Earl Aelfheah

We vote councillors in to make decisions on matters of local policy. If you don't like how they run things, or what they do, you can vote them out at the next opportunity. That is how representative democracy works. Do you want to hold a referendum on every council policy or decision?

What I have yet to hear, is why people think that everyone else should subsidise free on street car storage, on top of all the other externalised costs of motoring visited upon others.

We might just have to rely on a system of representative democracy.

Sounds like you're also against ULEZ. Add that to road pricing, controlled parking, cycle lanes and LTNs and it's very hard to take your claims of wanting to see reduced car use and increase active travel, seriously. It seems that there is no real world traffic management scheme that you are in favour of. What would a cynic make of all this?

I'm old enough to remember protests against Cafe Nero opening on the Lane.

I don't think so, the Bank where it was rumoured to be setting up is still for let

Again, YouGov poll found positive views on LTNs are three times higher than negative ones. Post the local elections, you can't possibly argue that there is no mandate for the local LTN either. Although there are a handful of very noisy people who oppose any measures that seek to reduce car use, they do not make up the majority.

YouGov poll found positive views on LTNs are three times higher than negative ones: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2020/oct/22/despite-a-loud-opposing-minority-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-are-increasingly-popular In the local elections, several opposition party's stood against LTNs, making it clear that they considered it a referendum on the 'unpopular schemes'. Had any of them won, Rockets, First Mate etc. would have said it was a clear message about LTNs. Yet, they lost. And so, of course, it's nothing to do with LTNs, which people feel so strongly against, that they re-elected the council who introduced them.

LTNs are popular. Councils in London that introduced them have mostly been re-elected since, with larger share of the vote. Surveys also show majority support. The noise around them is driven by a vocal, angry minority, amplified by the usual suspects in the right wing media who oppose any measure to improve the environment.

How weird. Good on you reporting it. Sounds very dodgy.

Not a fan of Gail's. They didn't behave too well over the Brick Bakery imo, which was a really fantastic independent.

Nice pub. Yes, it does do a lot of events, but nothing wrong with that. Good food too

I'm a bit torn on this one. I really like the idea of the extension, but the design doesn't appeal to me. Bit ugly imo.

There is always some *cough* entirely reasonable and specific problem with any specific scheme *cough*, which should not distract from a very genuine support for reducing car use in principle (if never in practice). Don't worry, I buy it rocks 😉

The Mayor is reported to support smart road pricing. This is great news - and will no doubt have the full support of One Dulwich and of course our very own @Rockets who said he was in favour of exactly this! If it does get rolled out in London, I look forward to their full throated support 🙂

There have been several crashes on EDG due to speeding drivers. No excuse for racing down that road.

Lovely video. Features some Dulwich spots

Controlled parking makes it much easier to do exactly that - control the allocation of parking. It's a better way of managing a scarce resource. I am very supportive of more disabled parking, wider pavements, removing obstructions so that buses can move faster and yes, segregated cycle lanes, for those who can't drive, but can use a modified e-bike. I don't see how a free for all helps the less mobile frankly. @Rockets It's hilarious that you've been scouring my posts for perceived inconsistencies and could only a single moan from 13 years ago. I think you'll find that my posts have been pretty congruous, at least over the last decade 😉 . In contrast, your repeated claims to support measures to reduce car use, improve active travel and road safety in principle, whilst never supporting any actual initiative in practice, doesn't seem very straight forward / coherent.. And for the record, the only reason I did a quick search of your previous posts, was that you claimed to have always supported cycling infrastructure, and to have opposed SUVs. It didn't align with my recollections. Correctly.

I don't know why free on-street car storage should be seen as an entitlement. It is difficult to think of any other scenario in which individuals can store large items on public land free of charge / without restriction. If I was to put a shed on the street outside my house, people wouldn't consider it remotely reasonable... but a van that never moves? If one wants to temporarily place a skip on the street, you have to pay. There are significant 'externalised' costs to car storage and use. It's right that more of those costs are internalised.

@Rockets If you care about people with restricted mobility, why would you not support the widening of pavements (oh yeah, according to you it harms business.. you would support it in principle, just not practice)? If you are concerned that buses are being held up, why not support 24/7 bus lane operation, or the removal of parking on the high street, so that buses don't have to constantly stop to pass each other (again, you support in principle, but not practice... I see a pattern)? Why only talk about making local car journeys easier, if you're really in favour of reducing car use? I can't really be bothered going through all your old posts @Rockets, but on bike lanes (for one example) you've said ...As with everything car related, you have hedged and obsfucated, but have on multiple occasions tried to deflect criticism of SUVs too: I can't find the multiple threads you've created campaigning for a system of road price charging, but I'm sure they're there somewhere... somewhere..

@Rockets - you have defended SUVs before, and supported the removal of pavement widening on Lordship Lane (which was in place during COVID). There is absolutely no reason why the bus lanes on Lordship Lane couldn't be made 24/7, and it is the case that buses are regularly held up where there is not space for two vehicles to pass due to parked cars. You have railed against cycle lanes / increases in cycle infrastructure, claiming that they are ineffective and that cycling is falling in London. What is notable, is that you have created multiple threads, in order to keep your campaign to spread misinformation about data and research into LTNs at the top of the main thread (despite being asked not to by Admin), whilst not creating a single thread to campaign for the road pricing you now claim to support. I would bet my front teeth that if the LTNs were removed, you wouldn't switch your energies to campaigning as hard for road pricing as you do for removing restrictions on car journeys. If I'm wrong, why are you not doing so already? The actions of 'successful' One groups (who have all fallen silent as soon as they have had LTNs removed and traffic has returned to higher, pre-LTN levels again), has demonstrated that their claims to care about reducing car use were nothing more than weasel words. I have very little doubt the 'One Dulwich' are any different.

The people who are campaigning to remove restrictions on car use, and replace them with nothing, are campaigning for an increase in car use. Let's just be very clear about that. In all the areas where 'One' groups have been successful in removing LTNs, they have followed it up with... nothing. Traffic has increased and they've all slunk off into the shadows. If you care about bus times, those with mobility issues, inactivity and road danger, why not support the removal of on street parking, the widening of pavements, bus lanes that operate 24/7, segregated bike lanes, restrictions on supersized SUVs (for example)? People like @Rockets have spoken against all of these things at different times I believe, as well as opposing LTNs. It makes it very, very difficult to take claims that they want to reduce car use seriously. Likewise, calls for 'more data' or 'more research' when they manifestly refuse to accept any of the existing evidence, also feel very hollow. If, as it appears, you really just favour more, unencumbered car use, why be shy about it?

We are seeing reductions in car ownership and use. That is exactly the point.

@Rockets The data shows that the LTNs have reduced overall traffic. Anyway, what I'm interested in knowing is...assuming that you were successful in getting restrictions on car use removed (which we know would lead to more car use), what would you then want to happen? I assume you'd campaign for something else which would be as effective, if not more effective in reducing car use? So what is that thing? I'm a little cynical because in all the areas where 'One' groups have been successful in removing LTNs, they have followed it up with... nothing. Traffic has increased and they've all slunk off into the shadows, in their SUVs. It makes it very difficult to take their claims to support a reduction in car use seriously, when their actions suggest that really they're in favour of more, unencumbered car use.

If you make it easier for those who can, to walk or cycle, then you also make it considerably easier for those who must drive, to do so. Everyone is in favour of improved public transport. The cheapest, easiest and quickest way to improve public transport locally would be to remove street parking / free on-street storage, so that buses didn't have to constantly stop to pass each other. This would also make it possible to widen the pavements, which is better for those with restricted mobility. Many of the bus lanes locally have cars parked in them outside peak hours, slowing their transit, so extend their hours of operation. In summary: if you want to make it easier for disabled people to get around, support LTNs, campaign for the removal of on street parking, wider pavements, and 24/7 bus lanes.