first mate

Southwark Council has proposed paving over a swathe of the Dulwich Village junction to create a ‘public space’ with trees and outdoor seating. The council says the changes would mean “reclaiming space” so the community can “connect, socialise and play” in a “safe and pleasant environment”. It’s the latest proposed changes to the junction which has increasingly restricted motor traffic ever since the Dulwich Village Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) was installed in June 2020. So the above is the rationale for overhauling this space. A need to connect, play and socialise. In one of the wealthiest parts of the borough, in a locale brimming with restaurants and cafes, a Picture Gallery ( with plans for children's play areas), with no less than three massive areas of parkland in which to meet, socialise and play (Dulwich Park, land next to Picture Gallery, Belair Park)? What is the overall cost of the whole Dulwich Square deal? Cycling through there yesterday, could not believe extent to which everything dug up and ripped out. Really major work and disruption. I thought the council was struggling for cash?

"At least try to watch it with an open mind and give some credibility to the experts in academia". I must have misunderstood, I thought Rockets was commenting on it because they watched it? But because they do not agree this means they are not open-minded?

I think Angelina's post is spot on: "To have a proper review, with full intention to follow up on any lessons learned, there should be a full fact find. This should be accessible to ALL residents (not just those invited) and should embrace other methods than one in-person session (they could send out a survey via Southwark website, or local social media). The council should be involved as well. There should be a compilation of the main issues raised and importance. Follow up should be based on addressing each point. The council should be involved. There should be accountability and a clear way forward, as agreed by all. So - the gap between what has been set up as a one day by invite meeting, is far, far away from what it should be, if the organisers truly wanted to listen and make improvements. Perhaps a clue would be that the meeting is set up by the Public Relations team - it's just a tick box. to be seen to be doing the right thing."

You are to be commended on broadening the definition of careless driving to include all road users that are not pedestrians. I think we can all agree that anyone using the road, whatever their mode of transport, should be ready to slow and brake and always be on the lookout for pedestrians.

Sunday last, cycling through Dulwich Square, other cyclists ignoring red light and cycle filter red lights. What is the point of the cycle filter if it is ignored?

I also hope the young woman is okay. Is there any sort of an update? One would imagine that in such a busy, prominent part of Lordship Lane there will have been plenty of witnesses?

Thanks for the clarification. If I have understood, you have lots of experience in organising and attending feedback sessions after these sort of park events, but you have no stake in this one? Will you be attending this Gala feedback meeting? I cannot remember if you are local or not? It is worth considering that objections to this event are not born of a hobby of revelling in misery and carping- as someone who says they have organised and attended feedback sessions it is surprisingly narrow-minded of you to frame objections in this way. I am sure the event is enjoyable for those attending, I doubt they'd pay if it were not. But, that personal pleasure is at the expense of access to a lovely part of the park for many others, also impacting the park in terms of damage. Out of interest, do you support Gala's aim to extend the event? Would you like to see the park hired out for further events, as has been done with Brockwell Park?

The only person actively taking the 'p' is you, Cyclemonkey. This is a serious issue for some locals and I do not think anyone has expressed a 'fear' of going to Peckham, so kindly cease the misrepresentation. You say you are a veteran festival organiser and attendee of such events, are you involved with the Gala event and organisation in some capacity?

I agree and I'll bet the invitation list is a carefully curated mix of those for and against to maximise the narrative Gala wants. It should be an open meeting, available to all local residents.

It would be better to hold a meeting adjacent to the venue, as has been done in the past. Let's not pretend that holding the meeting further away from the venue is not a useful deterrence to attendance. Holding a series of smaller meetings is just another way to divide and rule. This smacks of a tick box spin exercise, where the aim is to control the narrative rather than make significant changes to the event. If there is to be no council representative attending then that is even worse. It is the council that truly call the shots on all this.

I guess what we can say is that while 300 locals chose to use their GE vote against local LTNs, not one person voted exclusively in favour.

Only you have used the word significant, I believe 🙂

I don't think anyone on here was suggesting it was not a scam?!

Popular with some but deeply unpopular with others. The consultation process questionable. As already observed, some 300 locals used a GE vote to indicate their dissatisfaction with the current state of play. I don't think this is going away any time soon.

Doesn't really matter if one or many. The questions OD are/is asking the council reflect the views of many- not all- living in ED and Dulwich. I for one am glad they are keeping up scrutiny and pressure.

Does anyone know who funded it?

Penguin68, as an unintended consequence, it certainly makes sense that criminals try to get a slice of the action.

Thanks for the clarification, some posters playing fast and loose with the facts maybe? Again, can the more myopic cycling proselytisers respect thread titles and cease trying to derail them, please!

Not only that, he and some others are back to derailing threads that query any aspect of their rose tinted view of local cycling infrastructure. Please go and post on your 'joys of cycling thread'.

They are very good; I just wish they hadn't included a suicide help flyer in one of them. I hope that was not deliberate as would be incredibly insensitive.

Looks very much a spoof to me, especially with a name like "emmaroyds".

Please don't try to derail and take this thread off subject; it is about cycling behaviour. Do start another thread on the railings and whatever you think caused them to fall over. BTW, I do not think stating law that applies to all road users, including cyclists, can be classified as "anti cycling rhetoric"?! I pasted this in the context of the video of multiple cyclists running red lights in Dulwich village: Crossing the stop line when the traffic lights are red (jumping red lights) is an offence which the police usually deal with via a fixed penalty notice (FPN) fine (typically £50), as is riding across a cycle-only signal crossing if the green cycle symbol isn’t showing.

Crossing the stop line when the traffic lights are red (jumping red lights) is an offence which the police usually deal with via a fixed penalty notice (FPN) fine (typically £50), as is riding across a cycle-only signal crossing if the green cycle symbol isn’t showing. Where there is an advanced stop line (ASL) cyclists can position themselves ahead of the motorised traffic but behind the ASL, though crossing the ASL on red is still an offence. It’s also an offence to ride through an amber light, unless you are so close to the stop line that to stop might cause a collision, although if the traffic lights aren’t working all road users are permitted to treat the situation as they would an unmarked junction, and “proceed with great care”.

Never mind Mal, enough of us are very glad someone is maintaining pressure and scrutiny on the council and its position on local LTNs. Great work by One Dulwich and more power to them.

I think most of us agree that single issue candidates are almost irrelevant at a GE. But, I also agree, it is noteworthy that some 300 locals were prepared to vote in support of a candidate against LTNs, especially if those voting were concentrated in a small area. It was always going to be a Labour candidate at national level, as most of us wanted the last govt out. However, perhaps that certainty emboldened a few to use their votes to make a local point as well?