LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Earl Aelfheah]

dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> > I didn't initially make a big thing about this,

> > although I thought it was dangerous and

> > inconsiderate at the time. But seeing as I got

> > roundly attacked for simply suggesting that

> there

> > were a 'few idiots blocking people turning off

> the

> > main road', I feel it's reasonable to defend

> the

> > comment.

> >

> > I'm genuinely amazed that there are people who

> > think it's reasonable, but I can only assume

> that

> > they don't understand the junction / road

> layout.

>

> Sorry, but you insulted a group of elderly people

> protesting about a scheme that has severely

> affected them.

> And then proceeded to repeatedly argue the toss

> and refuse to retract your insult.

> In my view that is the definition of ?making a big

> thing out of it?.

> If you?d wanted to , you could have cleared this

> up in post #2..

No I didn't. I said "a small number of idiots blocking the right turn for cyclists with their bags and placards."

People then proceeded to say that the protesters were only on the pavement (not true).

Accused me of not living in the area (I've been on this forum since '07

Accused me of putting my children in danger

Called me a troll

Said it was fine to block the entrance to the square anyway (even though apparently this also didn't happen).

...and yes, accused me of abusing the elderly.

All of which is making rather a big thing out of it.

So I don't really think that it's me who needs to make a retraction to be honest.

[Abe_froeman]

Yes, I think that would be the sensible thing to do if it was as dangerous as you suggest.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Yes, I think that would be the sensible thing to

> do if it was as dangerous as you suggest.

I simply said it was dangerous. Which if you look at the link you posted yourself and think about having to get off your bike and then help two young kids off theirs whilst standing in the middle of the road, with traffic on either side - I think you'd have to agree it is. Certainly more dangerous than someone moving their bag.

[legalalien]

I wonder who put the pedestrian priority sign there, and does anyone know what its status is? from a quick google, creating a formal pedestrian or pedestrian and cycle zone looks like it requires an application under the Town and Country Planning Act.

I'm certainly not going to rely on it as a pedestrian, given the speed at which cycles come down Calton Avenue. Just wondering idly where liability would lie if I was hit by one of them.

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> DC - no those photos show people standing on one

> side of the road. The other side of the road is

> completely clear in the first photo - the people

> are congregated on the Post Office side of the

> road so the other side of the road is completely

> unobstructed.

>

> I am not sure what narrative you are trying to

> conjure here.

>

> Again, this is amplifying the blinkered and myopic

> attitude of many LTN supporters that is turning

> more and more people against the measures.

If you are cycling along DV and turning right into the square you would not be expecting a large crowd blocking the planters. If you are stuck in the middle of the road with children on bikes you can't easily reverse to enter the square on the other side away from the crowd.

In the original post this is what happened to RRR

Then there were numerous posts from anti low traffic people denying that people had blocked the road.

Then that was proven to be factually incorrect with photographic evidence.

What's the narrative there? You're the expert ;)

[Bicknell]

@rahrahrah

older people -some walking with sticks and in wheelchairs- protested for an hour

the big crowd was on the pavement

there is peedestrain priority here

possibly to use @dulwichcentrals favorite word there was inconvenience

because it was a public protest

for an hour

wich was succesful

because weve all been talking about it for hours

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > 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?

> > >

> > > Bikes turning right have to pull into the

> > middle

> > > lane. You have one lane to your left going

> > > straight on and another on your right

> > approaching

> > > you. You are sandwiched between to lanes of

> > > traffic. If people block the entrance to the

> > > square, then it's not possible to turn right,

> > or

> > > go 'straight on'. You are left stranded in

> the

> > > middle of two lanes of traffic. If you don't

> > > understand this, then you clearly don't

> > understand

> > > the road layout.

> >

> > So Rahx3 are you saying that as you turned

> right

> > all of the access to the junction was blocked

> by

> > old people protesting? Or was it just that they

> > were congregating on the left-hand side of the

> > road as you were trying to head up Calton? Was

> the

> > right-hand side of the junction blocked too

> > because all the photos show the right-hand lane

> > completely clear?

>

> The right side (or left side depending on which

> way you're looking) was clear heading out onto

> Dulwich Village Road I think.

>

> But the turn from the main road was blocked,

> leaving anyone in the right hand turn 'box' stuck

> in the middle of the road with nowhere to go.

>

> I didn't initially make a big thing about this,

> although I thought it was dangerous and

> inconsiderate at the time. But seeing as I got

> roundly attacked for simply suggesting that there

> were a 'few idiots blocking people turning off the

> main road', I feel it's reasonable to defend the

> comment.

>

> I'm genuinely amazed that there are people who

> think it's reasonable, but I can only assume that

> they don't understand the junction / road layout.

So you didn't consider doing what every other cyclist is doing as a matter of course right anyway now and just use the other side of the junction to enter Calton from DV? Surely that was the most common-sense approach?

It's pretty clear that there was a clear route through the junction - you just seem to have not chosen to take it.

It seems you are deliberately trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and using it as a rod to try and attack people whose agenda you don't agree with. I suspect what really happened was you cycled up, saw a load of people protesting, thought to yourself "what a bunch of anti-LTN idiots" and then created an "issue" when none really existed to try and smear the event and the attendees.

[first mate]

Or having seen there was a fairly large group of demonstrators at the junction and seeing that the situation might be hazardous, choose to avoid? It does seem fairly simple. It also seems to be the case that you are choosing to make a very big deal out of your own experience and in a post above are listing further grievances seemingly in an attempt to shore up your position as the apparent 'victim' in all this. Meantime, deflecting attention from the reasons the protestors felt compelled to go out in such numbers in the first place.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Yes, I think that would be the sensible thing

> to

> > do if it was as dangerous as you suggest.

>

> I simply said it was dangerous. Which if you look

> at the link you posted yourself and think about

> having to get off your bike and then help two

> young kids off theirs whilst standing in the

> middle of the road, with traffic on either side -

> I think you'd have to agree it is. Certainly more

> dangerous than someone moving their bag.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > DC - no those photos show people standing on

> one

> > side of the road. The other side of the road is

> > completely clear in the first photo - the

> people

> > are congregated on the Post Office side of the

> > road so the other side of the road is

> completely

> > unobstructed.

> >

> > I am not sure what narrative you are trying to

> > conjure here.

> >

> > Again, this is amplifying the blinkered and

> myopic

> > attitude of many LTN supporters that is turning

> > more and more people against the measures.

>

> If you are cycling along DV and turning right into

> the square you would not be expecting a large

> crowd blocking the planters. If you are stuck in

> the middle of the road with children on bikes you

> can't easily reverse to enter the square on the

> other side away from the crowd.

>

> In the original post this is what happened to RRR

>

> Then there were numerous posts from anti low

> traffic people denying that people had blocked the

> road.

>

> Then that was proven to be factually incorrect

> with photographic evidence.

>

> What's the narrative there? You're the expert ;)

DC - this so called photographic evidence shows the post office side of the junction partially blocked by a group of old people protesting. Those same photos show the other side of the junction is completely clear.

In fact, one of the photos actually shows a cyclist exiting the junction from Calton on the side of the protestors so claims that the junction was blocked is the only factually inaccurate statement in all of this.

But we know this is a tactic being repeatedly used by pro-LTN lobby - attack the anti-LTN lobby on anything you possibly can.

The real issue here is that the pro-LTN lobby are annoyed that at one protest more old people bothered to turn up in numbers greater than all of the "party in square" events combined.

[DulwichCentral]

Chris_1 Wrote:

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

Plenty of space for everyone,

> despite it being the biggest gathering at that

> junction to date I think!

Did you not see this event based from the square and passing through it several times? It was bigger

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-families-get-on-their-bikes-to-show-support-for-safe-cycling-routes/

[first mate]

Lots of young, healthy people out enjoying a summery ride over the holiday season...no biggie really. Those of us who can will all enjoy a bicycle jaunt on a gorgeous day. So what?

[Chris_1]

Oh no I missed the bike one, looks fun

[Metallic]

It is not called the square.

[legalalien]

"The Junction" perhaps?

This just gave me a flashback to being about 12 or 13 years old and furtively reading a (totally age-inappropriate) copy of "Up the Junction" that I managed to borrow from the local library. Have just googled it and realised that the junction in question is Clapham Junction. Going to find a copy and re-read it as an adult. Looking at the movie poster makes me realise just how much times have changed.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/I90AAOSwzgRWzJ5-/s-l1600.jpg

Metallic Wrote:

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

> It is not called the square.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Chris_1 Wrote:

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

> -----

> Plenty of space for everyone,

> > despite it being the biggest gathering at that

> > junction to date I think!

>

> Did you not see this event based from the square

> and passing through it several times? It was

> bigger

>

> https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-families-ge

> t-on-their-bikes-to-show-support-for-safe-cycling-

> routes/

I love the fact that one of the pictures you shared is of the flotilla of (LCC/Southwark) cyclists who cycled down Woodwarde Road from outside of Dulwich and had to be directed to the "square" for the photo opp! ;-)

[dougiefreeman]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> No I didn't. I said "a small number of idiots

> blocking the right turn for cyclists with their

> bags and placards."

It's my view that you are being completely disingenuous here. You have taken what you said out of context. As a refresher:

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Seems to be an anti LTN protest at he closed

> junction this morning.

In response,

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Yep, a small number of idiots blocking the right

> turn for cyclists with their bags and placards.

>

> ?Open the roads? they say, whilst obstructing

> their use for the many families passing through.

> 🤦‍♂️

To me, this reads very clearly as a direct response to legal's post and even more clearly as an attempt to smear the protest with your comments.

(For anyone who wants to check, the posts were on pg221. Heck, I've even attached a screenshot)

Since then, it has been pointed out to you that these 'idiots' have genuine reasonable concerns (which they have raised but have been ignored by the council) and that your insult was out of line, and you have moved heaven and earth to dodge retracting or apologising for your comment. And throwing in the occasional straw man (suggesting that the protest caused real danger to you and your daughters).

[alice]

Ok Now it?s definite. My dad is bigger than yours.

[Siduhe]

From memory, the pedestrian priority sign was added by the council at the request of local people who felt that cyclists were speeding through the junction and causing risk for pedestrians by not slowing or stopping. Don't think it was a formally approved signage process but something added to remind people to take care.

[legalalien]

sounds right. So technically cyclists probably do have right of way.

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> From memory, the pedestrian priority sign was

> added by the council at the request of local

> people who felt that cyclists were speeding

> through the junction and causing risk for

> pedestrians by not slowing or stopping. Don't

> think it was a formally approved signage process

> but something added to remind people to take care.

[slarti b2]

This is so funny. Rahrahrah makes a disparaging comment insulting and belittling the demonstration by a significant number of older residents. Then is forced into endless posts twisting him\herself in knots trying to justify this with specious arguments about them and their children being unable to dismount and walk through the closed junction. But at the same time is desperately avoiding making similar comments about those pathetic and poorly attended propaganda comcerts that we council tax payers funded.

Dulwich Central then chips in with their normal apparently authoritative "Facts" that are as reliable as Southwark claims of cycling increases along Calton Avenue

Meanwhile, as usual, Legalalien calmly highlights areas of ambiguity, sloppiness and failure to follow procedures by Southwark Council.

Classic :-)

[Rockets]

Every day is GroundHog day!!! ;-)

[Spartacus]

Maybe, after reading the past 3 pages about the protest (will to live left half way through) we could use the so called 'Dulwich Square' as a Battle Royale type arena with a chosen pro and anti representative battling it out to the death over if the closure stays or goes.

Usual fight club rules apply 😉

Might be a fitting use of it after all.

[malumbu]

Rollerball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollerball_(1975_film)

[ab29]

Unfortunately yes, especially for those of us that live on the boundary roads

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Every day is GroundHog day!!! ;-)

[northernmonkey]

Ah Rockets - how we've missed you replying to messages with your opinions presented as facts. Welcome back -was a bit worried about you as at least 2 people had expressed an opinion and you hadn't been on to own the narrative!

Rockets Wrote:

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

> DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Chris_1 Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > Plenty of space for everyone,

> > > despite it being the biggest gathering at

> that

> > > junction to date I think!

> >

> > Did you not see this event based from the

> square

> > and passing through it several times? It was

> > bigger

> >

> >

> https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-families-ge

>

> >

> t-on-their-bikes-to-show-support-for-safe-cycling-

>

> > routes/

>

>

> I love the fact that one of the pictures you

> shared is of the flotilla of (LCC/Southwark)

> cyclists who cycled down Woodwarde Road from

> outside of Dulwich and had to be directed to the

> "square" for the photo opp! ;-)