ab29

There are no pros for me - I'm happy to see the bridge go but don't want to see the trees destroyed.

Local elections still taking place in May apparently - not voting Labour so they lose their monopoly on Southwark council would be a good start.

Agree with your Rockets; and this person doesn't even live in Southwark, let alone Dulwich so not sure why he/she is so active on this forum. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @malumbu - good try, no cigar I am afraid....it's > clear all I was hoping for was a return to some > semblance of normality in relation to Covid - not > traffic levels. > > I refer you to my earlier point... > > @Malumbu > Your increasingly spiteful de-positioning of > anyone who has a view differing to your own on > this subject speaks volumes: it suggests you don't > have a valuable contribution or rational argument > for the points being raised so have descended to > name calling and accusatory finger pointing at > people you don't know anything about. A bit > childish don't you think?

Or on Lordship Lane. Or East Dulwich Grove. And many others. Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Think people on croxted road have a pretty good > idea of what the reality is @DulwichCentral

You are right - it is a separate account so had to register separately to sign the petition! All done now. Thank you :) mockingbird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ab29. This might help. > The Southwark site seems to have two levels to log > in. One is My Southwark and it is possible that > you changed the password for that. When you are > on the petition web pages, you also need to > register and this is different to My Southwark. > So look for that first and create a sign in for it > or ask for a password reset from that link (not My > Southwark). > All very badly put together. > > Another potential problem that I can see is that > as you move from this page: > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consul > tations/have-your-say/petition-scheme > by clicking on the 'create or sign a petition' > link, the pages move from being secure with the > padlock sign, to insecure with the open padlock > sign. A pc may block this so perhaps try from > another device, phone perhaps, if so.

Thank you :) I can get to the page with the petition link - at this point I'm asked to log in again - even though I started as logged in user - and that's it: can't log in. I change my password but computer says no. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Try this: > > Go to https://www.southwark.gov.uk/ > > Click on the "Services" icon at the top right to > bring up the page showing the icons for the full > list of services > > Click on the Engagement and Consultations icon, on > the right hand side (you need to scroll down a > bit, it shows three people with a bunch of > question marks above their heads), then when you > get the pop up box, click on "All Services in > Engagement and Consultations". > > Then click on "Have Your Say". > > Then, when the new screen comes up, click on > "Petition Scheme". Scroll down the page and near > the bottom there's an embedded link saying you can > create or sign an epetition. Click on the link. > It should bring up a page with a list of petitions > (this page > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgepetitionlistd > isplay.aspx?bcr=1). > > Hopefully that works! The website is quite > functional if you spend some time digging around > in it, clicking on random things to see what comes > up, but not particularly intuitive (for me, > anyway)...

Same here - I can't log in to sign the petition. Can log in in general but then I cannot find the petition - tried browsing using the full name, bits of the name etc but can't find it. Perhaps someone knows how to look for the petition once logged in. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can?t sign in to sign the petition, although I can > sign into mySouthwark... so if that is happening > to me there may be many who want to sign...who > can?t.

The only vaccine offered at Guy's is Pfizer. GSTT gets thousands of calls every day on the vaccination helpline so pls be patient when calling - it might take a while to get through.

'The only thing divisive in the truest sense of the word are the LTNs themselves' - spot on. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree OneDulwich is lobbying. As are the > council, and Cllrs Leeming and Newens, and the > Lordship Lane and Melbourne Grove shopkeepers, and > the myriad of EDTSN twitter groups, Mums For Lungs > etc etc, and the Melbourne Grove residents groups, > and Southwark Cyclists, and the emergency > services......everyone is lobbying so not sure why > anyone would suggest that use of the term is > divisive? > > The only thing divisive in the truest sense of the > word are the LTNs themselves ;-)

:-D Peckhampam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From what I saw in the first lockdown, Bic > Basher, people will have enough toilet rolls to > last them till Kingdom come.

Just back from Sainsbury's DKH - queue around the car park so I didn't wait. The longest queue I've ever seen for M&S but perhaps it is just to collect.

"I do wonder whether years down the line both the council and councillors will be held to account for why they did this and failed to monitor the impact - whether people will take the council to court for increasing pollution for some" - I certainly hope so. I will be one of those people. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Malumbu - your statement about needing to hurt the > driver is exactly why this debate has become so > polarised and why so many people, whilst > acknowledging the urgent need to do something, > oppose these measures. It seems an anti-car lobby > has been allowed to manipulate and dictate the > terms of the measures being put in. Closing some > roads in the hope that people change their mode of > transport is a short-sighted as it is stupid. It > was only ever going to deliver two things - a tiny > amount of modal change for the few in the closed > areas but a huge amount of negative impact for > everyone else. > > I do wonder whether years down the line both the > council and councillors will be held to account > for why they did this and failed to monitor the > impact - whether people will take the council to > court for increasing pollution for some. > > It's clear LTNs are not the answer, they were > never the answer - they were a very blunt > instrument experiment that has been an epic > failure and the council and councillors don't have > the guts to admit it - accountability has never > been their strong point!

Could not agree more. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichGirl82 - the experiment has failed. > Completely and utterly. The council knows it, the > pro-closure lobby knows it - we all know it. The > experiment has forced traffic from one set of > roads onto another set of roads, increasing > congestion and pollution as a result. For all the > harping on about modal shifts in Dulwich Village > and for all the pictures of people cycling and > walking the overall impact has been a negative one > on the broader Dulwich community. The council is > well aware of this and is trying to manipulate > everything in a desperate attempt to justify the > closures. They know that they have to try and hang > on for their own credibility. The whole idea was > flawed from the beginning, badly planned and > poorly executed and will have done untold harm to > the long-term goals of reducing pollution. > > It is a shame as it didn't take a rocket scientist > to work out what would happen when you closed > those roads (many on here predict exactly what was > going to happen). The reason many won't answer > your question is because they fail to acknowledge > there is a problem as it undermines their whole > position. Once you acknowledge that there has been > displacement the experiment will have failed.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Eh? My thought exactly ;)

Agree. I walked down LL towards GG yesterday - always been busy but ever since these ridiculous road closures were introduced it's been a complete nightmare. devs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I dont believe the closures benefit pedestrians at > all. I dont drive and live on one of the main > roads. It's been really unpleasant walking along > Lordship Lane up to the Harvester with idling > traffic belching out fumes since the planters were > installed.

One Dulwich is urging people to register their objections to the closure of Calton Avenue and Court Lane ? the deadline is 17 December 2020. [www.onedulwich.uk] More information here: www.southwark.gov.uk.

3xr: clutching at straws. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Farage (predictably) is jumping on the anti bike > lane / anti low traffic neighbourhoods ticket.

I'm not 'older'; have been in the area for about 16 years and for about six in my current place. I live not far from the Grove Tavern and can see the traffic from my windows. It became much worst immediately after the LTNs were put into place - I saw it with my own eyes from my own windows(but obviously pro-closure peeps know better). It used to be the rush hours that were v. busy; now it is rush hour all day long with idling traffic, screeching brakes, shouting drivers & cyclists and endless honking - have not seen anything like this here before. No one benefits from this blasted scheme except for people living on the closed roads - majority is being treated with extra fumes and noise so they can have Halloween parties. Also, you can't say that only people living in Dulwich are affected - it is not an isolated village in the middle of nowhere; closures in one borough affect another. If I was working in Lewisham and was stuck on the bus for five hours every day because of the LTNs I would also have a right to complain. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If only we could have a break down of where those > supporting / not supporting live and their > demographic. I personally know loads of people > within the LTN - business owners, friends and > acquaintances who are opposed to the DV /Calton > closures. For a variety of reasons - problems for > the business; mobility problems; parents trying to > get to after school and sports activities; and > despite some posters on here insisting that social > conscience cannot possibly be a thing, a large > number believing it?s unfair to do an instant, > under- analysed migration of all traffic to > residential A roads. I know hardly anyone locally > (in fact possibly no-one other than the posters I > see on here) who supports the closures. > > Those who support the closures presumably have a > group of friends / acquaintances who believe the > same as them - I don?t think they?re being > ingenuous when they suggest they support a > majority view. So one way or another we?re in > bubbles. Is it maybe age related / related to how > long people have been in the area? Is it younger > people with primary aged children who have moved > to Dulwich more recently who are in favour and > older, old timers against? I put that up there as > a straw man in the interests of trying to > understand why both sides are so far apart and > believe their views are majority views - not > (before anyone jumps on me) as some sort of > ?anti-newcomer? sentiment.

Totally agree with you Penguin - for years Underhill Road has been my to-and-from work walking route - it is now as bad in the afternoon as Lordship Lane. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As above the traffic on LL is terrible, this is > likely related to those being unable to go to the > village/HH and beyond via court lane and turney > road, so all having head along LL to S circular. > > Which also explains why Underhill Road now has > standing traffic through the evening rush hour, as > people try to get to the A205. Until these > closures standing traffic was only caused by skip > deliveries, and was quite rare - it's now a daily > occurrence Monday to Friday. So my air quality has > plummeted - but there's no Southwark maven > measuring around me!

If malumbu lives in Lewisham why he is commenting on the "Goose Green councillors - how can we help?" thread on Dulwich forum?

Underhill Rd has been awful ever since the LTNs nightmare introduction. For years it's been my to-and-from-work walking route - no more. I don't drive and I don't cycle but I walk a lot; ever since this failed scheme was put in place many roads I used to walk have become so full of traffic and pollution I can hardly walk there anymore. Has anyone heard any news about the legal challenge against Ealing & other councils re: the LTNs ?

How on earth they can be pushing ahead with the phase 2 is simply beyond me. As First Mate pointed out - pure Trumpism. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Update from OneDulwich tonight. > > > Our councillors tell us that Phase 2 > (camera-controlled restrictions on Dulwich > Village, Turney Road, Burbage Road and Townley > Road) will be going live in the week beginning 16 > November. Local residents will be receiving > letters alerting them to the changes. > > The Experimental Traffic Order that closed Calton > Avenue and Court Lane to motorised traffic will be > reviewed after six months. Formal objections must > be lodged with the Council before Christmas. We > believe there are good reasons why the Council?s > actions can be challenged, and will send out > information shortly about how and when to make > objections. > > In the meantime, One Dulwich is working with a > network of different groups across Dulwich, all > asking the Council to modify the current traffic > orders. Please get in touch via our main email hub > [email protected] if your group would like to > join this initiative. > > Finally, we now have more than 1700 supporters. > Please remember that anyone over 18 can register ? > you?re not limited to one per household. The more > of us there are, the more we can make our voices > heard.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Time for a socially distanced demo? I'm all for it.

An elderly lady with dementia has been missing form her home in Penge - it's been a couple of days now - they've been using a helicopter to try to locate her. It could be that.

A letter from a frustrated resident: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/these-ltns-are-creating-an-unwanted-two-tier-borough The question at the end: "So who is gaining from this in Croydon council?" has also crossed my mind - who is gaining from this in Southwark council.