PeterW

Thanks everyone.

Hello, I need to try and get some quotes/options on a possible full replacement of a fairly elderly heating and hot water system in a 1960s house. The system works so it's not completely urgent, but maybe needs to happen in the spring or summer. Any recommendations for people/companies who might be good to sound out would be much appreciated. Thanks.

If anyone is free for about two hours on Saturday from midday, near Denmark Hill, this would be to help move a few not-overly-heavy bits of furniture, eg a couple of mattresses and a bookcase. I'd pay for 2 hours even if it took less. DM if you're able to help - thanks.

I posted this a couple of days ago, but in case anyone sees this one: I'm looking for someone to help with a move on Tuesday morning, probably for two hours, perhaps three. If it's less than two I'd pay for two hours. It's to help with a few large (but not overly heavy items) like a couple of mattresses and a (light) bed base, and a lightweight sofa etc. Into and out of a van, and up one or two flights of stairs. Near Denmark Hill, from about 9am this Tuesday (tomorrow). PM me if you're interested.

For the morning of this Tuesday (6 Dec), about 9am-ish. I need someone to help move a few largish-items (couple of mattresses, a v light sofa, few other bits) between one home and another, both near Denmark Hill. Involves one or two flights of stairs, into/out of a van etc. Nothing too tricky. Could be v slightly more than two hours, but will pay for two at minimum if it's less. £20/hr.

To reiterate my earlier point: if you think anything I've written is inaccurate seek a correction from the readers' editor. But two very quick, general points: ? It's pretty rude, not to mention legally dodgy, to argue on a public forum that academics must be biased because you don't like their research. ? "does the Guardian pay contributors for the number of clicks a story gets?" - no, of course not. Writing about cycling/active travel isn't even part of my day job. I do it because I'm interested. Not everyone is as cynical or jaded as you appear. That's it from me.

I'm generally loath to reply/debate on this forum, because if anyone has concerns about inaccuracy or bias in stories, they really need to be addressed via the paper's readers' editor office, rather than pored over here. But the emergency response times issue is an interesting one. No one says LTNs - or any other change to previous traffic procedures ? have *never* slowed a fire engine or ambulance, but there seems to be no evidence this is a particular or endemic problem with them, which was the conclusion of the report. Both the London Ambulance Service and London Fire Brigades also agree with this, and they should know. With full apologies for linking to one of my own articles, there's more detail here on what is a complex and nuanced issue, if you're interested: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2021/apr/23/opponents-of-ltns-claim-they-delay-emergency-services-but-look-at-the-facts

"And lo and behold looking at the original report makes you realise why they took it to Peter Walker as an exclusive?.because they knew he wouldn?t give it any proper scrutiny and basically write what the authors wanted him to write?? " Hello, Peter Walker here, on my once-every-few-months scan of this forum to see if I've been borderline-defamed. I get some people have very strong views on modal filtering, but, your occasional reminder that it's not really on to publicly accuse a journalist of being biased or corrupt. As much as anything else, it's a bit juvenile and pretty rude.

Hi everyone, I'm the Peter Walker mentioned in this message. I came across this thread by chance (like 90% of EDF users I'm mainly here for the plumber recommendations). I'm not going to dive into the main argument, but can I make a factual point of correction: this idea I'm some sort of "adviser" to Southwark, or an open activist, is completely false, and comes down to a (perhaps deliberate) misunderstanding by some anti-LTN types elsewhere a while back. My only interaction with Southwark (beyond, obviously, paying them council tax) is I got asked by councillors to speak, with lots of other people, and some committee meeting a while back. From memory it was the environment one. I was asked along as a local, but also a local who has written about cycling/active travel issues. The sentiment on reducing consultation is somewhat of a mangling of what I said, in part due to the compression of the minutes. I've never argued against consulation; my only point was that it shouldn't become a means whereby a noisy minority can indefinitely delay or veto every project ? councillors have to accept that complete consensus from every local is almost certainly impossible. This isn't a massively contoversial view, if easy for me to say, having never stood for elected office. Similarly, I never "advised Southark to put in modal filters". My only stated view at the meeting was that, if any local areas wants to boost cycling and walking numbers then it's not just a matter of building separated bike lanes on main roads, but also making smaller residental streets more human-friendly. Part of this is (properly enforced) lower speeds, but part of it is measures to disincentivise some short, one-person car journeys (about a third of London car trips are less than 2km), not least so the roads are more free for those who really need to drive. And part of this tends to involve modal filtering. Again, this isn't some weird personal belief, it's happened in the UK for about 50 years, and is ubiquitous in lots of other countries. So yes, this means that while I think LTNs (or whatever you call them) will inevitably be part of the mix of a modern city, they're not the only element, and nor is every LTN, as designed and installed, immediately perfect. My views on cycling and active travel and very public, but I make every effort for stories I write to be accurate and fair. If you think they're not, rather than casting inuendos here, by far the best course of action is to contact the Guardian's excellent and independent readers' editor office. I am, I should stress, purely speaking here as an individual and a local, one who was a bit surprised to see my reputation traduced on such a normally friendly and construtive local forum. Thanks for indulging me, back to the arguments. and guardian article by peter walker, lives in champion hill, aslo never open about conflict of interest, advised southwark to put in modal filters (thats planters to you and me) and to reduce consultation to get changes done faster -see page 6 of minuites here:

Can anyone recommend a plumber/heating engineer who would be a good choice for a central heating system power flush? Very much needed ? about half the radiators in the house are completely cold at the bottom.... Many thanks.

"this does feel like CH versus the rest of the world" Certainly not from my point of view, as someone who lives on CH. As I've said before, I'd support such schemes just as vigorously if they were directed at other roads, eg Melbourne Grove. And the *only* way you'll get more such schemes is to not try and kill them off in the first place. Also, if you did have more and more residential streets shut to motor traffic, you'd gradually start to see the modal shift to other forms of transport (assuming other measures are taken to, for example, make walking and cycling more pleasant). Out of interest, Talfourdite, what is the journey you make by car, and would there be a way to make it by other measns? Don't tell me if you don't want to, and it's not so I can judge - some trips are tricky by other methods. But the evidence is that a fairly decent percentage of London car trips could be made in other ways. For example, when I was walking down Champion Grove at 7.40ish on Friday, about 90% of the traffic queuing for the lights was single people in cars. I'm guessing at least some could use other methods but prefer not to. Sure, that's their choice, but it will cause congestion, and there's no reason why the majority of locals who don't own cars should have to indulge their choice at the penalty of more smog, danger, noise etc etc. Ultimately, the cause of the gridlock isn't one, minor traffic scheme ? it's too many cars.

"... surely there are remedies other than closing the road - restricting parking for one .The road itself is wide enough to allow cars to pass eachother in opposite dorections .Which is certainly not the case on many streets in ED" As I said earlier, it really shouldn't be an either/or. Why make life even more noisy and dangerous for people on a residential streets? Making such roads wider or more free-flowing for cars is the sort of thing that was tried in the 60s and 70s. It doesn't make anyone's lives easier except for the drivers, who, again as I mentioned, are in a minority. It does baffle me the the vast majority of road space is given over to this niche pursuit, let alone all the extra room for parking at massively subsidised costs.

"Champion Hill was a wide, sparsely populated and free flowing route towards Denmark Hill, which allowed us a fast, reliable way to bypass your streets" If I can dive in to respond to this point - I'm afraid none of that is true. And I know because I live there. It's a narrow road, and the traffic was hideous. On the part of the road joining Denmark Hill, cars would regularly go the wrong way around the traffic islands to avoid parked vehicles, while the pavement on the section towards DKH is very narrow, no fun at all to walk down with young kids when cars are bouncing over the speed bumps at 35mph or so (it's a 20mph limit). It used to be hideous to cycle on, and taking kids across the road to school in the morning would often involve parents having to actually stand in the middle to force a break in the traffic. It's also not "sparsely populated", quite the opposite. There's a series of estates of flats and houses, eg Ruskin park House, Langford Green and the blocks on the DKH side. Just because it's not a row of houses, that doesn't mean no one lives there. The idea of appealing to people to lobby the council to return things to how they were to "bypass your streets" and make your own driving experience more convenience is a bit of a depressing sentiment. Ending the Champion Hill trial isn't going to make the traffic situation any better, it just shunts in back to a different road. The fact it's my road gives me a vested interest, but I'd feel the same whichever one it was. I've posted on this in another thread so I won't repeat myself too much, but in brief: if people are genuinely interested in quieter, safer, less polluted streets, then the only way that's going to be achieved is *more* of these kids of schemes, to make it less convenient for people to drive shorter, local journeys, thus incentivising more people to use public transport, or walk or cycle. Of course, one-off schemes aren't ideal, and it would be better if Southwark had the cash/imagination to implement these changes all across SE22 & SE5, so the problem is dealt with holistically. Don't lobby Southwark to bring more cars back to Champion Hill - lobby them to also close off Melbourne Grove and all other residential streets to through traffic. Think big, not small. If people just blindly oppose every single change that could make the streets more pleasant and human-friendly, then in the end nothing gets done and we all end up having to live with the deadly effects of a transport mode used by a minority of people ? almost two-thirds of Southwark households have no access to a car. Those who do drive are also, statistically, more likely to be richer, but that's an argument for another time.

***On a separate note, there are plenty of things which could be done to improve air quality which don't involve drastic action like closing roads. Firstly, if TfL want to encourage people to cycle more, then why haven't they expanded the cycle hire network throughout Southwark? *** Access to bikes isn't really the issue. It's the fact that people don't feel safe riding them on the roads. Sure, I'd love to see the Boris Bikes reach SE London, but they're not going to get many people out of cars. ***Even if the above is all too costly, there are still things that can be done to encourage people to pollute less. For example, incentives for drivers to buy electric rather than petrol/diesel cars *** While electric cars are better than diesel ones, they still pose a major pollution problem. One of the newer aspects of research into vehicle pollution is about the particulates which come from brake and tyre wear. Some research suggests that increases in these (as cars get bigger and heavier) has cancelled out benefits in cleaner cars. It's not a politically easy issue, but there's no getting round the fact that if we want a healthier city, lots of people need to get out of cars for shorter journeys. And that's not even getting into the issue of inactive living.