n dulwich northerner

AylwardS Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > N dulwich northerner > There is a difference as a visitor to the area > looking for parking - isn?t one of the things a > CPZ is meant to do to improve parking availability > for residents? It did near us. It certainly did here too. > I chose to time my visit for free parking and went > to a couple of shops I wouldn?t have if I?d parked > in the all day zone which was closest to where I > was going. It's flexibility that seems to have no downside. There isn't a big influx during when parking is free, but outsiders can still schedule visits like the daughter who calls round to care for her mum, people who have to collect kids from school or childcare, or whatever. The two hour CPZ is a balanced, practical solution for this area.

> So Lambeth also have a two hour zone one side of the station and an all day zone the other. A minor point, but Stradella Road is in Southwark - the border is at the Half Moon pub and then along Herne Hill and Denmark Hill roads. The introduction of Lambeth's parking zones did make parking much more difficult across the N Dulwich triangle, causing many residents to change their minds and back the CPZ when it was proposed for the second time. But as far as I know, the 2 hr / all day difference between neighbouring zones has no noticeable or wide effect in this area .

Then give it another couple of weeks as schools are back. No big deal. Then accept it's a hamfisted change and try something different. But leave it as it is and things won't get better, probably much worse once work patterns are more back to more normal.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's still not really a pub if you can't wander > around with your drink. Yes, and being shown to a table in the Half Moon and then waiting for my pint made me quite sad for that reason. Nothing against them, and I've no problem giving my contact details, but I've not been back since. The Prince Regent's bar has a plastic barrier so you can get your pint and sit down outside, but for how long now?

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Given that the experiment has been implemented, is > there any virtue in allowing some time to see how > it works out before reaching any definite > conclusions or making any demands? Not really - a couple of weeks seems long enough to show the detrimental impact on neighbouring areas. Rather than persevering, other approaches might be tested. For example, moving the planters to the middle of the Melbourne Grove roads allowing customer parking for the shops at one end, making the roads one way, adding "give priority" narrowing, or putting things back as they were and seeing the CPZ's impact. Use the time to experiment and evaluate rather than persist with one hamfisted measure.

As of 20 minutes ago the stretch was still closed, even with no signs of any debris or people in the road, just a car bonnet-shaped hole in a brick wall. Better open it soon or Southwark CPZ planners will claim it's a rewilding project.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So n dulwich northerner what you are saying is > that due to neighbouring CPZs you needed one due > to the ripple effect Yes. My neighbours all expressed opposition when a CPZ was first proposed, and only streets very close to the NDL and Herne Hill stations were in favour. But the introduction of Lambeth CPZs made parking very awkward, and everyone supported the CPZ when it was again proposed. My estimate was that about 1/3 of parked cars disappeared. > I do wonder if all CPZs were removed, that with > the exception of a few hot spots, parking wouldn't > actually be the problem that they were introduced > to combat ? Who knows, but it's a pipe dream! And train stations are definitely hot spots.

monica Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We witnessed cars receiving parking tickets on > Matham Grove this morning. Reading a couple of > posts re the CPZ, it seems to me the residents who > wanted the CPZ, are still under the illusion they > will get to park their cars outside their house. > This will mot be the case, and when they are tired > of having to pay the parking fees for friends and > family, when they visit, and still cannot park > your car outs your home, then you will be asking > to remove the CPZ. > To he selfish few who just had to ruin East > Dulwich and insist on CPZ, I hope you are proud of > yourselves. Over in N Dulwich, parking for residents improved enormously when the 12-2 CPZ was introduced as it stopped commuters and those from neighbouring Lambeth CPZs who were leaving their cars in N Dulwich. One could again guarantee that there would be parking space outside or close to the house. I suspect the CPZ in East Dulwich will have similar effects, but I agree that the 9-6 will make it more onerous for visitors and will also damage businesses along Lordship Lane.

Or just logical? No point having those parking spaces because no-one's going to drive down there from ED Grove.

The congestion caused on E Dulwich Grove may deter whatever car-using customers approach from that direction, maybe stopping en route to/from Sainsburys. Meanwhile any car-using customers approaching from Dog Kennel Hill or Grove Vale have nowhere to park. There aren't many shops anyway, so they can just get on their bikes and find other jobs (irony).

Was at JS DKH this morning. Only one customer, a young man, NOT wearing a mask.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was in a big well-known supermarket recently and > as I entered an aisle a woman pulled her mask down > and sneezed over me and a few others before > pulling her mask up again. Douse her in bleach? Aisle 13.

Whatever security are supposed to do, whether it's merely catching shoplifters or generally providing security, what they are actually doing is counting people leaving. Deterring a small number of lawbreakers is unlikely to hit the bottom line since people who are worried will be more likely to shop where they feel safe.

I'm sure you're right, edhuy89. Still, each time I've been to JS DKH I've only noticed a small minority failing to wear masks, and that the security guy stands by the exit, not the entrance, which isn't much of an effort to encourage people to have respect for others.

As I said before that I'd love shops to turn away lawbreakers and let them go hungry, I must add a quick "don't feed the troll". AylwardS Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don?tbesilly must be a troll

> Perhaps the shops should just ban these people from entering and let the younger generation- myself included, carry on living their life as normal. No, they should expect you to obey this law like any other, and let you go hungry until you do.

Good for her, and who knows whether you are still immune or are contagious? Other European governments with fewer deaths/infections mandate masks so it might just be a bright idea to heed their advice rather than our own Covid-addled government's yeah-no-but-yeah "strategy"? As for the Coop, they've explained why they are failing to enforce the regulations: "Jo Whitfield, who runs the Co-op?s 2,600 grocery stores, said staff already received abuse from shoppers on a daily basis and would not be challenging customers over the matter. ?We?ll have in-store signage on the new rules around face coverings but we are clear that shop workers should not enforce the new legislation,? Whitfield said. ?On a daily basis they face abuse, threatening behaviour and even physical assault. Our own figures show that during the Covid-19 crisis such instances have risen and enforcing the wearing of face masks could be another flashpoint.? You can't ask a shelf stacker or someone on checkout to confront people and turn them away. Maybe the Coop doesn't have a security guy?

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If it is so serious, you stay at home, get home > delivery, do click and collect. > > For many people, lock-down has been seriously > mentally disturbing, particularly for those on > their own at home - balancing continuing to stay > in isolation with getting out to see some life is > difficult, certainly, but to condemn those who > have underlying conditions to continuing > imprisonment is simply cruel. I am sure those who > can't wear masks for medical reasons (which in > themselves make them more vulnerable) will have > thought very hard about going out - but maybe > their mental health needs are now trumping their > physical health needs. > > Of course there will be people who claim > disabilities they don't have. But to punish the > disabled because there are able bodied cheats is I > think wholly wrong. If you are worried about > mixing with the unmasked, perhaps you could stay > at home, get home delivery, do click and collect. > If that's all so easy. It's not punishing anyone to slip on a mask or to be asked - nicely of course - to explain their reasons for not doing so. And to use your own arguments, doesn't excluding "able bodied cheats" help make these other folk and the rest of us more confident to use the supermarket?

seenbeen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People who have breathing problems like asthma for > example cannot wear masks and should download the > badge > https://disabilityhorizons.com/2020/06/face-mask-e > xemptions-how-to-ensure-you-dont-get-fined/ > > I am not exempt but I cannot wear the cotton masks > as they are too closely woven but I can wear > disposables or t-shirt material. I have asthma myself and don't really believe it is a genuine excuse. If it is so serious, you stay at home, get home delivery, do click and collect. The more excuses they tolerate, the worse for the rest of us?

In Sainsburys DKH about 9am today, almost everyone wore masks and I only noticed 3 not doing so. I wish Sainsburys would refuse them entry - let them go hungry until they get the message.

From the tills, go to the pharmacy aisle, go 5m past the "island" and they are on the corner in front of you (earlier this week). I only saw disposable ones at 10 for ?8, and hope people also consider reusable ones.

AylwardS Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another vote for face masks from Really Maria on > Lordship Lane > 1. Local - you can buy in the shop or click and > collect - no delivery delays > 2. Good for large masks - my husband always has > trouble buying hats and spectacles as his head is > larger than average. Really Maria?s large was a > better fit than the extra large he ordered online. > The elastic can be adjusted to give the fit you > want - masks with straps round the head not ears > are better for spectacle users > 3. Only washed once but no issues Also happy with mine (?10) from Really Maria. If you're like me and prefer the straps around the ears, she'll happily do them that way.

There is a regulation on no overnight stays and after staying put for the last 2 months, moving now would seem to breach the spirit - and the intent.

Those are reasonable points, and we are supposed to be fighting the virus with "solid British common sense". But I think your first expectation should be for him to stay where he has been, unless there's a good reason otherwise. How practical is it to avoid sharing common parts? Maybe NHS 111 or whatever it is?

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51506729 "Overnight stays are also still not permitted." And see https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus . You should say no.