Earl Aelfheah

The issue is to create healthy streets. To do that you have to reduce car journeys. I agree we need analysis and I have not been a massive fan of the councils general approach As I have said before. But the idea that all car journeys are essential and that you can reduce traffic whilst not inconveniencing any drivers, is for the birds. No one has at any point said that there are not journeys that need to be made by car. But neither can anyone seriously suggest that there aren?t journeys which are currently made by car which couldn?t be done in foot or bike instead. If you believe that all car journeys are essential, then say so.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2km each way on foot is a long, time-consuming > journey for most people. Less thank 2km. There are lot's of people who jump in their car just to get a coffee. It comes down to whether you think we need to reduce the number of car journeys or not. Or perhaps you think all care journeys are essential.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This is ridiculous. Now we?re suggesting the > > schools won?t be able to recruit teachers, > because > > of a 5 min diversion. > > At least you finally concede this won?t reduce car > use and will simply push traffic elsewhere on a > five minute diversion (generating additional > pollution). I think it will discourage a lot of short local journeys which could easilly be done on foot / by bike. I don't think it will lead to teachers quitting their jobs, or recruitment problems.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrahrah - I am merely challenging you on your > hyperbole - you often quote things that have > little grounding in fact. Example?

... so there is a lot of opportunities to encourage fewer car journeys locally. Also, if you?re driving from Sevenoaks to Chiswick, the changes at this junction are really not going to make much difference to your journey

Again, not every journey can be done by foot or by bike. No one is looking to ban cars. But 35% of Car journeys in London are less than 2km.

Serena2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t know the answer, but they have a planning > application to build a separate house in the > garden outstanding. In fact, this is one of a > number of planning applications in recent years. Sounds like rogue developer. No doubt it'll fall into such a state of disrepair that they'll eventually get the go ahead from the council. Personally, i would like to see the council use compulsory purchase orders where houses are left derelict like this, as a way of pressuring planning departments.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would probably work out cheaper to buy an old > flatbed truck and an annual parking permit. > > Then put the skip in the back of the truck and at > the end of the build sell the truck to the next > guy in the street doing an extension Ha! Admire your creative thinking.

@Rockets - TFL are not responsible for all London roads, or the costs of the damage cars cause. The amount of money spent on cars (and cleaning up after cars), is huge and far greater than infrastructure for walking or cycling. I can?t believe it?s even something you?d honestly challenge

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's weird to think that Leicester Square was once > a roundabout. And trafalgar square

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Driving is convenient, which is why it is so > popular. Making driving more difficult or > expensive will reduce car use. Decision time! Exactly this. It is totally illogical to say one is in favour of reducing car use, but also for cars to dominate our streets and to be as easy and convenient as it is now.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We all agree something has to be done about > > pollution... but not if it makes driving more > > difficult. 🤔 > > > Err no, not if it makes driving more > polluting....remember the last DV alterations led > to a ?moderate? increase in pollution..... I would be amazed if the latest changes don?t Lead to a reduction in traffic.L and pollution. But we can find out fairly soon.

This is ridiculous. Now we?re suggesting the schools won?t be able to recruit teachers, because of a 5 min diversion.

We all agree something has to be done about pollution... but not if it makes driving more difficult. 🤔

Dulres3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Oh for crying out loud - a couple of roads have > been opened up to people. OK... have been closed off to through traffic so as to create a better environment for people - going a small way to reducing the dominance of cars and improve the environment for pedestrians and cyclists. > The roads have always been open to people. As far > as I?m aware there have never been marauding bands > of motor vehicles roaming the streets of East > Dulwich looking for their next victim. There has been a complete dominance of vehicles which do create thousands of victims every year. I wouldn't suggest that the cars themselves are sentient or have malicious intent. > > I do have a car and I do use a car. > > > Motor vehicles get a completely disproportionate > amount of space, > > funding and general deference thrown their way, > > despite creating injuries, deaths and > pollution. > > Sounds like you?re part of the problem that you > wish to solve. Why not get rid of the car and be > logically and morally consistent? I am not calling for a ban on cars. Just that maybe they shouldn't completely dominate all public space. It's a matter of proportionality - something which has been completely lost in the hysterical response to a couple roads being opened up to bikes and pedestrians for probably what, 20 metres?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just because the majority of people don't own a > car in Southwark is not a justification for > punishing those people who do Oh for crying out loud - a couple of roads have been opened up to people. Motor vehicles get a completely disproportionate amount of space, funding and general deference thrown their way, despite creating injuries, deaths and pollution. A small diversion and some car drivers act like they're being persecuted, rather than massively and disproportionately indulged. > your comments highlight the reason so many people get annoyed by > the utopian view of the world taken by some on the > forum who hail the "turn all the streets to cycle > only" narrative. It is a narrative and aspiration > that is wholly unrealistic. It's not that unrealistic to share a little of the public realm, through the opening of a couple of streets to pedestrians and cyclists is it? > I cycle. My whole family cycles. I also have a > car. I cycle when I can but use my car when I need > to - be that on journeys that are too long to > cycle or involve transporting people or things > that I can't get on my bike. I also drive when the > weather is terrible - I don't like arriving > looking like a drowned rat - I also prefer driving > when it is cold, wet and dark. I used to cycle 10 > miles each way to my office but don't anymore as > my office moved even further away. > > This is how most people use their cars Actually, most local journeys are incredibly short and could be done on foot. A little over a third (35 per cent) of all car trips are shorter than 2 km. Some journeys need to be done by car - that's fine. But they are the minority and a 5 minute diversion isn't going to make them impossible. > If people's eyes are blinkered by > their belief that everyone can cycle or walk then > they can't see, or are ignoring, the bigger > challenges faced by a huge metropolis. Which is > why a more inclusive and measured approach to > traffic management is required. TFL estimate that around 40% of adults in the borough, have household access to car. How much of the transport budget and how much space do you think is currently allocated to cars? Yes, I agree with you, let's have a more balanced approach. > Not one that relies on the false promise that "Close the > Streets and the bikes will follow". It just > doesn't work like that. All the evidence suggests that if you build cycle infrastructure, more people will cycle. London itself has proven this over the last few years > Rahrahrah - I presume you don't own or need a car? I do have a car and I do use a car. But I also understand that it's a privilege and not an entitlement and that we can't all just drive around everywhere.

If you want to reduce traffic, improve air quality, and encourage walking and cycling, then you have to restrict the number of car journeys. It's pretty simple. The majority of people in Southwark don't have access to a car. Most streets have two lanes for parked cars / long term vehicle storage and two more for moving traffic. This doesn't leave much room for people. The amount of resource given over to car drivers is completely disproportionate and the reaction of people to a few pretty timid attempts to reallocate a little space to make it easier for people to get about, is pretty incredible imo. 'One Dulwich' seem to be calling for local residents to be exempt from restrictions applied to others. If you live on Court Lane, or Carlton Avenue, you're looking at perhaps another 5 minutes in the car to get round the diversions. Alternatively, if you're not going far and you're part of the majority of people who are able to cycle or walk, perhaps you could do so. After all, they claim to be in favour of healthy streets.

Most people don't need to drive to schools. Unless we want to see higher levels of breathing problems, road deaths and escalating obesity levels, we should be encouraging those who can, to walk and cycle. Closing a few junctions does not amount to banning cars. 80% or more of all public space is still given over to motor vehicles. We're just looking for a modest rebalancing in favour of people.

What would be really good, would be a plan for a low traffic neighbourhood in ED and a segregated bike route into town.

Wil72 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please visit the onedulwich website to support > those that are in favour of sensible ways to > reduce congestion- NOT closing roads that lead to > yet more congestion & make our lives a misery! They just want it switched to access only so that they are not personally inconvenienced from what I can tell.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why is Rye Lane blockaded with utilitarian posts > and blocks while Court Lane has wooden planters ? That's a good question

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At a time when we're being discouraged from using > public transport, it's stupifyingly moronic to > bring these measures in now. It's exactly the right time to bring such measures in. Making streets safe for people to get around by bike and by foot. You can't seriously be suggesting that everyone should be encouraged to get in their cars.

Not a brexit thread though. Just saying cheap chicken looks likely to persist for quite sometime.

I?m referring to US trade deal, which seems to be our only real opportunity to make up for (a small percentage) lost trade. Looks like we?re heading for a ?no deal? exit from the worlds biggest trading block.

Fried chicken is tasty (I accept that this is a matter of personal taste, but clearly enough people think so), quick to be served / to eat and incredibly cheap. It's not difficult to see why it is popular. What really needs to be addressed is the poor farming methods. But it looks like the UK is moving towards even laxer standards post brexit, so kids are going to be getting fatter.