rendelharris

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How do they get to these roads? There are plenty of roads - for example the above mentioned Holly Grove and Highshore Road - that are blocked to through traffic but easily accessible for residents. In most of the toastrack roads - Talfourd, Bushey Hill, Crofton etc - a block on the south end would still allow resident access while forcing ratrunners to remain on Peckham Road.

None of the objections on here are insuperable if traffic control measures were to be introduced on other roads (and no they don't have to be fob controlled gates, Charles - not sure those pertain anywhere on public roads, certainly never seen that in Southwark) to keep through traffic to main, primarily non-residential roads (in this case Peckham High Street, Denmark Hill, Grove Vale, DKH and East Dulwich Road). What it boils down to is whether you see residential roads as places for people to live peacefully and healthily or conveyors for motor traffic which happen to have houses on the edge.

So just to give a few examples locally which come to mind, Holly Grove and Highshore Road should be reopened onto Rye Lane, and Rye Lane itself should be reopened at the north end to give access to Peckham High Street? Rye Lane certainly was a major artery before it was made bus and cycle only at the top end. Whatever the rights and wrongs of reopening Camberwell Grove or otherwise, all this nonsense about "public highways which should be open to all," as if the right to drive along a road is somehow inviolate and circumstances and needs never change, is so much blether. So much tosh about Camberwell Grove "always being a major artery" - it was designed and built at a time when the only traffic was horse-drawn carts and carriages, but apparently no consideration should be given to change even though the traffic has changed to delivery lorries and 4x4s on the school run?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally, I think it should either be repaired > or be removed completely. It has structural > problems. Repairs would allow 'small cars' (i.e. > about 1400kg) to use the bridge. So does that > mean that currently, in it's 'damaged' state, half > that, so a group of about 10 people, would be > considered a dangerous load? I believe most bridge structural weaknesses are caused by vibration rather than direct load bearing - hence the famous sign on Albert Bridge telling marching troops to break step. Vehicles send vibrations through a structure in a way the equivalent weight of people don't.

Ladharrbeinn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We spent ?180 on a loft and side return!! Blimey, can I have the name of your builder? ;-)

macutd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > we would all like "nicer roads"!!! And with clever, sensitive traffic management, combined with people accepting that they need to cut their car use for school runs, shopping trips etc, we could have them. New report today - 500,000 people die prematurely across Europe each year due to fossil fuel pollution. We just can't go on thinking that using our cars for everything, any time we please, is a "right" - we're killing ourselves, it's insane.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Actually, since the closure, I've > seen cyclists going down the Grove at dangerous > speeds on frequent occasions, so having to share > the road with cars may have a positive effect on > the poor behaviour of that minority of cyclists by > moderating their speed. Is this for real? Lovely car drivers who all stick to the speed limit at all times making those awful dangerous cyclists moderate their speed? Let's have cars driving in the cycle lanes to encourage cyclists to behave!

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The point is that the Grove is open to cyclists > whether the bridge is closed or not, perhaps > you're unaware that cyclists can get through the > blockade as things stand, so in this instance, it > is an irrelevance. I'm fully aware of that thanks as I ride through it nearly every day. Reopening the bridge will return traffic to pre-closure levels, are cyclists not allowed to comment on that? It's certainly been a lot more pleasant to cycle on since the bridge closed - previously going from the bridge up towards DKH, with parked cars on the right, there was a lot of tight/risky squeezing by, especially by vans. I'm not necessarily saying that's a deal breaker, but cyclists will be affected by the reopening or otherwise of the bridge and so, much as it seems to annoy you, they do have a right to offer their opinions on the matter.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Big yawn re "Southwark cyclists". Cycling up and > down CG was fine when the bridge was open. We did > it for several years until we moved round the > corner, both before and during the last width > restriction. > > James Barber - I don't think anyone is lobbying > for unrestricted access. There should definitely > be a width restriction, the street can't cope with > larger vehicles. Cars and bikes are fine but this > attempt to hijack the consultation by the > irritating cycle lobby is an irrelevance. This is a public consultation and cycling organisations are quite entitled to make a contribution to the debate. They are not "hijacking" the consultation, but expressing their point of view as is their democratic right. Try this sentence: "The road should remain closed and this attempt to hijack the consultation by motorists is an irrelevance." Would that be OK?

Abe, you can't accuse others of "cynical and disingenuous interpretation" and then do it yourself! Sally quite clearly stated that SC are in favour of the continued closure of Camberwell Grove as part of wider measures to remove traffic from the whole residential area.

Sharon N Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cyclists are also a danger, a friend of mine was > knocked over by a cyclist riding extremely fast > through the red light at a crossing. She had > bleeding on the brain because of what happened to > her. Very sorry for your friend, yes there are a minority of cyclists who ride like idiots. I have a friend who lost a leg having been hit by a drunken driver whose car mounted the pavement. Pedestrians are sixty times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a motorized vehicle than by a cyclist. Tragic individual cases will, unfortunately, always exist, but overall it's motor vehicles that are the danger.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Seen a Banksy signature recently? I think I can just about spot it here...

However they arrived there, they are permanent artworks of which, I believe, most of the community are extremely fond. I can't believe one really has to argue that it's not cool to go around vandalizing other people's work (and property) just because one doesn't like it, or has a chip on one's shoulder that it's somehow been "stolen." I hate UPVC windows in Victorian houses, if you have them installed is it ok for me to come and lob a brick through them?

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > I think there's some confusion here between > street > > art and graffiti art. > > See my previous post regarding the former evolving > from the latter. > > Maxxi: Totally agree. The street art we see > around Dulwich is a sanitised version of the art > form. Some murals I like, others I don?t. See my previous post - the Dulwich street art is much more akin to classical murals, it's permanent. Very little of it has any relation to graffiti art, it derives from another tradition entirely.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- None > of this would be necessary if people crossed the > road sensibly, but good luck with that! I agree, with the caveat that it would also depend on people driving their cars sensibly, not being distracted by their 'phones, not speeding etc. Anecdotally, as Mrs H was driving down Herne Hill Saturday morning at the prescribed 20mph, we were overtaken by not one but three cars, all doing 40mph plus, the last of which drove the wrong side of the traffic island at the pelican outside Herne Hill Pharmacy to do so. It's not just pedestrians...

Actually I remember now, you quoted them before: "RoSPA does not believe that 20mph speed limits are suitable for every road in a local authority area. They should be targeted at roads that are primarily residential in nature and on town or city streets where pedestrian and cyclist movements are high (or potentially high), such as around schools, shops, markets, playgrounds and other areas. Roads which are not suitable for 20mph limits are major through routes. " As I said previously in reply, for East Dulwich that means the South Circular (which doesn't have a 20mph limit); where else in this area do we have roads that are not either primarily residential in nature or don't have schools, shops, markets and/or playgrounds and don't have high cyclist and pedestrian movements?

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Btw, note that the > Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents is > against introducing 20mph limits in an entire > borough, and especially on major A roads. This is the policy statement on their website: RoSPA's Policy Position on 20mph Speed Limits 20mph zones are very effective at preventing injuries and RoSPA would like to see their wider use in residential areas. 20mph zones significantly decrease the risk of being injured in a collision and their greater use, especially in residential areas, would help to reduce the number of traffic injuries in the UK. Local Authorities are responsible for determining where 20mph zones and limits should be introduced but should take advantage of opportunities to introduce them where they are needed. Consultation and engagement with local communities and other stakeholders is of vital importance, to make sure that safer roads are prioritised where needed and that local communities have input into the schemes development. I can't find any statement on a policy on borough wide or A road schemes - citation please?

On a sort of related note, parents, please don't let kids press the button when you're not crossing! It's annoying (especially for a cyclist (and yes I stop at all reds whether people are crossing or not), losing all that hard-won momentum) to have to stop when little Timmy's pressed the button for the fun of it and nobody's crossing.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The dulwich galley has appropriated a distinct and > living art form for its own grasping and parasitic > ends. The tag is the only life visible on the > statis of this grotesque commitee approved wall > painting.Appropriation from those who cannot fight > back is the acceptable face of the intellectually > hamstrung art facilitator *community*. I think there's some confusion here between street art and graffiti art. The only thing the Dulwich murals have in common with graffiti art is their presence on walls. They're not appropriating graffiti art, unless graffiti art appropriated the idea of painting on walls from the Romans, or the painters of Lascaux, or whomever you choose to decide is the victim of appropriation.

Oh come now, you don't like it and that's fine, but nobody's said anything like that here; all that's been said is that people like it and don't like it being tagged. "Giant Athena poster" is a meaningless insult, I'd be more interested to hear your reasoned critique, as you obviously feel passionate about it, than just name calling. If signing one's artwork is self-aggrandizing then 99% of artists are guilty, no?

red devil Wrote: > I doubt at the time of those marches that the > protesters had any inkling 'a deal could be done'. > It was out of desperation if anything, that the > status quo simply wasn't working. > I'd also guess that the majority of perpetrators > of UK terrorist incidents have been 'home grown' > and therefore are very much part of the community > too. There's still a very significant difference between the two situations: terrorists on both sides in Northern Ireland relied on their communities to support and shelter them; when mass demonstrations began they could see their support base and cover starting to slip and that helped nudge them towards negotiation. Islamic terrorists now are despised by 99.9999% of the community, including their own. They don't want to change the community, they want to destroy it, and will not be influenced by anybody's opinions, particularly not those of white non-Muslims. Of course they have a democratic right to march - and we have a democratic right to say they look like a dodgy front for the far right.

Oh come on robbin, you're far too clever actually to miss the difference. Protesting against student grants - possible (though admittedly slim) chance of changing public opinion and/or government policy. Protesting against murder of civilians by terrorists - zero chance of changing the terrorists' minds, so what's it for? To change the opinion of those millions of people who think terrorist murder is actually a good thing?

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People in Northern Ireland protested against > terrorism. Was that pointless?... Good point but two different instances I think: in NI the terrorists were part of the community and were, as has been fortunately proven, susceptible to making deals. I very much doubt some insane loon who wants to kill himself and as many others as possible with a bomb is going to say oh, a bunch of people are protesting against me, I've lost the support of the community, perhaps I should start talking.

The question which surely should be asked is what's the point of the march? Protesting against terrorists, well they're sure to listen. It's not as if the government isn't taking steps to try to prevent terrorism. So at best it's a sort of pointless virtue signalling (how nice to be able to level that accusation at the right for once!), "Oh, we really care about terrorist attacks and want them to stop" - nobody else does, of course - and at worst it's a cover for anti-immigrant sentiment (which is what one suspects). At best, misguided, at worst, sinister.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's be honest it's a pretty awful mural anyway, > bland, obvious, pointless and derivative. You're entitled to your opinion, I went out of my way to see it, having not heard of it until this thread, and I think it's a fabulous piece of trompe l'oeil, technically brilliant and visually enthralling. Of course it's derivative, that's the point of the Dulwich Outdoor Gallery project, all the works are based on/inspired by paintings in the Dulwich Gallery collection. Could you explain what's "self-aggrandizing" about it, unless you believe all works of art are self-aggrandizing? In any case, is it OK to vandalize stuff just because you think it's mediocre? If so I have a busy day ahead with my sledgehammer visiting some of London's newer architecture...