first mate

Never said what? I thought the point is that you agree with the Dulwich Roads rationale and version of events for their tweets and Rockets does not?

Interesting to witness the twisting and turning that Dulwich Roads and its supporters/members on here are using to try and get out of this.

Thanks for your helpful reply. I hope what you say about the physical badge is true, it would not make sense to limit use to just one car. How shocking that (more than likely) some other family members of Blue Badge holders are abusing the system unless the badges were fake? Their actions negatively affect people living with disability who might desperately need more than 4 hours parking at the hospital.

The stipulation that only one vehicle can be registered and associated with the Blue Badge seems short-sighted. What if you need a carer or relative to take you somewhere, they may not always be the same person or car.

Eh, Dulwich Roads have been on here posting and commenting on the mental health of other posters- words to the effect of you need to stop your unhealthy obsession with..., we live 'rent free' in your head. I found that aspect quite interesting as that sort of phrasing and approach echoes that of some regular and rabidly pro LTN posters on here and is pretty low and gross, to be honest. I wonder if those posters are closely linked to Dulwich Roads? BTW your vapours about 'attacks' on local councillors is ridiculous. if local councillors make poor decisions they should be held accountable for them.

I believe Royal Mail or International Distribution Services PLC, has recently been sold to a Czech billionaire. It is alleged by some that there is an intention to asset strip the company. If there was a law firm brave enough and enough disgruntled users came forward, perhaps ED residents could take out something like a class action. I think it needs something of that magnitude to effect any kind of change.

Can you really? I looked and it is literally wall to wall car- catching. A fair bit seems to be generated by cyclists with headcams catching all and any infractions. Who is behind the X account?

Do they highlight different types of dangerous or careless behaviour, involving different modes of transport, or do they focus only on one type?

Many years ago, a guy with 'issues' was found to have gone round a number of streets and systematically yanked off and broken wing mirrors on loads of cars. This sounds similar. An expensive pain for anyone on the receiving end.

Suspect the slope is deliberate to facilitate water run off. The new cycle way is cobbled and I understand it may be unpopular with some cyclists as it is not comfortable. Wonder if this was a deliberate design feature to slow cyclists down in this area?

Agree with this sentiment. The careless behaviour runs across a range of cyclists, not just the hobbyists. There seems to be an emerging trend that any pedestrian space is seen as fair game and many cyclists prefer to weave in and out of pedestrians rather than dismount and walk.

The stretch from East Dulwich road to Barry road is bad for that. Both on the pavement and road. It's very dark there by the Gardens bus stop so you can't see them until they're very close. I don't understand why one would take such a risk and leave themselves vulnerable by not being visible to both pedestrian and fellow road users. I know, it definitely needs addressing. On top of everything else many wear dark/ black clothing which would be fine if they used a fluorescent jacket or strips, but they don't. Crazy.

Clearly Earl has zero interest in helping to educate cyclists to slow down and pay more heed to pedestrians around them. Instead, he recycles an earlier post in a desperate attempt to change the subject. Today, walking past Vanity Square, I was struck by the amount of cyclists careering around pedestrians, not one chose to just dismount and walk a few yards. Really poor. Perhaps the council need to put a few advisory stencils in Vanity Square, mind you it would mar that gorgeously expensive paving.

Only the reported data and nothing yet for this year. Glad you are clear that an apparent reduction does not necessarily show the true picture- and, of course, we also have a number of people who live in the area saying that crime has gone up. In conclusion, we don't yet know.

Malumbu said: "But some of the discussion is incredibly simplistic, blaming for example a possible increase in some crimes due to improved street lighting and less vehicles." But it was you that first suggested a relationship between street lighting and crime?! Here you are, the very first response to the OP.

Well if not scientific, as your chums will tell you, no point. But seriously, we don't need your input anyway, as a local and also a frequent visitor to the Vanity Square area I already know that there are lots of places to socialise and congregate with others. The idea that we need more is laughable. It is odd that these threads continue to attract you - like a moth to a flame. I am disappointed your call for help on bicycle helmets and cams has received virtually no attention. I may even be tempted to do a little research and give you suggestions. Are you considering a YouTube career, a bit like Barby on a Bike?

The point is the millions of pounds expenditure by Southwark Council on a small and unnecessary configuration of road space in Dulwich Village, is in stark contrast to the lengthy runs of cracking asphalt and dirty, broken-trip-hazard paving that graces much of East Dulwich.

Plenty of lovely places around Dulwich Village to see people congregating, no need for another and a very poor excuse for this huge waste of money. In response to Rockets: if another poster (March) has access to the plans it would be great if they could share them on here.

In response to Earl: Yes but we are not speaking generally and some of us are not using general trends to justify our view on the specific. It seems there are conflicting narratives about an alleged upturn in crime on the roads under discussion. It would be useful to get more specific information about reported crimes on these specific roads. I am assuming a spate of vehicle thefts would at least be reported for insurance purposes.

Earl, this started with crime and a loose/ possible relationship with an LTN. Other aspects have cropped up, but I cannot help but note that Malumbu asked for the thread to be moved into the traffic section, I then try to get the thread back on track with a genuine query asking about conflicting views on crime in the area. Then you appear, ignore the crime aspect and take us back into pollution etc.., I can only conclude that this is a deliberate attempt to get the thread removed from the main section?

I am interested to understand the seemingly two conflicting ideas about crime in the Dulwich Village area, especially on the streets in question. A number of people who live in the area seem to think crime has increased (vehicle theft), another person thinks that road closure should mean crime is reduced and they support this idea with general research on the effects of closure, but they do not state whether they think crime has increased, reduced or stayed the same. Presumably they are not denying the spate of vehicle thefts, as reported by another poster, have happened?

Can't argue with your overall sentiment Springtime.

Has there been reduction in crime on your roads?

Not sure Mr Hitchins would approve your hijacking of his 'razor'. This person was not expressing a religious belief, they were making a value judgement about someone's behaviour (not unreasonable, and something we all do all of the time; see Kahneman) It is your choice, as well as an assumption, to dismiss the OPs perception of increased crime as unevidenced- I do not believe you know if that is the case or not?

Springtime, speaking of taxes, you must be fuming about the millions spent on new paving in Dulwich.