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.

*** Also what about the residents on Grove Lane? Are they meant to (quite literally in terms of emissions) suck it up as they are on a more main road? Champion Hill is actually a fairly wide road that isn't difficult to drive down *** On main roads, it's a tricky one. There's an argument that they're safer for more traffic as they have more space, bus lanes, pedestrian crossing etc. The smog is an issue, especially as this is a blight caused disproportionately by richer people (more likely to drive) on poorer ones (more likely to live on busy roads). But again, I'd argue the solution is to reduce the amount of motor traffic. As for CH, it might be OK to drive down, but it was hideous for cycling/walking. On the DKH end it's very narrow, as are the pavements, and in clear traffic the majority of cars skip over the speed bumps at well over 20mph. The Denmark Hill side, with all the pinch points, was grim to cycle along, and TfL are well aware that to designate that stretch a 'quietway' without the change would be absurd. Even walking used to be no fun as drivers fairly regularly sped the wrong side of the traffic islands to avoid having to weave between them and parked cars. It's very unsettling to be walking on the right-hand pavement and have a car whizz past your ear from behind.

*** Driving for some people isn?t a choice. Not everyone is part of some selfish environment destroying car club, speeding in their 4x4s. I?m a keen cyclist and would love to be able to cycle with my child to school but unfortunately he has a disability and so that isn?t an option *** Sure - and that's part of the argument for schemes that, ultimately, remove some cars from the roads ? it leaves more space for those, like you, who have no choice but to drive. As to the current disruption, I can see it must be frustrating, though I'd say first that it's tricky to judge a six-month trial four days into it. But more generally I'd reiterate my point: if vehement protest over any traffic-reducing scheme causes them to be abandoned then nothing gets done. And the status quo is no good. Congestion will get worse and worse anyway. It's time to argue for wider action. Every time I go down Melbourne Grove I think it's absurd it's not blocked to motor traffic at one end. It's hugely unfair on residents. Same for lots of other residential streets. But - and this is the key thing ? if councils have to reverse what you might call the easier changes (TfL are behind the CH scheme due to the quietway, so it has official backing), then *nothing* will get done. And if we're serious about making steets more pleasant, protecting kids from pollution, all of that, then it needs more radical action, not doing nothing.

I'm going to go against the tone of most posts here and try and argue why I think the Champion Hill scheme, while it has problems, is the right thing to do. To begin with, I think it's not ambitious enough ? it should be (as originally agreed in the consultation a few years ago), to make CH access-only in both directions, ie at the three-way junction it should be entirely blocked to motor vehicles. But I'd also say that it should be introduced as part of wider changes to the whole area, to make it less convenient to drive along smaller, residential streets. Individual, one-off schemes like this just risk pushing the same traffic onto other residential roads. Now I get why Southwark are limited in how much they can do at once ? it?s down to funding ? but it seems to me the point is not to argue *against* individual schemes but *in favour of* doing both these and more. Why? Because it's vital both that cars are kept, where possible, off residential streets, and more widely that measures are taken to make driving short distances less convenient, thus pushing people onto other modes of transport. Of course, some people need to use cars, vans etc, but more than a third of all car trips in London are less than 2km ? ie possible to walk for many, and can be done on a bike in about ten minutes. But people are less likely to walk ? and definitely won?t cycle ? when the roads feel so perilous and feral. Champion Hill is meant to be part of Quietway 7, a route aimed at slower, less-experienced riders. But before the scheme riding along it was terrible, especially the section with all the pinch points. Any why should we be seeking to make this change? Because the current situation is both unsustainable and a massive social injustice. Factors like the growth of Uber and Amazon mean roads are ever-more congested. Doing nothing isn?t an option. And private cars are a part of the problem. In Southwark, almost two-thirds of households don?t own a car, and those who do are disproportionately likely to be wealthier. So you have a situation where a richer minority is imposing huge costs ? noise, danger, pollution, congestion ? on everyone. Pollution outside schools is a massive problem in London (and disproportionately affects schools in poorer areas ? a common feature of traffic-related harm) but you?re not going to solve it by opposing every single scheme to reduce traffic. Instead, you need to argue for more of them. Most inner-London primary schools have small catchment areas, and the bulk of pupils could walk, cycle or scoot. The fact many don?t is often because they feel the roads are too perilous, given the number of cars ? that cycle needs to be broken. Eventually, as shorter car trips are replaced by people using buses, bikes, foot etc, it gets better for everyone, including those on buses, or those who have to drive. My challenge to everyone complaining about this is simple: what?s your solution? The status quo isn?t sustainable, not least with 10,000 or so people potentially dying young in London due to pollution, and an NHS which will collapse before too long unless people start become more physically active. If not such schemes, then what? You might say, ?Ah, but it?s just this scheme I object to.? But there?s always opposition. And if people argue vehemently against every such change (eg also Camberwell Grove), then nothing gets every gets done. And, to repeat, the status quo isn?t going to stop kids from breathing toxic air, or make your trip to work any faster. Disclosure: I live on CH, and so benefit from the change. And it?s great. Parents taking kids to school no longer need to actually stand in the road so kids can safely cross (some drivers, annoyed when the person in front stopped, would go the wrong way round the traffic island and speed past anyway). And I accept the signage could be better at DKH, and hope very much the traffic chaos faced by others on CH and nearby ends soon. But even if the change was on a neighbouring road and it was making traffic by me worse, I wouldn?t argue for it to stop. I?d argue for more action, not less. Mini-rant over.

To go back to the original question, the plan is apparently to keep the planters and thus keep Windsor Walk as access only for cars, not a through road. That makes perfect sense, as it's otherwise a rat run, and sends vehicles through an area often full of pedestrians from the station. I've got no idea why so much time was spent repairing the bridge.

We've been let down by a couple of (very busy) recommended electricians, and we're worried about having no hob to cook on for Xmas. If there's a reputable electrician who could install a new electric hob (just the hob - oven is separate and still working) in SE5 today or tomorrow, do get in touch. Or any recommendations very welcome. Many thanks.

I'm always amused by the way so many car drivers get outraged at ? the horror! ? having to pay fines for breaking the law. As has been said before: these traffic wardens/speed cameras/other law enforcement measures aren't to blame: it's your fault for committing an offence. I'm even more amused by the notion than such road rule enforcement is petty and people should be trusted to drive in a safe manner. Oh yes, and that by objecting to this you're somehow a "killjoy". That would work slightly better as an argument if a/ London traffic speeds weren't roughly the same on average as they were over a century ago and b/ not far short of 3,000 people didn't die annually in traffic incidents. Three thousand deaths a year is something to get outraged about, not a Smart car supposedly hiding in bushes (a curious image). Get some perspective. And yes, I am a driver.

There's never going to be any meaningful progress without national efforts to get a lot of people out of their cars. That's going to take more than the good people of East Dulwich, new pedestrian crossing or not. LL is a vehicle through-route and pretty much all the unpleasantness associated with it is due to the incessant procession of private cars, many carrying one person on a short trip which could just as easily have been done on bus or bike. Imagine how much more liveable LL - in fact all London - would be if rather than 2% of trips being made by bike it was 25% or so, like in the Netherlands. It's not impossible. The Dutch managed to re-shape their transport priorities in the 60s and 70s. It's a question of political will. Sadly, the hugely vocal UK car lobby and their cheerleaders in the popular press will stop this. "End this war on the motorist!" they yell, without apparent irony.

Ah well, thanks for what tips there have been (apart from the 'stop being lazy' one). I do, otherwise, shred as a I go; this is a one-off pile which accumulated due to it being papers connected to life abroad which I had to keep hold of for a set period. I did have a go at the pile with a ?60 shredder, and after an evening's stop/start work I had a binbag full of shreds but about 95% of the pile still to get through - it really is about 20-25kg. I'm not sure I want to devote three weeks of evenings to such a dull chore. The shredder then stopped working and I had to take it back to the shop.

Thanks for all the tips, but sadly I remain a bit stuck. My garden is a small courtyard, and burning that much paper - about 20kg - would be a bit antisocial for nearby neighbours. It's also far too much for any domestic shredder, which (unless you spend about ?150) generally need about 10 minutes of cooling for every 3 minutes of shredding. It would take me about 24 hours straight, more probably. Agree fully in future it's best to keep on top of this, but these papers were mainly from when I lived abroad, and I had to keep them for a while for tax reasons.

I've got more or less an entire bin bag of papers which need to be securely shredded ? bank/credit card statements, work-related documents etc ? and I'm not sure what the best option is. It's far too much for a domestic shredder and setting fire to it all would be a bit anti-social where I live. Can anyone maybe recommend a shredding service? Most commercial shredding companies seem to only cover businesses with vast amounts to shred regularly, not just one-off jobs. Any tips appreciated.