raptortruckman69

Haha great video! I loathe cyclists too! Glad someone is finally taking a stand against them after all the nonsense with the LCC trying force it's will onto us and exclude cars from London.

I don't get the problem. Sure I'd like to see the square ripped up and back to the old way with good car routes, but what's the problem with the houses? People get to have cars (2 each!) but won't be blocking up the road for other drivers by parking all over it. That's the best possible option for smooth and efficient low pollution traffic flow is it not? Though now Calton isn't a trunk route, there's rather less need to keep cars from parking on it too much. But it I expect that the houses will still better with guaranteed parking spaces anyway. Bit of foot shooting by the council. They won't be able to cream them for those CPZ fees we know are coming, but two cars per household will probably give them loads of LTN fines.

They will probably take whatever space remains for parking and hand them over to the LCC and lime!

No Dulwich square will keep the cycle router so cyclists won't be legally obliged (just morally) to dismount. This adds insult to injury as far as I'm concerned. On the plus side, the very expensive benches that the civil was going to discard Jane been reinstated. They are clearly still keeping an eye on places like this so we should keep making a fuss. It's a small sop, but better than nothing.

No we need to get cars back through that junction. Even with the queues of cars it was better than the mess we have now. Frankly I think they should remove the barrier on Gilkes too while they are at it. They could make a high capacity gyratory down Gilkes, the Calton junction, Dulwich village and East Dulwich Grove.

Haha says the lycra lout

Yeah

You don't understand. It's clearly the silent majority who do not want these restrictions on traffic, because we understand that cars are important. When we win a referendum that will finally prove to all but the most dense that the silent majority is against. Until that point there are too many confounding factors so no loss is evidence the silent majority don't exist. No one was going to vote Tory after what they did, and I'm sure people had good reasons for voting against the lib Dems when they ran on an anti LTN position at the last locals. I expect people assumed they would be untrustworthy flip flop on LTNs and indeed they did after getting hammered.

Ok but it's not unlike them to close a major high capacity connection like Calton avenue. I could see them doing that for East Dulwich Grove.

Townley is completely at a standstill right now. A fellow motorist told me it's because East Dulwich Grove is temporarily closed. Is this some sort of trial to sound out an extended LTN? Does anyone know what's going on??

Oh come on everyone knows the silent majority don't support LTNs. So if 67% or whatever replied saying they don't like them then an even higher number in reality must object.

This is stupid the council needs to decide if electric cars are good or bad and stick with it. It's turning into an Orwellian 4 wheels (if they are electric) good two wheels better.

@Rashmipat don't let them get to you. Soon they will start trying to provide "evidence" to make you doubt your sound common sense. Forewarned is forearmed I say, so here are the articles you are likely to see when people try to "prove" you "wrong" by claiming LTNs are a net benefit. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/19/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-boundary-roads-london https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-impacts-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-feb-2024-acc.pdf https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/01/19/study-londons-ltns-reduce-motor-traffic-on-residential-streets-but-not-main-roads/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64319027 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65f400adfa18510011011787/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-research-report.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213624X23001785 Notice how the government, the mainstream media and academia are all in cahoots. We know boundary road traffic is higher than before the LTNs went in because we have to drive on those roads now when we didn't before even to go a short distance and we can see it with our eyes. It's all fakery to push an agenda.

Good luck with the appeal. Don't listen to the obvious fakers. Habits don't change. I'm not going to become a lycra lout just because someone blocked a road it's intuitively obvious that traffic is pushed to the boundary road. The so-called statistics that call this into question are obviously wrong, because they go against what is clearly reality.

I prefer something a bit more modern myself but there's someone with some style.

Ridiculous that they want space just for bike parking on the roads. There aren't enough car parking spaces as it is, and they want to remove even more and charge for the rest you mark my words

You have to watch out on zig zag lines. Only parking wardens can get you for supposedly bad parking (like overshooting a space that's too small onto the pavement). Parking on zig zags is a different category. Anyone can report you to the police because it's supposedly a "safety" issue. An attack on drivers is what I call it. But avoid those like the plague because there are motorist hating busybodies around Dulwich who can't wait to dob you in.

No it was a major access route THROUGH dv not into it. I don't need to know who one Dulwich is, I support him because he wants the junction opened up again just like me. I don't want to have a long detour just to get from one side of the village to the other. We don't need more space for people to hang out. That's what parks and gardens are for. We don't need cafe space either. We need more road capacity for cars.

Never mind about buses, cars parked along Lordship lane block the flow of traffic for cars. If you want to reduce the long queues and resulting pollution, removing all parking on Lordship lane and having it side street only would hugely improve traffic speeds. That would likely help buses if you care about that sort of thing because they are stuck in the same traffic. However buses stopping to pick up passengers on the side without a proper bus lane also cause traffic jams. With all the arguing back and forth over buses Vs bikes people have forgotten that motorists are also important.

I think they should remove all parking on Lordship lane to improve traffic flow for motorists. People can park elsewhere if they want to use the shops. But having one person clogging up the road for an hour occupying one space had a worse impact on cars and visitors than no parking on LL at all.

Speaking of wasting money it looks like they are building a huge soakaway where the road used to be. It's Thames Water who will benefit from that.

They clearly want to use drivers as a cash cow, so turns no incentive to actually cut down journeys. I don't see how making it expensive to drivev will stop anyone from driving.

Criminal how much they charge, especially as they won't even provide adequate sized spaces for the price. Your get what you get. I cannot believe how long I have to spend driving round looking for a good space some days. It is very galling when I'm being treated as a cash cow and massively inconvenienced at the same time.

Always a shame when a shop closes. Less reason to go to LL. It needs a mix of shops to attract people

They take money from drivers to find vanity projects like this.