Earl Aelfheah

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.

The pavement widening outside the cheese shop / fishmongers on LL could be made permanent and tidied up. It?s a bit ugly right now.

I?m not sure why people want to watch in on the funeral of a person they?ve never met and didn?t know.

We?ve had a massive derelict site o the corner of lordship lane and the south circular sitting there for years. It?s just one example of an empty brownfield site. Before building on parkland, I would be looking at those.

What would make us all safer would be some social pressure on those driving around in pseudo military vehicles / SUVs. Their bonnet height, general size and weight, and ability to mount pavements when out of control is ridiculous. They have no place in cities yet seem to becoming the go to vehicle for Dulwichites. We used to laugh at Americans for driving around in these things. How about quadrupling their VED?

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This smacks more of personal than political, even > Farage realised that by standing at the last GE, > votes for his party would undermine the chances of > the Tories winning and thereby Brexit completing. > > > The bigger the SNP's win the more chance there'll > be of Johnson being forced politically to agree to > a second referendum... ^this. He's only interested in himself

I'm certainly not built for violence, nor do I have the disposition. I would always do everything possible to avoid getting into any kind of physical altercation. But it's not unreasonable for someone to step in where an individual is under serious threat. Obviously, one has to assess the risk, but you sometimes have to be an active bystander. There is a lack of solidarity / collective care which I regret. No one should be able to attack a women with a baby in public, unchallenged by those just watching on (or usually worse - filming it on their phone).

It is remarkable that it's been allowed to sit derelict for so long. The skatepark is good though.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > > I am completely supportive of Carlton Avenue and > Court Lane being filtered, but do not understand > the rationale for Dulwich Village road being > closed at certain times of day?... > > Rahrah, are you one of those nimby's from Calton > who voted to close their own street to traffic but > didn't want closures elsewhere? Since you can't > spell Calton properly, maybe not. :-) > > Closing Court Lane and Calton by themselves will > just divert traffic onto Dulwich Village, EDG and > Lordship Lane, as we saw last year. All of these > have schools and many pupils walking on the > pavement. On the other hand it is great for > Alleyns, presumably why the private school > dominated SRS people are so keen on it. > > To avoid this massive displacment along the > boundary Roads any clsoures need to be timed to > protect school children and for a minimal amount > of time. That is what One Dulwich supports and > first put forward 4-5 years ago during the QW7 > consultation. I don't live on an LTN. Think it's good to discourage local car journey's and restrict the use of side streets as cut throughs. There need to be some quieter streets away from the main roads, for people to travel through the area safely by foot or by bike imo.

@jmaes - I am supportive of creating quiet routes for people to walk and cycle locally and that allow people to avoid busy main roads. But why are there timed closures on Dulwich Village road? This is not a quite side street being used as a cut through. If the Village high Street is to be restricted to traffic, why not Lordship Lane? I don?t get the rationale?

I am completely supportive of Carlton Avenue and Court Lane being filtered, but do not understand the rationale for Dulwich Village road being closed at certain times of day? This is a high street / main road, not a side street being used as a cut through.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are they putting tables in the carpark - there was > something about that becomming easier and you'd > think it would be a sensible move given that > they'll be restricted in terms of covers to how > much outdoor seating they have? I never got the carpark. Can't be many people who need to drive to a pub round here. Seems like it would be much more logical to turn it into an extended beer garden.

I thought brexit was meant to stop this sort of thing?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.gofundme.com/f/east-dulwich-community- > clean-air?utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1&utm_mediu > m=social&utm_source=twitter > > Everyone who lives here, works here, children who > walk to school here, we all need air quality > monitoring!! The Council are not assessing it, > yet all we see are the traffic jams and fumes > caused by displaced vehicles, with the residents > of LTNs sitting pretty whilst the rest choke. Maybe efforts to reduce pollution and congestion would be better served through campaigns for road pricing schemes, smaller, less polluting vehicles, bike lanes or better public transport etc., rather than ones which want to making it easier and more convenient for people to drive locally and to use side streets as cut throughs.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ironic considering the road is hardly used for > vehicles any more. There are vehicles lining both sides of the streets almost it's entire length, in addition to those travelling up and down it freely. It's not been pedestrianised.

Well said Otto2.

Would be good to have price brackets; with higher charges for bigger vehicles / large SUVs.

That is good news about the crossing. Also a feasibility study for EDG cycle Lane. Great!

tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Be great if you could do an article about how the > majority of residents wnd business? in east > dulwich are being negatively impacted by the new > LTNs imposed by the council to supposedly benefit > a very few very rich residents Or how many have been positively impacted.

I wish just one person who wants the LTNs removed would say ?I?m against them because they cause me inconvenience. I want to cut down side streets because it?s quicker.?. There must be at least one? Objections can?t all be, as we?re told, out of concern for: the obese, the BAME community, the poor, pollution (which is definitely not caused by casual car use btw), the disabled, the children. Apparently all these causes are well served by making it as easy as possible to drive locally using minor roads. Yep, unrestricted car use is a remarkable win win, with the interests of a minority of motorists aligning perfectly with the most marginalised - despite the latter being much less likely to own a car.

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @ rahrahrah just saying that dr goodmans study > makes great big claims about one of your timid > attempts at reducing traffic, but duwlich alliance > doesnt agree > https://dulwichalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/202 > 1/02/Wheres-the-evidence.pdf Who is dr Goodman and why are the LTNs *my* attempts to reduced traffic? There seems to be a view on this thread that if you have ever used a bike, or expressed a view that LTNs may not be the end of the world, then you're responsible for anything, anyone who is remotely in favour of LTNs has ever said. What are you saying...Do you think that traffic has decreased or increased? I