LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

But it is a majority isn't it? And a quite significant one.....so why do you think the council is ignoring the 68%?

[heartblock]

2016 count used as an estimation for 2019 (no context given about where/ when and what) compared to Summer 2021 over 2 days - no data about which two days.

Nope - I wouldn't except that as valid statistical analysis in research methods - fail.

[heartblock]

Didn't more people respond to the Consultation than voted in the last council election...

[Rockets]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Didn't more people respond to the Consultation

> than voted in the last council election...

If they did our councillors should start preparing their: "I feel like now is the right time to stand down and let someone else pick up the mantle" twitter updates....I suspect a big turnout in the council elections in May.

[goldilocks]

Lets combine these. Rockets, its a majority of respondents. Have you ever read trip advisor?

@Heartblock - don't think anyone is saying its a statistical certainty - just that it shows it might have fallen AND its backed up by the counts in the latest data - again not a certainty because of the way the data is presented. However, if the council counts traffic outside the health centre AND at the previous points, then they could understand if it is correct.

[heartblock]

Margy and Richard had only 35% and 38% of the vote....so most people in Village didn't want them. James and Charlie only 42% in Goose Green. Vicki a bit more.

So 68% of responders want LTNs removed, but Councillors who want them to stay only got between 35 - 42% of the voters behind their policies.

Next local election is going to be interesting...The Labour Party members in Village already panicking I hear...

[heartblock]

GD - traffic on EDG is still terrible, so this 'data' and 'research' is being banged out to support something that really isn't happening and I agree, opening up Melbourne South isn't going to alleviate traffic on ED Grove and may make it worse - goes to show how terrible Southwark is at road planning.

The causal factors are MG North to a small degree but mainly Calton closure - but you know, those Range Rover owners of 5 bedroom 3 million pound houses deserve a quiet road - it helps then put up with the working week before dashing off to the second home in Suffolk darling..

[march46]

Disappointing to see Dulwich Alliance posters with their awful, inappropriate ?All Streets Matter? slogan are still up in a few places. You?d think they?d have a quiet word with the shopkeeper / household to ask them to remove it or at the very least replace with another poster if their apology was genuine.

[march46]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> but you know, those

> Range Rover owners of 5 bedroom 3 million pound

> houses deserve a quiet road - it helps then put up

> with the working week before dashing off to the

> second home in Suffolk darling..

Sounds as though you're describing the people behind One Dulwich/Dulwich Alliance who desperately want their roads opened so they can 'drive freely'. Who's been conned??

[heartblock]

How many posts do you wait for before expressing your disappointment again about what was I think - we can all agree in light of BLMs brilliant campaign and the awful slogans from the racist backlash - DA's unfortunate, misguided and a very, very poorly worded poster. Is there an algorithm? Is it a bit of whataboutery to try and paint people like me, Rockets, Kid, Metalic, Legal who object to diverted traffic, more pollution and an increase in idling traffic as a 'certain sort'? What is your motive M46?

[ab29]

I want the roads to be reopened. I don't drive.

[heartblock]

Aaah everyone is just wanting to drive more..we are all being conned..we are stupid.. we just want to drive freely... thanks M46, I just woke up from stupidity and will now campaign for LTNs.

[march46]

Whilst the offensive posters are still up I remain disappointed.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> How many posts do you wait for before expressing

> your disappointment again about what was I think -

> we can all agree in light of BLMs brilliant

> campaign and the awful slogans from the racist

> backlash - DA's unfortunate, misguided and a very,

> very poorly worded poster. Is there an algorithm?

> Is it a bit of whataboutery to try and paint

> people like me, Rockets, Kid, Metalic, Legal who

> object to diverted traffic, more pollution and an

> increase in idling traffic as a 'certain sort'?

> What is your motive M46?

[heartblock]

I'm disappointed about the abuse that Rosamund Kissi-Debrah get's on Twitter daily from a certain sector of the LTN lobby, but you know - life is full of disappointments. In any group there are always a few arses.

[goldilocks]

Thats just whataboutery.

Is it wrong that Rosamund Kissi-Debrah gets abused on Twitter - yes? Is it wrong for Dulwich Alliance to have produced an 'all streets matter' poster? Also yes!

Is it unquestionably unacceptable not to have intervened to have removed the posters? That'll be another 'yes'.

[ab29]

And?

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Thats just whataboutery.

>

> Is it wrong that Rosamund Kissi-Debrah gets abused

> on Twitter - yes? Is it wrong for Dulwich

> Alliance to have produced an 'all streets matter'

> poster? Also yes!

>

> Is it unquestionably unacceptable not to have

> intervened to have removed the posters? That'll

> be another 'yes'.

[heartblock]

Nope - I was agreeing about arses. I was saying that there are many arses, some arses have posters that you are disappointed with and some arses call RKD 'illogical' and try and get her no platformed from anti-pollution conferences. Many arses. Big ones and smaller ones.

Not whataboutering.

You could always knock on their door and tell them you are disappointed?

[heartblock]

Meanwhile - ab29 just wants the roads re-opened and doesn't drive. What is the main reason you want roads re-opened ab29?

[goldilocks]

When someone claims they're disappointed and you respond with 'what about this then' it is the very definition of 'whataboutary'.

When an organisation produces material that turns out to have been 'an absolute clanger' as the kindest way of describing that inappropriate / insensitive slogan then it remains their responsibility - not that of those pointing out how crass it is to go round requesting it to be removed.

[ab29]

Or perhaps you could do us a favour goldilocks and move your righteous indignation here:

https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2207080,page=1

Some of you, the 'holier-than-thou' folk already tried it once.

[legalalien]

I guess the theory is that traffic previously going up LL and the left into eDG will now go up mG and into eDG. The same number of cars would end up on eDG just via a different route? So helps LL but not eDG?

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> I also fail to see any scenario where opening up

> MGS wouldn't increase traffic on the central

> section of East Dulwich Grove. So in an effort to

> alleviate traffic on Lordship Lane, its likely

> that the section of EDG between MGS and Townley

> will increase - particularly westbound.

>

>

> legalalien Wrote:

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

> -----

> > in response to this and also eastdulwichhenry's

> > post above - I think I read that part of the

> > reason for reopening Melbourne Grove South

> outside

> > restricted hours is to help relieve the traffic

> on

> > LL (which I guess would help CPR but would mean

> > more traffic on MGS, all to help cope with the

> > displacement caused by the CL/Calton/DV

> closure.)

> >

> >

> > KidKruger Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Crystal Palace Rd is now a HTN, at least

> > compared

> > > to what it was like before the LTNs were

> > > implemented.

> > > It?s not just the volume of cars which is

> > > startling, it?s the panic/urgency/desperation

> > of

> > > drivers? behaviour which has increased. I

> guess

> > > with Lordship Lane rammed nowadays, other

> > routes

> > > are sought to enable them to feel like

> they?re

> > > making some sort of progress in their

> journeys.

> > > Just a matter of time before a serious injury

> > or

> > > worse, seems inevitable - you can?t have so

> > much

> > > stressed traffic through an entirely

> > residential

> > > street without an eventual accident involving

> > > pedestrians or a cyclist.

> > > Let?s Trade Neighbourhoods.

[heartblock]

Nah - don't agree. Whataboutery is an attempt to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument and I agree the posters were terrible and I can't understand anyone putting it up in their window.

I was just commenting on my ongoing disappointment with arses on Twitter.

Isn't it everyone's responsibility to point out poor behaviour? Maybe send a list of 'offenders' to DA and ask them to go round and 'have a word'?

So back to ab - what is the main reason that you as a non-driver want roads re-opened?

[heartblock]

Yep Legal - on this one I agree with G Locks yet again, I can't see Melbourne opening improving much (it will be timed school street anyway) - It's the 'square of shame' that needs to go.

[goldilocks]

You really are consistently quite rude. Do you think it helps?

ab29 Wrote:

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

> Or perhaps you could do us a favour goldilocks and

> move your righteous indignation here:

>

> https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?

> 5,2207080,page=1

>

> Some of you, the 'holier-than-thou' folk already

> tried it once.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Lets combine these. Rockets, its a majority of

> respondents. Have you ever read trip advisor?

>

> @Heartblock - don't think anyone is saying its a

> statistical certainty - just that it shows it

> might have fallen AND its backed up by the counts

> in the latest data - again not a certainty because

> of the way the data is presented. However, if the

> council counts traffic outside the health centre

> AND at the previous points, then they could

> understand if it is correct

You?re now trying to belittle the respondents to the review?.how depressingly predictable??you really are desperately trying to come up with some rod to hit people with. The facts remain, despite your protestations, Dulwich was asked for their input on the LTNs and they responded, overwhelmingly, against the measures - these aren?t Trip Advisor trolls these are actual Dulwich residents having to live with the chaos caused by the LTNs. I appreciate you, and many others who post here defending the measures, live on the closed roads and you aren?t happy to have your gated communities returned to how they were but maybe remove the blinkers and see what?s happening at the end of your road.