Earl Aelfheah

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

Anyone got any good TV recommendations?

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was even a bloke who 'Reported' into the > system that a vaccine had turned him into the > Incredible Hulk. Sounds plausible

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And one of those minor roads @rahrahrah was > studied by dr goodman, and here is what the > dulwich alliance have to say about it > https://dulwichalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/202 > 1/02/Wheres-the-evidence.pdf Are you suggesting that there hasn't been a reduction in traffic then? Or that there has been huge displacement of traffic? I'm confused.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?Harmony on the Square? costing ?3000 organised by > ?Friends of the Square? > > They have no shame. What's this?

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrah, > Yet again demonising anyone who points out flaws > in the council's botched schemes, asks how they > will deal with the effects of displaced traffic or > searches for some sort of compromise. Still, > unlike ExDulwicher at least you are not suggesting > we are all UKIP supporting SUV drivers who won't > walk 500 metres. Not demonising all motorists - suggesting that some reactions and behaviours suggest a sense of entitlement (specifically in those exhibiting them). > btw I have a vague memory you are associated with > Southwark Cyclists and\or London Cycling Campaign. > If so, what do you think of Lambeth Cyclist Simon > Still's racist rants, demonising drivers? Really > shows up the prejudices of the the minority > militant cycling lobby who are driving this > absolutist agenda. I'm not, and I've no idea who Simon Still is.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Malumbu - no Rahrahrah didn't talk about > entitlement amongst "many" drivers but wrote about > drivers per se - thereby tarring all drivers with > the same brush - which seems to be part of the > pro-closure lobby playbook - all drivers and cars > are evil. I have not said all drivers are evil. I am a driver myself. Please calm down. There haven't been road closures. We're not talking about widespread pedestrianisation. re. entitlement, I talked in the context of endemic speeding, and individuals reacting in a completely over the top manner, to a fairly timid attempt to reduce the amount of traffic on minor roads. The kind of drivers who claim that people are part of a 'pro-closure lobby', or talk of people being 'evil' for example. Perhaps I need to say 'that's not everyone', but I think it's fairly self evident.

kiera Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In my experience, some drivers are going much too > fast in some LTN roads. I think they are finding > their normal route blocked and are frustratedly > and impatiently driving down unfamiliar streets > trying to get out. If you go out early, when the roads are relatively quiet, the speeds generally, are incredible. Speeding is endemic and there is very little enforcement. See also, driving whilst on the phone. It?s all part of a culture of entitlement amongst car owners illustrated by the completely OTT reaction to fairly timid attempts at reducing traffic on a handful of minor roads.

I liked Brick Bakery and understand that it was doing really well until Gails came in and offered to pay the landlord considerably more in rent. As a result a very successful independent business was forced out and the space has been kept empty for a considerable time. I won?t be giving Gails my business as personally I think this type of behaviour is what stifles innovation, holds back the economy and leads to identikit high streets.

Can't imagine dog walkers are getting much business with lockdown. Having a reason to leave the house seems to be one of the most attractive things about owning a dog right now.

Do adverts for banks actually increase the number of customers they attract? Who opens an account off the back of a TV advert featuring a horse riding across a beach?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Those of you who want to end low traffic > > neighbourhoods and allow cars to use side > streets > > to save time cutting between main roads - Do > you > > have anything that you would like to see > replace > > them? > > One way streets with half the road a cycle lane > and half for motor traffic. Create a good one way > system and this nonsense would be unnecessary. Sounds like a great idea

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hear hear. > > To everyone who doesn't understand it and suffers > from a COMPLETE LACK OF EMPATHY like rahrahrah > here: move in to a flat/house on Lordship Lane - > and see for yourself how it feels. Would you like > it on your road 24/7? > > And multiply this by a hundred as it is quieter > now because of the lockdown. > > > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yeah there?s a few roads in ED that are now > main > > rat runs compared to previously, the problem?s > > just moved to other people?s streets since the > > LTNs. I live just off Lordship Lane. It's a main road. I don't accept that it was traffic free ever. I do have empathy for those who live on main roads, but also for those who want safer routes for walking and cycling. I'm in favour of creating a small number of paths through and around the area which are 'relatively' free of traffic. To suggest this shows no empathy is ridiculous. I accept that 'rat running' is an emotive phrase (albeit a well understood and commonly used one) - I'll rephrase my question: Those of you who want to end low traffic neighbourhoods and allow cars to use side streets to save time cutting between main roads - Do you have anything that you would like to see replace them?

Those you want to encourage more rat running by removing the LTNS - do you want to replace them with anything?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As Julie demonstrated as part of her > > council-sponsored/encouraged deputation the > goal > > appears to be to turn Dulwich Village into some > > sort of inner city rural idyll for the benefit > of > > a few of Southwark's wealthiest residents but > at > > the expense of everyone else. How dare we stand > in > > the way of this noble quest!!!! > > Poetry readings in "Dulwich Square": There was a > young woman named Greer, who wanted life for > cyclists to be freer............. > > But getting back to reality, our area is all > joined together and what hits Dulwich Village hits > all of East Dulwich and Croxted Road, so the > answer is to make sure these closures of any type > or timing, are not made permanent. It may be the > elections next year will be the only chance, but > in the meantime sign your objections to the East > Dulwich road closures and think about your > children walking down those polluted streets full > of traffic whilst one or two skip and scoot with > their Instagram mummies down quiet unpolluted > streets. What are you proposing in their place?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As a pedestrian I spend half my time having to > > walk in the road. There is so little room for > > those on foot or on bike. You look up and down > > most streets and can see how much space is > given > > over to car storage and car lanes. Cars are > > literally everywhere. I can?t understand who > > thinks that too much space is being allocated > to > > cycling and walking and not enough to motor > > vehicles. > Your post doesn't make any sense! Only > pedestrians should be on the pavement and if a > little deference was given to each other, as > happened in the first lockdown, there wouldn't be > a problem for you. I wasn?t suggesting people should ride bikes on the pavement. I?m suggesting that cars dominate almost all public space to the detriment of people either travelling by foot, or bike, who inevitably get squeezed out. I don?t get who thinks cars aren?t currently given enough priority over public space.

As a pedestrian I spend half my time having to walk in the road. There is so little room for those on foot or on bike. You look up and down most streets and can see how much space is given over to car storage and car lanes. Cars are literally everywhere. I can?t understand who thinks that too much space is being allocated to cycling and walking and not enough to motor vehicles.

As an aside, does anyone know who is behind all the ?one? campaigns? They seem to be connected and I would be very surprised if there wasn?t some astroturfing going on frankly.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even if only 10% of the 3,000 people who signed > that petition live near EFG and Lordship Lane, > that's still more people against these ridiculous > road closures than were for them in the local > consultation targeted at residents living in the > gated communities. ?Gated communities??! 😂

Didn't know it was being developed. Interested to know what it's going to be

You shouldn?t be driving out to Kent unless it?s absolutely necessary. Driving out of London to go for a walk is not a good idea and it is a breach of the regulations.

Lebanums Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am also a little nervous of dogs having never > had any growing up. I manage with friends dogs but > I don't want strange dogs running & jumping up at > me. It's not a case of let them approach you. > > It's complete disregard for other park users. > > Another issue is not picking up after their dogs, > there is so much poo on the streets at the moment. Yep, dog owners should keep their pets under control and stop them harassing other park users. I've had more than one picnic upset by a dog running across it, jumping all over everything, only to have the owner amble over casually and say something like "ah, I think he likes you" as I try to wrestle it off me and protect my lunch. Not everyone likes other peoples dogs as much as they do.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is something Southwark Council needs to be > congratulated for..... more trees please 🌳 Here, here!

As people say, there way a lot of work undertaken to deliberately divert and hold water in Dulwich Park. This was to reduce the risk of flooding in the village and ensure their premiums didn't rise too much. It's not helped by all the people concreting their front gardens for yet more car storage - the drains can't cope with all the run off.