Bic Basher

It's getting to the point where if there's someone hanging around an outdoor cashpoint that you simply don't use it. Now I don't want a cashless society, but it's these continuous ATM scams that will give momentum towards having one.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In real terms (when you consider the overall > reduction in traffic is anywhere from 10% - 15%) > traffic has actually increased significantly on > EDG (and most other roads monitored during the LTN > monitoring). But this is what LTNs do - they push > more traffic down fewer roads. I've been tagged in a LTN convo for the last couple of days featuring numerous pro and anti LTN activists, some of which I wouldn't be surprised are the same individuals on here and the one theme that keeps coming up which is the same as here is that when you ask the pro LTN supporters for data, they don't come up with any and just say it's down to "academic data" Yet I see from my window every day the increase in traffic and the fact that it gets so bad at times that I can smell the fumes if I walk along LL especially between the library and The Grove during the rush hour.

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However - Respect my sex if you want my X. Which > basically knocks out Labour, the Lib Dems and the > Greens. Transphobia isn't going to be a big election winner in this area.

Ampersand Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, I think I?ll be voting. I?m in Dulwich Wood > ward and despite a great deal of ambivalence about > the Labour Party and politics generally, I have > always had very prompt responses to issues i have > raised with Andy Simmonds. As I have a pair of > fully functioning legs and couldn?t afford to run > a car even if I wanted to, the whole LTN thing is > pretty much irrelevant to people like me. I can't complain about the majority of responses I've received from Cllr Simmonds over the years and has been pro-active on non-LTN issues, but he towed the party line on LTNs and wasn't very convincing with the use of the data he shared with me on the traffic issues on LL within Dulwich Wood ward. I'm sure Labour will win Dulwich Wood as only a tiny part of the ward is affected by the LTN (just happens to be the bit I live in!) but I will be voting Lib Dems.

It's cheaper in the long run to install the temporary loos than to get a team of specialist cleaners to clean up human waste left on the common. It'll ensure when they leave, the common will still be safe to use. I believe when they camped on Blackheath the protesters were respectful of their surroundings and local residents.

I don't know if they still do it, but Monday in term-time was the cheapest day for tickets.

I'm not bothered about XR camping on the common for a couple of weeks.

To add to the Townley Road suggestion of making it one way, Court Lane could also be made one way from the Village to LL with two way access for emergency services vehicles. That way the traffic is circulating using those two LTN roads which would take some pressure off Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove and Dulwich Common/College Road. The other issue is The Grove junction, which is managed by TfL rather than Southwark Council which desperately needs remodelling and was planned to be done before Covid. With TfL still being drip fed funding by the government, they can't plan for the work to commence which would help to relieve residents with live between LL and Dulwich Common such as those on the Lordship Lane Estate and Dukes Court from being pinched by excess traffic caused by the current LTN.

The issue is that most ED bus routes go into central London and they were always down for being cut anyway with resources being put into improving outer London routes. But there is a major issue of the Tory government drip feeding TfL money as punishment for Londoners voting for a Labour Mayor for a second term. If it wasn't for Covid, TfL would still be above water financially. ED is unique I think in Inner London terms where it's pretty close to the centre, but has poor bus and rail transport links unless you live near to Forest Hill or Honor Oak Park stations.

The problem with discussing the LTNs is that there is a political element to the supposed road calming scheme, so unless you keep it to the practicality of the how the scheme is working or not, then what else is there to discuss?

There are rumours that TfL are also planning to cut the 185 to every 10 minutes as part of another round of cuts.

Route 12 is now running every 12 minutes daily on Monday to Sunday with overnight buses continuing every 30 mins on Mon-Fri morning and every 20 mins every Sat-Sun. This is a significant cut to the service which at one point operated every 3-4 mins and was cut last year to every 8 minutes.

I'd like to know what frivolous car use actually is? People use them locally to take people to GP/hospital appointments, work and to carry the weekly shop in. With petrol prices being at their highest, it'd disingenuous to say that car drivers are basically using them for very short journeys or to play around with like toys. What this is all about is that the pro-cycling movement want to see all cars somehow abolished even for those who really need to use a car to get around in. Of course we should be encouraging cycling, walking and using public transport, but cars as they evolve to being fully EV will still be around. Even if we went 100% EV, I suspect the cycling/green lobbyists would still go for LTNs because it's their ideology to remove cars and vans regardless if they become greener.

kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Though it should be noted the LDs had a chance at > scrutiny, and "calling in" the decision on the > Dulwich streetspace scheme, and fumbled it. > > kissthisguy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Good point. Whoever wins, the prize for > residents > > and businesses is accountability and proper > > scrutiny. > > > > > > CPR Dave Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Actually, some new councillors from any > > different > > > party would be able to have an impact on the > > LTNs > > > immediately because they would have access to > > > every bit of information that has been > > collected > > > and be able to open the kimono on what has > been > > > going on. > > > > > > That might rock the boat quite considerably. > > > > > > (It might not too but I, for one, and no > doubt > > > many others, have lost all confidence in the > > > labour councillors and the employees of > > southwark > > > council responsible for our LTNs). Hold on, didn't the Lib Dems attempt to do that and were blocked by the current Labour administration?

Dodds is "soft left" rather than being a Corbynite, so there will be some who'll think she's sold out, but it's good to see at least one member of Labour who has taken a pragmatic look at the issues surrounding LTNs.

Once again there are people on here who think anything that is against Labour/Southwark policy is a "Tory" It's typical hard-left assumptions against people who have been practical in their reasoning against a policy that benefits the few rather than the many. The fact we have environmentalists accepting a Tory policy because it suits their agenda speaks volumes.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just read that Uber has been granted a new two and > a half years licence to operate in London. > > Thinking about how to safely share streets, it has > been muted that ride hailing apps like Uber have > contributed to reduced bus usage and more journeys > being made by car. > > Wouldn't it have been an ideal opportunity to add > a clause into the high level Uber licence limiting > the number of individual private hire licences > associated with them and also substantially > reducing the overall number of private hire > licences across London as a whole? > > Whilst it's a bigger issue than Dulwich or > Southwark, it could be something that our > councillors should be championing. There are other factors to why bus usage is down. The pandemic is an obvious one, but bus passenger usage has been creeping up on weekdays and is back to near-normal at weekends when they're used mainly for leisure use. The reduction of the road speed to 20mph has been another factor in why bus travel has declined, it's led to buses either crawling between bus stops, stuck in traffic due to extra traffic caused by the LTNs on boundary roads or being held at bus stops, which doesn't make it a viable option outside of local trips or if you're really poor and can't afford to use railway services. I agree that the private hire vehicles are an issue, but they earn TfL revenue which is something they don't have a lot of at the moment. You'll find also that the PHV industry has been pro-active in ensuring vehicles are either hybrid or EV.

kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tbh James Barber was quite useful. Not necessarily > because he was a LD of course. The party > nationally seems in a rut. > > Waseley Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Is there any point of the Lib Dems? A serious > > question. Considering their party won Tory safe seats in North Shropshire and Chesham and Amersham in two by-elections, I don't think they're in a rut. The real question is can they penetrate what has become a Labour fiefdom in Dulwich again?

I wouldn't expect anything from the pro-LTN groups either who seem to think we live in a car-free paradise where women and young children can ride safely on the Court Lane/Calton Avenue junction without any of the negatives of the scheme.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I received a glossy circular from the LibDems > yesterday. > No mention of rolling back the LTNs in there. > > It does say they would listen to people more, but > for any anti-LTN voter looking to them for a > reversal, they are a long way off from committing > to that. Both Labour and the Lib Dems have currently sent out their borough wide manifestos, so you're not going to get full commitments on a hyperlocal level as they try and attract voters on generic policies. (The Lib Dems supported LTN schemes in north Southwark, but candidates in Village Ward are against them). From what I've read of the Labour manifesto, they don't directly mention LTNs either but they seem to be attempting to keep their core voters happy in the centre of the borough.

oimissus continues to post GC propaganda which I see all the time from their activists. There might be a tiny group of trans people who agree with her and the GC clique, but most trans people simply want the right to be treated the same as cis people whether it's going to the toilet or being accepted legally as the gender they consider themselves to be.

They've added some on the Lordship Lane Estate.

oimissus like all Gender Critical people use various offensive transphobic comments which for some reason seem to be socially acceptable in some circles. Referring to Trans Women as "men" is highly offensive. It's no different to referring to a homosexual man using another slur. We need to get to a point where trans people and non-binary people can compete in sport and nobody cares what gender they were born in. It should be the same for other situations where the GC rabble are for some reason scared of trans women in changing rooms and loos. The fact EDF and Mumsnet have become havens for transphobia doesn't help either.

Closer to home I'd recommend Oxleas Woods, which is around a 30 min drive from here or Keston Ponds which is south of Bromley.

Moovart Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think Barclays is now the only bank in ED. It is and the LL branch represents all of those people who can't take advantage of internet banking use it. The Post Office is good for basic banking, but you can't exactly pop in there and ask to open an account or some of the other things that require staff assistance.