Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I thought some of you might be interested in this. We recently closed our street - Relf Rd in Peckham- so that our kids could play out with their neighbours, safe from cars. It was great - they played football, rode their bikes and older residnets came and leant on their gates and chatted!


It was really easy to organise. An email to the council's events locations officer - [email protected] and 020 7525 0741 - filled in some forms, letters to residents then th council delivered the barriers and 'street closed' signs.


We were inspired by a Guardian article about a scheme in Bristol. There's loads more info on the playing out website includinng template posters, letters to residents etc



http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/jun/23/reclaiming-the-streets-for-kids


www.playingout.net


We are hoping to make it a regular thing ideally monthly

If you live on the South Circular....unlikely! :-)


I'm torn on this. It IS good that kids get to play on the street. But what a shame that our streets are now so given over to cars that we have to close the road in order for them to do so.


There are no more houses now than when I grew up and yet certainly more cars and more car journeys. I was able to play in, on or around my road with relative freedom and little worry a little over 15 years ago and yet wouldn't want to do so, or allow my child to, now.


If politicians (and I don't include James B in this dig) had stood up to the car lobby more and our streets were more pedestrian (and cycle) friendly, we wouldn't need to resort to such lengths in order for our children to participate in something as simple as outdoor play next to their homes.

the 'car lobby' (who ever that is?) or just the fact that majority of people if they have the means seem to like owning cars for a variety of reasons, mainly but not entirely practical. And we haven,t yet had a a government in power who feels it's their duty to social engineer us plebs out of this nasty capitalist habit and certainly one that's ever had the money to invest enough in Public Transport (and we are talking at least quadrupling the budget to even start making a chink in the 95% of passenger journys done by private car (or there abouts last time I looked at the National Travel Survey).
Most of East Dulwich is very handy for Peckham Rye park or Dulwich Park and they have great open play spaces, playgrounds, adult gyms and pr has a skate park and adventure playground too. Many people drive or bus into the area to use them.

I took mine to the Relf Rd closure (not a resident but invited by those organising). It was loads of fun but did have a few probs explaining to my 3yr old this was a one off special event and she was allowed to play in the road as there would be no cars.


Has been a bit like telling your kids not to speak to strangers but then expecting them to have a half hour chat with Father Christmas at the grotto - don't play in the road / oh yeah do play in the road.


There are loads of well maintained outdoor facilities in E. Dul and surrounds and don't think any extra money needs to be spent.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the 'car lobby' (who ever that is?) or just the

> fact that majority of people if they have the

> means seem to like owning cars for a variety of

> reasons, mainly but not entirely practical. And we

> haven,t yet had a a government in power who feels

> it's their duty to social engineer us plebs out of

> this nasty capitalist habit and certainly one

> that's ever had the money to invest enough in

> Public Transport (and we are talking at least

> quadrupling the budget to even start making a

> chink in the 95% of passenger journys done by

> private car (or there abouts last time I looked at

> the National Travel Survey).


You don't think a car lobby exists? Or you don't know who it's made up of? I'll presume the latter although I suspect you're being provocatively naive regardless. I would, off the top of my head, list car manufacturers, petrol retailers, pressure groups like the AA and RAC and trade bodies. They would influence national transport policy and this would filter down to local authorities. It's not some grand conspiracy, just how things work.


Nor is your attempt to label this as some anti-capitalist rant accurate. One of the most free-market countries on earth, Singapore, makes car ownership difficult and expensive and provides a superb public transport infrastructure.


And I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that in dense urban areas that car use could be much lower than it currently is if there was a political will for it. Or if there had been over many years. But there hasn't/isn't. And I completely understand that if you live in a rural or even suburban area then this is a much more difficult proposition.


If we want our inner cities to be greener, more pleasant places to live and safer for our children then our use of cars needs serious attention.

David - your political will bit gives the game away. The point is it's not really what the people want YET - and not becuase there's some capitalist crony car lobby hoodwinking us all - however frustrating that is to you as a socialsit who wants the state to decide for us rather tha us have the choice. Incidentally, all those countries that have thrown off the yoke 'of people on high that know best' for political freedom have a) got richer b) got more cars.


Singapore is a lol example. I've only been there once but reclaimed streets teaming with kids playing? mmm not anywhere near where I was or went. Their car policy reflects the fact that they had rampant congestion and it's still there - and that's where your solution will come when it get's unbearable. They've also plenty of money to invest in Public Transport (and I don't remember it being all that) as they don't have a welfare state or NHS. To be absolutely clear before you jump in I do NOT want a society without either of those thanks.


Happy to move this debate elsewhere as we've hijacked a thread about a decent initiative

There was a similar thread a while ago - I was really confused by this concept as children on our road play out in the street (admittedly it's a quiet road). Initially with supervision and then gradually as they grow in independence, and common sense, unsupervised.


It's a wonderful throw-back to the way it used to be (remember the good old days when all around was green fields and you could go out for tuppence ha'penny yadda yadda)


But is intensely different from 'closing a road' which personally I have issues with as surely the point is to grow in independence and safety - probably preparing them for secondary which comes round so quickly.


If the road is so busy it needs closing then it shouldn't be used IMO and the open spaces of Goose Green, Peckham Rye, Dulwich Park etc should be used. Otherwise parents in the street can keep an eye out / supervise as required and gradually you get children with road safety experience, neighbourhood communities and a lovely childhood


well that's my take anyway

The OP makes an interesting point about older residents coming out to socialise as well, so it isn't just about kids, or streets vs playparks. Older residents may be unable or feel comfortable walking to playparks to socialise. A quiet road with no cars might seem quite inviting for older folks to come out on their doorsteps and chat with neighbours they don't see everyday. xx

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

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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