TheCropolite

A lot of people just seem to throw them on to the pavement and let nature take its course....

Do the people who live here really think it?s ok for their children to be shouting and screaming outside at half 11 on a Thursday?? Are they clueless to the fact people have to get up for work or are they just selfish and disrespectful? If anyone knows them please ask.

uki1988 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The technology used by 5G Masts is different to > those used in the past and there is not enough > science to prove either side and for this reason > it has been banned on most countries. I don't feel > like being the test rat for this technology until > they have substantial long term proof that it does > not have adverse effects in our health. Below is > an excerpt from one of the studies that have been > done in the US regarding the effects of these > masts. > The general consensus of EXPERTS (you know those people that have spent their entire lives studying something) is that 5G technology poses no more risk to your health than a lightbulb does. This isn?t something that was just conjured up out of nowhere overnight it?s been around for decades but now it is being harnessed in a useful way. Seeing as you feel strongly about this I recommend you watch this video to get an accurate perspective on what 5G is:

If you think this is a health issue you should probably remove all of the lightbulbs in your house as well.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another thread? Really? I was thinking the same thing. At this point the admin should just make an entirely separate section for cars and traffic related discussions.....

> > And in a meantime punish everyone who happens to > live on the road with extra traffic, more > pollution and even more noise? This is nothing > short of discrimination. Well that went straight over your head didn?t it, why even bother. I won?t.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > people do drive when they could easily walk. > > it's just a fact. > > We need to actively work to get people to change > their habits and get out of their cars and walk/ > cycle/ public transport/ essential journeys. > > It's really not a right that needs protecting as > much a people think. 100% agree.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCropolite Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Can people just stop driving their cars for > > absolutely no bloody reason so we can all stop > > arguing on here? There?s about 50 threads of > the > > same old twoddle being blurted out by the same > old > > people. > > Edit: too much traffic=too many cars. Simply as > > that. > > How absolutely arrogant and inflammatory is that > statement? > > It's akin to "can everyone stop cycling and > walking so cars can rule the roads". > > The reason there are so many discussions is > because it has really divided opinion so needs to > be discussed to come to a consensus. I think you misinterpreted what I said, maybe try reading it again, slowly. Edit: FYI people don?t walk on roads. P.S. if you read it carefully you?ll notice I said people driving *for no reason* I?m not calling for *everyone* to stop driving.

Can people just stop driving their cars for absolutely no bloody reason so we can all stop arguing on here? There?s about 50 threads of the same old twoddle being blurted out by the same old people. Edit: too much traffic=too many cars. Simply as that.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, but in the here and now, is it your position > that those with genuine urgent needs, as well as > requiring access to emergency services should, > effectively, be sacrificed in the interests of a > long-term agenda to reduce car usage and > ownership? Not forgetting that the overriding > rationale of that agenda is to reduce pollution to > produce a healthier environment? Do you have any data to show the emergency service response times are affected by this? I can guarantee you the only thing disrupting their response times on the road and the masses of people driving for absolutely no good reason.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You get a better response to change when you have > buy-in from those affected. Prove your case, > explain what you're doing and facilitate recourse. > Don't hide. > > Yes and no. People fear change and on anything > contentious like traffic management, the general > response is one of resistance and resentment. > Consultation happens, vocal resistance is met, > proposal gets watered down, re-submitted, vocal > resistance is met and so on. Eventually, what > happens is so light-touch that it only succeeds in > annoying people and not delivering any of the > originally promised benefits. > > A far better (and cheaper) way of doing things is > to just tell people what you're doing and why, > implement the changes, consult as you go and you > get to actually SEE the changes from the start > (disruption, traffic jams) right through to the > final result (acceptance, lowered traffic etc) > without relying on traffic models. The advantages > are that it's temporary and cheap. If it doesn't > work, you don't need to call in construction crews > and dig the entire road up again, you just move a > few planters. If it sort of works in some areas > but not others, you can tweak it reasonably > easily. > > You'll still get resistance - you always will no > matter how many consultations you carry out - but > this is quicker and cheaper. Eventually, by a mix > of ongoing consultation, traffic / pollution > monitoring, traffic modelling and actual physical > data of what is happening right there on the roads > gives you a far better picture of what works and > why than just trying to rebuild one junction or > block off one road. Honestly, this should be the > standard method of doing this, not the constant > back-and-forth of proposal -> consultation -> > counter proposal -> further consultation... > > Long term, it's far less disruptive and far > cheaper and gives better modelling info. Spot on, very well said.

Well I?m glad there are others who think closing roads is a strategy worth trying to reduce car usage. I was loosing the will to live...

Well I give up, it seems like we?re all screwed, apparently no one is going to wake up and pay attention until this bites them very hard in the arse.

Exactly, 24% less cars on the road is a very good step in the right direction, heck 11% less cars is better than nothing!

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCropolite Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > tiddles Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Rockets - spot on > > > > > > You do realise this is what happens when you > close > > roads/lanes? There is an initial period where > > congestion increases before it decreases. > Google > > it. > > > 11% overall...Google it.....oh you don't need to > it was in the links you sent earlier....in fact, > if you had bothered to read the document links you > sent you will see that in Waltham Forest there was > a significant net increase in traffic on the roads > not closed and this did not go down. > > Can the other roads in East Dulwich accommodate > the remaining 89% of traffic? Dulwich Village has > 7,000 car journeys per day through the Calton > junction (the council's own numbers) - let's be > very generous and say 1,000 of those journeys are > then made by other means - are you sure the other > roads that are not closed can accommodate another > 6,000 car movements per day? > > And that is just one junction. Then throw in the > other changes going in on Melbourne Grove, Townley > etc and you have a huge amount of traffic being > forcibly funnelled down roads like Lordship Lane > and East Dulwich Grove. > > Do you see the problem a lot of us are concerned > about - this isn't sovling a problem it's creating > a much bigger one? It's classic traffic > evaporation, it condenses and falls somewhere > else. Of those 6000 car movements how many are necessary? How many are over 1-2km? How many are transporting more than one person? People need to stop driving their cars like it?s their god given right, it?s really not that complicated. Check the data from that TFL link, it?s ridiculous. P.S. this 11% number you keep giving is just one example there are plenty of others where it is significantly more than this.