Jump to content

Recommended Posts


There where seven objection against the 20mph blanket, which by the way slows down all traffic flowing through the borough. All where rejected by the council in favour of two supporters.



It was there in the Labour Party's election manifesto for anyone to read. They won the election. Seems democratic enough to me.



Bus journeys across the borough are now even slower so that few cyclists/pedestrians can take more risks on the road.



Every single last one of us is a pedestrian some of the time. And while *you* may *think* that "cyclist" is a word for a tribe of weird death-wish fitness enthusiasts with a rubber fetish, what it actually means is anybody, any time they decide to pick up a bicycle and use it to get from A to B. Which, for quite a lot of journeys, is actually rather pratical.



Vote these imbeciles out



It's your right to try and do so. Me personally, I'll be voting them back in.

Thanks bawdy-nan for the detailed links. I am persuaded that reduction of accident death and injury is worth any extra pollution caused - if at all - by driving at 20mph.


I still would like to be persuaded that I am just being paranoid when I suspect speed cameras will be used as a cynical inflexible tool for generating revenue rather than contributing to a safer driving culture.


There has got to be open debate based on intelligent science behind choice of speed limits - whether urban roads or motorways.


bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> Here's a few links which collate the evidence:

>

> http://www.rospa.com/about/currentcampaigns/public

> health/info/rs4-casestudy-20-mph-zones.pdf

>

> http://www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/danny

> dorling_publication_id3924.pdf

>

> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/res

> earch-summary-no2-20mph-zones.pdf

>

> from the tfl report above:

> Casualties

> The impact on casualties due to the

> introduction of 20 mph zones in London

> can be summarised as follows;

>

> ● Allowing for background changes in

> KSI casualty frequencies, the

> installation of 20 mph zones has

> reduced the frequency of road user

> casualties within the zones by about

> 45% and reduced the frequency of

> fatal or serious (KSI) casualties by

> about 57%.

>

> ● There were statistically significant

> reductions in the KSI casualty

> frequency for most classes of road

> user within the 20 mph zones.

>

> ● The KSI casualty frequency for

> children also fell significantly --

> by 60%.

>

> ● The severity ratio (the ratio of KSI

> casualties to all casualties) fell from

> 0.16 to 0.12 following zone

> installation ? indicating a reduced

> severity.

>

> ● The average annual reduction in fatal

> and serious (KSI) casualties per 20

> mph zone suggests an annual saving

> of about 66 KSI casualties across all

> of London?s current 20 mph zones.

> Using DfT figures this is equivalent to

> a current annual saving of at least

> ?8.8 million, at 2001 prices.

>

> Here's the 8 page thread where all of this was

> discussed last month

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5

> ,1459395,page=1

I don't get the speed camera debate:


1. You get a warning side by the road a mile or so in advance

2. There's a great big yellow box at the site itself (usually with the word "GATSO" in big capital letters

3. There's lines in the road where you would be photographed if speeding


How on earth do you get caught in one?

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> > There where seven objection against the 20mph

> blanket, which by the way slows down all traffic

> flowing through the borough. All where rejected by

> the council in favour of two supporters.

>

>

> It was there in the Labour Party's election

> manifesto for anyone to read. They won the

> election. Seems democratic enough to me.

>

>

> Bus journeys across the borough are now even

> slower so that few cyclists/pedestrians can take

> more risks on the road.

>

>

> Every single last one of us is a pedestrian some

> of the time. And while *you* may *think* that

> "cyclist" is a word for a tribe of weird

> death-wish fitness enthusiasts with a rubber

> fetish, what it actually means is anybody, any

> time they decide to pick up a bicycle and use it

> to get from A to B. Which, for quite a lot of

> journeys, is actually rather pratical.

>

>

> Vote these imbeciles out

>

>

> It's your right to try and do so. Me personally,

> I'll be voting them back in.


I would think not to many people read their manifesto in southwark as most people know no matter what party it is the manifesto is fairy story.


Many people in Southwark would vote for the party gave them freebies as the turnout is always low it does not represent the true view.


Hence a very small number of people can push a party into power.


7 Against 2 for democracy says not passed.

Well, more fool those who vote without knowing, or don't vote at all. That's possibly the worst excuse of the lot. They promised to do it and they're pushing it through. You don't hold a referendum on every decision especially any that are in your manifesto.

People who read and voted for Clegg on fees got shafted and call me Dave on inheritance tax got shafted.


What they put in apart from the headline grabbing political policy is what they push through which is what was always intended


Hence people cannot be asked now days.


30 mph on busy roads, 20 on residential roads and pedestrians on the pavement.


Common sense

richard tudor Wrote:

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

> People who read and voted for Clegg on fees got

> shafted and call me Dave on inheritance tax got

> shafted.

>

> What they put in apart from the headline grabbing

> political policy is what they push through which

> is what was always intended

>

> Hence people cannot be asked now days.

>

> 30 mph on busy roads, 20 on residential roads and

> pedestrians on the pavement.

>

> Common sense


And hopefully no-one votes for them again. I still don't see your point. This lot said they would do it and they are. Surely you should be approving? I agree with the 20mph policy which is being implemented across nearly every Borough.

I don't agree with a blanket 20 through the borough. Unfortunately Tooley Street seems to think blanket idea fits all.


Should have asked local Housing offices for their local knowledge but many experienced officers have gone in the last reorganisation. Consultants is the thing now.


My point is this 20 mph idea was on page 7 out of 10 of the manifesto in a small paragraph which I doubt many people even made it to let alone read to vote on.


Real life experience on the ground is what is required not book theory.




You have your view I have mine.

make_some_sence Wrote:

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

> Here is the S**t used by the overlords at

> southwark

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4728 .


The most interesting part of this is a that Southwark has quietly included cyclists in the 20mph limit. There's going to be a LOT of howling when the first few are presented with speeding fines.

Wulfhound. you must surely be a Wum and you have pulled me in with your ridiculous posts over the last couple of weeks on this matter. well done I applaud your efforts. Of course a political party can do what it likes if voted in. Although perhaps may i suggest that as the people of East Dulwich didn't vote them in, (I believe they were at best 3rd in both Village and East Dulwich ward) perhaps the people of this forum do afterall have some right to complain if the policies are misguided and financially based, even if they told us of this plan in advance. Perhaps the bright people of East Dulwich had all read the manifesto and explicitly voted against them for this very reason, so to say they have no right now to complain is simply moronic. but I guess you know that Wulf

Richard Tudor wrote 'People who read and voted for Clegg on fees got shafted and call me Dave on inheritance tax got shafted.'


Without any brief for either party quoted - the nature of a coalition government is that the full manifestos of the parties concerned will not be acted on - otherwise they would be the same party. Coalition requires compromise, hence manifesto pledges cannot all be delivered for both parties; if they were to insist on this they would never have any coalition in the first place. Simples.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Richard Tudor wrote 'People who read and voted for

> Clegg on fees got shafted and call me Dave on

> inheritance tax got shafted.'

>

> Without any brief for either party quoted - the

> nature of a coalition government is that the full

> manifestos of the parties concerned will not be

> acted on - otherwise they would be the same party.

> Coalition requires compromise, hence manifesto

> pledges cannot all be delivered for both parties;

> if they were to insist on this they would never

> have any coalition in the first place. Simples.



Hence why I think there will be no coalition this year.


Maybe a pact.

Loz Wrote:

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

> make_some_sence Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Here is the S**t used by the overlords at

> > southwark

> >

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetail

> s.aspx?ID=4728 .

>

> The most interesting part of this is a that

> Southwark has quietly included cyclists in the

> 20mph limit. There's going to be a LOT of howling

> when the first few are presented with speeding

> fines.


Didn't they go back on that after legal advice ?

Loz Wrote:

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

> make_some_sence Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Here is the S**t used by the overlords at

> > southwark

> >

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetail

> s.aspx?ID=4728 .

>

> The most interesting part of this is a that

> Southwark has quietly included cyclists in the

> 20mph limit. There's going to be a LOT of howling

> when the first few are presented with speeding

> fines.


I can't find any reference to cyclists being included in this. Either way, it's entirely unenforcible.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I can't find any reference to cyclists being

> included in this. Either way, it's entirely unenforcible.


It's in the objection/response to Objection 8 in the 'report' document. And, whilst not enforceable with unmanned cameras, it is entirely enforceable with hand-held speed cameras.

I don't know if the Met have a official tolerance for speed limits but I have read most police forces set it at 10% + 2. So anyone is unlikely to get a ticket if they are going under 24 - but that is going it some on a bike. When Bradley Wiggin's won the Tour de France he only averaged 24.8 mph. A cyclist going that fast should slow down imo.

Loz Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I can't find any reference to cyclists being

> > included in this. Either way, it's entirely

> unenforcible.

>

> It's in the objection/response to Objection 8 in

> the 'report' document. And, whilst not enforceable

> with unmanned cameras, it is entirely enforceable

> with hand-held speed cameras.


But what about this..


http://road.cc/content/news/124738-southwark-backs-down-20mph-cycling-limit

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

    • OOOOooooOOOooohhhHHHHHH 👜 👜 👜 
    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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