Earl Aelfheah

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

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cheaper just to pay the ULEZ charge?? Most probably

Could cut some holes in the floor, Fred Flintstone style. It is possible to convert to Euro 6, but not worth it in most cases https://motorway.co.uk/sell-my-car/guides/euro-6-emission-standards-compliance

I'm up for London declaring independence, so guess we ought to have a flag. Should probably be red (the colour of buses, old school phone boxes and letter boxes etc... seems like a good London colour. Perhaps with a picture of a pint on it. Keep things simple.

Dulwich is a Hamlet, not a village ;-)

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. 🤦‍♂️

Just having a quick look at that ?report? by One Dulwich and it?s pretty clear that they?re straining every sinue to discredit data that they complain they haven?t even seen. I wouldn?t be surprised if the Council data is a bit iffy to be honest. But I would also put money on it being more reliable than anything from One Dulwich (who?s even in their best efforts to undermine the claim of an increase in active travel, conclude there has been an 8% increase in cycling). If LTNs don?t reduce car use or increase active travel, why do even their most vocal opponents only find evidence that they do?

So as I say. People who don?t want restrictions on car movements, will rubbish any and all data (and it does all point in the same direction) without offering any counter evidence.

It?s not just anecdote. Southwark have published data. Lambeth have just published more, follow up data on their LTNs. Many other boroughs have too. There is a body of research and a number of papers in peer reviewed journals which look at the impacts of LTNs. They all show the same thing - that by restricting car movements, you generally reduce car use and increase active travel. It is all rubbished of course. No counter evidence offered. Some have even argued on this thread that we shouldn?t look or ask for such evidence. So what you going to do? When you have people saying that they?ll strongly oppose anything that makes driving more difficult, I find it very hard to believe that any amount of data will make the slightest difference.

There?s also a new cafe by the entrance to Belair Park

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/p > ollution-and-air-quality/mayors-ultra-low-emission > -zone-london > > "You will not be charged for a non-compliant > vehicle parked in the zone on days you don?t drive > it." Thanks for pointing this out Lowlander, I hadn?t realised that was how it works.