same train from North Dulwich), and on the same platform, so no running up and down the stairs to change platform. The big question mark is the Southern Fail train from North Dulwich - East Dulwich to Peckahm Rye to catch the overground. If you move to Herne Hill, you should look into getting a bus from there to Denmark Hill, and then the overground. I have no idea how busy those buses are in the morning. All I can tell you is that most mornings it is quicker to walk from the East Dulwich station to Denmark Hill than to wait for a bus, as most are packed and don't let new passengers on. I also tried the train to London Bridge then the jubilee to the wharf, but it tended to take longer because London Bridge was always very busy: it may take a good 10-15 minutes from the moment you get off the train to the moment you reach the jubilee line platform - and a lot longer till you actually manage to board a train! Of course the fact that the Southern link to London bridge is so unreliable only makes things worse. Just a thought: a new Charter school has opened on the Dulwich hospital site, just behind the East Dulwich station. http://www.chartereastdulwich.org.uk/ This year they are based elsewhere because the site isn't ready, but I understand that admission will be based on straight-line distance from Jarvis road. This means it should be possible to be in the catchment of Bessemer primary and the old Charter, or of Bessemer and the new Charter, or of Goose green primary and the new Charter.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The bottom line is that the trains have got > busier, more expensive, less reliable and slower > over the last decade. That shouldn't be acceptable > and people are right to criticise it. All true, but let's remember that the southern Fail shambles has more to do with incompetence and heel-dragging in the negotiations than with simply more users. More users cause trains to be busier; they do not cause trains to run every hour in the morning for the entire summer, or to be cancelled constantly for no apparent reason, or to be always late.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KK - we live in an area where one can cycle to the > City of London in about twenty minutes. One can > walk to the City in about an hour. It befuddles > me that people would rather stand on a platform > whining about the trains rather than do that. [...] > Looking forward to being told how wrong I am... 20 minutes? Really? It only takes me 20ish minutes on my *motorcycle* from ED to the City late at night, when there is no traffic, but there are still a gazillion traffic lights every other yard. Oh, and the stupid 20mph street limits on large A roads do not help, either. I understand most cyclists don't realise 20mph speed limits and red lights apply to them, but they do. On these routes, as far as I can remember, cycle lanes go along roughly the same routes I do on my motorcycle, and do not exempt cyclists from red lights. So, I ask again: 20 minutes? Really? Do you never find a red light? Are you faster than me on my motorcycle (I respect speed limits, however stupid)? Or maybe does it, in fact, take longer than 20 minutes? Similar story from Mayfair to ED: it takes me 20-25 minutes only at night, with no traffic. Around 8.30am and 7pm it's more like 35 to 45 minutes. It befuddles me that people do not appreciate how dangerous cycling in a city like London is; I explained a few posts above why I consider cycling way more dangerous than motorcycling, so I'm not going to repeat myself. And no, segregated cycle lanes don't change the situation much, because they only cover a small portion of the route. Even if I didn't consider cycling dangerous, in my office there are way too many cyclists and way too few showers. My only option would be to stay smelly and drenched in sweat, at least for an hour till the showers become free - not to mention how much time showering and changing adds to the commute. And how about all the morning meetings I typically have with external people? "So nice to meet you, sir, we could hear your smell from across the hall, so it's very nice to finally put a face to a smell". Oh, and before you ask, no, leaving an hour earlier is not an option because I am constrained by the time I have to drop off my child at the nursery. yes, I know, how shameful and inconsiderate of me to reproduce. I am not asking to be teleported to the office, Star-trek style, in 2 minutes. I am not asking for additional infrastructure. I simply want the existing infrastructure to work the way it used to 5 years ago. Is this really too much to ask? PS I consider the 20mph speed limits on large A roads stupid because the "20 is plenty" campaign failed to prove the use. If there is any significant study linking 20mph limits to lower accident rates, they haven;t shown it. It is also very odd that so many councils have introduced these limits just while the Department of Transportation was conducting a study on the issue, with results to be published in a few years. 20mph limits make a lot of sense in small, secondary residential roads, but I fail to see the point in wide A roads, where you can't park on the sides.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But our 'metro' service has been nowhere near as > bad as the longer-distance Southern services. And > if you live in Brighton, there's not much > alternative Very true. I started commuting by motorcycle. Some people cycle. It's far from ideal, but we have more alternatives than the poor people in Brighton. Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One thing you may wish to consider is that the > next South West Trains franchise will almost > certainly be affected by RMT strikes concerning > driver-operated doors. Currently SWT have guards > who open the doors but these roles will be changed > in line with Government policy regarding the > modernization of the railways. So there will be a > lot of disruption in the next few years. Aaaaargh! Although, to be honest, I don't know how much is to do with the strikes and how much with sheer incompetence. To me it all started going downhill around December 2014, with 'improvement' works at London Bridge. The key issue is not the strikes, but the fact that service is awful even when there are no strikes! Are so many Southern employees pulling in sickies? Did Southern fail to hire enough staff? Are workers simply refusing to work overtime, ie did Southern rely too much on overtime?