Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Spartacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mr chicken

> Your attempt to belittle my comments has shown

> your ignorance concerning others needs and

> mobility challenges which doesn't put you in a

> good light morally.


Your obvious misrepresentation of my arguments when I simply don't agree with you puts you in a substantially less good light. Since you're engaging in little more than "whataboutism" while inventing stances for me, I can play the same game, viz:


"What about the 4000 people who die in London every year due to air pollution? The only way to save them is to drastically reduce the number of cars but you don't appear to be concerned with them. Morally speaking that doesn't put you in a good light."


It's neither fun nor productive to play such a game, so how about we stop, eh?

I am particularly concerned by the reduction of public transport access to Rye Lane and the key railway station.


The gridlock caused by the road closures are a very serious cause for concern.


Also not help by children using the new car free area as a playground - there are still bikes using this as a highway so only a matter of time before there is some sort of collision.

tiddles Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Also not help by children using the new car free

> area as a playground - there are still bikes using

> this as a highway so only a matter of time before

> there is some sort of collision.


Number of pedestrians killed by cyclists in 2017: 3

Number of pedestrians killed by cars: 470


I know which one I'll be losing sleep over

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Ask cars to stop driving through a few

> residential

> > streets and people lose their sh*t.

>

>

> But are they? Aren't they just saying that these

> particular closures are causing huge issues

> elsewhere and not dealing with the issue they were

> designed to...infact they are making things

> worse.



Well not everyone, but certainly when people are saying that they're going to leave the area and others are vandalising the planters - it seems like a fairly hysterical / disproportionate response imo.

Rockets Wrote:

> Aren't they just saying that these

> particular closures are causing huge issues

> elsewhere and not dealing with the issue they were

> designed to...infact they are making things

> worse.


How would the proposal from 'One Dulwich' for timed restrictions be better? Presumably the timed restrictions would include the morning and evening rush hours? This implies that the issue is a very brief diversion at quiet times? Is that what people are concerned about?

The timed restrictions by One Dulwich are a red herring in my opinion. If a small diversion at times when the roads are quiet is really their issue, I would be surprised.


When 'One Dulwich' say that they support the aims of the scheme (which are ultimately to reduce the number of car journeys)... well, the only way to achieve this is to make driving less appealing. Which means less convenient. In reality, this is what many of their supporters are against.


I wish they would be more straight forward, because then we could have an honest conversation about convenience / benefits versus the inconvenience / costs of non essential car journeys.

Rahrah why don't you getting the honesty ball rolling tell us about how your car journey you boasted about the other day was essential?


"> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I drove from townley/ EDH up through the

> > village

> > > to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5

> > minute

> > > diversion at most."

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rahrah why don't you getting the honesty ball

> rolling tell us about how your car journey you

> boasted about the other day was essential?

>

> "> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > I drove from townley/ EDH up through the

> > > village

> > > > to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5

> > > minute

> > > > diversion at most."


I didn't say it was essential, or that only essential journeys are legimate. It would have been very difficult to do via public transport however, probably not impossible. Again, suggesting that we need to try and disincentivise car journeys (especially those which can be easily undertaken by alternative modes of travel, which one might characterise as non-essential), is not calling for a ban on car journeys. The idea that you are either 'pro-car' or 'anti-car' is an example of extremely binary thinking.


Also, I wasn't 'boasting' about my car journey. I was pointing out that the diversion that was necessary in order to undertake it (even at rush hour) was fairly minimal.


Your post just shows that you are not interested in actually debating the issues, but rather trying (poorly) to 'score points'.

Ah, that was the local kids, bored. They probably had no idea that the grown ups are engaging in a worthy debate about this.


thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is a great look, One Dulwich:

> https://twitter.com/simonstill/status/128514547519

> 7423616

dulwichfolk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Would house prices actually go down due to these

> closures, surely a quieter road at the expense of

> other roads would make the prices go up on court

> road etc?


Yeah, I would have thought so, although it's probably pretty marginal either way. Not sure house prices is really relevant to why people are supporting or objecting to the scheme.

Bicknell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I dont know - im no expert - but if you dont

> need to close a road day and night why do it? If

> it makes life easier for people to have it open

> some of teh time, why not?


This is a reasonable question. I feel like the physical infrastructure and enforcement needed to do it, for the sake of a little more convenience for a small number of people at quiet times, might be excessive. But perhaps ?One Dulwich? could put forwards concrete proposal for how it might operate.

As someone who lives on Dulwich Village, I wouldn't characterise the road closures as creating a "gated community". What I see is that the main road through the village creates a highway from the South Circular to the north of the borough, and that when the weight of traffic eases, people speed along Dulwich Village. Do I have to be anti-car or anti-cycle to see this as a poor outcome?

If this was the case there could eventually be a position held by residents of that area where the Council have realised from finally listening to complaints that their ill-advised (if they were) changes to traffic were a mistake / over-zealous, but when they attempt to revert the changes they face opposition from those concerned their house prices will drop if that happens !!


spider69 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So if you had a choice to live on a closed off

> road or another with traffic you would not take

> it?

>

> Of course house prices would go up.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But is it the Village councillors who are maintaining the board, or someone else? When the boards in East Dulwich were installed, it wasn't the councillors who kept the information up to date, it was Monica from Health Matters, who was greatly involved in various  community matters (eg the building of the community garden at what was then Dulwich Hospital). I can't remember if it was her who initiated the installation of the boards in the first place. She no longer lives in East Dulwich, and nobody else appears to be willing to liaise with the councillors and community related organisations  to take this on for the various East Dulwich boards.  It would hardly take much effort. Basic information doesn't frequently change (and no, I'm not volunteering. I am overstretched as it is). It's all very well to  get a physical  community notice board spruced up, but not much use if it then isn't being used for its intended purpose. And I can't see that it is part of a councillor's job to update notice boards which they didn't initiate in the first place. I'm sure they have more than enough to do.  The notice boards serve (or did do) a useful service, but all the information which could be put on them is surely available elsewhere. (Unless it is bringing to people's attention things which are of use/interest to them and they weren't aware they needed/would like, or didn't know how else to find the information). ETA: Oh. I've just read the beginning of this thread. I'd forgotten how it started. It's gone well off topic, hasn't it. Probably just as well, reading the OP.
    • The board in the Village (just near the pub) is in pristine condition, full of council-related information (though someone had stuck a flyer on the glass, now removed). Maybe the councillors there actually CBA to make use of a facility that took time, effort and taxpayers’ money to instal?  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...