Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The kerb build out were placed to stop people driving the wrong way up Spurling Road. Residents told me that this happened at speed as drivers preumsbly wanted to reduce the time they spent doing this illegale maneuvre.

Rather than just place a block to illegal cars I asked that we allow cycle through as they can then reach lots of quiet roads.

I'm told that a traffic order needs to catch-up with this cycle gap. As traffic orders are a legal requirement and cost a lot of money - I was quoted typical costs inclduing pubcli consultation, legally required advertising etc of ?5,000 - I'm expecting it to be piggy backed with other traffic orders. Fortunately as the gap was included with the Goose Green rounabout changes consultation it shouldn't need a reconusltation.

That road is not appropriate for a cycle contra flow - it's a fast corner from Crawthew Grove onto Spurling Road and because it's one way cars tend to swing wide around it. I live in Crawthew Grove and I have seen cyclists glide out into the path of cars (I stopped using it after I nearly hit the car coming round the corner), it's a matter of time before a cyclist coming up Spurling Road gets knocked off - you can't see round the corner as it's a sharp bend with no visibility past the parked cars. I'm all for making cycling quicker and easier but also stopping to think whether or not it makes it safer would also be a useful consideration - its not very sustainable otherwise...
Huh - dunno about it not being good going along the wrong way - dangerous going the right way - came down there @ 08.30hrs on the bike and nearly got taken out by a car driver motorist who drive across the white line coming along Crawthew Grove from Lordship Lane without giving way to me as I came down the slope towards Spurling Road - good thing my brakes worked!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...