Earl Aelfheah

I blame Meghan!

scarlettbanks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Had an incredible dinner at newish restaurant Omni > (near the bottom of Rye Lane). All vegan (which I > am not) - incredible flavours, some quite unusual > - the corn ribs with cashew cream for example were > amazing. Has good sandwiches at lunchtime too. Their sandwiches are great. Didn't realise they did dinner - will check it out.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The men who die? Usually in dispute with other > men > > The women who die? Random unprovoked attacks I?m not sure this is very fair. Many boys and men are victims of random attacks.

Good stuff!

Low traffic schemes benefit the most deprived Londoners, study finds https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2021/mar/02/low-traffic-schemes-benefit-most-deprived-londoners-study-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

slarti b2 > Well, they manged to block the westbound lane of > the junction ( wonder if Rah Rah will be > complaining?) Did they pile bags up between the planters blocking people from turning into the square from the main road? Or do you just mean, ?they were in square?. Presumably you?re bright enough to understand the difference?

Ltns reduce car use and increase active travel, so fit quite well with speaking up on climate change. But yes, why not go to the event and demand that we make it easier to drive locally. You could stand outside with a ?tackle climate change? banner and get drivers to hoot their horns in support.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, it is reasonable to have a new thread. I > agree with Legal...not just this 'consultation', > but also about consulting on infilling and > building on parks. 100's of videos from locals > angry about not being consulted about building on > a park, in the 5 year lead up echos the terrible > job of consulting on LTNs. > > It is perfectly reasonable for ED forum users to > discuss how their Council uses their Council Tax > and what representation local Councillors in Goose > Green, Village Ward actually give us on the full > Southwark Council and Council senate. Otherwise > what is the point of them? There is also a thread about the infilling of parks (which I agree is pretty poor). But sure, let's have another duplicate thread, why not.

Population of London has dropped for the first time in 30 years, driven by Brexit and the pandemic: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jan/07/london-population-decline-first-time-since-1988-report-covid-home-working

Please, not another thread

Saw this happen in Kennington last night. Kids on electric bikes. Awful.

I struggle with reception on Three.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, I think that would be the sensible thing to > do if it was as dangerous as you suggest. I simply said it was dangerous. Which if you look at the link you posted yourself and think about having to get off your bike and then help two young kids off theirs whilst standing in the middle of the road, with traffic on either side - I think you'd have to agree it is. Certainly more dangerous than someone moving their bag.

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I didn't initially make a big thing about this, > > although I thought it was dangerous and > > inconsiderate at the time. But seeing as I got > > roundly attacked for simply suggesting that > there > > were a 'few idiots blocking people turning off > the > > main road', I feel it's reasonable to defend > the > > comment. > > > > I'm genuinely amazed that there are people who > > think it's reasonable, but I can only assume > that > > they don't understand the junction / road > layout. > > Sorry, but you insulted a group of elderly people > protesting about a scheme that has severely > affected them. > And then proceeded to repeatedly argue the toss > and refuse to retract your insult. > In my view that is the definition of ?making a big > thing out of it?. > If you?d wanted to , you could have cleared this > up in post #2.. No I didn't. I said "a small number of idiots blocking the right turn for cyclists with their bags and placards." People then proceeded to say that the protesters were only on the pavement (not true). Accused me of not living in the area (I've been on this forum since '07 Accused me of putting my children in danger Called me a troll Said it was fine to block the entrance to the square anyway (even though apparently this also didn't happen). ...and yes, accused me of abusing the elderly. All of which is making rather a big thing out of it. So I don't really think that it's me who needs to make a retraction to be honest.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a pedestrian crossing at the end of the > cycle-only filter lane. Next you eel so vulnerable > there you might consider dismounting in the filter > lane and crossing at the lights. > > you dismount here where the little bicycle picture > is and walk to the traffic island where the green > man is > > https://goo.gl/maps/m3aYWiQPv2wvfBLC7 You think it's OK to get off your bike and then help two young kids off theirs whilst standing in the middle of the road, with traffic on either side. look at that link and really think about that. Perhaps people could just move their bags?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > first mate Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Come on Northern, you can choose to continue > on > > a > > > route or not. Aside from issues of > > inconvenience, > > > no one is forcing RRR and his/her children to > > > continue moving forward on their bicycles > into > > > 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' to > > > children is quite obviously a tactical > > > confection. > > > > > > > > > northernmonkey Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > How was there a choice to turn up first > mate? > > > Was > > > > the protest advertised in advance? > > > > Bikes turning right have to pull into the > middle > > lane. You have one lane to your left going > > straight on and another on your right > approaching > > you. You are sandwiched between to lanes of > > traffic. If people block the entrance to the > > square, then it's not possible to turn right, > or > > go 'straight on'. You are left stranded in the > > middle of two lanes of traffic. If you don't > > understand this, then you clearly don't > understand > > the road layout. > > So Rahx3 are you saying that as you turned right > all of the access to the junction was blocked by > old people protesting? Or was it just that they > were congregating on the left-hand side of the > road as you were trying to head up Calton? Was the > right-hand side of the junction blocked too > because all the photos show the right-hand lane > completely clear? The right side (or left side depending on which way you're looking) was clear heading out onto Dulwich Village Road I think. But the turn from the main road was blocked, leaving anyone in the right hand turn 'box' stuck in the middle of the road with nowhere to go. I didn't initially make a big thing about this, although I thought it was dangerous and inconsiderate at the time. But seeing as I got roundly attacked for simply suggesting that there were a 'few idiots blocking people turning off the main road', I feel it's reasonable to defend the comment. I'm genuinely amazed that there are people who think it's reasonable, but I can only assume that they don't understand the junction / road layout.

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As posted above - the signs on the planters > clearly state 'Pedestrian Priority'. So anyone > moaning about cyclists being blocked by > pedestrians..... Pedestrian priority does not mean you can block the right turn from the main road with your bags. It means that the square is shared space and that cyclist should give way to pedestrians and take care when cycling through it. In the same way as cars should give way to cyclists on the road, it doesn't mean that cyclists can line up their bags across the entrance to a side street.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Come on Northern, you can choose to continue on a > route or not. Aside from issues of inconvenience, > no one is forcing RRR and his/her children to > continue moving forward on their bicycles into > 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' to > children is quite obviously a tactical > confection. > > > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > How was there a choice to turn up first mate? > Was > > the protest advertised in advance? Bikes turning right have to pull into the middle lane. You have one lane to your left going straight on and another on your right approaching you. You are sandwiched between to lanes of traffic. If people block the entrance to the square, then it's not possible to turn right, or go 'straight on'. You are left stranded in the middle of two lanes of traffic. If you don't understand this, then you clearly don't understand the road layout.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RRR, it was a protest, you made a choice to turn > up on bicycles with your children. Any danger to > your children could have been avoided. You would > have been inconvenienced no doubt by having to > avoid that route but protests often do cause > inconvenience. > > Your 'danger to children' line is tactical hype > and not at all convincing. I didn't even know there was a protest. You could just say, I agree with their aims, but yeah, perhaps not a good idea to block people trying to turn off the main road into the square. But you chose to say I'm endangering my children, by being unfortunate enough to run into some selfish people blocking the turn off the main road. Sure.

Bags before people.

Those who are in favour of removing traffic from some streets, aren't saying it because they want to harm anyone. Neither do I believe those who are against LTNs want to cause harm to anyone. It is possible to have different, but honestly held, and well intentioned views. But when people say it's fine to strand someone on a bike in the middle of two lanes of traffic, rather than just move your bags and let people turn off a main road safely, it's hard to see any good intentions in that frankly.

Can?t actually believe that people are saying it?s cool to block a kid on a bike from turning off the main road, leaving them stuck out between two lanes of traffic. And of course it?s all about protecting children. Honk your horn as you pass them stranded their just to really underline it! You know you could just say, I agree with their aims, but yeah, perhaps not a good idea to block people trying to turn off the main road into the square.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was a protest, it is generally accepted that > protests may cause inconvenience to others. Look > at the M25. Not inconvenience. When you stop cars you cause inconvenience. When you block a kid on a bike from making a right turn, leaving them trapped between two lanes of traffic, it?s dangerous. People who are claiming that the protestors were only on the pavement and not blocking the barriers and entrance onto the square from the main road are wrong. As I said, no problem with protest. Big problem with inconsiderate behaviour which endangers others.

There is no problem with people hanging out in the square. It is shared space. This is not the same as people blocking the exit off the main road, onto the square. If you?re cycling up Dulwich Village Road, you wait in the middle, between two lanes of traffic, in order to turn right. You have cars passing you on both sides going in different directions. If people stand in between the barriers and place their bags in the gaps blocking your turn, they leave you stranded in this position (whilst in this instance, also encouraging car and van drivers to loudly sound their horns as they pass). Leaving a kid stuck out in the middle of a main road and blocking their safe exit, isn?t really something people ought to defend imo.

Just noticed the comment about ?cancel culture? 😂