Roky Erickson

Virgin Media broadband is an absolute disaster in my part of SE22. It may have the best speeds when it works, but the signal goes down constantly, many times a day. I've just had to terminate my contract after they admitted to me on the phone that the signal had been disconnected for a total of 11 hours in the past week alone. It's been completely unreliable since some works were done last July. They have the most miserable customer service too.... I would avoid them at all costs

I'm in Dulwich Hill and want to vote against the LTNs, so obviously cannot vote Labour. Please can somebody help me, and confirm that the Lib Dems would remove the LTNs ? I'm confused at this point. I would rather vote Lib Dem than Conservative, but having been a lifelong Labour supporter, I could not countenance voting Labour in this election, so anything against them is preferable.

Yes, it's depressing to see Cllr Leeming 'liking' posts on social media which were critical of the protest. It's obviously unnecessary and only stokes and encourages these kind of divisions.

Yes, I live near you and am in the same position. I have various parcels, sent tracked via Royal Mail, in the first week of August, where no delivery has been attempted yet. They've clearly been sitting in the Peckham office for weeks. And, as you say, even the 24hr or 48hr service can take over a week to arrive. I've checked with friends in Norwood, Nunhead, Camberwell etc and none has this problem I've now resorted to having my post sent to work/family & friends if its important or urgent. Which is sad, but the Royal Mail service round here is now almost unusable.

Doesn't look like the long-promised data is going to be forthcoming: 11 years of funding cuts apparently to blame !

Donkey Alley is also right next by the school. Surely they shouldn't have lots of lorries going back-and-forth past Goodrich Primary ?

Why would traffic passing over sleeping policemen cause potential damage to homes ? ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Seems though that 'some' residents are more > worried about the potential damage that traffic > passing over these sleeping policemen will cause > to their homes (& house prices 'natch) than speedy > access for the emergency services. > > LAS must think that all of Dulwich has gone stark > raving mad.

Replacing the speed bumps perhaps ? Some of those are quite worn...

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is also a fact that the school head and teachers do not live near here yet seem to think that they have the right to say what ought and ought not to happen to a part of the neighbourhood that is home to people permanently. Here's another fact -- it's called a 'School Street Programme'. So, of course, the school have the right to say that. However aggrieved you seem to feel about your mysterious monster trucks, surely even you can see that there would be no Programme on which to have a 'say' otherwise ? Where the teachers may live is considerably less relevant than the fact that many hundreds of children are travelling there every single day. So, of course, their needs are going be prioritised over yours. If you find that so egregious, then perhaps you shouldn't have elected to live directly opposite a school, 20m away from a school gate !!! It also goes without saying that, of course, if the road safety situation on Goodrich was even remotely close to being as you describe, the school and council would have acted. If there are really big heavy lorries careering past the school gates regularly, do you think they would have look to implement a 'School Streets Programme' and ignored that ? Why ? How ? Of course not. They looked at the traffic and road safety situation thoroughly, and decided that measures other than the one which would best personally suit you, served the greater good. To suggest that the teachers have some kind of other agenda here is not just offensive, it's insane. And that is that. For everyone's sake, I think let's move on !

Of course no lorries with 8 axles go down this road. It's just propaganda being spread by one man who is selfishly, yet relentlessly, trying to get his own way, and at the expense of 900 school children. You can see the same comments (sometimes doubled-up) on Streetspace, and, most depressingly, I even had Dale Foden from Southwark Council repeating them back in an email to me (before he was quickly corrected), so he's clearly saying the same to them too. I find it pretty abhorrent. The proposed closure was part of the 'School Streets Programme'. In line with other such measures in the borough, its intent was to aid social distancing at the school gates during Covid. It's crucial to understand that there are gates to the school on 3 different roads -- and that, in fact, the main gates to the school are not even on Goodrich Rd. So, after consultation, discussion, and a site visit, it was decided that closing that particular stretch of the road, and permanently, would not achieve the stated aim. And would not make children safer. It's important to note that this was also the comment made on the actual document itself by our local councillor, from the moment it was first proposed. And so, they adopted temporary widening of two other roads instead. To which measure, the feedback has been very positive. 'Nigello' seems confused, and with an astonishing level of selfishness, seems to thinks that the school have overruled the closure. But the closure only ever existed because of the school (I think the clue might be in the name 'School Streets Programme'). The idea that they have somehow gone against the 'community' (in this case, of 1) is just not true, and it's a line he should stop peddling. They looked into a permanent closure of his small stretch of road, and decided alternative measures would better achieve their aim. And that's that. I'm sorry if that decision gets in the way of his preference for a quieter life, but to campaign so tediously against that, and put that self-interest ahead of nearly 1000 children (and their 'temporarily used building') is just wrong. Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't actually believe a lorry with eight axles > has ever driven down Goodrich road. > > A bin lorry has three axles > A tipper usually has two to four axles. > A cement mixer has two to five axles, but the five > axle mixers are for buildings like the Shard, not > a polished concrete floor in East Dulwich. > > Even the biggest articulated lorries on our roads > generally only have 6 axles. > > Sometimes an articulated lorry might have two > trailers to get up to 8 axles but that's pretty > unusual, and I doubt that even happens on the > South Circular very often.

Describing the largest primary school in the borough as 'a temporarily-used building' shows such a bizarre sense of priority that it's hard to take anything you then say seriously. However.... As we know well from this forum, traffic has increased everywhere. And, whilst I'm sure that it would be optimal for you to live in a closed-off street, with no traffic going past your window, that was never the intention of this proposed closure. If you look at the Appendix issued by Southwark Council, the aim is abundantly clear: "to improve the safety of school children and air quality of schools' The school and parents didn't feel that a permanent closure would help achieve this, and so they didn't implement it. It isn't really any more complicated than that. Your suggestion that the council should prioritise the wishes of the 6 houses on that stretch of road, and their preference for a quieter life, rather than the nearly 1000 children who use the school every day, is so appallingly selfish, that it doesn't bear further comment. Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The MP did not agree with waht she was told from > the council - that is a fact, so please do not say > otherwise. She simply quoted a council very > high-up, that's all. She acknowledged that the > situation was not satisfactory, as did this > council bod, who said that further inquiries will > be made into all aspects of road safety. > Please tell me, then, about your self-interest, > for surely that is at least somewhat driving your > antipathy towards the original closing off to > vehicles. Making out that I am acting selfishly > whilst you are not doing the same won't wash, as > won't having a temporarily-used building making > out that it is the be-all and end-all of how > traffic (which runs 24/7/365) should be managed. > This stretch of road is not suitable for heavy > vehicles. The humps are badly maintained and the > road is too narrow so I will continue my > "campaign" to keep eight-axel lorries and their > like away from what is supposed to be a street > that acknowledges the need for safety through its > (now rather old and past its usefulness date) > narrowing ahead of a (hardly ever respected) mini > roundabout. Traffic has increased in both number > and physical weight, as has the attitudes of > drivers, neither of which could be anticipated but > can now, at least in part, be addressed. Onwards!

I know personally of many residents of Upland, Dunstan's, and Goodrich who objected to the closure. Not only the intent, but also the process by which the council proposed implementing it without even informing, let alone consulting, local residents. Many of us, who do indeed live here all year around, wrote to the council and our MP to object, so your claim that this is just the school "getting to dictate what happens to a local community" is completely false. As I understood it, the intent of the closure was to aid social distancing around the school gates, and encourage 'active travel' to school. The council decided that this could be achieved in other ways, without a permanent road closure -- a measure which, as any reader of this forum will know, is a divisive and contentious one. From talking to our local councillor, the road widening measures implemented have been a great success, and been welcome by parents and children alike. And I understand there is talk of a timed closure on Dunstan's to help further with this. Your recurrent campaigning on here (and the Streetspace) for a permanent closure seems to be driven entirely by the fact that you live on that particular stretch of Goodrich Rd. It has nothing to do with children and their safety, and everything to do with your own self-interest. You have complained on this forum about your irritation with the school run, which "accounts for lots of traffic (and choice language)". If you feel like that, then I am slightly bemused as to why you would choose to live opposite a 900+ pupil school in the first place. But to continue to actively campaign to close the road permanently, in order to placate that resentment, when the school itself is saying it doesn't want it for its pupils, parents, and staff -- and the MP and council agree with those objections -- seems pretty abhorrent to me. Any 'right-minded arbiter' will see your objections for what they are, I'm sure. Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have no idea about the other residents, nor do I > know (and think you don't know either) what > "plenty" means here. > The valid and important thing is that the MP > quotes a council leader, no less, when she says > that the school objected to it. No mention was > made of other residents, only the school, which > led me to point out the oddness of a school, which > ought to have safety of its pupils as a top > priority and which has several safety features in > place, including a now-obsolete narrowing of road > through which large lorries using modern routing > technology not anticipated when it was installed, > being the body that seemingly has the council's > ear. > > The Dunstan's Goodrich closure was to have been a > semi-permanent barrier, much like those in Court > Lane and Melbourne Grove, but it was taken away > after the hoo-ha over similar restrictions in > places that are double lane roads (ie. not > narrowed in the name of safety) not as near to the > schools as this one is - ie. right outside it. > > More work is needed but I am confident some kind > of restriction will be put in place. You cannot > plead safety and spend money installing and > maintaining a narrowing of road to then allow > eight-wheeled lorris and other massive vehicles > sent down it to a mini-roundabout. It makes no > sense and I feel confident a right-minded arbiter > will agree.

Plenty of local residents objected to the closure too (...as you well know) Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had a reply from the MP saying that Goodrich > School (well, its head and a few others, I reckon > as it cannot mean all parents and teachers) > objected to closures at Goodrich/Dunstan's on > account of the amount of traffic it already has to > deal with! > Hmm. So, a body that is only there for about 1/3 > of any day and then only during term time gets to > dictate what happens to a local community citing > road traffic figures even though it has no power > to reduce that (whcih is what the council and its > policies can do). Talk about tail wagging the dog. > I shall be pursuing and pointing out the > topsy-turviness of this.

It?s a School Street closure, Monday to Friday during term times, from 3pm - 3.45pm. Closure on Dunstan?s from the school up to Mt Adon.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also, the school told the council it didn?t have > the resources to manage a barrier, which I think > is fair enough. It's one of the largest (if not the largest) primary schools in the borough -- how can they possibly not have the resources ? Especially given every other school nearby seems to manage it. And, in any case, if child safety is the priority, then they ought to be helped to find those resources ! > This bit of Goodrich is different. It was narrowed > by half FOR SAFETY years and years ago. Since then > traffic has grown and the lorries are heavier, > more frequent and more likely to come down not > knowing IT?S HALF WIDTH. How?s that for SAFETY? And where do you expect these heavy lorries to go ? Down the other two sides of the school, where the main entrances lie ? So it's fine to have children endangered, just as long as the traffic isn't going past your front door ?

I'm sorry to hear that, but all of us here presumably live on residential streets vulnerable to GPS-directed traffic. That's a separate issue and nothing to do with School Streets. In that respect, there is absolutely no reason for a permanent closure of the Goodrich/Dunstan's junction. In line with every other School Street in the surrounding area, it could just be timed, around the morning and afternoon times when the school is actually open, operative, and children are travelling. There's no justification for it being shut off completely. Especially as the 2 main entrances to the school aren't even on that road (hence the road-widening).... Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Then you know how it is to experience congestion > and house shaking due to narrowing of a road for > safety. This narrowed section is and never has > been suitable for the Waze and GPS-led huge > lorries.

Further signs of the tide turning in today's Telegraph: Transport Secretary admits new cycle lanes are leaving roads 'backed up' with traffic Grant Shapps warns he is 'not prepared to tolerate' badly designed closures and cycle lanes, imposing 'sweeping changes' to communities The Transport Secretary has admitted too many cycle lanes are being left ?unused? with traffic ?backed up? as a result of his green transport revolution, The Telegraph can reveal. In a strongly worded letter sent to councils, Grant Shapps has warned he is ?not prepared to tolerate? badly designed road closures and new cycle lanes which are imposing ?sweeping changes? to entire communities. And in a move that will infuriate cycling and green campaigners, he has declared the Government is not anti-car, explaining: ?No one should be in doubt about our support for motorists.? Mr Shapps announced a ?250 million Emergency Active Travel Fund in May intended to promote walking and cycling as the country emerged from lockdown. Councils were invited to apply for the cash by drawing up projects intended to entice people away from their cars and take more active forms of travel. However, critics have complained that badly designed road closures and new cycle lanes have in fact increased traffic and pollution on main roads, as well as reduced the number of people visiting high streets at a time when small businesses are desperate to recover from lockdown. Private residents have even launched legal action, claiming that because the schemes were introduced under emergency Covid powers, disability groups, local residents and businesses were not consulted, and consequently, normal local democratic procedures have been ignored. Meanwhile, so-called ?Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?, where bollards and planters close off residential streets to traffic, have resulted in delays to 999 emergency response times as police, paramedics and fire crews encounter newly shut roads. The letter, sent on Friday to local authority transport bosses and local highways authorities and seen by The Telegraph, warns how a ?notable number of councils used their funding poorly and were simply out of step with the needs of the local communities.? Mr Shapps continues: ?I saw or heard from the public and parliamentary colleagues about far too many instances where temporary cycles lanes were unused due to their location and design, while their creation left motor traffic backed up alongside them; of wide pavements causing unnecessary congestion in town centres; and other issues that many have, rightly, reacted angrily to.? He explains how he had ordered his staff to ?engage? with those councils where he had ?concerns?, because badly thought out road closures and cycle lanes had been introduced. ?Since then, numerous schemes have been scaled back and revised,? he wrote. ?I am pleased with this, but the work will continue where local residents continue to have concerns.? He warns the second round of funding in the scheme could see some town halls receiving ?considerably less? money if they fail to ?embrace good design? or ?consult their local communities?. He adds: ?We all want to see the benefits that active travel brings to be realised, but poorly implemented schemes will make no friends for the policy or more broadly for active travel? ?The crucial test is, does it deliver for the community it serves, and has it been done with their consultation. ?Schemes must balance the needs of cyclists and pedestrians with the needs of other road users, including motorists and local businesses. ?Only authorities which have passed these key tests will receive the funding they have asked for. ?I want to be absolutely clear: we are not prepared to tolerate hastily introduced schemes which will create sweeping changes to communities without consultation, and ones where the benefits to cycling and walking do not outweigh the dis-benefits for other road users.? The letter comes after thousands of people have held demonstrations and signed petitions forcing some town hall bosses into a series of humiliating U-turns after they introduced schemes with little or no public consultation. Last week, the Telegraph revealed how some councils were making hundreds of thousands of pounds in fines from motorists driving on newly closed roads. Projects in some parts of London have proven so divisive that planters have been daubed with graffiti and bollards ripped from the concrete. In one West London borough, opposition has been so vehement that police have had to attend to support council workers as they installed planters and bollards to close roads. So far, a total of ?42,102,454 has been secured by 111 councils in England, including many London boroughs where opposition has been most vocal.

> School traffic is heavy though many pupils do walk > and a few cycle. This is why a permanent closure of that small section of Goodrich makes no sense. It will simply divert and concentrate the 'heavy traffic' which you mention onto Upland and Dunstan's, which is where the main gates to the school actually are. And the streets which most children use to get to school. I don't understand why you would want to direct more cars up and down the very same roads on which you are trying to encourage more children to 'actively travel'. The scheme makes no sense.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8713579/Fury-FIRE-ENGINE-gets-stuck-new-cycle-lane-Covid-friendly-traffic-measures.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/05/grant-shapps-tells-councils-stop-abusing-250m-fund-meant-green/ This is brilliant news. I?m sure the Dulwich changes are very eminent candidates for this sort of reversal, given the obvious problems caused

I?m very sorry to hear ! Any idea how they managed to do it ?

They're 'descoping' it to the extent that it's now a permanent closure at one end of the road, rather than both. But it's still going ahead as a permanent closure: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90208/APPENDIX%2012%20GOODRICH%20ROAD.pdf I don't know whether the teachers have been consulted, but local residents haven't even been informed, let alone asked. It all seems very odd given that the main entrances to the primary school aren't actually on this road. So it can only end up driving more traffic up and down the roads on which they're trying to encourage active travel and distance. And funnily enough those were the Dulwich Hill Ward councillor's own comments on the original proposal, but they've been totally ignored. All quite strange !

The closure of Goodrich Road, at the corner of Dunstans Road, has reappeared in 'Batch 2' of the council's 'Post-Lockdown Highway Schemes'. Unlike the other 'School Streets' schemes in Dulwich, this is a permanent closure, on account of the school 'not having the resources' to be able to manage a timed-closure. Which does beggar belief given that it's one of the largest Primary schools in the borough.... Since it was first proposed back in May, there has been no attempt by the Council to inform, let alone consult the local residents who live on these streets, during the many days and weeks outside of school hours. The main gates of the primary school are on Dunstans Rd & Upland Rd, so it also makes little sense to enforce this closure, and drive more cars up & down the very roads on which the Council are trying to encourage more walking, cycling, and distancing. I've been told repeatedly by the Council that they were intending to make residents aware, but this has never happened. It all seems to be such a strange and heavy-handed decision, I can't help but wonder if there is some kind of other agenda at play.....?

Dear Resident I am writing to you following the recent contact you made relating to our proposed measures on Goodrich Road between Dunstans Road & Upland Road. Following further discussions, we have decided to de-scope the proposed scheme in order to ensure access is maintained at all times to residents. We did approach the school about a potential timed closure operated at one or both of the junctions, however they felt it would not address the main issues they?d raised and that they did not have the necessary resources in order to be able to operate the barriers in the morning and afternoon. As a result, we have proposed to close the junction of Goodrich Road and Dunstans Road which should tackle the issue of HGV?s using the narrow road as a cut through, whilst also maintaining access for residents. We have also included the plans to temporarily widen the footways around the main gates in order to facilitate social distancing and encourage active travel. This is part of a borough wide approach and we are currently looking at implementing these measures at around 12 schools. I must stress that these amended proposals have not yet been signed of by the cabinet member, and we await feedback from yourselves, the school and ward councillors before proceeding. If we are to proceed then these measures will be implemented as part of an Experimental Traffic Management Order which usually has a duration of 12-18 months. As part of an ETMO the consultation period runs concurrently with the duration of the order, as opposed to a regular permanent TMO where there is 21 days statutory consultation prior to the Order being made. I hope this information helps, if you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind Regards George Mellish Principal Engineer (Acting) Transport Projects Highways Environment & Leisure Southwark Council 3rd Floor, Hub 2 160 Tooley Street PO Box 64529 London SE1P 5LX 07736121924

Given there were 3 assailants here, I?d say that advocating any sort of ?fighting back? is pretty terrible advice. SpringTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KK if your assessment is good and you hit the > mugger first (and it's almost always best to get > your own shot in first) you surprise and > potentially incapacitate the mugger which gives > you time to move away. > > If there are more than one obviously better to run > first if you can. But if you have made the first > move and been able to leave quickly then you can > immediately report the incident to the police. The > police can assess the stories of muggers and > non-muggers with the right balance. There's > nothing wrong with defending yourself.