Rockets

I don’t why some on here take every conversation as a means to try and attack car use. Funny how no-one has anything to say about the variety of sensible improvement suggestions for Lordship Lane yet are fixating on widening the pavement by removing car parking spaces. I mean, has anyone got stuck outside Odonno’s for more than a few seconds….or has anyone been stranded there for days…….;-)

Did you read it, what do you think? You may have to pause occasionally but it's hardly the end of the world and no different to most other high streets at a weekend.

This thread is hilarious. Just because it doesn't say you must wear bright clothing why wouldn't you? When I cycle I have a day glo, reflective builders bib that I bought from a builder's supply store for a few quid. It's no fashion statement but it fits in my pocket and over anything I am wearing and I wear it because it increases the chance of other road users seeing me, especially at night. That seems entirely sensible and pragmatic. I also marvel at some cyclists seemingly going out of their way to decrease the chance of other roads users seeing them. Not sensible and pragmatic.

Errr...because the last time the council surveyed Lordship Lane shops 22% said they had driven....that is all...goodness me P.S. that was the last time the council ran such a survey.....and it is here (I am out and about so cannot attach): Source: Southwark Council https://share.google/5ZZZbi6iG3BDEAx5j

Here we go again…..goodness me…relentless. Zero point trying to have a conversation when it gets skewed like this. So, maybe let’s just encourage the council to run another survey as I do not think they have done one for 10 years so we can get an accurate picture. When I get a chance I will also post the survey the council did 10 years ago so you can all see for yourselves what was said.

But where did it say they are driving to work there and then shopping? 22% of the respondents said they had driven. Look, we know some are trying to use this to lobby for the removal of parking spaces but those spaces (which are growing more limited each time the CPZ creep takes place) are vital to the thriving Lane as we know it now. Please, drop the parking bone and go pick up another - there are far more pressing needs for Goose Green end of Lordship Lane if the council were to spend any more on it....move it to Dulwich Village and millions would have been spent by now! 😉

Yes I am not sure there are many Southwark traffic management experts suggesting the closure of Lordship Lane - the chaos that would create with buses alone would be awful! It appears an utterly farcical idea born out of ideology rather than pragmatism and, of course, begs the really basic question of how do bus users then get to Lordship Lane - get off at Dulwich library and walk or wait for the bus to divert all the way round to Goose Green, get off there and walk?

What in the report (that was based on a survey done on a Tuesday and a Saturday - that concluded footfall is far busier on a Saturday) suggests that conclusion? It states it draws people from a wider than average area and it does also say, doesn't it, that....."The fact that the variety of stores is rated more positively (and by quite a margin) than the convenience indicates that this is drawing shoppers strongly, which is a phenomenon not noted in many other Southwark high streets which seem to be visited "because it is there". Also worth noting that a far higher % of respondents noted ease of parking as one of the draws of Lordships Lane and this was noted in the report that it was more than twice the average of elsewhere. Which area of transport are you an expert in again @malumbu? I am no expert but that doesn't seem like an idea that is entirely credible. Unless, as @CPR Dave suggests you divert everything around to and along Barry Road. Which route do you think would work for buses and essential vehicles if the shopping part of LL was shut?

And the last council survey it undertook suggested that, if I remember correctly, 22% of all shoppers had driven to use Lordship Lane and the vast majority from postcodes not bordering SE22 and that the council considered it a destination shopping area. Let's also be very frank and pragmatic - in many of the areas people are saying need widening the pavement is very wide it's just that shop frontages and displays have encroached a long way out creating a narrowing effect and yes, sometimes you have to wait at weekends to let people pass but it's not the end of the world. As someone who can often be found sampling a tipple or two at Cave du Bruno or an ice-cream sat out Oddono's I am all for shop frontage creep! I think the removal of car parking spaces would be nothing more than a council CPZ creation programme and I would like to hope a more pragmatic approach is taken and we can see better lighting on Lordship Lane around the shops as it is very dark in places, there still needs to be some sort of crossing at EDG and LL and just better paving would help anyone - those would be my priorities and they would come way before removing parking spaces. BTW given Cllr McAsh has been one of the councillors responsible for Lordship Lane and given his free-spending on other projects in his cabinet role why has Lordship Lane been allowed to fall into such a neglectful state - it's a bit, well, shoddy and tired now?

Clearly, something should be done about Lordship Lane as it is starting to feel very tired and, despite lots of money spent elsewhere, hasn't really had much in the way of investment for a long time now. What this cannot become though is a trojan horse to implement a load of active travel measures by stealth...it doesn't, for example, need a pedestrian crossing every 50 yards......and already the "remove the car storage facilities on Lordship Lane" narrative is gathering pace. It'll be a brave councillor who stands in front of the Lordship Lane shopkeepers and pitches that one....they tried it once before and it did't end well....

Did anyone else notice how he is very careful not to mention them by name!?

So warranted insults are ok then? Honestly.... Which misinformation exactly? I wouldn't accuse you of being forum police but I do wonder if you are starting to stray into exactly the territory I am accusing others of occupying.

I am definitely not perfect but the things people accuse me of on here is ridiculous - if AI did a run of the accusations made against me by some other posters and summarised it, it would make scary reading - "lair", "outed someone", "childish", "embarrassing", "right-wing petrolhead Reform supporter", and so the list goes on. Good job I have a thick skin! Yes I did realise that! 😉

A number of posters have been hounded off the forum such is the toxicity aimed at them...I mean look at some of the names I have been called on this thread alone....makes you think doesn't it? They came a long way then didn't they to be referred to as the 4th emergency service for a long time! 😉 The point remains they are trying to draw attention to the use of PCNs as a money-making exercise. I presume you disagree with them and their expert assessment?

And that's when it gets complicated because some people, normally those with an ideological obsession over something cannot stand the fact that people dare challenge their particular view of the world and will often respond in an aggressive knee-jerk way (and seemingly name calling). There is a long list of posters who used to join the debate but have been hounded out by the relentless name-calling by the pro-active travel lobby. And we should remind ourselves that some of the very worst posters on this forum have purported to be supporters of LTNs (LTNBooHoo, LTNManatee, RaptorTruck etc). Is that not the AA? I think there are some on this forum (not you Ex) who are very closely aligned to the council or the active travel lobby...I mean someone went to a lot of trouble to get publically available information about the Dulwich Society redacted from a post I made. I mean, why would anyone do that? Even the person it concerned had posted their LCC Active Travel Campaigner award on their own Twitter feed....yet someone on here didn't want that to become common knowledge. And @exdulwicher I love the fact we agree on pastry product preference! And that still holds after all these years! You see...we do all love each other really!

Such a shame as Dells is fantastic - a decent local business providing a great service to residents.

Ha ha that's hilarious - how wonderfully embarrassing for Reform!

Ha ha....a few more of the usual suspect joining the pile-on and we'll have the full house! The bottom line is some of us take a more pragmatic approach to analysing what is happening. Some of you will never accept any criticism of anything that you are ideologically aligned to - look we get it and understand it - it's difficult to criticise something that you adore but the cult-like obsession with defending any criticism shows how entrenched some are. Look at this thread - the AA thinks that councils are using PCNs as money-making exercises and look how agitated some get in defending the councils over it. It's laughable and the fact some get so agitated probably shows that the AA were right to make the claim!

@Sue yes @Earl Aelfheah has managed to batter me into submission as well.....I just can't be bothered anymore...it's pointless...they take the conversation in circles regurgitating the same out of context narrative - it's relentless. And yes, I agree that I disagree with the majority of what they say!

Oh @Earl Aelfheah.........where's that facepalm emoji....

No @Earl Aelfheah you're doing what you always do - not reading things properly, taking things people post out of context and then creating a false narrative. The intervention I have always referred to in this regard was before the LTN was put in place. It was during the OHS implementation when the junction was still open to vehicles (around 2017/18). The council did local monitoring around the junction and published the results in their report and the results showed there had been an increase in pollution around the junction post implementation. I suspect it was the last time the council did localised monitoring of one of their interventions as it showed they had made pollution worse as they had created congestion, they then pivoted for "area wide" monitoring on a number of bars for "success" of the LTNs. And what happened when the DV LTN went in - congestion increased along Dulwich Village? So it doesn't take a genius to work out that if pollution increased when congestion did during OHS implementation then it must have done post DV LTN - it's just the council weren't publishing local pollution data as they did post OHS.

I just knew you would have to have the last say….;-)

@Earl Aelfheah all you're doing is validating the very point I was making. Thank you. I stand by everything I said but only in the context of the discussion it was said in! ;-) Now I am going to go and "put my big boy pants on". ;-) It is because the Southwark reports showed pollution increased after those changes. You cannot deny that.

Ok........I said I didn't want to bore people but that was in relation to the increases in pollution recorded (and published as part of their report) by Southwark council after the implementation of the OHS changes to the junction of DV and Calton (in around 2017/2018 I believe) when it was still open to traffic. Southwark's own monitoring showed pollution increased. And before you ask let me put the record straight on your third claim: This was in relation to risk (both perceived and real) to pedestrians from cyclists through the DV junction once cars had been removed. I made the point that when it was a vehicular junction there was an order to it - cars flowed, then they stopped, pedestrians crossed and that since the road was closed to vehicles and it was made a cycle lane that the order had been lost and it was far more of a free for all. Again a long way from what you claim I said. There have been a lot of admin errors recently.....some think this is because Southwark is only concerned about the money-making element of these measures.

@Earl Aelfheah honestly, I don't want to bore people with having to correct you but time and time again you seem to interpret what people say to suit your own narrative/agenda and willfully misrepresent what they say. This is what I have the biggest problem with. Often what you claim people say bears no resemblance to what was actually said. Let's take this as an example: The Dulwich filter increased crime, when crime has been broadly flat since 2018, and trended down against the London average What I actually said was that since the filter went in certain types of crime on the surrounding streets have gone up. Which they have. Which is fact. You may not like it but please try to be accurate from now onwards as what you have claimed I have said is a long way from what I was actually saying. And this is exactly the point a lot of people miss as they tell everyone "them be the rules". The point is whether the council are deliberately going out of their way to create places where it becomes easier to infringe and then monetise that spot. Certainly a lot of people think they do and the AA is accusing councils of doing just this. (BTW it was a £65 fine that jumped to £130 but look how the council words their letters - you can see why so many people just pay up the AA alluded to this issue too) You can pay the discount charge of £65.00 if your payment reaches us within 14 days of the date of this letter. You can pay £130.00 within 28 days of the date shown on your PCN. You can formally challenge your PCN by using an Enforcement Notice form. The vehicle's owner will automatically receive the form if the PCN has not been paid within 28 days of the date shown on it. The form offers you the chance to formally challenge your PCN or pay the full £130.00. If you decide to formally challenge your PCN, please do not write to us again but wait until the Enforcement Notice form arrives When I read posters refer to me as "very, very childish", suggesting it's time to "put the big boy pants on" or that I am indulging in some sort of "pity party" I do laugh and wonder whether I am not actually the childish one here! 😉