northernmonkey

It was expressly mentioned in the research as a declared potential conflict. This is why people suggesting randomly that others have some undisclosed interest is not ok. Both are serious academics who have published many times and are well respected and attempting to 'rubbish' them based on something you thought you heard isn't ok - especially not in the middle of a long thread where others are doing the same. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Came across this report on the DfT website > > https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycling > -and-walking-safety-rapid-evidence-assessment. > Published in 2020 (but dated 2018), it?s a ?rapid > evidence assessment? on cycling and walking safety > commissioned by DfT, in an attempt to find > evidence that could be used to improve people?s > perceptions of safety, thereby increasing > propensity to walk and cycle. > > What?s striking about the document is what little > hard data /evidence there seems to be for safety > improvements for many of the interventions we?ve > seen in the last few years. I?d always assumed > that the fact that segregated cycle tracks would > improve cyclist safety was a no-brainer, and that > the debate was about the trade off between this > and congestion. It seems that?s not the case, > eg: > > ?There is also a set of interventions for which > the evidence is more mixed. Overall, the evidence > on cycle lanes and on cycle tracks that physically > separate cyclists from motor traffic is > inconclusive. There is no clear evidence that > cycle lanes reduce risk, but the evidence suggests > that physically separated cycle tracks may be more > likely to be effective in reducing risk, but that > cycle track design is vital in determining > effectiveness, especially at intersections. Some > key features for cycle design at intersections > include bringing tracks close to parallel vehicle > traffic to increase visibility; raising motor > vehicle crossings at intersections; providing > advance stop lines for vehicles; and dedicated > signals to separate cyclists from turning > vehicles.? > > And this conclusion: > > ?Many of the cycling and walking interventions > covered in this rapid evidence assessment show > promise for reducing risk or perceived risk for > cyclists and pedestrians. However, there is a lack > of well-designed evaluations that adequately > control for bias and also a lack of evidence that > explores impact on both risk and participation.? > > It feels a bit as though the data gathering is > following the policy rather than the other way > around. Someone reassure me that not all > government policy-making works that way! > > I think it is Prof Aldred?s colleague, Anna > Goodman, who did the DV cycle count whose parents > live in Dulwich, it was mentioned in some of the > publicity surrounding that.

Never heard this before - do you have a source for it Alice? If not, lets go with, 'no' ! I think that on forums such as this, a throw away comment like that is taken as gospel and then repeated ad infinitum more widely. I've never heard it before re Prof Aldred so unless there is some proof behind it its probably best not to post it on a thread questioning her research. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > doesnt her mum live on calton? > > > > when the review comes we need people involved > with > > a fresh objective eye. > > Rachel Aldred? I didn't know that. The problem is > as shown above - most of those who publish proper > research in this area are dismissed as > 'activists', because it all tends to point in the > same direction when it comes to the best ways to > encourage walking and cycling and reduce our > reliance on cars. It's not making car use as > convenient and comfortable as possible.

Not what I said at all - or even close. Comment was in relation to the visibility or otherwise of One Dulwich. ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Also - one group is supporting overall concepts - > cleaner air / active travel, the other is trying > to set council policy and was set up specifically > to be against the road changes." - so you are > happy with the fact that thousands of people (I am > one of them) are being treated as second class > citizens and have the extra traffic (= more > pollution and noise) dumped on their roads? > > Never owned a car, walk where I can and I am being > punished for that. > > Why? > > > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Without wishing this to get insanely tedious, > they > > do have a twitter feed but they don't use it > for > > any of their comments/ suggestions on policy etc > - > > they use their website for that. > > > > Also - one group is supporting overall concepts > - > > cleaner air / active travel, the other is > trying > > to set council policy and was set up > specifically > > to be against the road changes. > > > > No idea about the twitter message function - > not > > sure exactly how that works anyway, but pretty > > sure that when I've received flyers from Clean > Air > > Dulwich that there has been an email address on > > them. > > > > > > Rockets Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Northern - you're wrong I am afraid. > OneDulwich > > > has a twitter feed but unlike Clean Air > Dulwich > > > it's not locked/restricted to only those that > > they > > > follow. Anyone can go on @realonedulwich and > > > comment freely - whether they agree or > disagree > > > with what is being said. > > > > > > Unfortunately you can't contact CAD via their > > > twitter page and they have this habit that if > > you > > > challenge them on something they block you - > > they > > > were doing this routinely until they made the > > > comment feature only open to people they > > follow. > > > Also their main website only has a sign-up > page > > > and no contact info. > > > > > > Clean Air Dulwich are pretty elusive and much > > less > > > open to public questioning than OneDulwich - > so > > > maybe your super sleuth skills would be > better > > > deployed on trying to determine who is behind > > > Clean Air Dulwich! ;-)

Without wishing this to get insanely tedious, they do have a twitter feed but they don't use it for any of their comments/ suggestions on policy etc - they use their website for that. Also - one group is supporting overall concepts - cleaner air / active travel, the other is trying to set council policy and was set up specifically to be against the road changes. No idea about the twitter message function - not sure exactly how that works anyway, but pretty sure that when I've received flyers from Clean Air Dulwich that there has been an email address on them. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Northern - you're wrong I am afraid. OneDulwich > has a twitter feed but unlike Clean Air Dulwich > it's not locked/restricted to only those that they > follow. Anyone can go on @realonedulwich and > comment freely - whether they agree or disagree > with what is being said. > > Unfortunately you can't contact CAD via their > twitter page and they have this habit that if you > challenge them on something they block you - they > were doing this routinely until they made the > comment feature only open to people they follow. > Also their main website only has a sign-up page > and no contact info. > > Clean Air Dulwich are pretty elusive and much less > open to public questioning than OneDulwich - so > maybe your super sleuth skills would be better > deployed on trying to determine who is behind > Clean Air Dulwich! ;-)

You talked about the right of reply - so the point 'I'm trying to make' is that One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance either send emails to registered supporters via email (so thats fine), or they publish things on their website. They specifically don't publish anything anywhere where it could be questioned publicly. I'd imagine you could contact Clean Air Dulwich via social media accounts if you're a follower?

I know that this won't change your narrative Rockets, but One Dulwich use email to push out their information thus quashing any discussion or scrutiny at all. The point still stands, that they claim legitimacy yet are completely mute on who they are or how they engage / represent / canvas the views of the 2000 supporters they claim to represent. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OneDuwlich and the Dulwich Alliance have both made > numerous efforts to get the council to discuss > other options but the council have steadfastly > refused to entertain the discussion - one has to > question why that might be the case. > > Why is it that the council don't want to hear > representations from a group with over 2,000 local > people signed yup as member 60% of whom live > within areas that are perceived to be benefitting > most from the closures (Dulwich Village and Goose > Green). > > And on flyers etc there has been equal amounts of > tone deaf messaging from a lot of the pro-LTN > groups who are happy to present the Trumpton like > state of parts of Dulwich Village yet wilfully > fail to acknowledge that East Dulwich and Croxted > areas live with the displacement. > > I actually think taking pictures of people's homes > displaying anti-LTN posters (even if they happen > to have a Chieftain tank parked on the driveway) > is taking things way too far and it has clearly > been a catalyst for some of the more fanatical > elements of the LTN supporting brigade to follow > Clean Air Dulwich's lead. > > You're banging on about who is behind OD and DA > but does anyone have a contact for whomever is > behind Clean Air Dulwich? At least with One > Dulwich and the DA they have a contact email > address on their website and don't hide behind a > suppressed and controlled twitter feed that allows > no-one, beyond the people they follow, the right > of reply!

There have been some options put forward - in terms of things like the double roundabout plan or something vague on timed restrictions, but when its down to questions like 'who would be eligible for a permit' One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance (same same) are keeping tight lipped. Asking for permits but not specifying for whom really doesn't help anyone assess the impact. To Rocket's comments of 'its like voting for a party without knowing their manifesto' - I think that this also applies to One Dulwich, although its worse as its like voting for a party without knowing who you're voting for. Lots of people claim to support One Dulwich's aim's but whenever you ask the most vocal they claim not to be behind it! Who actually is 'One Dulwich'? I'm less interested in their funding as don't think its 'shady' - it clearly came from their fundraiser, but who One Dulwich is and how do they make decisions / ensure that they reflect the views of supporters is unclear! On the flyer point - its a stretch to conflate criticism of an organisation for using tone deaf messaging on promotional materials, with a tweet showing a flyer, a tiny part of a car (no numberplate) and a bit of a window (no door)ie no personal information and largely not readily identifiable. In case there is any confusion - when I criticised the flyers produced by One Dulwich on here, it was in the vein of its not appropriate to equate your concerns about road changes to the oppression raised in the BLM movement. dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rahrahrah > > "Can we see the alternative proposal that "reduces > traffic, improves air quality and promotes active > travel"? Have they* published it?" > > Their proposals were published - easily obtainable > by visiting their website. > If you're arguing that their proposals don't > actually encourage a reduction in travel, > improvement of air quality and promoting active > travel, then I would argue straight back that the > councils proposals are exactly the same. They may > claim they are, but their measures are ill-thought > through, divisive and I don't believe they are > doing anything to improve air quality, reduce > traffic or promote active travel. > > So really, it's a moot point. > > If the council aren't willing to listen to all > residents openly (i.e. a full proper consultation > from scratch) then unfortuantely the only way > forward is to force their hand. Returning to the > original state appears to be the only way to do > this, unless you have another suggestion?

I was expecting something much worse given the handwringing on here, but having looked at that tweet I can?t see any of the numberplate, the door number, or indeed even the door. It doesn?t look like even the street has been named. Also, the tweet doesn?t mention the car. Is there another tweet that isn?t linked that?s the issue?

Would also be interested to get recent thoughts now the school has been on its perm site a while (albeit over a few strange years)

the one by the station

Callows are great and so much of their business must be call out or recommendation. We've used them lots and recommended to friends as far away as Clapham. Whilst they do cut keys and sell some padlocks / safe boxes etc that doesn't seem to be a significant component of what most people seem to use them for. Its why it can be so damaging when people suggest its closing! They're relocating, not closing. Assume its because they think that having people drive past is a way of reminding them that they exist when they do need a locksmith, but its probably not great to have constant noise about them closing as thats what people will remember!

Heartblock - so many of your posts are about how the illegal levels of traffic are unacceptable, and then yet, you then decide to suggest that 'free parking' should be offered for customers of local businesses.

Other local options for Sourdough are Oru and Jones. There is also going to be a new shop in what was the old library on Grove Vale - Marvellous Greens and Beans. Its opening in July and says it will sell sourdough bread / coffee as well as veg boxes that I think they deliver. Should be a great addition - looking forward to it opening. Whilst milk float type stalls are interesting, I think that its much better to support good local businesses or we will just be left with chains who can weather the ups and downs of demand more easily!

I'm assuming that the cars don't teleport to the school in the first place and therefore having a drop off point north and south of the schools would take parents who were essentially passing anyway - We appear to be in a bizarre arrangement whereby people apparently want less traffic, but without actually having any measures to limit traffic. Heartblock - on the do the kids who are picked up in a car but scoot to it counted in the numbers - don't know, but can only really apply when they're tiny as otherwise getting the bike in the car would be a faff. Perhaps its kids who cycle in but are picked up by a different parent - hard to tell really, but making it harder to pick up near the schools feels like a good solution to prevent driving in any case. On the Dulwich park 'parking' - id assume that if you drop off, then no charge, if you stay, you pay - in much the same way as it exists for everyone else! first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >But this shifts the problem of parents parking > elsewhere doesn't it? The idea seems to be that we > must accept that inconvenienced parents may need > to use cars and that is okay so long as they drop > off further away from the school, but those living > closer to the school who for other reasons may > also be massively inconvenienced at not being able > to use a car must get on with it? Is this > essentially what you mean? > > > I think that there needs to be an acceptance > that > > stopping parents dropping off by car is > > impractical but putting in place more proactive > > > measures to mitigate the effects could be a real > > > benefit to the local area, whilst not affecting > > > the overall model for the schools.

Its great to see those improving numbers but also relevant that for example in the junior school 95 kids are driven daily. Lets generously assume some are siblings and say 70 cars , twice a day. For reference, the queues of traffic at the EDG traffic lights are generally less than 20 cars. Again for the senior school, at an absolute level that is good work - especially the reduction and this should be recognised, but in absolute terms there are a lot of car journeys still being generated. I'd imagine that the ones remaining are the 'harder to switch' ones. Perhaps its time therefore for stronger measures around the schools - larger school street areas and more restrictions on drop offs but combined with the often discussed 'park and stride' arrangements being implemented. Sainsburys car park and Dulwich Park have previously been suggested and neither is too far from Alleyns / JAGS - there also the evidence about how activity on a morning can improve concentration and academic performance so could be a win on that front too. I think that there needs to be an acceptance that stopping parents dropping off by car is impractical but putting in place more proactive measures to mitigate the effects could be a real benefit to the local area, whilst not affecting the overall model for the schools.

Lots of groups on facebook - but Isla / Frog /Squish / Woom/ Frome all good. They're all more than Halfords bikes but at 4 getting the lightest bike possible is key and the brands listed have better geometry for small kids. Second hand may be the way to go - still not cheap but you can then sell on when finished with and won't lose much cash in theory!

I think thats why no one wants to give a blanket 'go ahead and build a bike shed' mandate though Nigello. The Asguard / Trimetals /Brighton ones are all a similar size -and frankly ours is way nicer to look at than the wheelie bins (though obviously we still have those - just not next to our neighbours now!)

Technically the position is that if you're installing a bike shed in front of your property, you need planning. In reality this is rarely enforced. I'd imagine in the event of a neighbour complaint, that you could apply for prior permission and that i'd expect given the council's wider views on bike hangers and the climate emergency that this should be granted (unless it was some custom unit that was oddly high or something). We have a shed in our front garden, the neighbours think it looks good (and means the bins are further away from their windows) so everyone is happy! Getting on with your neighbours seems to be the more important step! If you're within the Dulwich Estate though I'd imagine you have to get permission, again this seems to be granted if the number of hangers are anything to go by. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cllr McAsh, whilst we wait to see whether we get a > hangar what is the council's policy towards cycle > storage units in front gardens? I saw a report on > the BBC that Islington were telling householders > to remove Asgard (and other similar bike storage > structures) from front gardens as such "out > buildings" were not permitted beyond back > gardens. > > As someone who does not have a side return I have > ordered an Asgard cycle storage unit for our small > front garden. Does Southwark permit such units? > The unit complies to all permitted development > thresholds (but apparently so do the ones that > councils like Islington seem to have a problem > with when people out them into front gardens).

Sorry to hear that . In terms of anyone else reading this as aware that lots of people don't have other options, its really important to lock the bike up in the locker with as good quality lock as possible - preferably two. It won't be failsafe but hopfully makes it less appealling

haha - i'm guessing you've not spent much time passing that shop Bicknell? Aqua was less of a shop and more of a project as far as I could tell - like something to do, sometimes. It didn't really open much and sold a really random selection of stuff. There are some nice bits in there but its just not somewhere that reliably traded. Will be great to get a new business in there - anything really as long as its a shop that opens! Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > shop next to cafe on closed junction in dulwich > village closing down. so maybe trade not so good. > > dv has a lot of nice places to sit. would rather > have shops than another place to sit

Mainly I don't think that if anyone was previously driving 15 mins to a nail bar, that there would be another in a completely opposite (unaffected by any traffic) 20 mins in another direction. Whilst I can see that there are some things you might buy from Callows - its not an extensive range - and not the kind of thing people buy more than once. I have on occasions bought padlocks from them or door code buttons, again something you go specifically for in general. They haven't said where they are moving to - I heard something about Grove Vale legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You don?t think there?s an in between eg happy to > drive to x nail bar if it takes me 15 mins, but if > that changes to 45 mins I?ll go to the next > nearest one that?s 20 mins away? > > (I am not a nail bar person aside from the > occasional pre summer holiday pedicure, so happy > to be shot down when it comes to this example. > Probably should have chosen something else.) > > I did browse in the locksmith the other day when I > was having some keys cut and came away with a new > combination padlock and a small key safe. It?s > possible I am an atypical consumer. Do we know > exactly where on LL they are moving to (I think I > read it was LL?)

I don't think its so straightforward. Nail bars are either a destination (eg they're fab and you'd travel to them regardless) or they're just on every corner (as it seems to be the case in east dulwich). Not sure why you'd pass lots of other nail bars to go to one of those. Hairdressers - you tend to stick with good ones. I've been following mine around different places for the past 12 years or so (3 different salons and now mobile!) What are people browsing at the locksmiths? its mostly a call out service and does key cutting. Really good key cutting but again there are other options - eg the DIY stores so don't imagine people come from a wide area to get a key cut - and if they are they can still drive. Interesting that Grove Reopen and the anti tweets have essentially killed their business for now though as everyone thinks they've closed rather than just moving! legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Northern monkey - isn?t that the point? I?m no > Mary Portas but I?d imagine it?s places like dry > cleaners, hairdressers, nail bars etc that get > hardest hit if lack of parking / traffic > congestion make them harder to get to. People who > can?t / don?t want to walk or cycle will switch to > an alternative service provider that they can > drive to more easily?* (Hairdressers maybe not so > much as there?s a personal connection - but dry > cleaning (and the locksmith for example). And > there?s a knock on effect - if people aren?t going > to the dry cleaner / shoe shop because of the > traffic issue, they won?t be buying a coffee next > door either. > > It?s another reason why relying on generalised > data like the TfL stuff doesn?t really tell you > what will happen to a particular set of shops in a > particular location. I?ve said it before, I think > the focus on general data rather than the specific > case in hand is a problem. The whole point of > local government is that it can consider he > specifics of the local area - otherwise why not > centralise everything? > > > *yes perhaps they shouldn?t be driving there but > that?s scant comfort to the small business owner- > unless we?re happy to add some businesses to the > ?collateral damage? pile along with the residents > of main roads.

If you live near the businesses can see how you might think this as lots of parking down that end removed to allow short stay for businesses but elsewhere its much better. The covid effect of permits for health centre and teaching staff did have a large impact but given that was during a time of lockdown the effect wasn't too great -but its transformational otherwise on the streets near to the station. ED_moots Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In the station zone it is not much better. Lots of > double yellow lines came in with CPZ and removed > perfectly feasible parking. Staff at the new > school and the med centre were issued with > 'emergency' passes to use the CPZ despite > assurances they would use public transport. > > I don't use my car much except as a kid taxi so > may get rid of it but when I do use it during peak > times it's very unlikely I'll be able to park near > my house or even on my stretch of road. > > The people who have really suffered are the > business owners on our street. The local > residents, within walking or cycling distance, are > not enough to sustain these businesses. Coupled > with limited access from only one end of the > street and they will be lucky to survive. > > The supporters of CPZ and LTN and the blinkered > councillors need to own this impact.

@Alice - when was MG thriving? It has very few 'walk in' shops. The gym remains as hard, if not harder to get a slot in as its really successful - the rest of the businesses are mostly hairdressers / nail bar / beauty salons. The only 'browsing businesses' are Blue Feather and Fashion Conscience. Lane Eight is really busy but just not open past lunchtime which is a shame so not sure on what basis you'd go to hang gout there. Also worth noting that when MG was fully open to traffic Fashion Conscience briefly had a cafe next door to the shop - it didn't last long either, despite having through traffic at the time!

Cycling to and cycling along aren't the same thing though - in any event both support some proper infrastructure on this road. Melbourne Grove provides a safe route to the hospital, cycling round trossachs and hillsboro to Alleyns / JAGS, via the village for other options. Going back to my earlier point, the road is no worse for cycling on now than it was pre road changes and actually given the changes to parking its marginally better - though the impact of the 1 or 2 cars parked there now is disproportionately effecting cycling as means that the option to travel up what was the parking spaces is removed.