Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just a little puzzle.


The new mums in East Dulwich seem to be affluent enough to buy designer buggies.


If affluent, why buy a buggy which places the child at the level of nasty motor vehicle exhaust fumes, rather than a pram which would lessen the pollution the child breathes in?


Status symbol more important than child health?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2143-buggy-pollution-in-east-dulwich/
Share on other sites

Plus kids only stay lying flat in their prams until they are about 6 - 9 months old. You then still have another couple of years or so of slogging them about in the buggy.


Maybe we should stop them breathing in the pollution by driving them about in 4x4s from shop door to shop door thus not exposing them to street level?


Or get those ginormous Silver Cross prams like in the old days?

I think I would have problems pushing a pram through the streets of East Dulwich. There just is no room. Perhaps we could solve more problems by narrowing the roads and therefore widening the pavements. Then there would be no room for the 4x4s to drive on the roads.
Macroban are you confusing us with the second hand, 2005 buggy models in Brockley?. In ED 90% of exhaust fumes are from electric hybrids and yummy mummies pedaling to SMBS on their bikes. You'll find the heavy metal tinged CO2 more prevalent in West Dulwich.

The last time I push-chaired the streets of East Dulwich was in the 1950s. I've never attempted a 21st century designer buggy. Then there were very few motor vehicles, and exhaust fumes in the baby's face was not a consideration.


I'm just surprised that none of the mums with buggies are concerned now.

modern life kalamitykel, it takes 5 minutes to get from the swing to the slide, so walking to the shops would take most of the day I'm afraid.


there was a buggy that was designed to keep kids high up out of way of fumes. it looked most odd and ungainly and they didn't seem to have any evidence that the air quality 3 foot up is any better that that found at about 1.5 feet high.

blinder is right, they dont need much, but IMHO they do need a buggy. worth spending a few (maybe not ?550) quid if you work out how long you'll be using it for. you dont want one that gets knackered after repeated folding.

3 years? every day? how many miles a day? then maybe another child?


some things that babies really dont need:

shoes. tricky one this.....they cant walk.

their own channel on satellite tv devoted to bright shiny colours

video monitor so you can watch them sleep from another room.....um, just go into the room and look at them

special rocking chair to be fed in. unless maybe you dont have any chairs already

keef you're a civil servant aren't you - i'd recommend postcard on the work/office social noticeboard [or whatever the e-quivalent is] to fill most of your child equipment needs.


many of your colleagues will have boxes of blankets, rattles, bouncers and prams they will be very happy to pass on. lowers the cost and you get to see how haggard real parents are.


we got rid of all our baby gear on freecycle, but it seems to have less baby stuff for offer these days.


Ultraconsultancy

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 ranging from £175 to £300" 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 per se, 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...