Dogkennelhillbilly

Do you think having Billy Bragg and William Wragg in the same place would tear a hole in the time/space continuum?

Has OneDulwich decided to endorse the Tory candidates for the council yet?

Marcia123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cars can only overtake by leaving at least 1.5m space. Basically > cars need to leave a width of a bus lane. Or don't > overtake. Min recommend width for a bus lane is 3m ie twice the amount you think. A bus will not fit through a 1.5m gap. Maybe a good illustration of why the Highway Code now needs to be more specific about how much free space should be left when cars overtake cyclists. Interesting to note that some people are huge fans of the Highway Code when it comes to children riding on pavements but absolutely lost their shit when drivers were fined for disobeying bus gate road signs that were perfectly lawful under the, err, Highway Code...

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > march46 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Your regular reminder that it wasn?t ?the vast > > majority of residents? but the vast majority of > > respondents. Two very different things, yet > some > > struggle to tell the difference. > > > > Bic Basher Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Two Dulwich Village Cllrs along with other > > Labour > > > Cllrs in other Dulwich wards supported > pushing > > > through a LTN scheme that wasn't supported by > > the > > > vast majority of residents, yet the attitude > of > > > one particular Village Ward Cllr has stunk > > since > > > the start and now to pass the buck is a > typical > > > politicians response when they're in power. > > It's easy to spot a pro LTN person on EDF. Interesting that you identified someone as pro-LDN because they had their facts straight. 🤔

Good grief, Fox, that sounds awful. Get well soon. KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Foxy - I?m off to dump again tomorrow morn, Your motions might be regular but there's no need to boast

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe the parents of the children attending > Alleyns and JAGS could deliver their children by > cargo bike rather than to Mercedes, Jags, Range > Rovers... ...or even send them on the numerous school buses that the schools run. As an aside - 90% of these cross-town commutes of young children are just a symptom of a wider problem: that state primary schools vary widely in quality. If every neighbourhood state school were high quality and the rich didn't insulate their kids from the problem by chucking money at it, then there would be no need for kids to be shuttled across London so often. Plenty of other European countries seem to make it work.

ed26 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not > saying that Court Road or Dulwich Village should > be the signposted diversion, but a soft reopening > so that locals can go about their business would > be an easy option. Ahahhhahahaaahahahah! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 "oh, gosh, Sebastian, we must reopen the roads because it's an emergency, but only for the right kind of people! Just local Dulwich people making local Dulwich journeys!"

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why doesn't it surprise me that one of the pro-LTN > councillors is passing the buck to Thames Water > instead of proactively re-opening Court Lane for > the duration of the works? Why not reopen the old road through Dulwich Park for that matter?

ed26 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Ringing a bell at pedestrians on a pavement or > shared pavement/cycle path is pretty much like a > car driving down a cycle path and beeping the horn > to tell cyclists to get out of the way. Neither is > acceptable. You have people (not you) moaning about "children ringing bicycle bells" and then you have people moaning "oh, these cyclists just sneak up on you without ringing a bell, why are they so rude?" See for example the comments at the bottom of https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/changes-and-answers/highway-code-for-cyclists

TBF at least Carrie has a flat to go home to, even if it is in Far North East Dulwich (wonder what her login here is?). If Johnson isn't PM, he'll be slung out of No 10 and be homeless.

And did you think that meant the ULEZ alone was going to fix London's air quality problems? Because that's not what he said. (That quote should probably go in a little book of "things Johnson said that are true").

rachp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m not sure which active travel supporters > would seriously hail the example cited as an > example of active travel to be celebrated, it?s a > symptom of the problem they are campaigning > against. The whole scenario has just been imagined for argumentative purposes. It's a straw man. 🤷‍♂️

The best way to avoid getting drawn into distracting investigations into illegality is to not do illegal stuff in the first place. It's not foolproof but it works most of the time. Johnson should try it.

Were you under the impression that ULEZ alone was going to fix London's air quality problems? Because no-one ever said that.

No, it's not. ULEZ was designed to reduce usage of older, dirtier vehicles inside rhe zone - which it has done very successfully, by 37%, at a stroke. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ulez-expansion-tfl-diesel-polluting-sadiq-khan-north-south-circular-b971107.html?itm_source=Internal&itm_channel=homepage_banner&itm_campaign=breaking-news-ticker&itm_content=4 If it had been designed merely to raise revenue, it have been priced cheaper so that more people continued driving in and paid extra. The price wasn't just plucked out of the air. No-one ever said that ULEZ was going to fix all of London's traffic and pollution problems and that we would never need to do anything else.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The tunnel is being financed by a private sector > consortium - they will be paid back over a 25 year > period with that money being generated by > user-charging. Yes - the private sector will get paid no matter how many people use it. The Mayor will be torn in two directions: to reduce traffic for environmental and congestion reasons on one hand, and to induce and maintain traffic to keep paying off the construction and maintenance cost on the other.

On one hand, big infrastructure is always expensive and if the previous tunnel is any guide, it'll be in use for another 120 years. On the other hand, it might be better simply to reduce demand to match existing supply by increasing vehicle tolls on the existing crossings, or even just let the private sector build the tunnel at its own risk.

mrwb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there any actual data on the impact 20mph limit > has had v 30? Yes - including a 75% reduction in fatality risk if someone is struck at 30mph compared to 20mph. https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/drivers/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf The point of putting the speed camera outside the school is that it's where lots of kids will be crowding twice a day.

I look forward to OneDulwich and the Freedom for Drivers Foundation posting their support for the measures under consideration! 🤣

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > malign forces MaLiGn fOrCeS Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well I wouldn't bracket you in the "reasonable > person" category oooOOOOOOooooohhhh!!! Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We can compare death raters per capita across > Europe as a useful comparison - and the UK does > not come out of it well To be fair a lot of that's partly because we started the pandemic with a huge amount of obesity, poverty and chronic health conditions generally, all of which is pretty bad for covid survival.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or its via the vivacity monitor they note and the > review of the data collated by those monitors is > done by the company supplying them rather than the > council? Traffic counts in this country aren't typically done by having people sitting on street corners with clipboards any more. It's cheaper, more reliable and safer to stick up a digital video camera for a while and then do the counts based on the video (either manually with a real person or using AI). It's mostly contractors that do it because they have the cameras and software and staff. https://tracsistraffic.com/services/traffic-surveys/ is just one example. You do still have manual counts where things are a bit trickier eg I noticed a traffic survey of buses under the bridges at Peckham Rye Station a couple of weeks ago which was being done manually. Could be the video cameras couldn't get a good view, could be the survey was interested in not just number but specific maneuvers into the stops...?

I don't think anyone is under any obligation to post anything on this thread. Saying "x is staying quiet on this one" might just be another way of saying "x has better things to do with their time this week than bicker online".

Brideshead Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1st world (or should that be East Dulwich) > problem? > > Impolite comment in a park? lol Aren't you the guy that chucked a massive tantrum over a number of weeks because you couldn't get a free newspaper and you thought a librarian was rude to you?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm not sure you are so important that someone is > going to search every household on the road you > live, I don't think so either, thankfully, but from the behaviour of some councillors recently and some lunatics harassing Council employees, it seems the bar for being attacked and harassed online is pretty low these days. If you think that someone's opinion is determined by where they live and you want to see everything through that lens - up to you, friend.

jazzer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Press who are publishing these "stories" > surely must know who the "leak" in No. 10 is, they > just need to let the cat out of the bag. You don't burn your sources