Earl Aelfheah

rachp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We stopped driving as much when we moved to just > off the busy section of Lordship Lane because > parking is so difficult in our road. We basically > couldn't be bothered with the hassle. We now > really only drive when taking a trip out of > London. But if it's local, we walk/bike/scooter or > use public transport. And now it's just become our > way of doing things and we prefer it. It's been a > bit more tricky during the COVID period as you are > more reluctant to use public transport but > hopefully things will start to get back to normal > on that front soon. Same here, and for many others I suspect. The reduction in cars on a handful of streets does also make it easier / more pleasant to walk and cycle.

I understand that there are concerns that it may be more difficult to drive on some roads than others, but on the principle of making car journeys less convenient generally... do people fundamentally disagree?

Anyone got any interesting Local or London sights, points of interest, or little known histories they?d like to share?

If you create some quieter routes, more people choose to walk and cycle locally. You only need to look at Calton Avenue to see this happening. If you don't, more people will use the car. It's that simple. Every decision has trade offs. We can make local car trips as convenient as possible and continue to allow cars to dominate every street, but let's not pretend that is going to solve the problem of pollution, inactivity, or car dependence.

jazzer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bit of a trek from ED station too cox's walk even > for a rat!! They can get a bus up Lordship Lane

The point of filtering side roads is to stop cars using them as cut throughs and keep the majority of traffic to the main roads. Seeing as the rise in Waze and Sat Navs has increased the amount of vehicles diving through back streets, this seems like a sensible counter measure. In Dulwich Village however, they've put in restrictions on a main road, before there was a chance for traffic to adjust to the changes. It feels knee jerk and probably counterproductive.

Is it at all possible that they were simply not looking where they were going and ran into you by mistake? If not, then it sounds very dodgy and you might even want to consider reporting it to the police?

The fact that there is an investigation (in fact 3 now) to try and uncover who initially stumped up the money for the flat refurbishment when he could just tell us is unbelievable. What an absolute waste of time, money and effort. What is he playing at? It makes me think there must be something really shady about it for him to be burning political capital on it and amplifying the story through his silence.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How utterly detached from a real world he and > other Dulwich labour councillors are. Thousands of > residents have to live with consequences of the > road closures 24/7 and yet these people don't give > a damn. A lot of people like having the option of a few lower traffic routes around the local area.

I am very supportive of the filtering on Calton Ave / Court Lane, but I just don't understand the rationale for the restrictions on Dulwich Village road.

I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that bikes pose more of a threat to others than motor vehicles. You just have to look at the size, speed and weight of cars (as well as the toxic fumes emitted), to see that this is nonsense.

If you think that nearly 30% of journeys starting and ending in Dulwich need to be undertaken by car..

If you think it's good to encourage people to regularly drive very short journey's locally, then it doesn't make the case, no.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich car ownership is at over 60% in the > Dulwich area - driven (no pun intended) by the > larger percentage than other boroughs of those > under-19 and those over 65 and the poor public > transport links in the area. > > It's all in here: > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Du > lwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf > > > Which, when you read it, makes the decision to > puts LTNs even more baffling. This report you've linked to makes the case for LTNS IMO. 27% of trips starting and ending in Dulwich are made by car?! Some of those trips will be necessary. A lot won't be.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quoting a figure of 40% for a whole borough is > misleading when it comes to local Dulwich issues. Presumably people in Dulwich travel within the Borough more generally though? It's only around 11 miles square. Or perhaps they're just driving around Dulwich?

Traffic flowed freely

It?s true. A lorry blocking the main road didn?t cause any congestion before

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the idea of closing off a street for one > day is good but it is not the answer. Seeing the > large number of vehicles - mainly cars with one > occupant, or one + child - thsi morning hammers > home that a few people are responsible for a lot > of emissions. I saw plenty of cyclists, which is > great (apart from the yuppy daddy on the pavement > with kiddies in tow, obviously as a > get-out-of-jail-card to him) and lots of > pedestrians but my main takeaway was that DV and > EDG are full of school runners. According to TFL only around 40% of adults have household access to car in Southwark. And I'm fairly sure that of those that do, many don't drive regularly.

I don't think they ever found there person who ploughed through my parents front garden. There were no witnesses

In addition to permanent widening of the pavements on Lordship Lane (where they are currently temporary) - Would be good to pedestrianise North Cross road permanently and allow for landscaping etc. Maybe some temporary closures to Lordship Lane around the weekend as they have done along Northcote road in Battersea, to allow bars and restaurants to provide outdoor seating (see below):

Hope you manage to track them down. A similar thing happened to my parent (not locally) where a car ploughed through their front garden and then drove off.

Chunx Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Spartacus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > CPR Dave, I take it you're talking about > Crystal > > Palace Road ? > > > > Whilst I understand your sentiments, it would > be > > far better if the existing LTN barriers are > > removed to restore normal services to all roads > in > > the area. > > Here here remove all the London wide LTN?s, all > they do is cause more congestion. Not everyone is > able to walk, scoot, cycle or take public > transport. Let the roads be open so traffic can > freely flow. Teach everyone how to use the road > correctly, yes a red light means stop whether you > are scooting, cycling or in a motor vehicle. When > the ULEZ is extended pollution should be a lesser > issue as less polluting cars should become the > norm. Remember before LTNs - how the traffic always flowed freely and congestion had never been experienced in London

Yes, we should encourage cars everywhere - especially on residential streets which can be used as high speed cut throughs. Let's make it as easy as possible to drive locally - after all, we all want increasing car use and particularly lot's of short, local car journeys. Bigger cars too ideally - lot's more SUVs with high bonnets to target upper body injuries and mount pavements more easily. It's the only way to improve the environment.

Apparently Lordship Lane is constantly gridlocked with stationary traffic as a result of their not being given total dominance over every single inch of space (just 90% of it) - so crossing LL shouldn't'be a problem.

Jeez - that's terrifying. Hope he survives.