Earl Aelfheah

That is funny 🥱. It doesn't remotely address any of my points. Dulwich Square is objectively safer than it was before. The data shows it. If you don't believe the data 🙄, then common sense tells you it's safer. Removing heavy vehicles, narrowing the road and increasing the size of the pedestrian area obviously reduces road danger. The fact that you don’t see the irony in your previous post is funny.

You don't see the irony in your relentlessly complaining about putting a barrier across a road to stop people driving motor vehicles through the square (apparently not a safety concern), but then demanding one in the same spot to stop people travelling through it on a bicycle (an urgent safety concern). Come on, be serious. I actually doubt anyone on this thread genuinely believes that it is difficult to cross the bike lane, or that Calton Ave is suddenly a dangerous space. Not one.

Seeing as nearly half of drivers admit to speeding in 20mph zones and we know that people cause significant numbers of deaths and injuries when travelling by motor vehicle, we should also have barriers across some of the roads in Dulwich? Oh hold on, that's what you've been objecting to! 🤣 There is just no consistency in these arguments. Provide any evidence at all that Calton Avenue is more dangerous now than it was previously. There is none. There is plenty that it is now safer. This really is just desperate and cynical fear mongering from people who will not accept a 2 minute diversion in their car, still. Half a decade on.

I was handed a packet of wildflower seeds the other day at the station. May take a little walk and see where I can scatter them. For the weed nerds amongst you, this is interesting https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNdy9xySA/

Speeding is much more of a problem elsewhere, and involves heavy vehicles. You have spent many posts moaning about cars, vans and lorries being slowed to 20mph on Sydenham Hill, so i just can't take this seriously. There is a pelican crossing if anyone feels that it's difficult to cross the cycle lane - but let's be honest, there is no problem crossing at all, you just have to look both ways as you would whenever you cross a road. The cycle lane is not a shared space, it's relatively narrow (compared to the road previously), it curves round to slow bikes naturally, is only perhaps 50 yards long and has a pelican crossing already. On the road collision data - I have shared it previously, people can look for themselves. It contains info on all serious collisions (those that involved the police / resulted in serious injury) and the mode of travel involved (bicycles, pedestrians and motor vehicles). It's data you complained didn't exist, until I linked you to it, at which point you pivoted to trying to think of ways to undermine it. The data is of course, entirely robust, and you offer no alternative data of any type. Serious collisions are down, which as you have hinted at, is hardly surprising, because fast moving, heavy, motor powered vehicles have been removed; Despite your refusal to accept it, they are by far the largest cause of road danger, killing and seriously injuring tens of thousands on our roads every year. This again, is a matter of fact. Their removal has made Calton road significantly safer. I think you're very well aware of this. We know you don't like the fact that heavy vehicles have been removed, the pedestrian space increased, and the area enhanced with seating and planting. Trying to raise panic about it being dangerous however is very cynical and I don't imagine you believe it for one minute.

There are genuine accident hotspots locally. This is not one. Feels very cynical.

Random?! 😆 Ok. I definitely won’t respond to your posts. Doh! Based on serious collisions involving injury. So we’re accepting that the most serious collisions have fallen but we’re discounting that because they mainly involve cars (not sure I get that logic), and concluding that the square is now more dangerous because?…. A) if you replaced car collisions with bicycle collisions (not that you want either obviously) it would result in fewer serious injuries. B) data is collected on all serious collisions involving injury. Including where they involve a bicycle. Serious collisions have decreased Lol. Because anyone with a different opinion must be part of some sort of ‘lobby group’. Does that mean you’re part of the inactive travel lobby? You haven’t explained why you want two crossing within maybe 20 yards of each other, in a quiet area with relatively slow moving traffic, no heavy vehicles, and almost no record of serious collisions. Do you support zebra crossing every 20 or 30 yards across Dulwich? I actually have little problem with a more crossings, but if we’re having two there, I’d like to see a lot more on major roads - something I guarantee you’d object to.

Yes, serious collisions involving injury. But I'm sure they're not important. There is a pelican crossing. How many crossings do you think a 50 yard section of road, carrying no heavy vehicles and with almost no recorded collisions should have? ....and would you support applying similar, or even stricter criteria to roads with higher accident rates and more, fast moving, heavy vehicles?

...backed up by recorded collision data There is a pelican crossing already

The idea that Dulwich Square is a dangerous space is, imo, hysterical nonsense. There are certainly far fewer reported accidents / collisions than there were before traffic was removed, not at all surprisingly. It's actually a very pleasant, calm space.

Definitely. But pollution remained lower in 2021, 2022 and 2023. It’s just not true to say pollution has increased (the claim was that it has trebled), which was my point.

Are you ok? There is. Guess who started that thread

Are you ok? I think we know why it’s closed. It’s not safe/ rotten You’re not making sense, but seem to have some sort of issue with me? Perhaps you could be a bit clearer.

We know why it’s closed. Why would I know more?

I simply suggested that if one wants it pushed up the priority list, then getting a group of like minded people to all contact the council and express their view isn't a bad idea. It sounds as if Ab has already done this to some extent, emailing along with a load of her neighbours. But then follows it up with a strange email suggesting I should pay for the bridge for some reason, and going on about wanting to see the ducklings (perhaps a reference that's gone over my head)? Odd. I sometimes get the impression that people would rather just moan about stuff than actually try to change anything.

Eh? Why are you directing this at me? You're the one posting across multiple threads on the topic. That's an incredibly (and typically) spikey response. I just wondered whether it was just you, or on behalf of a group ('we'). As Rockets says, it may be helpful to get a group to lobby on the bridge. I suggested you might want to contact James McAsh as I've always found him responsive - but up to you. I have no interest in meeting with you in person based on the unpleasant tone of many of your posts.

Who is 'we'? I'm surprised, whenever I have emailed the council I have always got a fairly quick response. Helen Hayes is an MP, so not really the right person, but Catherine Rose should respond. Perhaps try James McAsh.

I think some of them use information from shared databases, which include crowdsourced data that updates on mobile camera locations.

I agree. You should email your councillor and ask the question.

It's an interesting one. My instinct is that it's probably a good idea in principle, but in practice, the devil is all in the detail. Need to be really rigorous protocols in place to make sure that it's properly secure, anonymised, cannot be passed on to any third parties etc.

100% agree. It would be absolutely ridiculous for us to follow Trump into this. I don't think Starmer will do that thankfully.

This happens constantly. Cars accelerate hard to overtake someone on a bicycle (often passing too close), just to break hard in front of them, to then be left behind in a queue of traffic. It's annoying, often dangerous, and always unnecessary. I think it’s perhaps because of an erroneous view that as the 'faster' vehicle they’re getting ‘held up’; which in London of course, they’re usually not.

Do you mean ‘flea darts’ (as we called them as kids)? …these:

I am ranting a bit (more just complaining). It was annoying. Perhaps you can say why you think I’ve suggested there is some sort of ‘technical difference’ / explain your response?

Agree 100% that this is an extremely dangerous escalation. That said I suspect where Starmer is concerned there is almost nothing to be gained from directly criticising Trump. His calling for deescalation and negotiation may feel weak, but is just realpolitik.