johnhinton

I've had LibDem leaflets and a visit from Raghav Parkash, who was very persuasive and frank, quite unlike the current DV councillors that I hope never to see again (I've supported Labour for nearly 50 years, as a matter of principle, and even at the last council election). I was even favourably disposed towards Clive Rates - and I never thought about the Tories as an option (not even locally, never mind nationally). My vote will go to whoever can displace the two apparatchiks.

Annemarie at Angel Upholstery 02077203981 or 07931768577 is quick, brilliant and creative. She's done our sofas and half a dozen chairs over the years - utterly delighted by her skills.

I live on an LTN-affected road, with off-street parking and relatively easy access to buses and trains. In some ways LTNs should work to my advantage, except that I would have to ignore the very real harms to others who live on the main through roads, including people who don't live in this leafy oasis but have to travel through it to get to work. Harms to the people I rely on to undertake jobs I cannot do (who cannot park and risk paying towards ?6 million in fines), and harms to my disabled daughter who needs to be ferried around and forced to sit in the traffic jams caused by the LTNs. I cannot point to any real advantage from these LTNs: there are quiet periods on the road outside (so speeding is still an issue), but also horrendously busy periods and unbearably long forced detours onto already crowded, roads. There is no route flexibility when roads are temporarily closed, just more delay and pollution. And the built environment has become fantastically ugly: I used to live (happily) in Peckham, but it was not always pretty. The Turney, Calton, DV junction is such an eyesore, with bollards, planting crates, a dozen signs, and temporary barriers (like those around a crime scene). Why did Southwark want to change Dulwich into an urban wasteland? Despite being a Labour Party member for 30 years, Southwark Labour will not get my vote in May. Nor will the Tories, obviously, whatever they might promise. Will the LibDems listen or collaborate, will the Greens engage? The stated aims of the LTNs are fine, of course: reduced pollution, lower traffic flows, safer travel, even a pleasant streetscape/environment. However, I vehemently disagree with the implementation of these measures that do not fulfil those stated aims, relying instead on misinformation (to put it politely), obfuscation, gaslighting, abuse (one DV councillor in particular) and the kind of underhanded, sneaky behaviour I've alway associated with the Bojo party.

I'll vote nationally for Labour, especially because I think Helen Hayes is doing her best for us and the principles on which the Labour Party was founded. However, I will not vote in support of Southwark Council or the local councillors in May, nor will I vote for any Tories, ever. So where can I turn? More cycling is not going to work for my situation, more pollution for other roads is also a non-starter, but the pre-LTN option is not a solution either.

I always add a good tip to Deliveroo orders; of course I would pay a Fair Wage surcharge, if I thought the delivery guys would get it

Dr Irving Finkel in the Village Post Office, and also on Herne Hill this morning. Foremost Assyriologist, wrote and presented The Ark before Noah and The First Ghosts: really nice guy, modest and witty.

Who is this belligerent Jenijenjen? You're the one posting harsh and misleading posts: the council gave no option to present "sensible" solutions in the so-called consultation. As a respondent to that very "consultation" and directly affected by the divisive LTNs, I take grave exception to your "small percentage" - it was a badly carried out, mealy-mouthed CYA exercise, with a biased agenda. And where the "facts" promised by the council? - all I saw were unsupported assertions, founded on inadequate monitoring. If you're a troll, please scuttle back under your bridge.

You said the data speaks for itself, Andrewc, and now you want a statistician to explain the data to you. Perhaps you meant the data speaks to itself, and now you need interpretation from a source other than the council - that's a kind of progress.

Asset, I live on DV and disagree that LTNs are better for schools or pedestrians, let alone worth the congestion and increased pollution on other roads. Perhaps there aren't as many short, unnecessary journeys as you think or have been led to believe. The traffic on DV still bunches up from RPH to Turney Road. When there is a bit less traffic on DV - midday or evening - vehicles still speed by at 30mph or so. Non-local drivers have no reason to care about the people living on the roads they pass through, especially if they believe the residents are as selfish, entitled or hypocritical as the pro-lobby wants everyone to believe. We're not, and still suffer from the downsides imposed by the ill-thought LTNs.

Applegreen in Camberwell still have fuel, 10-15 minute queue, ?30 limit - nice people

Heartblock, Agreed with respect to car ownership and traffic levels. The accusations of hypocrisy levelled at people with a car on the drive misses the point that if cars are parked, they're not contributing to traffic. Furthermore, traffic flows represent the movement (however slow) of vehicles through the area, from somewhere else to somewhere else. Blocking that flow increases local pollution levels, hostility, frustration, and accident potential. Purely local vehicular traffic is hardly a thing, unless there is no fuel to be found.

Thank you Rockets. The council "strategy" seems misguided: no real reductions in pollution, no meaningful increase in active journeys, no benefits to a wider community. Not even the majority of leafy village residents are in favour of their LTN enclaves - because they don't live in a bubble and are all too aware of the impact on themselves and their neighbours. The majority of traffic flows are people who don't live or shop locally, but people passing through on their way to work: an LTN that blocks access on key north-south routes is not going to "nudge" behaviour for commuters who don't live there - they still need to be at work. You can't just buy, sell or rent a home every time you change jobs - especially as you get closer to central London. And a Labour-controlled council should not be making it harder for working people to get to work.

But you do have the grace to support DougieFreeman's post, Metallica - and I agree with you, DF and Heartblock as well. I'd love to have a like button for many of the posts on the EDF, rather than clogging up the board with a MeToo. The LTNs don't work for a large section of the Dulwich community and do not resolve the traffic or pollution problems in this area. Over my 20 years here, I've seen much tinkering - largely incompetent and ill-thought through - to no avail. Maybe the substantial traffic increase would have overcome even the best interventions, but we have all been ill-served by the lack of open-minded discussion.

Sorry Metallic, I meant to be light-hearted, not hard-hearted. Souls or soil being carted around is heart-breaking too. Will it be handled well? I very much doubt it

So many souls being dragged away by big lorries; no wonder my heart sinks when I see them.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Labour Party in Southwark doesn?t represent me > anymore, sadly. Building on poorer estates green > space and children?s playgrounds while diverting > traffic from a road such as Court Lane, with its > enormous gardens that back onto a huge park to > Croxted and ED Grove. > > I?m surprised that the idealistic values of > fairness and equality have been lost in a haze of > self-congratulation, entrenched views and > arrogance. Followed up by approval of smear > tactics towards residential anti-pollution > campaigns. Well said Heartblock. The Southwark Labour Party has disheartened me and many other former Labour Party members. The LTNs don't just affect local traffic, but any workers passing through on their way to the work they do; why is the Labour Party impeding working people? The failure of national and local governments to address properly the need to reduce levels of pollution by leaving the solution to the "invisible hands" of the market - i.e. do nothing - has worsened traffic levels, pollution and quality of life for everyone.

Great pictures, Karimdiatoubajie, thank you, and a very inspiring story. I am very much opposed to the LTNs and the way they were rolled out and continue to be supported by Southwark on very flimsy data. That doesn't mean I think unfettered driving is necessary or desirable or that no journeys should be made by bicycle, scooter or public transport. Good for you and I hope things work out for you and your family.

One of my major problems with the LTNs is that much of the traffic through Dulwich Village isn't local. Most of the traffic isn't made up of SUVs; what I see, outside my window almost all day long are long queues of people just trying to get to work or get back from work - outside the local area. It is iniquitous that a Labour Council should be trying to prevent working people from getting to and from their places of work. Dulwich Village is just one of the few north-south routes towards central London. The penalty of working near central London is that you cannot always choose to live close to your workplace; changing both jobs and homes is horrifically expensive and stressful. I'm glad I don't live further away from the centre and can mostly telecommute anyway. That doesn't mean I want to live in a protective enclave and shut out everyone else and it doesn't mean other people should be prevented from passing through. Not all journeys are cycle-friendly: if you're young and fit and fearless, you might enjoy cycling for three or four miles, in good weather, but not after a 12-hour day, in the dark or the wet (and I've lived that life). Not all journeys are feasible by public transport at all times of the day, either (again, I've done that too, fetching children from nurseries and schools, with pushchairs and baggage). Each person, however they choose to travel, is making a rational, purposeful decision based on their most immediate needs. I don't need to judge them or curtail their decisions. Should fewer people drive? Sure. Should they be prevented? Not without much more investment in alternatives.

As someone who lives on Dulwich Village, I wouldn't characterise the road closures as creating a "gated community". What I see is that the main road through the village creates a highway from the South Circular to the north of the borough, and that when the weight of traffic eases, people speed along Dulwich Village. Do I have to be anti-car or anti-cycle to see this as a poor outcome?

Until the Forest Hill practice seemed to curtail heir catchment area, they always treated my family and me quite well. No complaints. Have since moved to Elm Lodge, which is actually more convenient, and even nicer.

Both Intexasatthemoment and Singalto make an important point that is often ignored: that parents may just want to drop their children safely at the school before driving elsewhere. Two of my children have to put up with being dropped off half an hour before registration begins, but at least that is an option. What I find difficult is those parents who are happy to block my driveway as though I don't also have children and don't need access to my own house - and I don't do that to other people.

Did anyone attend this cycling festival at the Velodrome? I saw plenty of costumes, extravagant bicycles and more elaborate costumes around the village, and the atmosphere at the event was warmly inclusive. Cycling records were broken, racing and the associated commentary was entertaining and I even got a chance to "ride" an Ordinary (penny farthing). So, fun for me and my daughter and a treat to see so many people enjoying themselves - but what did anyone else around here think? Disclaimer: local resident, with no links to anyone associated with the event. Would like to see it return.

The edges of the staggered kerbs at the junction of Turney Road and Dulwich Village are sloped. It would be easy to imagine stumbling on the sloped edges while trying to avoid cyclists and other pedestrians while keeping an eye on the time left to make the crossing.

James, this is a ludicrous and self-serving conspiratorial fantasy: "..part of a 'war on cars'. The car, lorry, petrol/diesel lobbies are extremely well funded and newspaper owners support them." There is no such thing: your claim is just a lame rhetorical appeal when you run out of rational arguments. All sorts of people need roads: pedestrians, cyclists, freight, tradesmen, public transport and individual motorists; and it is in everyone's interests for any necessary works to be carried out swiftly and efficiently. Not all works seem to be necessary and not all are either undertaken swiftly of efficiently, but that doesn't mean there is a vast conspiracy undermining our democratic freedoms - not when we have a Tory government that was able to co-opt the LibDems to do precisely that.

I just wanted t add my appreciation for Helen Hayes' principled stand. Although I doubt she would agree with my views, this is not a bill that Theresa May wanted to let Parliament debate or vote upon. The whole referendum was premised on a desperate appeal by David Cameron to pacify his "bastards", not on the desire to allow the country as a whole to exercise their democratic freedoms. Even before Article 50 is triggered, the vote has done immense damage to the country and worse is to come - this is a profoundly undemocratic government, determined to protect its narrow interests at the expense of the whole country.