mako

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Can't those people just cycle to Dulwich > College? > > Why not, what's wrong with them? > > > Maybe it's because lots of them are 13 years old > and cycling through London isn't safe due to the > volume of inattentive, speeding drivers and the > lack of safe cycling spaces. > > Now you mention it, someone should do something > about that - you know, something to reduce the > volume of traffic close to all the schools in > Dulwich, and discourage private car drivers from > going along key routes at rush hours... 🤔 If we cant get kids to walk to school or walk from a bus stop in the village to Dulwich college, what chance is there of getting the wider population to engage in more active travel.

'Dulwich Square' is a road junction. All those 'would you like to see more' things are surely better located in the 30 hectare park which is just 100 yards away.

Yes fairy pointless research to use when discussing a particular LTN where these things are obviously not the case. Not sure there's many ways you could manipulate data to make Court Lane 'deprived' or 'identical;' to surrounding areas.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Research currently under peer review into equity > of LTN's across London - > https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/q87fu/ > > Highlights: > - LTN's more often in deprived areas > - BAME residents slightly more likely to live in > LTN than white residents > - LTN's varied widely > - LTN demographically nearly idnetiifcal to > surrounding areas is this the research done by Rachel Aldred, previously the policy director of LCC who is now put up to assess her own policies -the policies she spent 6 years campaigning for?

personally thought the nonsense at court lane junction was temporary and wasn't a closure. He refused to say when the event was presumably as it was invite only for those in favour of making Court Lane a private road where taxpayers still pay for the upkeep. Highest car owning road in Dulwich is Court Lane. double driveways, garages and still they park on the street. Loads of vested interest involved. One of the key advisors of the project was also the lead on the private development of the last two houses on court lane that literally benefit the most from it becoming a private road.

We had 8 applications for funding and we fully or partially funded all of them.These included ?2000 to the long-running Dulwich Festival. We also awarded ?2,250 to the Dulwich Park Fair and we awarded a further ?625 to the concert band for the park fair for conductors fees.We awarded ?3,000 to a new group 'Harmony on the Square' who, in partnership with the Dulwich Festival will be staying a series of events in the newly created open space caused by the closure of Calton Avenue and Dulwich Village. We also made other awards, including a regular award of ?2,000 to the Southwark Hindu Centre for their Diwali celebration. Also co-funded cycle training with other wards and fully funded a programme for retired seniors. This from richard leemings if its what you were wanting to know.

Have had a couple of deliveries from Kens recently and they have upped their game recently. The two brothers on lordship lane is best value in dulwich imo though.

sanda Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We don't live on a road with a closure, but we've > found it so much easier to get to the park as > Eynella and Court Lane are so much quieter. The > kids can actually cycle now, and the whole family > can travel by bike together. Before we used to > take the car. The Melbourne Grove closure has > made it so much easier to get around ED without > driving on Lordship Lane, or walking alongside the > ever present pollution on the narrow pavements. > The trip to nursery has become much safer and less > pollution. We haven't used our car locally all > month, but before the changes we would have used > it for 8-10 trips a week before. I don't think > traffic on EDG is much different to recent years. > I've seen good days and bad days in the last > month, just as it always has been. There are so > many cars everywhere in London now it is a relief > to have a few roads in our neighbourhood that > aren't full of angry drivers stuck in traffic > jams. Could you not have just walked to the park anyway? Now im not saying Im not pleased it is a little bit nicer for your journey when you fancy going to the park and cant be bothered to walk, but is that occasional 'a bit nicer' a fair price for the community to pay for the life threatening levels of pollution that residents/pedestrians, walkers cyclists on Court Lane now face for hours daily?

there was a pressure group of court lane residents pushing for these changes. They gleefully boasted about it on twitter when the road closures occurred. I accept that it clearly isnt all the residents but my point stands that court lane wasnt really a problem and the argument that more people would now walk on it is ridiculous when it had wide pavements and little traffic apart from maybe a couple of hours a day. even then traffic was in one direction and plenty of room for cyclists.

To me it sounds like the part time cyclists of court lane with their double driveways and garages are moaning about being oppressed and why should anyone be allowed on their road, whilst those living, cycling, working on the roads to where the traffic is displaced have to deal with the extra pollution. the issue isnt about 5 minutes extra driving (guess most journeys that would have used court lane junction are now much more than 5 minutes extra), but about the social injustice of the high car owning areas having the benefits.

Dont know how much of the thread you have read but there has been universal support for the people who need to cycle for work reasons to be able to

Occamsracer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's erring on the side of caution but add to > that the recommended 1.75m to take you out of the > door zone and that puts you at least 3.75m from > the edge of the kerb. Occamsracer, how wide do you think the road is

No why do you ask?

Typical dulwich range rover probably about 2m

Take your average 105 year old walking down Lordship Lane with his 15 dogs he doesnt want to take to the park. He's not going to walk in a straight line. He's going to get near the edge of the pavement. He could breathe in the selfish cyclists virus, die, and his dogs might chase the cyclist. The cyclist hasnt got a helmet on cracks his head open and has to go to A and E using up NHS resource. Just stay indoors if you are capable. Being bored isnt the same as incapable.

This isnt about you malumbu and whether you are having a fun time.

Even if we use the 2m figure pretty much every cyclist on the road passes within two meters of pedestrians. Its close to impossible in somewhere like lordship lane between 8am and 7pm to cycle this route and ensure social distancing. Extreme measures in the short term could attempt to stop it being long term. Cyclists at least could do the decency of wearing a face mask and for some reason the wearing of helmets seems to have gone out of fashion.

Sally you have quoted Jason Leitch before in him stating that Convid 19 is not airbourne and that panting is therefore not a problem. the WHO quotes 'People can catch COVID-19 from others who have the virus. The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales.' panting therefore clearly is a major risk.

Sally asked a question 'can we agree that..', I simply responded 'please reply to my response.' Not a demand Fishbiscuits. malumbu- obviously i dont want to stay inside 24/7. i have chosen to because I think it in the greater good. I understand that people need to go out, but dont understand those who dont need to and starting talking about police state and civil unrest. You have been asked to stay inside for a few weeks to save lives. The impact on mental and physical health for the vast majority by only going out to shops would be minimal in that time and its pure selfishness driving a lot of your arguments. Greater infection rates are also likely to extend measures which is a much bigger threat to mental and physical state.

Sally Eva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is not to do with cycling so I am continuing > to derail my own thread but Jason Leitch, the > national clinical director of Scotland, seems to > have comms skills that no one in the UK government > has. > > This is him on the "three harms" the damage of > coronavirus, the damage to everyone who has > cancer, kidney failure and all other ills who may > miss treatment and the damage inflicted by > lockdown (mental health, economy, domestic > violence) > > > > It's the BBC Scotland "everything has a cost" > video. The whole thing is interesting. He says that the priority now is stopping coronavirus and in the long run we need to balance the cost in terms of mental health etc. he isnt arguing that from day 1 of a relatively short lock down everyone needs to hop out for a jolly on their bikes. Sally please reply to: Can you agree that pretty much every NHS worker and every daily briefing repeatedly says the same thing. Stay at home, save lives. Its really quite simple.

I agree that you are allowed out. Again not sure anyone is saying you are not legally allowed out. Can you agree that pretty much every NHS worker and every daily briefing repeatedly says the same thing. Stay at home, save lives. Its really quite simple.

Literally no-one on this thread has suggested that essential workers shouldnt be allowed to cycle, or even that people shouldn't cycle to do necessary shopping. But otherwise listen to every single NHS worker and they will all beg you to otherwise stay at home. Its really that simple. Please dont come back with 'I'm allowed' 'Others are worse''the science isnt 100% clear'. It is. Staying at home saves lives.

It might be a 'nice line' but unfortunately it is not true. If being nice includes needlessly transmitting the virus (because the guidelines say I can even if the message is so clearly 'STAY AT HOME'}, then we certainly will not all be okay.

Just stay at home for a few weeks. Its not that hard.

Ant your line of thinking seems to be 'it doesnt matter if some cyclists kills people by spreading the virus as people in shops will kill more people'. Whilst there are so few food delivery slots poeple have to still visit the shop. The virus cant move by itself-people move the virus. A cyclist can therefore spread the virus over a great distance. It is harder for pedestrians to avoid passing cyclists. And this report suggest 2m for cyclists isnt the correct distance-20m is. https://medium.com/@jurgenthoelen/belgian-dutch-study-why-in-times-of-covid-19-you-can-not-walk-run-bike-close-to-each-other-a5df19c77d08