Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ultimately, if you want to reduce pollution, you have to reduce the number of car journeys.


That simply isn't true. You need to reduce the polluting effects of motor vehicles - already starting to be addressed through Ulez and the increasing number of electric and hybrid cars - hydrogen powered cars (when and if they come) have water as their 'pollutant' exhaust. Putting aside the diesel cheats - cars are now vastly cleaner than they were - and the trajectory is for further improvement. I wonder how the anti-car lobby would respond if all vehicles in Southwark were electric or hydrogen powered? What would their stick be to beat the motorist then?


Air quality in London is dramatically better already than it used to be in the past - and the quite recent past (not in those streets with standing traffic from the road closures, of course, now).


I am in favour of people exercising their free will to cycle and walk, and to do so in safety, but not, I think, at the expense of those people wishing to exercise their free will in another way.

Metallic Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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


> > Yet people on this thread are claiming that

> > Dulwich Village is back to back trafffic?!

>

> I went to look this morning. Yes, back to back to

> back to back to back, coaches, cars and vans.

> What fun to breathe that in if you live in those

> cottages opposite the Dog.


I passed through the Village on foot at 8:30 this morning and it was extremely quiet. What time were you there?


It seems that some people are claiming that all the traffic has been diverted from the Village to the South Circular and others are claiming the Village is at a stand still with back to back traffic. Meanwhile people are pointing to maps published in the Mail.


Walk over there and just see for yourselves.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Ultimately, if you want to reduce pollution, you

> have to reduce the number of car journeys.

>

> That simply isn't true. You need to reduce the

> polluting effects of motor vehicles - already

> starting to be addressed through Ulez and the

> increasing number of electric and hybrid cars -

> hydrogen powered cars (when and if they come) have

> water as their 'pollutant' exhaust. Putting aside

> the diesel cheats - cars are now vastly cleaner

> than they were - and the trajectory is for further

> improvement. I wonder how the anti-car lobby would

> respond if all vehicles in Southwark were electric

> or hydrogen powered? What would their stick be to

> beat the motorist then?

>

> Air quality in London is dramatically better

> already than it used to be in the past - and the

> quite recent past (not in those streets with

> standing traffic from the road closures, of

> course, now).

>

> I am in favour of people exercising their free

> will to cycle and walk, and to do so in safety,

> but not, I think, at the expense of those people

> wishing to exercise their free will in another

> way.


People aren't free to drive anywhere though are they? We make decisions about how to allocate space and at the moment there is a massively disproportionate amount of it given over to motor vehicles. I find it incredible that people genuinely want high traffic neighbourhoods.

andrewc Wrote:

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

> Today at 3.45pm



Go take a look on Google Maps just an hour later - bet the pictures you could take if you went there now aren't quite so car free now. College Road is red, the A205 is red/black back to Rosemead School travelling eastbound, Dulwich Village is red/black, EDG is red/black, all of Lordship lane is red.....

I'm not sure there is an "anti-car lobby" anymore in the sense that all the major UK political parties (apart from the Brexit Party) promoted themselves as supportive of reduced car use/increased walking and cycling in their latest manifestos. However I agree that even the most ardent 'active travel' supporter would not want to increase emissions by increasing standing traffic.


https://www.bikebiz.com/cycling-to-the-polls-what-does-each-party-offer-for-cyclists/

I walk where I can (but I'm over 70 and that isn't that far - more than 2 miles there and back again is definitely too far) - I live on a hill so cycling (which has to start and end on that hill) is not for me an attractive option - and I'm no longer that good a cyclist - I take public transport when it's a quicker/ easier option than driving (which, for many east/ West local journeys it certainly isn't) - and I still rely on my car (or an Uber) to do (much) of what I want to do. Our area (ED) is very poorly served by public transport - over the whole of August the Orange line though us was suspended every weekend, and tube stations are now shut early as well - so relying on public transport to get into London isn't always a runner - unless you have many hours to spare (and at my age, I don't).


I'm not unique in East Dulwich, I'm guessing.


I'm sure the millennial mavens will now be suggesting that old people like me shouldn't be living in London. If we can't run and cycle everywhere, get lost.


All I can say is - 'you'll be me one day - pray you don't meet you round the next corner'

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

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

>

>

> > > Yet people on this thread are claiming that

> > > Dulwich Village is back to back trafffic?!

> >

> > I went to look this morning. Yes, back to back

> to

> > back to back to back, coaches, cars and vans.

> > What fun to breathe that in if you live in

> those

> > cottages opposite the Dog.

>

> I passed through the Village on foot at 8:30 this

> morning and it was extremely quiet. What time were

> you there?

>

> It seems that some people are claiming that all

> the traffic has been diverted from the Village to

> the South Circular and others are claiming the

> Village is at a stand still with back to back

> traffic. Meanwhile people are pointing to maps

> published in the Mail.

>

> Walk over there and just see for yourselves.



I took a video at 8.47 this morning on Dulwich Village. Solid traffic from Gallery Road roundabout to the EDG lights. You must've just missed it rah, most vehicles were vans and lone commuters which perhaps explains andrewc's photos; not parents living down the road but working people who maybe unlikely or unable to change their commute. My kid is injured so we tried hopping on a bus but they weren't letting kids on - presumably shielding other bus users - which reduces options for those further afield or with multiple school drop offs.


This traffic build up is mainly due to the Calton Ave. Barrier which has had weeks to 'bed in' so not much evidence of people changing their MO. I took the vid because the Melbourne, Derwent, Elsie and Tintagel barriers went in today so I wanted to share with my neighbours what will become of EDG, Grove Vale and Lordship.


I agree with Rockets, ULEZ extension and the EV revolution will clean the air better.

ED_moots Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Metallic Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > rahrahrah Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> >

> > > > Yet people on this thread are claiming that

> > > > Dulwich Village is back to back trafffic?!

> > >

> > > I went to look this morning. Yes, back to

> back

> > to

> > > back to back to back, coaches, cars and vans.

>

> > > What fun to breathe that in if you live in

> > those

> > > cottages opposite the Dog.

> >

> > I passed through the Village on foot at 8:30

> this

> > morning and it was extremely quiet. What time

> were

> > you there?

> >

> > It seems that some people are claiming that all

> > the traffic has been diverted from the Village

> to

> > the South Circular and others are claiming the

> > Village is at a stand still with back to back

> > traffic. Meanwhile people are pointing to maps

> > published in the Mail.

> >

> > Walk over there and just see for yourselves.

>

>

> I took a video at 8.47 this morning on Dulwich

> Village. Solid traffic from Gallery Road

> roundabout to the EDG lights. You must've just

> missed it rah, most vehicles were vans and lone

> commuters which perhaps explains andrewc's photos;

> not parents living down the road but working

> people who maybe unlikely or unable to change

> their commute. My kid is injured so we tried

> hopping on a bus but they weren't letting kids on

> - presumably shielding other bus users - which

> reduces options for those further afield or with

> multiple school drop offs.


Yes they appear to be running one bus for kids and one bus for everyone else - which makes planning a journey by bus even more challenging if you travel on a school route.

andrewc Wrote:

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

However I agree that even the most ardent 'active travel' supporter would not want to increase emissions by increasing standing traffic.


They may not want to increase standing traffic but that is the inevitable end result of the policies they support. It is the massive elephant in the room they refuse to address, or even acknowledge.


Putting in road closures will lead to a small amount of evaporation, maybe 5-10%? The rest will be be displaced onto main roads, and we know where these are in Dulwich even though councillors won't admit it.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

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

>

>

> > > Yet people on this thread are claiming that

> > > Dulwich Village is back to back trafffic?!

> >

> > I went to look this morning. Yes, back to back

> to

> > back to back to back, coaches, cars and vans.

> > What fun to breathe that in if you live in

> those

> > cottages opposite the Dog.

>

> I passed through the Village on foot at 8:30 this

> morning and it was extremely quiet. What time were

> you there?

>

> It seems that some people are claiming that all

> the traffic has been diverted from the Village to

> the South Circular and others are claiming the

> Village is at a stand still with back to back

> traffic. Meanwhile people are pointing to maps

> published in the Mail.

>

> Walk over there and just see for yourselves.


Suggest you amble by at 8am. I walked down there to have a look at that time.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> andrewc Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Today at 3.45pm

>

> These photos show traffic chaos!!


So get out of your beds and take some snaps tomorrow morning. Then publish those.

andrewc Wrote:

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

> Today at 3.45pm

Those pictures makes you wonder why the councililors need to make such disruptive chnages doesn't it ? :-)


IN reality of course, it shows that the traffic problem is very dependent on time, esecpially the mroning rush hour. That is why OneDulwich have always pushed for timed closures at the DV junction rather than a complete closure.

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

    • Since you’re clearly not experiencing what we are I’m not sure I agree with any of your points. I also asked for anyone else having a similar problem… it’s absolutely fine if you’re not but I’d appreciate less of the “go live your life”. There is no need to comment with that tone, it doesn’t provide us with any help for the matter. Nor is it polite. We’re a very kind family simply not wanting damage and don’t find the actions necessary. It’s been the same driver/delivery for a while and this never used to happen. I wouldn’t post this on the forum if it wasn’t getting so frustrating. Again, the kids and myself have kindly asked for this to stop a few times with no success. We all work hard for our living and would never want (nor are we trying) to rid someone of their livelihood. But similarly, I don’t find it fair. Please feel free to PM me if anyone has any advise or shares the same.  
    • And now we have the worst labour government in many many decades who, by moving to your position on the right, are ushering in a far right reform government. Well done you.
    • You implied he did a good job in your first paragraph when you said you would have hated to see Corbyn lead the country through Covid - the alternative being Johnson, presumably? With the results we all saw. Unite - you have a problem with unions? Who work hard to see that their members get a fair deal in their workplace? How exactly are these people and groups "all as bad as each other"? In what way? Labour "purging their party of the far-left" has given us a weak prime minister who has apparently deserted any "left" (aka caring for other people and having decent moral principles) leanings he ever had. Which is why people appear to be leaving Labour in droves and voting, or intending to vote, Green or Lib Dem or for an independent Left candidate. Starmer has shot himself in the foot, in my opinion. But what would I know. What worked?! I don't know enough about what you are talking about to comment, but "believing" you know the reason someone did something does not make it true. I don't believe that Corbyn ever got "starstruck" or "forgot about his politics", but if you can provide evidence that those things are true, then fair enough. I don't think you can, though.
    • I think you need to get a grip If it's who I am thinking of, she's a young black girl in her twenties, has braids with bright colours through them and - I suspect - works with her father. It's always the same man behind the wheel and he's older than her, always in the same van, so I'm assuming it's a father-daughter combo which, if it is, I think is rather sweet.  They hustle hard in a job that is poorly paid, has little prospects, is relentless and thankless. The fact that they have stuck it out since the pandemic says a lot about them.  I think she's a lovely girl, who's perhaps a little shy - but she'll smile or chat back if you make the effort with her. And I admire her for sticking with that job for so long. Perhaps she's just one of these people who's naturally a bit clumsy or bashes things, the same way some people are heavy on their feet when they walk. But I wouldn't dream of jeopardising her job because she closes the slams the gate and doesn't 'kiss' the ring doorbell with her fingers.  Perhaps she's being passive aggressive because you are. And perhaps she also wishes she got to spend her time worrying about potential damage to her letterbox or her gate.  As for your gate / letterbox - you're talking about hypotheticals. Has there been any damage? No. Then go and live your life and worry about it when it happens.  (apols we have the wrong person, but some of my points still stand). 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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