Spartacus

TheCropolite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can people just stop driving their cars for > absolutely no bloody reason so we can all stop > arguing on here? There?s about 50 threads of the > same old twoddle being blurted out by the same old > people. > Edit: too much traffic=too many cars. Simply as > that. How absolutely arrogant and inflammatory is that statement? It's akin to "can everyone stop cycling and walking so cars can rule the roads". The reason there are so many discussions is because it has really divided opinion so needs to be discussed to come to a consensus.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm not sure the council cabinet reshuffle is > > going to help. One of the new appointees has > the > > title Member for Low Traffic > > > You never know - it might be like calling the > person responsible for bombing other countries the > "Defence Minister". Don't mention ze var hillbilly

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't remember being consulted about all the > people being able to store 2 tons of their private > property for free at the sides of the roads, but > here we are. > > Has anyone ever asked or leafletted properly and > followed that up? No. As the car was invented in 1886 , I'm not surprised you can't remember being consulted as senility possible accounts for the lack of memory (looking good for a 134 Year old I have to add !)

Any idea how testing at the airport would work as we can just about / almost not cope with testing in the community for those that need it. Imagine if there was the additional pressure of needing to do two tests for everyone arriving in the country (one at the airport and one 5 to 7 days later) It would have been chaos !

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm surprised to hear tennis balls being described > as particularly noisy! Have you not heard the grunts of professional tennis players that people imitate when playing Loud enough to wake the dead in Nunhead cemetery I would like to bet

From the BBC website today BBC News - Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: Anger, hate and the politics of the planter https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54180647

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People used to drive from roads like Heber, > Uplands Ullverscroft etc and park near the station > - especially when it rained as per above. Expect > those commuters would just walk (like they always > should have - but were enabled by not being > restricted) But is that speculation or fact concerning where they originate from ?

Does anyone know if there is a model for what happens to the displaced "commuters" Whilst I suspect they drift from free zone to free zone as New CPZs are introduced, where do they go eventually ? It's obviously not on to the buses as passenger numbers have been falling over the years. Do they just give up and stop commuting full stop and at what economic impact ? Let's look at Kings College hospital as an example, CPZs now surround it so how do medical staff get there ? Have the ones who live further out but are essential to running the hospital transferred to hospitals where they can drive ? I'm not suggesting any solution or problems but I would be fascinated to see the modelling around where people go / how they behave if they can't commute as before. Is there a study for example that looks holistically at the impact across the whole of London. You can bet your bottom dollar that no one has done a wider model than just around each CPZ zone 🤔 "Curious and curiouser" said Spartacus

So n dulwich northerner what you are saying is that due to neighbouring CPZs you needed one due to the ripple effect I do wonder if all CPZs were removed, that with the exception of a few hot spots, parking wouldn't actually be the problem that they were introduced to combat ?

I was in a shop today and half the customers weren't wearing masks for one reason or the other. I wonder if mask wearing would become more acceptable if people had their names taken if they aren't wearing one, and if they catch Covid the hospitals could look them up and refuse to treat them as they refused to protect themselves ?

@fairTgirl how is the petition going ? Has anyone set up one for Dulwich Village or can this one be amended to cover all of East Dulwich and the village ?

Wandsworth have sent out the attached letter Can't wait to see how Southwark word theirs 🤔

There is a factor that the argument for road closure fails to take into effect for businesses. I mentally call it the blues brother shopping mall effect. In the original film they drove through a shopping mall calling out the businesses in it. Whilst it's not a shopping mall, cars traversing through a shopping street can result in driver / passenger spotting a business that they didn't know existed there, thus encouraging them to stop or return another day. This also has the opposite effect of when cars don't pass the business it becomes out of sight, out of mind ! Don't get me wrong as pedestrians and cyclists will have a similar effect however more often than not car drivers that experience the phenomenon will be from just outside of the area thus adding to the trade a business will normal get. (Cyclist and pedestrians are normally more local) Equally if an area is harder to get to or park in, trade will naturally migrate to places that are easier for drivers, it's the unintentional side effect out of town shopping centres, retail parks and large supermarkets had on business in town centres from the 80s onwards. So before people say "but the road is accessible from one end", think about what knock on effect it has on businesses located on it from passing trade and how it encourages people to shop elsewhere. As I said before, these closures need a proper consultation and pre implementation study followed by a full post implementation study rather than the council rushing them in under the guise of "the moneys there now but we will lose it if we don't spend it" then spending more money when they have to, like Wandsworth , do a u-turn !

Rockets : I don't think it's because Wandsworth is slightly majority Tory They had pressure from their voters and as tfl are making other changes they decide to retreat and review

JonnoJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you care about the future of the planet, > support these street restrictions. > Think wider picture. Traffic is a catastrophe for > the planet and reduces all our life spans due to > pollution. What about the ULEZ and Electric / hydrogen vehicles that we will all be moving too ? Won't they have a bigger impact and as a result the argument that road closures are about pollution will "evaporate" as vehicles become cleaner Will roads then be reopened as the environment argument is moot then ? Sadly a lot of people feel that this is a direct attack on cars and not an environmental initiative due to the reasons mentioned above. Remember, for the last 60 plus years we've been sold the dream of car ownership* it's not something people want to give up without a fight * car ownership benefitted the government in the form of taxes so they are all partially responsible for selling us the dream !

Wil72 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone set up a petition yet? I can see that > residents in Wandsworth have done one for the same > reason on Change.org On tonight's London news they reported that there are demonstrations in various London boroughs today and that yesterday Wandsworth did a U turn on the LTNs and is now removing barriers. Hopefully the Souhwark based petition will have the same effect and the council will do a proper consultation exercise that listens to what people actually want and not a few vocal locals ! Edited to add link to story https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/september-2020/low-traffic-neighbourhood-trials-suspended/

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well > . What a question. > You might ask why eat out to help out applied to > establishments serving chips... Indeed but chips on the side are different from a whole menu that falls into the junk food category I could also ask why mcd was also in the eat out scheme ? Just strikes me as very Contrary !

One of the critical factors to surviving Covid, if you end up in hospital, is not being obese. To this end there is a drive to get Britain fitter and remove junk food adverts from prime time for children. All great steps in the right direction should a second wave hit, as it is looking like now. But can anyone understand why the golden arches are now advertising new menu items like the "double quarterpounder with cheese" ? (double the fat and calorie contents I suspect) Surely that flies in the face of the campaign to reduce obesity!

Are e-scooters legal yet ?

No You're wrong exdulwicher Regardless of the topic 😂

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Everyone apart from Hancock wanted to set the > limit on groups at eight or more," the source > said. > https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rule-of-s > ix-opposed-ministers-cabinet-a4545036.html (same > as above) So the health minister wants one target and MPs driven by keeping the country and businesses financial viable and their voters whining wanted a higher number 🤔 I'd go with the health minister every time as he's probably got the best information from his department and knows what's coming if we don't go with the lower number. It's easier to increase the group size as infections come down, but if you start higher and repeatedly adjust downwards then there will be multiple whinges of "yet another u turn" Lol it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other or damned if they do and damned if they don't here.

What about expanding BARA to act as a voice for Local residents and businesses in East Dulwich ?

wordsworth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Joy of Six Is that illustrated by six blokes with beards in various positions ? Drinking in the pub Gathering in the park Underwater ...

stecoward101 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I am not sure how you equate 8% as pretty > convincing support. I would consider 92% not > signing it as more convincing. > I believe the CPZ was introduced by less people supporting it so to knock a thousand signature petition is like blowing raspberries in people's faces Still I look forward to your counter petition to see how many actually support the changes made by the council. If you think it will be 92% then put your money where your mouth is and start a supporting one.