ab29

Ex: "Therefore, by that logic, councils should start introducing traffic reduction systems EVERYWHERE?" I can selfishly say I do not own a car and so I would be happy with closing off an entire London area to cars, especially A-roads where people have suffered long enough e.g. South Circular (except for disabled people, ambulances and so on). No one who OWNS A CAR should be lecturing people here about LTNs! "spread the pollution around a bit" - no, not "a bit" - A LOT On a day AFTER the so-called 'LTN' went live I was talking to my neighbours - we thought there was an accident in the area to cause a traffic of such monumental proportion. Rubbish comparison: "if there was a ton of rubbish flytipped on EDG, would you argue that it should be split into multiple lots of 50kg and spread around the area a bit or would you argue that we needed better rubbish prevention methods?" - I want to see the rubbish being "split into multiple lots of 50kg and spread around the area a bit" UNTIL A PROPER SYSTEM IS IN PLACE - instead of punishing residents of East Dulwich Grove. It is only fair. exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich LTNs - and LTNs in general - are about > reducing pollution or creating quiet > neighbourhoods for certain people - this much is > certain. > > So... they work then? > Therefore, by that logic, councils should start > introducing traffic reduction systems EVERYWHERE? > > Perhaps by taking one lane away and replacing it > with a secure cycle lane, perhaps by putting in a > bus lane or implementing a Park & Ride or a toll > road or a residents access only road...? > > What is essentially being said is that LTNs have > pushed pollution elsewhere and from comments on > here, there appears to be two (rather binary) > choices: spread the pollution around a bit or look > at the positive outcomes and use them elsewhere to > reduce pollution there too. > > I mean, if there was a ton of rubbish flytipped on > EDG, would you argue that it should be split into > multiple lots of 50kg and spread around the area a > bit or would you argue that we needed better > rubbish prevention methods?

Dulwich LTNs - and LTNs in general - are about reducing pollution or creating quiet neighbourhoods for certain people - this much is certain.

LA, I really appreciate your work & input - and I am a guilty party here. But what are the options? I begin to see this as a divide between people who are able to empathize and those that are not . legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s in danger of ceasing being a discussion and > taking on the tone of the clashes taking place on > Twitter. I despair. Whatever happened to reasoned > debate, acknowledging the weaknesses in one?s own > argument and pausing for reflection? Call me old > fashioned but I find all this playground /trolling > stuff a bit of an irritant - I guess that?s the > point of it, but I can?t see how it progresses > anything. > > > ianr Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > For non-participants, where has this discussion > > got to so far?

"claiming there are too many threads" - you are absolutely right Firstmate, arrogant and selfish individuals like rahrahrah or Dulwich Central. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is interesting to see the various methods > adopted by some of the more extreme pro LTN > supporters- denial of available evidence, > persistent attempts to derail and obfuscate/ > trolling on threads, trying to stifle views/ > claiming there are too many threads, and now > defacing posters displayed that are objecting to > the current incarnation of LTNs. It just doesn't > feel very adult, democratic or like there is a > willingness to face the flaws and have a rethink. > > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yep FirstMate - the report to Southwark > includes > > an ambulance delayed by the Calton Ave hard > > closure adding time to a Cat 2 call on > Desenfans > > Rd and an inability to use Derwent Road because > of > > a hard closure to avoid heavy traffic on Grove > > Vale responding to a Cat 1. > > The report ends with a request to make changes > due > > to 'previous feedback' and wonders about an > > 'update' as 'we still seem be experiencing > delays, > > that are very concerning and leading to patient > > safety concerns' > > > > I know that my paramedic students dislike the > hard > > closures, they consider them to contribute to a > > higher risk to life.

Heartblock, was this FoI request? Are there any official stats? heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep FirstMate - the report to Southwark includes > an ambulance delayed by the Calton Ave hard > closure adding time to a Cat 2 call on Desenfans > Rd and an inability to use Derwent Road because of > a hard closure to avoid heavy traffic on Grove > Vale responding to a Cat 1. > The report ends with a request to make changes due > to 'previous feedback' and wonders about an > 'update' as 'we still seem be experiencing delays, > that are very concerning and leading to patient > safety concerns' > > I know that my paramedic students dislike the hard > closures, they consider them to contribute to a > higher risk to life.

Same here

We lost Malumbu and got Mr Chicken instead; no rest for the wicked ;) alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr chicken should be ignored. His poor humour > serves the weakness of his argument. I shall > rename myself 3gearalice.

Agree with Rockets - already the bikes are being left all over the place e.g. in a middle of a pavement which is a trip hazard. Blind & partially sighted society has been worrying about this.

Don't read it then. Clearly people feel very strongly about it if they want to keep going on discussing it.

I am from a minority group and as I said I do not feel offended by the slogan . I would rather see a real action on the b****y LTNs instead of a futile discussions about slogans.

I do not see this slogan as offensive - I see LTNs as offensive (damaging) to many people of various backgrounds and yet somehow many of you here failed to acknowledge / understand it. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Feel free to keep standing by the slogan if you > like. Alternatively accept it was ill judged and > wrong and hope that the replacement poster is less > offensive?

ED girl I disagree - I see this as a smokescreen. So-called LTNs and its consequences its a problem here, not the slogan. Why have I not seen you saying 'Oh, poor people living on Lordship Lane, how awful it must be for them yo live with this additional air pollution and noise'?

So-called LTNs and its consequences is a problem here not a slogan which a totally agree with - all streets do matter (only wish the Dulwich labour councillors understood this). It's a smokescreen. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You know that just cos someone else used it it > doesn't make it ok right? > > Is it ok to leave up posters with slogans from far > right racist groups as long as 'new ones are > coming'? > > I don't doubt that many people 'didn't think' > about it but now its been pointed out its > interesting how Dulwich Alliance have dealt with > it (ie they haven't really!)

I have no problem with the slogan 'All streets matter' - they do. Some people are trying to create problems where there are none.

The scheme has been in place for almost a year and made absolutely no difference - I see it from my windows every day. The summer in particular was hell as had to open the windows; this one looks to be even worst as people are going crazy after the lockdown. So how much longer do you think I should be in this situation DC for you to decde it is a success or a failure? Is another year acceptable according to you? Or 2? 3? I work in a nearby hospital - does this rise my stakes and cut the sentence? You may want me around if there is another wave of covid.

And yet you are happy for others to suffer. This overzealousness is scary. DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ab29 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't own a car and have never done so. Going > > back to my question Dulwich Central - would you > > like the displacement traffic to sit in front > of > > your home all day long? It is a simple yes or > no > > question. > > No. Which is why I support LTNs and any measures > to reduce unnecessary car journeys.

I don't own a car and have never done so. Going back to my question Dulwich Central - would you like the displacement traffic to sit in front of your home all day long? It is a simple yes or no question.

Raenurn, SE22 at al - would you like all this traffic to sit in front of your homes? Would you then bo oh so philosophical about it? You are simply happy with sacrifising peoples' health (both physical and mental) in the name of a very dubious experiment - it is wrong.

Since the air quality should be made better for everyone, I want to know how is the council planning to improve it on the roads such as LL, Croxted Rd, EDG? Some of these roads are A roads which doesn't change the fact they are also very densely populated residential roads. So while we wait for people to stop using their cars, which might never happen, the council is happy to let the buggers living on these roads to choke on the extra fumes and die of lung cancer 10 years earlier - because who cares? Certainly not the Labour councillors and by the look of things, many on this forum agree with it.

Interesting; although must admit I trust The Guardian less after their biased and one sided reporting on LTNs first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/0 > 7/fireplaces-and-stoves-are-bigger-polluters-than- > traffic > > Saw this. Wonder what stats are like in Southwark?

Someone form the Labour party has been just commenting on the radio on the lost by-election in Hartlepool He said 'We talk to ourselves too much' and need to start talking and listening to constituents instead. One would hope the Dulwich Labour councillors take notice of that.

'The creation of some quieter streets does provide a carrot to those who would otherwise avoid walking and cycling and just get in the car' - it doesn't work like this and also, people do not stop driving simply because a few roads have been closed. I used to walk to my work place 2 hrs one way - and nobody had to close any roads for this to happen. I waited for a bus near Dulwich Station recently - a few people were jogging on LL while the entry to Melbourne Grove showed a deserted street. To close a few roads so someone can walk or cycle for 15 min per day while at the same time others have to live with the consequences seven day per week is beyond selfish.

Everyone is being impacted by these closures yet only a very small group is benefiting. The scheme mostly benefits wealthy streets to the detriment of the poorest roads, which now have to deal with more traffic and in consequence increased levels of noise and pollution. LTN seems like a private vanity project - the only intention of the pro-closures groups seem to be reducing traffic outside their own homes without thinking what happens to everyone else. It does not help to lower pollution - in fact, idling traffic creates more. Public transport needs to be improved in the area to start with - what has been done in the recent years? Nothing, on the contrary e.g. bus nr 40 was redirected from London Bridge to Blackfriars (utterly useless). Nr 40 was used by many people working at Guy's hospital, useful later at night (no need to change at Elephant&Castle)or when trains were not running (often). What are the plans to improve the said public transport? No one knows. How anyone can be so without even basic empathy to understand how the so-called LTNs are negatively impacting people is beyond me.

I don't drive - I don't own a car. I walk where I can, although less so recently as the displaced traffic is now crammed into many of my usual walking routs e.g. Underhill Rd. I live on Lordship Lane - have done so for a few years. Since the road closures have been introduced the traffic has been much worse and so has the air pollution and noise. Closing roads benefits a handful of people who live on those roads and perhaps a few cyclists who use them for 15 minutes every day - others have to put up with the consequences of the so-called LTNs seven days a week. Try to get off your high horse and put yourself into other peoples' shoes - if you are capable of doing so that is.

@ Walkintall, Poppy2017, Wilson: please make sure you register to have a say in the May consultation: www.southwark.gov.uk/dulwichreviewreg. Also, Dulwich Alliance has organised a fundraiser to fight the road closures in Dulwich: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-end-road-closures-in-dulwich Blocked roads should be reopened.