Dogkennelhillbilly

lol! 🤣🤣 Please, tell us more about how you're not opposed to LTNs but you have really profound, substantive concerns about how many metres from the junction a pneumatic tube counter was placed one Tuesday in 2020...

Actually, this thread is supposed to be about the proposed changes to the West Dulwich LTN, but some monomaniac is still wanging on about Southwark Council's supposed crimes in East Dulwich 4 years ago...

Thames Water management are awful but even I doubt that they're trying to boost their numbers by going around fraudulently misreading individual user's meters to overstate water consumption and chisel another £200 out of them. It's much more likely there's a leak, a cockup in data collection or a cockup in meter setup.

Unless someone is willing to state their name and qualifications (malumbu, exdulwicher, uncle Tom Cobbly), any pseudonymous poster's supposed expertise is irrelevant because they could be making it all up. God knows we've seem enough barrack room traffic engineers, statisticians and physicists talk absolute nonsense on here. The only thing worth discussing is factual data cited to real sources. Not "my online mate Terry reckons that Dulwich Park will be flooded next year" or "I've seen data that shows 80% of taxi drivers are left handed".

As an follow-on observation, there seems to be a enthusiasm in some quarters for claiming to have seen things but not citing or sharing the actual data. For example: https://x.com/DulwichCleanAir/status/1838479733199376440

One pseudonymous poster rehashing another pseudonymous poster's memory about a third pseudonymous poster's opinion is not data or evidence either! 🤣🤣🤣

One pseudonymous poster rehashing some other pseudonymous poster's option is not data or evidence. ...and the suspicions of a pseudonymous poster online are not data or evidence either. Neither has our friend from West Dulwich Action Group popped back to: a) substantiate their claims about data b) explain some of their own quirky but supposedly data-support claims (here and on Twitter) The "data doesn't care about your feelings" crowd do really seem to struggle with the concept of citing data and providing sources. 🤔 QED

NB no data or evidence cited.

I don't believe it. This place is a veritable Las Vegas de nos jours of conspiracy, corruption and high speed bicycle chases, or so I've been told on here. Intrigue hides around the corner of every planter!

Where are there traffic lights on Limesford Rd? I don't think I understand the story. Anyway, it sounds you might have come across an idiot. There are a few in London.

NB that no evidence or data was cited.

If you're going to claim this, you should give full details with the underlying source of the data so that people can understand what specifically you're saying. Your group's claim above seems a bit ropey and you haven't addressed it (or other questions on this thread): https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/350461-west-dulwich-ltn-action-group-needs-your-support/?do=findComment&comment=1680839

Good question. I have no idea what to do either. Right now I'm on whatever the no-cap default plan is for British Gas, and that's probably the worst option! Today is the first day I've put the heating on too...

🤣🤣🤣

ooooooOOOOooooOOooooHHhhhh Nope, these were all trying to cut through from College Rd to Court Lane - they drove through the inner gate (which I think is being replaced, finally), along the pathway to the Court Lane gates, and then realised their mistake. 50/50 on whether they then squeezed through the bollards across the pavement or backtracked. I think it's more a case of the drivers "seeing" the surface on a GPS and trying to outsmart the route they've been told to take. I dont think it happens very often - bollards are pretty effective at traffic management, and one of the PHVs was let through by poor traffic management after one of the events.

I imagine it's going to look and feel pretty similar to the mixed use development about 300m to the north, but bigger. https://maps.app.goo.gl/84WNyXLpvHmiLuHA7?g_st=ac

I've seen a delivery van, 2 PHVs and multiple Deliveroo motorcyclists...just this year!

This definition, if it were ever useful in Europe where CAFE is not an issue, has long since been disposed of by the industry itself. SUV is a marketing term, not a technical one.

Bit of an odd post from West Dulwich Action Group here (hoping the link works): https://x.com/WDulwichAction/status/1838117258104545427 It claims to show a massive year on year increase in the volume of traffic along Rosendale Rd. It actually seems to show percentage splits of speeds of an unspecified volume of traffic along an unspecified road on an unspecified date. It's not terribly compelling...

By the way, I was poking around on the Dulwich Society website and one of their newsletters seemed to suggest it was only in about 2000 or 2001 before access to Dulwich Park was via the Old College Gates only. Didn't think to keep the link, sorry.

That's nonsense. It's because there's more profit margin in big cars. Increasing weight, height and volume increases, not reduces, the risk to other road users (including people in other cars). https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/end-sales-growth-suvs/ https://michaelschneider.medium.com/the-suv-arms-race-46cf2aae809b

No, this is nonsense. The planning document linked above details the ludicrous objections of local yokels at the time and their petitions - like claiming the old, old petrol station was designed by the same architect as St Barny's (it wasn't) and should be evaluated as part of the same site (it shouldn't), or loss of free parking to Gilkes Crescent car owners, or objections to construction...because there would be construction noise while the houses were under construction ffs! What has emerged is a perfectly nice little block of terraced houses - and 20 (?) years after the petrol station closed and 10 years after planning permission was issued, it's now the subject of carping about it having too many off-street parking spots and the subject of weird conspiracy theories.

The council can't just come along and unilaterally change a planning permission once it's been issued. It was never open to Southwark to tell the developer out of the blue to remove or add parking spaces. And just to be clear: you are now complaining that a private developer built too many houses that are too small and have too many off-street parking spaces? You wanted the council (which you believe is under the control of a Marxist-socialist-cyclist cabal) to intervene more and force this company to build bigger houses and fewer parking spaces on its own land? Is that what you're genuinely upset about now?

If this is your idea of a rabbit hutch, perhaps your butler can take me on a tour of your stately home one weekend: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/147845681#/?channel=RES_NEW

No, a council can't just come along and unilaterally change a planning permission once it's been issued. Consent was issued in 2015. Yes, a pipsqueak development of a dozen bloody houses that took a decade to get done. We need 80,000 new homes in London alone every year ffs! https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl7kpn4ygvo.amp Meanwhile we've got the usual suspects moaning about knocking down dogshit failing big box retail units and car parks and replacing them with thousands of homes (a third of them affordable) as part of mixed used developments at no cost to the taxpayer.