Earl Aelfheah

The point is that many of those spaces are not used by people visiting the shops as was claimed. They're used for long term storage (whether a rental car, a lease car, or one owned outright is entirely irrelevant). We have narrow pavements up that end of the lane, which are packed at weekends and difficult to navigate (especially if you use a wheel chair), so maybe half a dozen people can store a car there, often for days, weeks or even months on end, free of charge. It might be better to use that space to make it easier for the hundreds of pedestrians visiting the shops.

Unfortunately, I suspect the answer to your first question - which elements of which of the three proposals are being opposed, is: The detail is unimportant, it's just opposition to all and any change. With regards the current situation - clearly there are no counter proposals, so, yes, that suggests they're fine with it. The sad fact is, it's easy to support the status quo, no matter how bad it might be... not so easy to try and actually improve things.

What difference does it make if its a rental vehicle? Think you missed the point somewhere.

I’m talking about the existing bus lane, which currently only operates at certain times. The pavements were widened during Covid and it was a great improvement. Absolutely zero reason not to reinstate it, except that it inconveniences a handful people who park their car there at the expense of hundreds to people visiting the businesses along the lane (particularly those with mobility issues).

What waiting restrictions? Most of the parking on the East side of the lane is unregulated I believe. Much of it is being used for long term car storage, e.g.: Reinstating the widening that was in place during Covid would improve businesses up that end of the lane imo. Narrow pavements which are difficult to navigate don't help trade. Doing this alongside a 24 hour bus lane would also help improve bus journeys as they often have to slow to a stop to pass each other / the line of parked cars. I suspect the number of people who drive to Lordship Lane to shop are minimal. There aren't many parking spaces anyway. We're cramming hundreds of shoppers onto narrow pavements at weekends for the sake of probably less than a dozen spaces up the southern end of the lane, many of which are just being used for free on road storage. I would retain a few dedicated spaces for disabled drivers, maybe one or two for loading and repurpose the rest of the space to create a more pleasant shopping environment personally.

I agree. That's my point. Literally no one is arguing that individuals who jump lights or drive on pavements should be entitled to. When people are caught doing this on a bicycle, it usually results in a penalty notice. When they do it in a car it often results in the same. It may occasionally result in a prosecution where it's a particularly egregious example, but is more likely to happen where someone is travelling in a motor vehicle. There is good reason for that. Driving a car down a pavement, or through lights is objectively more dangerous by several orders of magnitude. This is not 'favouring one group of people over another'. It's not about any group identity, but an individuals behaviour and potential impacts. Again, it shouldn't need stating, but people are not cyclists, pedestrians, bus users, or drivers; They are all of them at different times.

Please can you explain which of the three proposals you are against, which elements and why? For example, are you objecting to the 'healthy streets phase 3' plan? Also, what (if any) counter proposals do you have, or is it just a blanket objection to any change? Also, could you please provide details of the 'alternative' data analysis that has been done by 'someone on your street'? Wow, I just looked at that flyer. Absolutely ridiculous and unevidenced claims. You're claiming that there will be an ???!? Perhaps you have serious, evidenced objections, but I'd suggest that you need to explain which elements of the three proposals you oppose and stop printing nonsense like the above if you want to be taken seriously.

Children switch to walking and cycling to school after introduction of ULEZ: https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/children-switch-to-walking-and-cycling-to-school-after-introduction-of-londons-ultra-low-emission?utm_campaign=research&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Perhaps we could just have a single thread called 'cars versus bikes' for those who can't expand their thinking beyond a simple binary opposition and just want to 'score points' for their 'side'. Then the rest of the section could actually be used for nuanced / sensible conversations about transport matters?

There are actually three separate but related proposals from what I can tell. Are you going to explain which of them you are challenging and why? Or are you simply opposed to all and any change and relying on knee jerk opposition? Any chance you can actually provide details of your objections?

For the usual suspects, please may I suggest that you look into what is being proposed before jumping to opposing all and any change. The 'healthy routes' proposal for example seems a complete no brainer: https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=8618 ... To the OP - please could you clarify what is the substance of your objections? There are three separate, but related proposals from what I can tell. Are you opposed to all of them and if so why?

@Rockets you clearly see any debate about road safety or transport in general as a binary opposition - cyclists versus motorists. Have you ever considered that people behaving badly will often travel on bike and at other times travel by car (or foot)? That they’re the same people? Is bad road behaviour an issue of bad behaviour, or an issue of the mode of transport being used at the time of the bad behaviour? And if the latter, why is it specifically when they are behaving badly on a bicycle that appears to be your primary concern? @first mate re. your post complaining about national statistics on road injuries and deaths- are you suggesting that in London people pose a greater risk and cause more serious injuries and deaths when they are travelling on a bicycle than in a motor vehicle?

Wow, this is a weird thread. Probably doesn't need stating, but most people who travel by bike, will also (at other times) travel by car, and by public transport... and nearly everyone is a pedestrian. So the whole 'motorist' or 'cyclist' as an identity, creates more heat than light imo. It is often the same people who behave carelessly however they're travelling - and it's the attitudes and behaviours of those people that need to be addressed. People need to take more care on our roads. Obviously this means people walking, or traveling by bike taking care. People particularly need to watch out / take care around pedestrians, when they're using bicycles to get about, as well as when using a car (especially when using a car). All this said, I do find it strange how disproportionate the number of threads there are on this forum focussed on those who behave irresponsibly specifically when they're on a bicycle (as opposed to when they're behind a wheel of a motor vehicle). It feels like it's more about identity / footballification than anything else. There is no getting away from the fact that nearly all of the 30K odd serious injuries and deaths on UK roads each year are the result of incidents involving motor vehicles; This is the primary reason for our roads being dangerous. Strange how few threads we have discussing this.

Absolutely need to invest more in making life better for pedestrians. I do think this includes pavement widening programmes where appropriate. On Lordship Lane, it would actually help if some of the parking was removed to accommodate pavement widening and reduce pinch points (especially near the bus stops). If we also made the bus lanes 24/7, it would significantly improve accessibility to / from and along the lane. It's a shame that the temporary measures bought in during COVID to make walking easier were not retained imo. We have again prioritised car parking over buses and pedestrians. In the meantime, fixing the existing paving would be a good start.

Gambado's could actually do super well there.

There are usually shoe and trainer recycling 'bins' - think there is one by the Plough pub. I don't think there is much you can do with babybel wax - it's not recyclable.

Just wanted to say what a great place this is. Lovely views, friendly staff and great cocktails! Beautiful place on a sunny day.

Not really. A huge number of journeys in London are very short (around a third are under 2km). Some people who may have driven to pick up a coffee from the village, will now walk. That's why traffic across the whole area actually fell. The point is, that for those who do have to, or still want to drive, the extra time is pretty minimal. This isn't a particularly bold intervention, it's a small nudge. The outrage at such a timid attempt at reallocate a tiny amount of public space several years on, really does tell you how out of control car dominance / entitlement has become.

I actually like this comment. It's refreshingly honest. On the detour point, it's around a 2 - 3 minute diversion from Townley road to the Village at most; Just to put things into perspective.

I don't understand why the state of Rye Lane is not being addressed by Southwark.

...to my other question, does anyone know who is picking up the costs of these works? Are the private companies who (as I understand it) have joint responsibility for flood avoidance and drainage contributing to the cost of these works?

Thanks tercio. Hopefully that’s right

The Montpelier and White Horse are great establishments imo. I thought the Clockhouse was pretty rubbish in it's previous incarnation, but hopeful that the new pub will be an improvement.

Good luck!

The point in saying 'overall' is that no traffic scheme is going to improve everything absolutely everywhere; There will always be some trade offs in the real world and you can't let perfection to be the enemy of good. In some areas traffic has increased. In many, many more it has dropped. The vehicle counts, the data gathered on walking and cycling, and analysis of bus times have shown that traffic across the area as a whole is down (both inside an outside the LTN), bus times are generally improved and active travel (walking and cycling ) have increased. The problem with One Dulwich is that they were ideologically opposed to any restrictions on car movements from the very start (they published articles prior to the LTN being created stating that it would 'never work') . They have focussed on any individual data points which they think 'prove' the LTN is 'a disaster', whilst studiously ignoring the many more data points which show the opposite. They don't seem able to see the wood for the trees (or are cynically avoiding seeing it) Whilst the council have assessed the overall impact, taken on board feedback and made improvements to the scheme to mitigate any discrete issues, One have never been constructive and have relentlessly clung on to anything they think they can use to claim they were right all along (see people still pointing to issues which have long been addressed above for example). And they've never really moved past demands that the whole thing be scrapped... because for One it's really just about looking for ways to 'prove' a pre-conceived prejudice. It's the definition of confirmation bias.