first mate

And, as another cycling lobbyist has pointed out in the past, e-bikes are heavy and not the sort of expensive item you'd want to leave chained up anywhere. So, for the elderly etc.., how flexible is the e-bike option, in reality? What would they be able to use e-bikes for? Not shopping, not for appointments. Not a lot really.

Agree with you Rockets.

Indeed, not had a thing from the council, despite being within area.

Yes, independents are what we need.

Cyclists, unless they are mountain bikers, do need reasonably well kept roads so it is not impossible that in time cyclists may also get taxed for road upkeep.

I've had quite a few near misses when out cycling and the worst offenders have been other speeding cyclists.

So let those who are able to make the adjustments to lifestyle. Let those who are vociferously pro LTNs but who still own a car, cease car ownership. That's a start. At a time when many are under incredible pressure to earn a living, care for relatives and just survive, forcing extreme lifestyle changes in a matter of months is divisive and unhelpful. If you are merely inconvenienced by LTNs that is one thing, for others the impacts are a lot more serious.

Can you imagine the fuss if the all powerful of Dulwich Village were made to bear the brunt of overflow traffic from the impacts of the scheme elsewhere? No, for reasons of political expediency, they are protected. Our Labour councillors are complicit.

I wonder if skateboard wheels are counted too? It would be useful to find out for sure what the monitoring strips on Melbourne are for?

There'll be a sharp rise once the weather warms up. There are fair weather cyclists aplenty and that is great, but not an accurate refection of effects of road closure all year round.

But if you wanted it/ needed it you could have it. There are plenty of things we are taxed and pay for that do not necessarily benefit us individually.

Melbourne grove MP management was always dysfunctional. TJ GP is same lot, but handed over this prize site anyway. How did that happen?

Oh no, where are they moving to? They are an extremely useful service, really hope the area is not losing them altogether? smooch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James > It appears that Callow Locksmiths in the Melbourne > grove is the first long standing local business > that is having to move due the problems caused by > LTNs - personally I don't think they will be the > last. > > Have the council actually communicated with local > businesses? I can see from a number of traders on > twitter that they are not being responded to - it > would be such a shame if our local businesses > (which are part of the appeal to this area) are > being forced to close due to lack of access OR > such a highly polluted high street. > > The ongoing discussions about delays to emergency > vehicles (in particular ambulances) and the > dreadful pollution now on the main roads where the > majority of people/children are walking or cycling

Still cannot believe you continue to own and use a car Malambu.

That is awful, how can they get away with it? Mind you, a neighbour has a blinding security light that fires up randomly and they don't seem to care who it affects either.

Not right they are doing cycle movement counts in summer months if that is the only counting that'll be done. It would seriously skew results.

MG is a street where nearly all the houses have large gardens, why would it be necessary for children to play in the street? As you say, most will be inside doing something. claresy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I haven't seen a single child playing on closed > off Melbourne Grove despite the tasteful bits of > bunting and tubs of chalk. They're probably inside > on their Play Stations! What I have seen is it's > now impossible to get a bus from East Dulwich to > Denmark Hill station in under half an hour, so was > obliged to drive to work the other day! How is > that good for the environment? I won't even > mention the impact on local shops and emergency > vehicles.

Dulvilleres, Don't be surprised. It is the frustration of those who are not as fortunate as you seem to be in terms of the impact of LTNs on their lives, who feel they are not being listened to and have little or no voice in the processes that have led to the implementation of LTNs.

We cannot afford to be losing health professionals. I am certain you are not alone in feeling like this. Concerned2021 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I work for the NHS and have to drive to carry > bulky equipment. I will certainly be looking to > leave London as soon as my children finish school. > Driving and managing the impacts of this is > becoming increasingly stressful.

Unless virtually all amenities and necessities necessary for modern living become localised, including schools, I really do not see how this can change in any significant way. Additionally, Southwark seem to support electric cars. Are these really much less dangerous? I do recall a cycling campaigner inferring that unless you worked locally and could cycle everywhere you should move. This is the level of attachment to belief systems around societal and transport remodelling. Concerned2021 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was quite happy letting my primary school > children walk to school alone from year 5. Sadly > my road is taking more traffic due to closed roads > and has become dangerous. The council have done > nothing to enforce speed limits and I now worry > for their safety and often walk them across > despite now being at secondary school. We often > have to wait 5 minutes for a safe gap to cross. > This should be the priority for councils. > Incidentally this is a road with a school road off > it and multiple primary schools so kids crossing > both ways.

Assuming it is mainly young children being dropped off, how many parents would let young children cycle alone to and from school? If the idea is parents accompany the children to a fro, then how many are prepared or even able to do that? On a balmy summer's day this may work but when it is dark, cold and rainy I doubt it. Fine if you are very local to the school but I understand these serve the whole borough and beyond? Also, Charter ED is right next to a large medical centre. That centre states it serves not only the borough but wider London and the UK. Patients and staff may be unable to cycle, walk or use public transport. I'd have thought the medical centre would require vehicle access at any time? LTNs make sense if everything is local, that is work, schooling, shopping, building services etc, if not I fail to see how these can ever really work.

LA, Reading information posted elsewhere on the forum it sounds like the Council's aim is to minimise consultation and simply drive CPZ through, if they can get away with it?

What age group is being vaccinated in area at the moment? Are any under 65's without health issues bing seen and if so, where?

You and many others, I suspect. Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods because > they cause me inconvenience. > > They cause me inconvenience because it takes much > longer to cross the road on Lordship Lane and wait > for the bus into town which is delayed, and makes > me late, and the pollution the LTNs cause where I > live is annoying and inconvenient. > > They encourage people to drive down my side > street because it?s quicker than waiting in the > now endless queues on Lordship Lane and East > Dulwich Grove.

Catapult time.