goldilocks

This is a great idea. The previous ?rules? about low footfall in the week don?t stand with hugely increased home working. More frequent markets but with a lower density of stalls could provide better social distancing. In addition, having variety in the market on different days would encourage more frequent trips

I was really surprised to smell woodsmoke on Sunday evening when I went out. It was cool enough to wear a light coat but not cold. Shows that people are still viewing ?lighting the woodburner? as a fun wholesome activity. In case it has passed you by, it isn?t, it?s releasing dangerous carcinogenic fumes for your family and your neighbours and it?s even more unacceptable in a respiratory disease pandemic!

In my experience, if it?s offensive it?s removed more quickly. Agree though that reporting is right move even if response time is understandably slower right now.

Worth asking the people moving out what they will do and if they could reserve the space with bins for you?

Are people still having issues with this? We have some magazine subscriptions that are over 2 weeks late

I?d agree, this stretch has lots of businesses where people need to queue outside in a short stretch of shop fronts. Taking out the parked cars would give greater access for both shoppers and pedestrians passing through!

Hi James The link mentions pavement widening on Lordship lane. I went down Lordship Lane last night and there was no pavement widening in place. Do you know when this will be done please?

Not all of them - there has been a shift to lighter batteries on newer bikes - or ones where you can take the battery off to disable them. Theft is a concern - but lots of workplaces have secure bike parking and for those that don't , its time to start lobbying for secure cycle storage. Not everyone will need ebikes - folding bikes are a genuine alternative for those who don't have secure cycle storage and the council need to make more bike hanger provision locally. Bike insurance and decent locks are required too! Again - no one is suggesting that everyone has to cycle, just that the oft quoted 'I can't' might not be the whole story AND that even if you can't, encouraging others to do so will benefit everyone as they leave more transport options open for you so everyone is a winner! Its time to get behind changes like the Healthy Streets initiatives, stop kicking out good options in pursuit of perfect ones, understanding that there will always be tweaks and improvements necessary and that once changes start then more can be put in, but we have to start somewhere and waiting for a London wide plan that is implemented in one go is unrealistic!

Just again to reiterate - no one is suggesting that everyone has to cycle, but for those of you who believe that you can't then you should be encouraging every single other person who can walk, cycle or scoot to do so. In addition, this belief that you can't cycle is not always the case - look at Wheels for Wellbeing for inspiration, or for those commenting on the hills consider an ebike as they totally address that concern! Each person choosing active travel is one person less on the bus, train or adding to the congestion on the roads! Therefore surely everyone should be able to get behind making our roads safer for active travel as it benefits everyone, not just those doing it! Put simply, there isn't enough space for the existing vehicle traffic on our roads so not sure where anyone things additional cars are going to go. This is without even considering the public health impacts of more driving (pollution from exhausts / braking / tyre wear and resulting obesity as a result of a lack of exercise).

The point with the closures is blocking some roads to access only- so emergency vehicles, deliveries, residents can still access but the through traffic can?t- which should mean that there is much more safe space for non vehicle traffic during lockdown. It?s not pedestrianising, but instead making spaces safer. There is a marked increase in traffic today, I also heard cars racing round for around 30 mins or so last night but dangerous speeding isn?t confined to nighttime. Our roads should be safer to use as there are fewer cars (although this number is creeping up) but they?re not because speeds on them are increasing.

Don't think advice for a temperature is to cool children down. Calpol, cuddles and plenty of fluids. Have you checked his reaction to light, checked for a rash etc? If he won't drink water or milk, will he have diluted juice / or juice frozen as lollies?

I walked through the village at about 5:30 last night. Traffic was queueing from the traffic lights outside the Hamlet all the way back up to past the Lake building for the Infants. None of that is related to the schools - I also make a point of looking in to see whether there are kids in the back - without fail yesterday all cars were single occupancy. The source of the data is only what is noted above in terms of source, i'm afraid I dont' have any further details.

The council didn't 'claim that their improvement works hadn't increased pollution' - i said that their prsentation stated that the road was over capacity now and coulnd't be addressed via redesign. In terms of the 50% stat - its not clear whether it was on specific roads or on an area wide basis - regardless of this just walking through Dulwich village at peak times and using your eyes makes it pretty clear that there is more traffic on the roads than the roads have capacity for, so unless your proposal is to build a flyover for Dulwich then something needs to change. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It looks like the council are spinning things to > their advantage.....looks like the 47% is the > difference between 2017 and 2018 when traffic > found another route due to the roadworks in DV for > the improvement works but look it returned in 2018 > which suggests it found another route during the > roadworks...thereby making a very real > demonstration that these plans will merely divert > traffic elsewhere. > > Goldilocks, were these stats presented at the same > meeting where the council claimed their > improvement works at DV had not increased > pollution when their own data showed it had?

The council showed a Southwark wide map at the October workshops showing a 47% increase in the volumen of traffic in the Dulwich Village area overall. This data was based on Southwark Annual Monitoring Traffic Flow Changes October 2017 and October 2018 slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > goldilocks Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > >given the huge the huge increases in traffic > flowing through Dulwich > > Village in the last 5 years > > Can you provide a source for that please? > Soutwark Council's own traffic surveys do not > support that. > Their figures for DV over the last few years > show: > 2014 = 15,414 movements > 2015 = 15,055 > 2016 = 14,822 > 2017 = 10,007 low because of works to DV > 2018 = 14,375 estimate because they changed the > reporting basis > 2019 not yet published > > Overall it shows a slight decrease. Are they > wrong?

Is there really any point in knowing what the initial distance offered was? There is always so much change you're better off asking in September really to understand whether its worth attending an open day. I think that its clear that if you asked now you'd be told you're not in the area where places were offered, but its impossible to know whether this would be true later in the year. Maybe ask just before summer holidays and then again in September?

On the ED zone i got in touch with the officer in charge when the plans came out and pointed out where there were errors. She said they would be updated but i'll wait and see. For issues such at that it should be checked witht he officer in charge - it will be on the details on the Southwark website. are you sure though that its not marked as a 'stop and rest' on the plans? Huggers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can see in Nutbrook street we are losing at > least two parking spaces where they have deemed a > kerb where there used to be a garage but there is > now just a house extension, as a garage that > needs access point......

Can only assume that's an 'in the past' characterisation of what the car symbolises rather than a description of now? Otherwise I'm interested in what jobs the 'little ladies' have after their childcare responsibilities that can be driven to! There will clearly be some people who drive to work, but in Dulwich and surrounding they're in a significant minority. More common perhaps are those who drive to school and then onto a toddler activity or similar, or just school and back home again.

Just to call out a point in your last post that isn't 100% accurate - the council did not agree that their changes had created more pollution - they have done detailed analysis on that junction and found that there are no solutions that will work given the volume of traffic that needs to flow through and the space available. I do agree that the junction is unsatisfactory and has worsened with the new priorities - but this being true doesn't also mean that the previous design wouldn't be a problem now given the huge increases in traffic flowing through Dulwich Village in the last 5 years (and would guess that Waze and similar plays a significant role in this). There isn't a solution that allows continued car use and addresses the public health emergency from both pollution and inactivity.

And that is exactly what one of the proposals does!

I understand that carers have a separate arrangement with the council to allow for this. Cleaners do not though so will need to change times or transport!

Tasha - please do report on the non emergency number or met police online reporting if you haven't already. The police need to understand the full pattern of behaviour here so reporting every incident of verbal or physical abuse is key.

Alleyns have produced a travel plan - pretty sure JAGS would have one too and you could ask them if you wanted this information. Lets imagine its similar to Alleyns though! My reference here to JAGS was that they hosted the Ian Mudway talk but made it available to everyone in the community. I have no affiliation with JAGS so i'm afraid i can't answer your question. slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Goldilocks > > >I wanted to pick up on the quote below too as its > an oft quoted point in the 'my driving is ok, its > other driving that > >needs to stop' in that people feel that a switch > to EV is the only change that is needed. > >This was all covered by the excellent talk at > JAGS by Ian Mudway in terms of the effect of air > pollution on children's > >health (though the talk was not limited to > children) > > What proportion of staff and pupils at JAGS walk > or cycle to school and how many come by car, taxi, > car share, bus coach etc. All of which come > under the category of "driving"?

I wanted to pick up on the quote below too as its an oft quoted point in the 'my driving is ok, its other driving that needs to stop' in that people feel that a switch to EV is the only change that is needed. It is true that EVs eliminate 'tailpipe' pollution, but unfortunately that isn't the only pollution caused by cars. Researchers now are discovering that black carbon or particulate matter is a significantly more dangerous type, and that the damage it can do is huge as the tiny particles can penetrate all organs in the body, even passing through to the fetus in pregnant mothers. This black carbon is produced by brake pad erosion and also by tyre dust and for the new bigger heavier EVs it may even be a more significant source than the equivalent combustion engine if the car is heavier than its equivalend because of the battery required. This type of pollution is linked to many causes of mortaility. In addition, in terms of lifetime carbon usage EVs can also be more carbon intensive. Its clear that for journeys that have to be made by car then EVs will address some of the air pollution issues we have now, but its not to say that swapping out combustion engines will be wholly effective. EVs still cause congestion and have the same road safety issues for cyclists and pedestrians. Its critical for everyone's health that we reimagine daily journeys, reframe what is necessary and what is desirable and look to walk or cycle more. This was all covered by the excellent talk at JAGS by Ian Mudway in terms of the effect of air pollution on children's health (though the talk was not limited to children) and once the audio is available, i'll come back and post a link for anyone who is interested as understanding the implications of the status quo is key to understanding why its so critical that we all make changes. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm afraid you have wholly misunderstood what > 'Healthy Streets' means, to Tooley St. It means > 'car free' (whether those cars be petrol, diesel > or electric). > > We are talking political health here, cars are the > tools and signs of capitalist society, of > individuals and individualism. Stamping out car > ownership (save where it can be monetised with > parking fees) is the stated aim and object of the > party - under the spurious banner of health if > necessary (electric cars are of course, as regards > air quality, entirely healthy, but not as regards > the body politic). > > People in cars cannot be controlled, on public > transport, even on cycles where they can be > channelled into cycle lanes, they can be. Hence > the council can happily ignore any claims that > their moves will cause problems as regards > transport and movement of peoples. > > As long as car ownership can be punished (this > thread shows that car owners are already > considered to be inherently selfish and > anti-social by many of those who elected these > people) everything is OK. The only argument to be > put against which might work with the apparat is > that these moves will increase car ownership (but > I can't see how that would be possible)

Fundamentally for the same reason parents drive their kids to school. Because its more convenient than the alternatives and an option that's available. There are two options to stop it - 1 relies on the school encouraging students not to drive and for parents and students to rank this encouragement higher than their will to drive. 2 relies on making it less feasible, via preventing through traffic or adding controlled parking preventing non residents from leaving cars in an area long term.

We have storage blocks in the hallway for things like shoes and there is an additional one for bike locks and lights, bike gloves, buffs etc (inevitably overflowing). Bike cleaner and lube etc lives in a box on a storage rack near the cellar or in the bike shed. Basically some kind of lidded plastic box seems best for anything that might leak.