LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[first mate]

Sorry, this looks really tactical. You are so obviously trying to create an impression that undermines the validity of feelings of those at the demonstration.

Some cyclists 'may' have been blocked for a few hours (views seem to differ as to whether this was the case) but none of you seem to note or care that elderly and disabled residents feel so negative about the impact of LTNs they assembled to protest. What about their right to get around?

[northernmonkey]

Like I said. Not commenting on the protest, just the comments saying rah was wrong and that everyone was on the pavement.

I?m sure that the organisers would have requested those attending not to block access, but it?s factually correct to show some did. The whole discussion has arisen because multiple pro people have come on to deny that was the case. Standard position of only correcting mistruths

[n dulwich northerner]

march46 Wrote:

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

> Love seeing the positive images put out by Clean

> Air Dulwich. So many people are benefitting from

> the roads being safer.

>

> https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1437503

> 039615680512?s=20

So what? People walked round here before the botched road closures, and one picture's background shows a local business that was forced to move its location. The tweeter must think folk are very gullible.

[Earl Aelfheah]

first mate Wrote:

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

> It was a protest, it is generally accepted that

> protests may cause inconvenience to others. Look

> at the M25.

Not inconvenience. When you stop cars you cause inconvenience. When you block a kid on a bike from making a right turn, leaving them trapped between two lanes of traffic, it?s dangerous. People who are claiming that the protestors were only on the pavement and not blocking the barriers and entrance onto the square from the main road are wrong.

As I said, no problem with protest. Big problem with inconsiderate behaviour which endangers others.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Can?t actually believe that people are saying it?s cool to block a kid on a bike from turning off the main road, leaving them stuck out between two lanes of traffic.

And of course it?s all about protecting children. Honk your horn as you pass them stranded their just to really underline it!

You know you could just say, I agree with their aims, but yeah, perhaps not a good idea to block people trying to turn off the main road into the square.

[Nigello]

Young families on bikes - stop fetishising what ought to be just a normal, everyday thing, a normal, everyday mode of transport. When I hear/see phrases liek that I just think it is a mask, a totem for all manner of other things. Kids can and do use bikes, as they have done for years and years, including the bad seventies when the idea of cyclist's rights were not even thought of and drivers were much more likely to be un buckled-up or drunk. You cannot legislate or bollard-ise danger or hazard out of anything, so please don't think that for more people to cycle we need ever more elaborate infrastructure.

[AlexandHelenC]

Can't actually believe that people are saying it's cool to funnel traffic onto roads that kids need to walk along to get to school and nursery every day so that the most privileged people in the borough don't have other people's cars driving along their streets. But each to their own.

[Metallic]

Look we are not going to agree on the demo. I do agree the elderly participants should have been off the two roads that cyclists use. What I think is laughable is the idea this was all blocked by people, and if you can't steer through then it is a shame. And as for the car horns, I think when I was watching the drivers, plus P4 driver and an ambulance driver, they were responding to the placards they were reading and no one was there doing anything other than waving at pippers.

[northernmonkey]

Except evidence (which isn't the same as the opinions and half truths people throw around on here) shows thats exactly what is needed to increase cycling numbers.

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Young families on bikes - stop fetishising what

> ought to be just a normal, everyday thing, a

> normal, everyday mode of transport. When I

> hear/see phrases liek that I just think it is a

> mask, a totem for all manner of other things. Kids

> can and do use bikes, as they have done for years

> and years, including the bad seventies when the

> idea of cyclist's rights were not even thought of

> and drivers were much more likely to be un

> buckled-up or drunk. You cannot legislate or

> bollard-ise danger or hazard out of anything, so

> please don't think that for more people to cycle

> we need ever more elaborate infrastructure.

[Metallic]

AlexandHelenC Wrote:

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

> Can't actually believe that people are saying it's

> cool to funnel traffic onto roads that kids need

> to walk along to get to school and nursery every

> day so that the most privileged people in the

> borough don't have other people's cars driving

> along their streets. But each to their own.

As long as the people who post pro stuff on here, and who live in Court Lane, Calton Avenue, Melbourne Grove and Derwent Grove, keep posting about their children and the danger they face, no one will give them the time of day in our community. They do not care about East Dulwich Grove or Croxted Road, as long as they can quickly steer off in to the idylls of traffic free roads whilst taking their children to school. Sorry it is inequitable.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Those who are in favour of removing traffic from some streets, aren't saying it because they want to harm anyone. Neither do I believe those who are against LTNs want to cause harm to anyone. It is possible to have different, but honestly held, and well intentioned views.

But when people say it's fine to strand someone on a bike in the middle of two lanes of traffic, rather than just move your bags and let people turn off a main road safely, it's hard to see any good intentions in that frankly.

[first mate]

But no comment or care for those who are finding closures so difficult they feel compelled go out and protest?

As for RRR comments about dangers to cycling children, my goodness, if it was so terribly dangerous why not avoid that route? There is a choice. The 'danger' thing is tactical. I don't think many are buying such an obvious attempt to undermine the point of the protest.

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> Like I said. Not commenting on the protest, just

> the comments saying rah was wrong and that

> everyone was on the pavement.

>

> I?m sure that the organisers would have requested

> those attending not to block access, but it?s

> factually correct to show some did. The whole

> discussion has arisen because multiple pro people

> have come on to deny that was the case. Standard

> position of only correcting mistruths

[Rockets]

How dare they....how dare they walk to and stand in a road closed for the supposed benefit of "everyone". How dare they momentarily impede the route of cyclists. How dare they force cyclists to have to deviate from their entitled path.

The protestors must have forgotten that the junction is for exclusive use of cyclists only and that everyone needs to get out of their way.

Honestly......this is really exposing some painful home truths about the myopic attitude of many on the pro-LTN lobby.

Rahx3 is no doubt aware that when the "Party in the Square" takes place that the organisers physically barrier some of the gaps between the planters on Calton to protect the pedestrians from cyclists.

Maybe the issue at the heart of this is that far more people turned up to this anti-LTN protest than have ever turn up for any of the "Party in the Squares".

[Earl Aelfheah]

Bags before people.

[Metallic]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Those who are in favour of removing traffic from

> some streets, aren't saying it because they want

> to harm anyone. Neither do I believe those who are

> against LTNs want to cause harm to anyone. It is

> possible to have different, but honestly held, and

> well intentioned views.

>

> But when people say it's fine to strand someone on

> a bike in the middle of two lanes of traffic,

> rather than just move your bags and let people

> turn off a main road safely, it's hard to see any

> good intentions in that frankly.

However you were approaching the closed off area, across traffic, the area to the Dulwich Village side of the blocks is not driven on and you and your children could have waited there and shouted 'please move'. I know the junction well and there is no way you couldn't have done that.

[first mate]

RRR, it was a protest, you made a choice to turn up on bicycles with your children. Any danger to your children could have been avoided. You would have been inconvenienced no doubt by having to avoid that route but protests often do cause inconvenience.

Your 'danger to children' line is tactical hype and not at all convincing.

[Earl Aelfheah]

first mate Wrote:

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

> RRR, it was a protest, you made a choice to turn

> up on bicycles with your children. Any danger to

> your children could have been avoided. You would

> have been inconvenienced no doubt by having to

> avoid that route but protests often do cause

> inconvenience.

>

> Your 'danger to children' line is tactical hype

> and not at all convincing.

I didn't even know there was a protest.

You could just say, I agree with their aims, but yeah, perhaps not a good idea to block people trying to turn off the main road into the square.

But you chose to say I'm endangering my children, by being unfortunate enough to run into some selfish people blocking the turn off the main road.

Sure.

[northernmonkey]

How was there a choice to turn up first mate? Was the protest advertised in advance?

[ab29]

Exactly that.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> How dare they....how dare they walk to and stand

> in a road closed for the supposed benefit of

> "everyone". How dare they momentarily impede the

> route of cyclists. How dare they force cyclists to

> have to deviate from their entitled path.

>

> The protestors must have forgotten that the

> junction is for exclusive use of cyclists only and

> that everyone needs to get out of their way.

>

> Honestly......this is really exposing some painful

> home truths about the myopic attitude of many on

> the pro-LTN lobby.

>

> Rahx3 is no doubt aware that when the "Party in

> the Square" takes place that the organisers

> physically barrier some of the gaps between the

> planters on Calton to protect the pedestrians from

> cyclists.

>

> Maybe the issue at the heart of this is that far

> more people turned up to this anti-LTN protest

> than have ever turn up for any of the "Party in

> the Squares".

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> How was there a choice to turn up first mate? Was

> the protest advertised in advance?

I expect you didn't hear about it because you are too young and physically fit.

[Metallic]

EVERYONE

Please stop calling it "The Square". It is a closed junction and the confluence of three roads, and it is not a Square.

[Bicknell]

the protest lasted an hour.

photos show crowd was on the pavement

this area is a shared space for people on bikes and walking. sometimes cyclists have to wait for pedestgrians. someimtes people walking have to wait for cyclists

[first mate]

Come on Northern, you can choose to continue on a route or not. Aside from issues of inconvenience, no one is forcing RRR and his/her children to continue moving forward on their bicycles into 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' to children is quite obviously a tactical confection.

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> How was there a choice to turn up first mate? Was

> the protest advertised in advance?

[hpsaucey]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Come on Northern, you can choose to continue on a

> route or not. Aside from issues of inconvenience,

> no one is forcing RRR and his/her children to

> continue moving forward on their bicycles into

> 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' to

> children is quite obviously a tactical

> confection.

>

>

> northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > How was there a choice to turn up first mate?

> Was

> > the protest advertised in advance?

So - what would you do if you were stuck with two kids in the middle of the road wondering whether to turn or not? Not a nice situation to be in.

Calling this a 'tactical confection' - is this the new catchphrase to replace alleged 'trolling'?

HP

[first mate]

RRR, so in a nutshell the protestors are 'idiots' and 'selfish'. You cannot find any reason to consider they too may have a point.

BTW, I did not say your children were endangered, please don't put words into my mouth, you suggested they were placed in danger by the actions of the protestors; so if that was the case why did you not avoid what you viewed as a dangerous situation? Why continue forward.

I really don't think many posters are convinced by what you are saying. Why not just give up on this particular tactic, it is not working.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

> -----

> > RRR, it was a protest, you made a choice to

> turn

> > up on bicycles with your children. Any danger

> to

> > your children could have been avoided. You

> would

> > have been inconvenienced no doubt by having to

> > avoid that route but protests often do cause

> > inconvenience.

> >

> > Your 'danger to children' line is tactical hype

> > and not at all convincing.

>

> I didn't even know there was a protest.

>

> You could just say, I agree with their aims, but

> yeah, perhaps not a good idea to block people

> trying to turn off the main road into the square.

>

> But you chose to say I'm endangering my children,

> by being unfortunate enough to run into some

> selfish people blocking the turn off the main

> road.

>

> Sure.