Dogkennelhillbilly

You mean the one proposing to ban street parking on certain roads? That one?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Balham Post Office has stopped receiving parcels > from customers because the new road system means > the collection van can't get near it. > Now we have a gorgeous yellow box in the Village > (is there to be a camera??) right up to the > planters, the collection of parcels may be a > problem here too. Ditto delivery of essentials to > the pharmacy. Once the double yellow lines are in > and there is nowhere to park for these essential > services, can someone with a cargo bike do the > deliveries for the PO and pharmacy? The post office van pulls up and double parks to pick up and drop off post at the post office at the same time every day, as it has done ever since the closure was put in. This is not much different from what happened before when they stopped illegally on the corner almost every day as there was never an available parking space in front of the shops. Of course, this could be easily fixed by making 1-2 parking spots in of the shops delivery only.

"The pro-closures lobby seems to have come to a bizarre conclusion that the all the people in cars in Dulwich are just locals driving within a one mile radius on a journey that can be walked or cycled." No-one has said this. "If there were buses that serviced those areas better, or cycle lances the whole way, I know for a fact people would use them." There's no way of building more cycle lanes or improving bus services without restricting the volume of other traffic and the places it can park.

"which goes some way to explain why EDG and Lordship Lane are so much more congested now..." Except there's no data to show this, and just a bunch of mixed anecdotal reports (of which mine is one). It's interesting that you want some things to be believed as fact without data because it suits you, and other things which don't suit you shouldn't be believed without data (and if it exists, you simply disagree with it or call it a lie).

Central government isn't making decisions about which roads to open and close, which schemes to introduce, and where to put double yellow lines in East Dulwich...much as like the idea of a conspiracy between Boris Johnson, the Stalinist class warriors of Southwark Council, and a shadowy cabal of Court Lane lizards - I mean residents - as has previously been asserted by certain increasingly agitated posters here.

1/10 for persistence - be fair.

"Let's also ground this discussion on the fact the council lied..." Why ground the discussion in a lie?

Clutterqueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not really as I would have commented on it sooner. If you go into your profile, do you have the "cyclist" button ticked? you won't get full visibility of all topics in the main forum otherwise and you won't have access to the VIP forum where we set traffic policy for South London.

...which you'd expect from a London Labour MP (who isn't Kate Hoey, tbf). That's the mandate she's been given by the electorate. The government hasn't helped itself by giving Labour a series of free kicks through its ineptitude...some of which Labour even managed to score a goal on. But what does that have to do with the price of fish anyway? The roads are a council (and to lesser degree TfL) issue. Westminster isn't really involved.

", it?s why 2200 people have signed the e-petition on the council?s website" ...because a bunch of cabbies on Twitter who hate Sadiq Khan and speed bumps have signed up to it. They couldn't give a stuff about air pollution or the quality of Dulwich residents' lives.

> Your post makes even less sense than the OP > describing music as 'beat music'. I'd expect that > kind of description from some odd, drunk, clueless > aunty at Christmas when they overhear my techno > music. Beat is for Sonny Bono.

What I like is the prospect of OneDulwich - entirely unqualified in traffic management and environmental monitoring - bickering over pollution measurement methodologies.

I used to commute that way. It's possibly irrational but I don't really like to go through Burgess Park at night alone. In normal times, it's quite easy to bunch up with other cyclists (esp if you're heading south and get caught at the traffic lights by the BMX club).

"the monitoring has been half-hearted at best," How do you get to that conclusion?

"We are nearly 3 months into the DV road closures and nothing is changing " You don't know that. You need data. The data hasn't been published yet.

"already crowded roads" 🤔

"Wow, is that really true?" Probably not. I wouldn't believe anything just because some geezer on a forum said it (including this).

"Cars use roads because that is what they were built for, pavements are for for people." Roads have been around much longer than cars! Most of East Dulwich's roads were built decades before the Model T was even invented. The Plough was a coaching inn. Traffic patterns have changed radically since then, but also in the last ten years. Uber, Amazon and their imitators have radically increased the number of journeys being taken. It hasn't "always been this way so shut up". What we are seeing right now in London is the consequence of trying to move millions of vehicles along streets not designed for the density of population or car ownership, and with too many people focusing on whether they're ENTITLED to drive along a street whenever they want instead of whether they OUGHT to. And that's why we are ending up with hard rules.

Shrieker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you think that is 'really cool', you must have > had a dull life so far. > > Still, sounds like you might not be the type to > object to festivals on the common, which is always > a plus. > > I must ask though, what is 'beat music'? Ha ha ha - when the troll gets trolled!

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It occurred to me last week that many of the > cycling families taking their children to school > won't have time to do it when they have to start > their own work commute again. It will be back to > unwilling nannies and au pairs round in SE21/SE22 > until it gets too wet and cold, and dark. NB this is a theory you've invented entirely in your own head.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, perhaps one or a handful of residents > supported by pro CPZ campaigners from outside the > area. My only point is that the ?interference? of > outsiders charge cuts both ways. Except for the fact that the "charge" was entirely invented by opponents to the LTN in the first place. It's a conspiracy theory!

What high street are you on about? If they're allowed to use the back garden, there's not going to be any trouble from the council because it's going to be a very short conversation.

So will all the stuff about "local residents should decide, not outsiders" be binned now that London tax drivers are bulking out the petition? It was quite a strong OneDulwich talking point before.

Interested to hear how the conspiracy theorists are going to reconcile "LTNs are driven by outsiders" with pushing the petition out to taxi drivers and groups from other areas on Twitter!

CPZs kidnapped Shergar.