first mate

Again, it?s the weekend. You?ve missed the point.

Spider must be making it all up, in the same way that anyone questioning any of this stuff is persistently framed by some as a right wing loony, or simply a liar. Yesterday was Saturday. I suspect Spider is referring to weekday use. The time some dog walkers and others have historically used the park for a walk, parking up to do so. The reason they have used a car is because the park is too far to walk there and back. The journey is also too difficult by public transport. After introduction of these recent measures numbers of people with limited mobility will now be priced out of the simple pleasure of regular park use. It?s discriminatory and incredibly short sighted of the council. Please don?t talk about Blue Badges and the like. Anyone with any real knowledge and experience of these knows they are hard to get and many people with degrees of mobility issues are denied them.

Great idea. Go for it.

S?wark want to have their cake and eat it. They want to tick political boxes re car use, air quality and schools but they also want to maximise revenue opportunities, hence CPZ and other measures that can lead to penalty charges. If cars go I wonder which sector they?ll round on next? FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So they're closing a road at school times that > has > > already been closed - a double whammy!? Why do > > they need this - according to the pro-closure > > propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has now been > > fixed - reference the photos of children > milling > > around the school. Or is it that the closure of > > the road has created a school drop-off > cul-de-sac > > - as is happening at the end of Court Lane at > the > > moment which looks like a car park? > > > > Have the traders been consulted as the council > > states that there is a "minor inconvenience" > that > > no-one will be able to get access to the > parking > > bays? This could be the final nail in the > coffin > > for some businesses around Melbourne Grove. > > > > Are the residents in support as that prevents > all > > access to their properties during those hours? > > We brought this up months ago with Cllrs when > first becaome aware of the proposal, and actually > referenced it again to Cllrs today. It is pretty > unnecessary given the road is already closed, Head > of Charter admitted as much. > > There is no issue with these timed restrictions > for School Streets on it's own but the fact there > is already a closure, removed parking bays, CPZ > AND this will disrupt what little parking there > is... yes probably final nail in coffin. > > Depending on the barriers residents cars can > usually get through - but not sure how that > applies to business/delivieries etc - will they > just be doing U-turns on EDG? Wondering how that > will help the EDG congestion situation and safety > of pupils.

Of course it was forseen. They want to increase parking pressure not relieve it.

Quite and this is why the zeal around imposition of current changes feels uncomfortable. It smacks of sacrifice your own health so I can achieve a pollution free and traffic free environment for me and my family now and longer term.

In addition to all day CPZ, extended double yellow and and plant barriers?

Is it half term? Perhaps more kids pretending to be grownups posting? It?s a rainy day after all.

legalalien I second your points but the DM reader charge has become a means to stereotype other posters. It is cheap and low.

Well done to you both.

It?s why we need some decent independents.

Ah, but divide and rule is such a useful tactic. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We have to ensure this is an area-wide > consultation and that the councillors are engaging > with all RAs and all stakeholders. For too long > they have treated this issue on a ward-by-ward > basis and this is why the problems are so bad. Any > discussion has to be with ALL stakeholders across > the whole of Dulwich - not just in the pockets > where there are the most vocal pro-closure > activists. > > The gentleman at the beginning is he from the > Dulwich Village RA?

Of course, anyone that objects in the slightest to any of this must be a Daily Mail reader.

Is this something One Dulwich might do? jazzhino Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There needs to be a legal challenge by means of a > Judicial Review. I have obtained legal advice > which confirms that in order to legally > enforceable the roadblocks, there needs to be a > second order under section 9 and 10 of the Road > Traffic Act 1984. > > Furthermore, the 15 October 2020 order > experimental orders under sections 9, 10 and 63 of > the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 can be > challengeable within six weeks. In the the first > instance a pre-action protocol letter would need > to be served on the council.

Hand in glove with the Council; tunnel vision as to the consequences https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/streets-for-distancing-2/ People need to start actively commenting on these https://eastdulwichstreetspace.commonplace.is/comments There is one for every experimental area.

You have to pay a tenner each year to prove your address before pass is renewed.

Agree we are badly in need of independents to stand as as councillors. It is utterly clear that reps from major parties are too caught up in party politics and furthering national agendas. It does feel as though every person that signed the massive One Dulwich petition will not get fair representation while our local councillor went the extra mile prior to Covid to knock on doors and garner support for road closure.

You are charged ?10 annually for the over 60 pass.

Well this makes interesting reading. The deadline for deputations was 14th October. Two deputations will be heard re road closures. 1. Dulwich Village/College Road and Woodyard residents associations (road closures) 2. Clean Air for Dulwich (road closures) Is anyone aware of a petition by Clean Air for Dulwich? If so, where can it be viewed? How many signatures. Thing is, what about all the other road closures? Where is the representation for those? How is it these bodies who will have deputations got wind of it? The One Dulwich petition is mentioned as item 8 in the public agenda pack, but there seems to be no deputation and it seems as though the council has issued a written point by point response. Can anyone shed light on the process here? Why does a smaller residents association and a pro closure lobby get a proper hearing but not a 2,500 petition. In terms of the latter, is that now it as far as council process goes?

Precisely. The majority of journeys, say, half a mile are going to involve a rather steep hill. Were it a matter of flat ground everywhere for miles in all directions that would be different, but the hills are truly serious stuff and only the very fit will get up them on a regular basis. Much as some would like, this fact cannot just be airily dismissed. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > @rockets. > > > > So 67% of car trips under 3 miles. I would > > describe that as 'significant'. > > > But can they all be walked or cycled? A 6 mile > roundtrip would be a significant distance for many > would it not - especially given Dulwich is > surrounded by significant hills on most sides? > > As I have said before I think you can make a dent > in the 35% shorter than 2kms but that's about it. > That leaves 60%+ that are most likely always going > to be done in a car. And I would be very > interested to know what TFL counts as a car > journey and whether private hire and taxis are > included with that.

Of course there were occasional road blocks, there are in many streets, it happens. However, I genuinely never noticed this to be a regular thing...not to the point it would be a real issue. Ditto frequent road rage incidents. It honestly does feel like you and I have been regular users of a completely different road rahrahrah. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lots of people used to walk down Melbourne Grove > to the station each day / evening (pre COVID... > remember that!) and I?m sure some at least will > remember how often it got blocked because (usually > a Jewsons lorry or similar) would not be able to > pass traffic trying to come the other way, or > there would be someone blocking the junction with > EDG / misjudging the turn. But it?s not worth > debating. Some will swear blind that congestion > didn?t exist pre- LTN, in the same way that > they?ll claim the closure of the south circular > would barely have been noticed 6 months ago.

P68 is the very last poster I think anyone would describe as hysterical, but keeping things personal rather than coming up with credible arguments does you no favours DKHB.

HahaHa, Shroedinger?s traffic. Love it. Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree with this and I used to walk down > regularly. > > It was also a Schrodinger?s traffic:Simultaneously > awful requiring the road closure but has since > entirely disappeared since the temporary measures > causing no traffic displacement apparently. > > > rst mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > How odd, I don?t believe I have ever noticed > > Melbourne north regularly blocked or lots of > road > > rage incidents and over the years I have been > up > > down frequently.

How odd, I don?t believe I have ever noticed Melbourne north regularly blocked or lots of road rage incidents and over the years I have been up down frequently.

Interesting. This is reminiscent of issues that affected MGMP for years, after the practice was taken over by Concordia. Concordia and Hambleden have now taken over at TJHC.