northernmonkey

I think that was the point of my comments. Metallic regularly resorts to rudeness and name calling that add nothing to the debate. I suspect (hope) that they might be less rude in real life. In any event they could stick to commenting on the topic or not speaking, but the snark and rudeness is unwarranted. Interesting how those that disagree with the core on here are 'smug' or 'trolling' though. Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Apparently I don't have any manners. > > > I've got an album from Bad Manners, will that > satisfy NorthernMonkeys comment that you have zero > manners ? > > It's amazing how quickly people on here tackle the > person (poster) and not ball (argument) when they > are called out. > > Wait for DC to chime in that you've insulted them > (I've had it a few times) > > Is this the rear guard action of a failing group > of activists? > > Can we just have a sensible debate over an issue > that has such wide effects on so many and not > resort to name calling like 5 year olds in the > playground ?

Sounds very suspicious. Can't imagine why 'traffic control' would be at your door! Well done for asking for details - if you have a neighbourhood watch group might be worth flagging on there too - also maybe police non emergency no?

Hard to find actual numbers, but was enough of a concern for Sadiq Khan to put in place a voluntary scheme to offer new build properties under i think 350k to UK buyers first. Suspect its more of an issue for places like the new builds at the elephant (in the private blocks) and the zone 1 developments than Dulwich though.

You're being rude again! Do you have zero manners? Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seems hpsaucy and northernmonkey, plus their mate > 3xrah are all getting hot under the collar. They > are probably on their whatsapp group every night, > along with other mates from MG, DG and maybe the > councillors, plotting the next response. > > "Your turn." > "No your turn." > "No it is your turn." > > Grow up for goodness sake and see the problems > people are having in East Dulwich Grove, Croxted > Rd and Lordship Lane are all to do with a policy > which actually began a while ago when you got your > streets closed off to through traffic. My street > is very much quieter because of the Calton > Ave/Court Lane system and I do not like the fact > that it comes at the expense of children's lungs.

And ab26, you're being rude AGAIN! I would ask if you would be so rude if you had to use real names and speak to people rather than type here, but perhaps you would. Anyway, as your mum would / should have said, its not big or clever! ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anything but arrogance and patronising tone of > rahrahrah, dulwich central and northern monkey. > Thanks but no.

People being told what the route is on an organised bike ride is not the coup you think it is Rockets! Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Ah Rockets - how we've missed you replying to > > messages with your opinions presented as facts. > > Welcome back -was a bit worried about you as at > > least 2 people had expressed an opinion and you > > hadn't been on to own the narrative! > > > > > > Rockets Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > DulwichCentral Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Chris_1 Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > Plenty of space for everyone, > > > > > despite it being the biggest gathering at > > > that > > > > > junction to date I think! > > > > > > > > Did you not see this event based from the > > > square > > > > and passing through it several times? It > was > > > > bigger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-families-ge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t-on-their-bikes-to-show-support-for-safe-cycling- > > > > > > > > > > routes/ > > > > > > > > > I love the fact that one of the pictures you > > > shared is of the flotilla of (LCC/Southwark) > > > cyclists who cycled down Woodwarde Road from > > > outside of Dulwich and had to be directed to > > the > > > "square" for the photo opp! ;-) > > > Northern - I am afraid those are facts because if > the picture had been taken as they came down > Woodwarde Road I would have probably been in it as > I was walking the other way up Woodwarde when I > saw the cycle flotilla and heard the ringleader > calling out to people which way they needed to > turn at the bottom of Woodwarde. > > So putting two and two together would suggest, > would it not, that many of the cyclists were not > familiar with the area and had been (I won't say > bussed in) cycled in especially for the event that > got sold as Dulwich residents showing their > support? > > Anyway, glad you've missed me ;-) BTW did the tide > turn and our dear friend Manatee floated off out > to sea?

Ah Rockets - how we've missed you replying to messages with your opinions presented as facts. Welcome back -was a bit worried about you as at least 2 people had expressed an opinion and you hadn't been on to own the narrative! Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichCentral Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Chris_1 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > Plenty of space for everyone, > > > despite it being the biggest gathering at > that > > > junction to date I think! > > > > Did you not see this event based from the > square > > and passing through it several times? It was > > bigger > > > > > https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-families-ge > > > > t-on-their-bikes-to-show-support-for-safe-cycling- > > > routes/ > > > I love the fact that one of the pictures you > shared is of the flotilla of (LCC/Southwark) > cyclists who cycled down Woodwarde Road from > outside of Dulwich and had to be directed to the > "square" for the photo opp! ;-)

You can access the canal path via Kelly Ave but there is no safe crossing out of Lyndhurst Way, otherwise the option is the horrible shared cycle path on the top section of Rye Lane and then the crossing to go under the arch.

How was there a choice to turn up first mate? Was the protest advertised in advance?

Except evidence (which isn't the same as the opinions and half truths people throw around on here) shows thats exactly what is needed to increase cycling numbers. Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Young families on bikes - stop fetishising what > ought to be just a normal, everyday thing, a > normal, everyday mode of transport. When I > hear/see phrases liek that I just think it is a > mask, a totem for all manner of other things. Kids > can and do use bikes, as they have done for years > and years, including the bad seventies when the > idea of cyclist's rights were not even thought of > and drivers were much more likely to be un > buckled-up or drunk. You cannot legislate or > bollard-ise danger or hazard out of anything, so > please don't think that for more people to cycle > we need ever more elaborate infrastructure.

Like I said. Not commenting on the protest, just the comments saying rah was wrong and that everyone was on the pavement. I?m sure that the organisers would have requested those attending not to block access, but it?s factually correct to show some did. The whole discussion has arisen because multiple pro people have come on to deny that was the case. Standard position of only correcting mistruths

Look at the image posted by March. Shows in road between planters, rather than pavement between bollards Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > still confused @rahrahrah > photos show people standing around the red concret > bollards on the pvaement. they were put there to > stop cars mounting the pavement. > agree that we need safe cycling for families with > cycle lanes > but disagree thta junction should be closed 24/7 > that just moves traffic on to other roads so that > cycling isnt safe for other children

I?m not commenting on the protest itself, my view is that people should have a right to put their views forward and they won?t always be ones I agree with. However, on the question as to whether this protest obstructed the road and made it difficult for those trying to pass through the square coming from dulwich village (the road) then the photo posted by March above shows clearly that the protest did expand out with people standing between the planters in the square. This would have meant that it was more difficult to cycle through. It?s not opinion, it?s just factually the case with a photo to prove it

It was once the constitutional club- someone on here will know the history. In recent years though it?s been largely underused and badly maintained- freezing cold and poor facilities.

I agree all those things would have been great and it?s a shame it?s not in a position to be any of them and any would have been a really good use of the building. Sadly now it?s sold into private ownership though that ship has sailed so it?s going to be a commercial venture. It would have been so lovely if it could have been the east dulwich equivalent of bell house but it?s not to be

Sorry- not sure you?ve been as clear as you think you have here? You don?t think it is trolling or you don?t think what I said is true? Think it got lost in the rest of your comments Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > People who disagree with your views on a public > > discussion forum are not 'trolling'. > > As we all know, this is not the case. But hey, we > all know who we are don't we!!?

The number of houses you mention Penguin are miniscule in comparison to those held by overseas investors - especially in new developments. I'm particularly thinking of investors who want brand new properties that have never been lived in and who keep them that way. These aren't insignificant in number. It could be possible to have an exemption for houses going through probate for a set amount of time, but there really does need to be some measure in place to deter holding property without having anyone living in it - we have a finite amount of land and allowing people to hold properties empty is unacceptable.

People who disagree with your views on a public discussion forum are not 'trolling'.

In terms of the original comments - this is a really annoying development, coming on top of the reopening of Rye Lane to traffic. There doesn't really seem to be a good cycling route. The Spine doesn't have a safe crossing at the end of Lyndhurst, the top of Rye Lane is horrible as the lane mixes with pedestrians so this route down the side of Lidl used to be useful to get to the canal path as there were lights to cross Peckham Road. It would be great if the hoardings could be moved back to allow a route through for cyling. Separately, whilst the headline figures on empty homes in Southwark aren't great, the large majority are not within Southwark's control. It would be good to see greater penalties on private investors who leave property unoccupied long term. For example, I'd like to see large multiples of council tax levied on properties that are empty and not actively being renovated for letting.

Sorry Alice - you are saying that the Dulwich LTN hasn't worked because cars are turning right out of Townley Road onto Lordship in the direction of Forest Hill is showing that the LTN's haven't worked? I'm interested because there are no southbound restrictions on Dulwich Village or Burbage Road so its unlikely to be displaced traffic travelling from the west to go south east. Traffic coming from the East would always have gone down Lordship or somewhere east of that where there are no LTNs, so what is the effect you're commenting on here please?

I don't think any of us think that cycling has gone up over 300% on Calton. But similarly we can all see that One Dulwich's 'catchy headline' deliberately underplays for effect. Neither is helpful or engenders trust.

There is space for potentially a bi directional cycle lane all along the section by the dutch estate - it would then need to turn off on thorncombe road, travel along glengarry as a quiet street and then would need some rearrangement of the pavement / parking by the shops to get to Melbourne Grove where it could link up north / south with the filtered streets.

Calton Avenue Average daily cycle flow. Sept 18 768 Sept 20 1039 35% increase. Figures from One Dulwich report. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Northernmonkey said: > > "If the September figure was chosen as a baseline > and compared with Sept post measures, from memory > it would produce something in the region of a 35% > increase in cycling". > > Weasel words NM. Phrases like "from memory" or > "something in the region of" are not useful or > convincing.

I have a photo from 3:15 showing East Dulwich Grove with only 2 cars near the lights at the village going westbound. Seems to be randomly huge though so won't upload to the forum. No one is doubting there are busy spells - i am doubting that they last 'only 2 hours' though. But rather than just arguing I'm providing evidence throughout a period. I'm obviously not going to do this daily - this type of analysis is what the council should be doing. Overall counts aren't helpful, we need directional info, as well as details on the timing of the flow and the congestion. Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I will add my own observation of driving down EDG > at around 3pm yesterday for the first time in > ages. > > Before anyone has me down as some kind of tin-foil > hat wearing LTN denier, I posted pretty > extensively when the Court Lane LTN went in and it > had a significant adverse impact on the roads I > live and cycle on (Underhill, Melford, Wood Vale) > - I thought then and I still think that the way > that Southwark has gone about the implementation > and the lengths it is going to justify is pretty > appalling in terms of process and engagement. But > I did come on here about four months ago and say - > actually, traffic has really dropped off and it's > better to walk and cycle than it was. Jury's > still out if that is more about the epic Thames > Water works which are still ongoing, but I'm more > than willing to say that it could well be the > impact of the Court Lane LTN. So consider me in > the cautiously optimistic camp as regards the > Court Lane LTN. > > The same cannot be said of EDG. I was genuinely > shocked at the weight of queueing, static traffic > - bumper to bumper at 3pm yesterday. Didn't seem > to be particularly made up of school run parents > vs other kinds of traffic but this is probably the > first time I've driven down EDG in 18 months as > opposed to crossing it on a bike, so for me the > impact was really in my face and a massive change > from what I have seen in the past. > > I don't understand how anyone can seriously say > that - even if that only lasts for a couple of > hours - it isn't a serious adverse impact on the > people who live and work on EDG. By all means > come on here and say you think that overall the > benefit to other areas of the LTNs is worth the > damage and adverse impact on EDG - I don't agree > but I understand how some people can take that > position. But continually posting that it's not > that bad really doesn't seem to have much empathy > or understanding of how much of a change in > patterns there appears to have been.

I can only assume with analysis like this that you contributed to the documents One Dulwich produced! If the September figure was chosen as a baseline and compared with Sept post measures, from memory it would produce something in the region of a 35% increase in cycling. Thanks for entirely proving my point about the tactical manipulation of data by One Dulwich to suit their narrative. Just for info - i'm as unimpressed by Southwark's inability to produce data that is robust and produced on a timely basis as everyone else. slarti b2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm not sure 200% plus is the right figure > The Council claimed 301% increase to Sep 2020 and > 231% increase to Apr 2021. Its all in the > OneDulwich Report > > > The 8% they raise in this 'paper' is also > undoubtedly massively understated > The 8% is from the Southwark council > pre-streetspace monitoring counts, ie chosen > precisely as a baseline, but suppressed becuase it > didn't give the resultSouthwark wanted. What is > the problem with using it? You seem to support > Southwark in choosing an innacurate, unreliable > estimate at the worst part of the year for > cycling > > btw, OneDulwich could have used the Dept for > Transport raw count figures for Sep 18 as a > comaprison; those show a decrease in cycling after > the road closure. But presumably the chose the > average adjusted figure to be balanced. > > > One Dulwich lie and use half truths to > perpetuate a narrative of fear to stoke up > support. > Oh dear, you really don't like being faced with > proper analyisys based on open access information > do you? > Apart from this excellent report OneDulwich have > preduced a series of reports analysing the data > highlighting the errors and manipulation used by > Southwark and our COuncillors. > - the "47 increase" in traffic through Dulwich > Village, using a fraudulent baseline > - the massive increase in traffic along Calton > Avenue, based on an obvious error > - the "huge support" in OHS phase 2 for closing > the junction, but only if you dont count those > respondents who didn't want to close the > junction. And this was a tiny survey with very > few residents, apart from Calton Avenue, > responding > - the biased consultations with leading quesions. > > You ask whether Southwark Council is "evil", > those are your words not mine. How would you > describe a public body and its officers (who I > would assume should be objective) that is > consistently and repeatedly publishing biased > deceitful and misleading information in support of > their policies?