The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[Earl Aelfheah]

59 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

What the actual "funk" had that to do with cyclists not respecting crossings? 

Another attempt at deflection from the bleeding obvious there @Earl Aelfheah

You don't see the irony in your relentlessly complaining about putting a barrier across a road to stop people driving motor vehicles through the square (apparently not a safety concern), but then demanding one in the same spot to stop people travelling through it on a bicycle (an urgent safety concern). Come on, be serious.

I actually doubt anyone on this thread genuinely believes that it is difficult to cross the bike lane, or that Calton Ave is suddenly a dangerous space. Not one.

Edited June 27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

6 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

 

I actually doubt anyone on this thread genuinely believes that it is difficult to cross the bike lane, or that Calton Ave is suddenly a dangerous space. Not one.

[Earl Aelfheah]

That is funny 🥱. It doesn't remotely address any of my points. 

Dulwich Square is objectively safer than it was before. The data shows it.

If you don't believe the data 🙄, then common sense tells you it's safer. Removing heavy vehicles, narrowing the road and increasing the size of the pedestrian area obviously reduces road danger.

The fact that you don’t see the irony in your previous post is funny.

Edited June 27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Sue said:

Other people may want to read Earl Aelfheah's responses to your posts, though, even if you don't! 🙄

And what on earth is a foe list?

 

21,000 posts, I have no words.  You are also foed.  Where's Louisa?

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 minutes ago, Kathleen Olander said:

21,000 posts, I have no words.  You are also foed.  Where's Louisa?

Welcome to the 'foe' list @Sue. I'm hoping we get some sort of badge?

Edited June 27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

14 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

That is funny 🥱. It doesn't remotely address any of my points. 

Just like you didn't address the point on cyclists often not respecting crossings. 

I believe Kathleen's comment, now removed, on you is wholey correct 

Edited June 27 by Spartacus

[Earl Aelfheah]

🙌 

[Sue]

33 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

🙌

Hey, that's brilliant. I'm going to make a copy to  take to the Forum drinks.

I shall wear it with pride 🤣 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The data is of course, entirely robust, and you offer no alternative data of any type.

No it is not and there is no alternative as it is not monitored. Have you ever wondered why it is hospital A&E departments are usually the first to flag serious concerns with new modes of transport - like e-scooters....why? Because STATS19 doesn't pick up on it they do as they see the victims rather than the police.

Your "collision data" is like your "Majority support for Dulwich LTN based on 55% supporting the active travel strategy". Selectively plucked, designed to mislead and, fundamentally, wrong. But clearly you won't listen to any other perspective.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Trying to raise panic about it being dangerous however is very cynical and I don't imagine you believe it for one minute.

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it cynical - we are all entitled to our opinion and, you may hate to hear this, it is an opinion shared by a lot of the local residents who spend a lot of time at the junction. There are two areas of that cycle lane that are clearly designated for crossing and they may need to become pedestrian crossings to help protect pedestrians from cyclists as many cyclists using that junction aren't doing it.

[Sue]

52 minutes ago, Kathleen Olander said:

21,000 posts, I have no words.  You are also foed.  Where's Louisa?

I've been posting on here for nearly twenty years. 

So that's around 3 posts a day.

"no words"? You seem to have quite a lot of words, many of which are not very pleasant.

Thank you for foeing me, whatever that is.

I am beginning to think that  you and Louisa are some kind of Troll Twins, conjoined at who knows where. 

Or possibly you are Louisa. Who knows.

[Spartacus]

I too can wear a badge at the drinks 

[Sue]

30 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

I too can wear a badge at the drinks 

I can't get mine to print out small enough.

Maybe it will have to be a T shirt 🤣🤣🤣

[LordshipPain]

All this arguing about Luxury Square.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Aka ‘obsession square’

[LordshipPain]

8 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Aka ‘obsession square’

Luxury Square paid for by people living in poorer parts of the borough with their pockets and their health after having been gaslit by people like you. I, we, see you, all over this forum trying to nudge people, and then bully them into silence when they don't comply.

[Rockets]

You're right @Earl Aelfheah why the council was so obsessed with wasting so much tax-payers money on the square is hard to rationalise at a time when the council was pleading they have no money....;-)

[Penguin68]

23 minutes ago, LordshipPain said:

Luxury Square paid for by people living in poorer parts of the borough with their pockets and their health after having been gaslit by people like you.

And, if some feedback results are true, work not required, asked for or wanted by a majority of those who are deemed to be 'benefitting' (and I may be using that word quite wrongly) from this scheme imposed during lockdown against the wishes then of the majority, who had resisted earlier proposals before the then government gave councils the right to ignore local opinion during a perceived medical emergency.

[Rockets]

Yes @Penguin68 all under the guise of "social distancing". Talk about manipulative and untrustworthy behaviour. 

[Penguin68]

2 hours ago, LordshipPain said:

paid for by people living in poorer parts of the borough with their pockets

Actually probably paid for from all the traffic fines and CPZ revenues, but that money could have been used more clearly for the public benefit on road repairs etc. But almost nobody in Dulwich actually asked for this expenditure. All they have ever wanted was more effective traffic management through the centre of Dulwich for improved safety and traffic flow. Which they ain't got! 

[Jenijenjen]

3 hours ago, LordshipPain said:

Luxury Square paid for by people living in poorer parts of the borough with their pockets and their health after having been gaslit by people like you. I, we, see you, all over this forum trying to nudge people, and then bully them into silence when they don't comply.

If @Earl Aelfheah is trying to bully others into submission, he's failing miserably

[LordshipPain]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

Actually probably paid for from all the traffic fines and CPZ revenues, but that money could have been used more clearly for the public benefit on road repairs etc. But almost nobody in Dulwich actually asked for this expenditure. All they have ever wanted was more effective traffic management through the centre of Dulwich for improved safety and traffic flow. Which they ain't got! 

Whilst I agree with you, it's only partial. That money - millions, I shudder to think - should have been spent improving the places with the most need which are frequently where the poorest live and who are the nearly-always victims of these luxury policies. The only reasons I can come up with are; to cause social division; to embarrass the people in the nice areas into compliance; to set up a them-and-us narrative.

Edited June 28 by LordshipPain
I should proof read before posting.

[David Peckham]

On 12/11/2024 at 15:01, Earl Aelfheah said:

The works to re-landscape the square in Dulwich Village are set to complete this weekend I believe. Despite all the 'controversy', over its creation and legitimate questions over cost, it is in my opinion, looking great (and a huge improvement on the queue of idling cars that were constantly sat at that junction 4 years ago. A great new public space for people to sit, relax and congregate.  

I've only just noticed the (above) artist's rendering of the square. It's not very realistic, is it? 

There appears to be a rather Hitchcockian figure at the far left (maybe the artist themself) along with:

The guitarist from Eighties Norwegian pop sensations 'Aha' on a bike. I believe his name is Pal.

Mother Theresa heading towards Calton, with her Zimmer frame, on her way to pick up a cheese & ham roll and a rum Baba from Au Ciel.

Richard Rowntree in his seminal role as 'Shaft'. Can you dig it?

Soon to be national treasure Keeley Hawes with a half scale Liam Gallagher doll.

Margot Robbie.

A Dutch child abductor.

Gretl from 'The Sound of Music'.

One of the Terracotta Army.

Clare Huxtable from 'The Cosby Show'.

A very clearly lost Lake District fell walker.

An awful lot of cyclists.

 

Hogarth, Lowry or Peter Blake, this artist is not.

 

Edited June 28 by David Peckham
Clarity

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Jenijenjen said:

If @Earl Aelfheah is trying to bully others into submission, he's failing miserably

Bullying? I’m not the one calling others names and creating ‘foe lists’. Presumably that is constructive debate, but sharing and discussing objective data is ‘bullying’. 🤔 

Edited June 28 by Earl Aelfheah

[Jenijenjen]

Oh dear, I thought my comment might be misunderstood. Sorry. I am not for a moment accusing you of bullying. 😘

Serves me right for venturing into the Roads and Transport section.

Edited June 28 by Jenijenjen

[Moovart]

14 minutes ago, Jenijenjen said:

Serves me right for venturing into the Roads and Transport section

🤣Yes reading the roads section is beginning to make a person feel like they've been hit by a fast moving undefined mode of transport without even leaving the house!