thebestnameshavegone

I don't remember being consulted about all the people being able to store 2 tons of their private property for free at the sides of the roads, but here we are. Has anyone ever asked or leafletted properly and followed that up? No.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am shocked at how bad the traffic is on Lordship > Lane right now - it's scary how bad things have > got so quickly following the implementation of the > closures - it's obvious the EDG/LL junction and > Goose Green roundabout cannot handle the numbers > of extra cars being forced through them. > > The problem is the council doesn't care about > Lordship Lane, in fact I think a lot of them > actually despise it. Presumably you were driving through on another essential journey with your kids, and definitely not contributing to the traffic volume

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I passed the planters in ?Dulwich Square? on my > walk from a very busy EDG to the park. They were > as dry as a bone and most of the plants were dead > or dying. If EDG is made into a lovely traffic > free road, I will be happy to water our planters. Don't forget that a grown man / woman from One Dulwich spent some of their free time tearfully throwing the plants in those planters into the road 5 or 6 times since they got put in because they were upset about their journey taking an extra 10 minutes. I'm not surprised they look worse for wear

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's starting....the pressure is mounting....TV > news coverage tonight as well. Votes will be at > stake now.... Oh no, not the TV news! You already posted this in the other thread by the way.

You can still drive round, if there's something essential for you in Melbourne Grove? There is no 'nationwide campaign' - a newspaper, worried about falling ad revenue, has to present any story as something incendiary, or a 'fury' to get clicks. The amount of vehicles on the roads has doubled in the last 30 years, which isn't sustainable - so if you're upset about the volume of traffic now, unless more drastic measures are taken pretty soon it will get far, far worse.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I was on EDG at about 5pm today, there wasn't > any > > congestion at all. Is this kind of anecdata > > useful? > > > > "the petition has nearly a thousand signatures > > which is about 8% of the total population of > East > > Dulwich" > > > > Yeah, but change.org petitions of any > persuasion > > are a load of old tut. Those signatories aren't > > all East Dulwich residents (or even necessarily > > all real). > > > Let's be honest, Change.org petitions are a lot > more transparent than the consultation surveys the > council conducts! ;-) > > The thing that the pro-closure lobby doesn't seem > to like right now is that there is a lot of > dissent against the closures amongst a large > swathe of the community and they seek to > de-position and belittle to try and maintain the > impression that everything is great and it is a > minority of petrol-heads making a lot of noise. > For the pro group they aren't that happy that the > playing field is being levelled after having the > council echo-chamber to themselves for so long. The road isn't closed. None of the roads are closed. You can still drive your brum brum where you like. It might take longer. But if the journey is indeed 'essential', that shouldn't be too much of an issue.

We need to have fewer car trips in London. It?s really simple. You?re either pro low traffic stuff. Or you?re pro more car congestion.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The good thing about this change of heart from > Shapps is that councils will now need to consult > on changes rather than dictate to their voters > > It may still result in the same changes occurring > but at least people will feel that they've had > their input to the process. Do you remember when you voted for your local councillors? That was when you had 'input to this process'.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @bestnamesetc > Which roads do your childern use to get to school, > The ones the councillors are diverting traffic > onto? My kids walk to school. Anyone driving their kids to school shouldn't be allowed to live in London.

I think it should be compulsory to drive children to school, anyone makes my children breathe fumes I swear I'll do time

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are there any studies that support the idea that > more roads reduce traffic? None. More roads equal more traffic. When one is accustomed to privilege, equity feels like oppression.

It's quite easy to replace them with concrete blocks as they've done on Rye Lane. It's a bit futile, tearfully vandalising a planter because you want to drive your brum-brum wherever you please first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not in any way advocating or condoning this sort > of action but would not be surprised if more of > this occurs. When you read about break-ins and > theft carried out in broad daylight with no police > action, moving planters will probably be pretty > low on the list. > > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In another nearby borough I discovered today > the > > residents themselves have removed one of the > new > > planters blocking their road because they were > so > > fed of up all the new congestion caused by cars > > trying to find alternative routes and endlessly > u > > turning. > > > > The implementation and outcome of these schemes > > have been utterly woeful.

11 posts, all about road closures. How much do they pay you lot? I'd ask for a pay rise ------------------------------------------------------- > thebestnameshavegone Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Bingo > > Damn, you're so edgy and original. > > > I have reviewed the ED CPZ consultation report. > > > 69% residents were against and 91% businesses > were > > against. Yet this is the quote I received from > the > > project PM > > > > This decision was made by the cabinet member and > > > ward councillors and is widely supported by > > residents. > > And they wonder why the turnout for council > elections hovers around the 30% mark in most > wards.

Bingo

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear lord ,could these people not find better > things to do with their time and energy .You know > ,something that might contribute to the good of > the less privileged . Whining that you can't drive your expensive car where you like at all times is the very definition of privilege.

Imagine thinking using public space for something other than cars was selfish. How much do you One Dulwich astroturfers get paid, or is it just bar credits at Solidify Sports Club?

Maybe they're volunteers, just like one Dulwich are eh ne21 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not sure who is funding these duets and we > also had a women on stilts arrive in dulwich > village - I believe she was being paid by > southwark to walk around dulwich village - a day > when no-one was there saying shop local. I would > prefer the money to be spent on supplies for the > foodbank.

Yeah, it was so much nicer and safer when it was an endless chain of white Range Rovers driving 1.5km trips on Really Important Errands. I can't stand people enjoying themselves. roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I understand that gatherings of no more than 30 > people are allowed. Looks like more than 30 people > in the video. I wouldn?t be happy if I lived on > Court Lane/Calton junction with all that going on > outside, think the closure will be losing any > remaining support with locals.

Siri, define 'joyless'

Well, they would surely condemn the continued vandalism of the planters, and associated criminal vandalism such as this if it was really absolutely nothing to do with them. Yet they're strangely silent, despite having a well-oiled comms strategy and army of winged monkeys and digital astroturfers parroting the official lines. So yes, they are directly responsible. hopskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wonder what your evidence is for saying this. > Or just your biased attempt to discredit? I have > been following One Dulwich and can see that they > have been pushing our Councillors to explain what > the monitoring plans are - ie advocating car (and > cycle) counting tubes, air pollution monitoring > etc. >

Of course it is. The last desperate lurch of an entitled group of polluters, resorting to petty vandalism. ------------------------------------------------------- > Someone's cut the tubes on the pneumatic car > counter on Calton avenue. It looks more like a > deliberate disablement of it rather than kids > vandalism. > > One dulwich supporter?

Ooh, can someone hear a dog whistle?

Just ridden down here with my 6yo, something I would have never entertained previously. Working really well. Great idea, hopefully will stick this time (it was done before, if anyone remembers the rising bollard of the early 2000s)

If you're sitting in traffic complaining about traffic, you *are* traffic. l72 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just a reminder that you can join the people that > have set up One Dulwich if you are as fed up with > these road closures as us; > > [Link to angry motorist website] > I travelled from East Dulwich to West Norwood > yesterday in the middle of the afternoon (to buy > paint so couldn't walk or cycle) > > It took me 40 minutes to get there and 35 minutes > to get back which is twice as long as it would > have taken before these ridiculous road closures. > > > I sat in a huge queue of traffic at the bottom of > Lordship Lane trying to get on to the South > Circular- backed up as far as Court Lane. Then sat > in yet more queuing traffic on the South Circular, > then the same on the way back. > > Anyone that thinks these closures are creating > less pollution is insane. > > And this is the quietest it will ever be- wait > until the Football & Rugby fixtures start at the > weekends, the children go back to school and > everyone is unfurloughed and driving at rush > hour... > > Add your experiences to the Southwark map- I am > sure the Council will do their best to ignore them > so join One Dulwich to make your voice heard too. > [well funded website from angry motorists] > > They are treating us local residents like > idiots...

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dont bother about the elderly. Just a small > minority....Let them sit in traffic jams..Better > still throw a protective ring of planters round > them. I'm not aware of residential schemes that have cut off homes from motor access entirely. Please share details if you have any though. I'm sure if people *really* cared about these groups they'd have no qualms about making all on road parking outside local shops blue badge only