DulwichCentral

WOW!!! Such a great result - good to see the majority support low traffic measures. Unless people have suggestions on how to further reduce car journeys and increase sustainable travel I guess this thread is pretty pointless now?

Thanks for the usual sound and sensible contribution Ex. Watch how it will be ignored by the conspiracy theorists.

Ohhh! So by 'depositioning' you mean anyone that doesn't agree with you as Self Appointed Adjudicator? Yes in that case very happy to be Depositioner in Chief :)

@DuncanW I can't find Rockets' definition of deposition either. - There were a maxiumum of 14 people pictured at the Age Speaks demo - Rockets are you seriously suggesting that if there were more than that they wouldn't have done a nice big group shot? Or maybe someone depositioned the photographer LOL People on this forum are free to point out that in some instances people complain about the LTNs as inconvenient. How is that creating a distraction or a falsehood - other than because it's against Rockets' 'depositioning' rule? Equally, someone is free to point out it was dangerous to exit Dulwich Village, a main road, especially cycling with children, when the exit wasn't clear due to the previous Age Speaks demo. The exit was shown to be blocked in plenty of photos posted at the demo - so (see above) - why on earth would Age Speaks not photograph absolutely everyone in a group shot at Tooley Street? Have they suddenly become less boasty? Rockets please explain 'depositioning' more clearly so that we can follow your rules more accurately :) BTW Not heard much about One Dulwich lately - have they morphed into this smaller group of 14 people?

Rockets wrote: You can try to deposition all you like on semantics but people went to the Town Hall to protest just like a lot more people from that Age Speaks group protested in Dulwich Square over the summer (so many in fact that someone on here couldn't ride their bike through the junction and screamed blue murder about it! winking smiley) and then even more people protested at the Square this autumn (again which riled some people about the alleged blocking of the cycle lane which was never actually blocked). I know it riles you that people oppose these measures but good on them for doing something rather than sitting back and accepting the status quo and folding (as the council and most pro-LTN lobbyists would have hoped would have happened by now). ------------------------------------ There you go again Rockets - making things up :)) nobody 'screamed blue murder' about not being able to ride their bike through the square. They said they were turning off the main road with children cycling and could not get off the main road because people were blocking access to the square. It was dangerous. Anyway glad to see you're finally calling it the Square :)

Back streets that filled up with cars.

Even if all new cars were electric now it would still take 15-20 years to replace the world's fossil fuel fleet. All vehicles even electric and hydrogen - produce non-exhaust emmissions (particles from brake, tyre and road surface wear known as Particulate Matter - PM2.5 or PM10) These can enter all major organs of the body - not just the lungs, heart and brain but also the placenta, affecting the life chances of unborn children. Electric vehicles still cause congestion and road danger, they do nothing to encourage space or transport equity and they compound the inactivity crisis and social isolation in our communities. So no - the answer isn't just newer cars - but fewer cars. (credit: www.wearepossible.org)

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By the way DC - continual posts about how I don't > care about young children and their lungs isn't > really adding to the thread. > > I spent a long time working in a paediatric > cardiorespiratory unit and I'm content with my > career dedicating myself to the health and > wellbeing of others, including very difficult > times with end of life care for some very young > people. > > I suggest that this avenue isn't terribly helpful, > as I am sure we all want the same thing in this > area - cleaner, less polluted roads, fewer cars > and cleaner air for residents. I do disagree with > you about how the traffic on Calton and Court was, > it is just that a disagreement and I do understand > that once given a better environment for your > road, it would be very difficult to not support > keeping it - as I say, if I was in your position I > might very well want to keep an LTN. > > The problem is it comes at a cost to others and > this has been admitted by some LTN advocates - > they have just said that more traffic should go > onto roads like ED Grove and Croxted. I may > disagree with this, but I do admire their honesty. What makes you think Calton avenue is my road? It's not. Whilst your career is clearly admirable and I absolutely respect what you do - it actually makes it harder for me to understand why as a medic you are / were happy for 1000s of schoolchidren to walk through gridlocked, polluted and dangerous streets up until the changes had an impact on your road. An impact the data is saying only affects a small section of EDG and more data needs to be gathered. You say that if further data shows EDG has returned to it's original state then you'll be happy. Personally I'd like to see more done there anyway. i.e. a protected cycle lane to link up Lordship Lane, Dulwich, Half Moon Lane and Brixton LTN. The people who genuinely want a reduction in traffic don't see this as exclusively either 'us' or 'them' who gets it. They see it as an ongoing process. There may be people as you say who just think well I'm OK now so I don't care what's going on down the road. That's a shame if that's the case.

ah rockets - how did I know you would join in with your own particular yarns. I'm sure Heartblock is perfectly capable of responding with their own. The only 'Self Interest groups' I saw speaking at the OHS meetings were people from Dovercourt AKA One Dulwich HQ - who's sole concern was that the gridlock from elsewhere would start coming down their road. Hence the formation of One Dulwich - based entirely on NIMBYism. Not sure how you arrived at me believing the council's data is BS. I don't. I think more monitoring needs to be done because traffic has been erratic over the last year. However - I am more inclined to believe traffic count strips in the road than the deluded 'views' of people who deny there was ever a problem in the first place. Let's see what ongoing data on EDG comes up with shall we? If things are improving I hope you don't cry 'data data hang on no not that data' again. PS you have no idea where my son has to walk now.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Knowing some of the vocal residents that have been > asking for gated roads pre-LTN and then those same > residents roads being chosen for those LTNs rather > than school roads seems to me not fictitious or > baloney, but that's just my opinion and others may > of course disagree. So you are still trying to spin the yarn that the only reason those roads got measures was because residents asked for them. Nothing to do with the dangerous gridlock that existed there for years. It's a shame you don't care about the lungs of the children who had to walk through that every day - for years. Would the same accusation be thrown at Croxted Road residents if improvements are made there? Anyway thought for the day which seems relevant here: Brandolini's Law - also known as the bulls**t asymmetry principle, is an internet adage that emphasizes the difficulty of debunking false, facetious or otherwise misleading information: 'The ammount of energy needed to refute bulls**t is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it'. PS Let's see what the on-going monitoring says for EDG.

People including myself have outlined what *more* means repeatedly here - scroll back and see - other measures as well as LTNs. You can either support the council doing more - or you can spend your time and energy demanding what has been done is removed and people who now have safe routes will lose them. That's your democratic choice. But in the meantime please drop the fictitious 'council did it for their posh mates' baloney because it's not constructive.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just to remind people - NOx is toxic, measured on > Croxted Rd on Friday at 5pm - 66.49ppm. The > increase in traffic on Croxted is a direct result > of LTNs in the Village - as Margy has indicated. > Why is NOx at this level a problem? > > NOx has direct effects on human health. > > It can cause breathing problems, headaches, > chronically reduced lung function, eye irritation, > loss of appetite and corroded teeth. > > In Britain alone, known NO2 emissions have been > estimated to kill 23,500 people every year, > according to aerosol science professor Ian Colbeck > and have been officially implicated and recorded > as an official cause of death due to a peak in > pollution for one child in South London. > > So, although I am sure many people are very happy > about their gated, quiet roads, maybe, just maybe > they should spare a little thought for the > corresponding implications for their neighbours. Agree that improvements are needed on Croxted Road. Shame you cannot accept that this was the situation for 1000's of schoolchildren passing through the roads leading to Dulwich Village. Anyone who supports what has been done - supports *more*. That's the difference.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your a) and b) are meaningless and therefore not > disputed. (Except for the word ?even?. In answer > to c) Your blocked roads are clear precisely > because other local roads are not. Alice my response was to your question on the previous page (just in case that wasn't obvious) which was:'If the Entire Neighbourhood saw this [the gridlock] how come 70% are against blocking roads?' So my answer does make sense, but just to clarify: a) the **entire** neighbourhood are not against the filters because (@Rockets) 68% of people who responded to the survey is not the **entire** neighbourhood - nor was the survey the **entire** consultation process - I'll come back to this. b) not all those who opted to remove the measures live in the area - @Alice the word 'even' refers to the fact that some of those who responded the survey - see a) - don't live in the area so it is therefore **even** less likely to be the **entire** neighbourhood who are against the measures as you suggest. c) I assume some people don't care that there was dangerous gridlock because they choose to deny it existed. @heartblock has said there was no gridlock on Calton Avenue - which is blatantly untrue. To deny that reality is equivalent to not caring that it existed. Importantly - to return to my original point - pretending this reality didn't exist whilst simultaneously inventing an alternative fictitious 'reality' i.e. the council put in the filters for their wealthy mates - is not only misleading and divisive it also means (@Rockets) that if @Heartblock is prepared to deny reality then how can @Heartblock's 'reality' be believed as to what is happening on EDG? The data shows that traffic has risen on a relatively small section of EDG and has fallen on the rest of EDG. Having little faith in @heartblock's perception of reality I am more likely to believe the council's data on EDG than @heartblocks perception of gridlocked traffic which is distorted by an unrealistic obsession with class. And finally @Rockets the views expressed in the survey you refer to are just that; 'views' or 'perceptions'. I hope the above illustrates why views or perceptions and their subjectivity are not *entirely* reliable as a deciding factor in a consultation.

a) the entire neighbourhood are not against the filters b) not all those who opted to remove the measures even live in the area c) some people don't care that this was the reality previously because they choose see this as a 'us' or 'them' dog eat dog imaginary class war when instead of being divisive they could support what the council have done and push for more.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Calton Avenue and Court Lane gridlocked - no I > don't think so. Heartblock I have video of my youngest son walking alongside gridlock the entire length of Calton Avenue on his way to the village infants - he was 6 - I videoed it because it had already been going on for a while and was steadily getting worse. He is now a teenager. These levels of gridlock - hours am and pm - continued up until Lockdown - so that's about 6 years of worsening gridlock with enraged drivers frequently speeding along the wrong side of the road to get past it and pulling out at Townley road on the wrong side of the road. I have seen video of that and witnessed it myself. A serious accident waiting to happen. The village junction was also gridlocked in all directions - from Calton, Court lane and Dulwich Village. Again there is plenty of footage online to show this, an entire neighbourhood witnessed it and council data to backs it up. Denying this ever happened throws into doubt anything you might claim is happening now. And it had F all to do with an imaginary class war.