Earl Aelfheah

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? 😂

As far as I?m aware attendees at those events didn?t put bags or stand protesters in between the planters, blocking people from turning off the main road, leaving them stuck out in traffic on their bikes. I have no problem with people being in the square. I have a problem with thoughtless behaviour which endangers others.

Just to remind you what I actually said, it was this: ?a small number of idiots blocking the right turn for cyclists with their bags and placards.? I stand by my view that if you leave a kid stuck out in the main road because you?re blocking their turn, you?re an idiot.

Btw, I?m not suggesting everyone there was an idiot. But those blocking people from turning off the main road (with is dangerous), are. Thats why I said ?a small number of idiots, blocking those trying to turn right?. That said I do think the protestors are quite wrong if they think the answer to having healthy, active kids is to have more cars on more roads.

It shows that they were not only on the pavement as claimed above, and as I said. I do live locally. The fact that this can?t be taken at face value despite the fact that I?ve been on this forum since 2007 shows how absurd this whole thread has became. People concerned for young lungs might want to consider whether campaigning to allow cars to cut through side roads, encouraging honks of support from passing SUVs and blocking kids out on their bikes from turning off the main road is smart.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seriously? > > Presumably I?m in the dishonest camp. Not really > sure what to say, other than that the concrete > blocks in the photo don?t mark the edge of the > pavement, for any non-locals tuning in. > > This is getting out of hand. I?m not suggesting people were standing in the road. I?m suggesting (and the photos show) that they were blocking access from the road into the ?square?. Are you honestly saying that they were only standing to the side, on the pavement and that they weren?t on the square facing the main road waving their placards?

I was cycling with my two young daughters (who I would never have cycled through that junction with before the LTN by the way, but which is now full of young families on bikes). We tried to turn right off the main road and people had piled their bags between the barriers and several were also standing their blocking any route through. This was a bit later on and things had cleared out a bit, but it was dangerous as we had to dismount in the road (the main road). I didn?t appreciate it thanks. But I?m sure I?m just a troll, making things up and who doesn?t live here, right? And yes, people encouraging cars to honk their horns in support of ?young lungs? is absurd. How those involved can?t see it is personally beyond me. If anyone thinks that having more cars cutting through side roads is going to help children stay active I think they?re quite, quite wrong.

You can see on this one as well that they were not only on the pavement. Anyone who went passed and is honest, will tell you that they absolutely were blocking people trying to turn off the main road. But again, the photos are probably faked (even though they have been posted by those protesting), just like the data is faked and the academic research is biased. The only truth is that more cars, on more roads is the only way to reduce the number of cars and encourage kids to use their bikes.

They weren?t. And some had their bags between the barriers, blocking access. But sure I have been on this forum since 2007 because I actually live in Scotland.

P3girl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > - rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Yep, a small number of idiots blocking the > > right turn for cyclists with their bags and > placards. > > > > > > ?Open the roads? they say, whilst obstructing > > > their use for the many families passing > > through. > > > > > > @rahrahrah, > > If you look at the photos, you will see no one was > blocking the road. All were on the pavement. In > fact, several cyclists were very complimentary and > supportive. These folks were ALL sensible senior > citizens who were expressing their views in a > quiet and responsible manner. Many depend on > public transport that has been adversely affected > by the LTNs > > And it wasn't just about their own demographic - > several placards said things like "YOUNG LUNGS > MATTER" and "DON'T FAKE THE DATA". They were not a > bunch of self-centred "idiots" as you suggested. > > In many cultures around the world, old age is > revered and respected. We need some of that here. > > These protestors are certainly not idiots. Young lungs matter, as you block young families trying to turn right off the main road and encourage honks of support from passing SUVs? Photo of people blocking anyone trying to turn into Calton Avenue have been posted above by someone else. See attached. You have every right to campaign for more cars in side roads but there are a lot of families very happy to have a safe route which kids feel confident cycling on. No doubt it will soon be full of cars again, but in the meantime let them actually enjoy getting around the area under their own steam and enjoy being able to get outside and exercise please.

Look at the photo. Very clearly there are people blocking anyone turning right from the main road into Calton Ave. They could have had their protest without blocking people using the supposedly ?closed? road. But they wanted to get lots of honks from those driving by, whilst they called for less car pollution and protested restricting access as they blocked those turning right. With no sense of irony.

first mate Wrote: ----------------------------------------------------- > Similarly, electric bikes are touted as a solution > for older people who might find the hills around > ED a challenge, but they are also heavy and > expensive, how do you lug them in and out of your > home and where can you leave them that is secure- > if you want to go shopping or similar? You don?t have to own one. Electric hire bikes are now in ED. Also there are now some cargo bike rental stations (e.g. at Pitfield St). Hopefully we?ll see more of this around London over time.

I thought ED was marketing itself as South Peckham nowadays