Rockets

Malumbu, please stay on topic. Admin, perhaps you could police this - some people seem determined to take threads off topic.

Definitely Lime dumping them, there are loads along Court Lane too. The council has added more bays (Calton) and Lime seems to have taken this as good reason to dump hundreds of the things all over Dulwich. Someone ought to remind the council that this is supposed to be a trial and people are getting fed up that our streets are getting littered with dumped bikes. It's beyond a joke.

The last time the council did a survey of visitor trends to Lordship Lane (back in 2015) the results were very interesting and suggested Lordship Lane was a bit of a destination high street drawing people from a wide area (which makes sense) - the report said: [Lordship Lane] draws people from a wider than average area: 57% of those surveyed were from SE22, SE15 or SE12 - the remainder came from 29 "further and more widely distributed" postcodes dotted all over London. 25% had travelled for more than 30 minutes to get there 22% had arrived by car which was twice the average of any other Southwark High Street (bar Walworth Road). It was one of the key points the traders on Lordship Lane used to lobby the council when they planned a very broad CPZ zone in the very first instance as it would have had a negative impact on it. So, for Lordship Lane it certainly looks like it would have a negative impact - and remember, this report was done in 2015 when the Lane had few eating destinations and the report stated that: However, while frequency of visit is high and average spend a little above average, a third of the visitors are rather unenthusiastic about what is on offer, while another third are there because of the range of shops. Lordship Lane serves shoppers in many retail categories but underperforms on foodservice.

The challenge is always that as soon as chains start moving in then rents increase and the independent's can't compete (chains can happily run a loss-leader in an area given they will have more profitable outlets elsewhere and often the attraction is brand building and delivery footprint). You hear increases in rent being cited by so many of the independents (Luca's for example which has always been a shining light for quality and popularity but they just can't make it work with the rent increases being imposed on them).

The closure of Hisar really is the end of an era and the fact it is being replaced by a Chipotle speaks volumes..... The Lordship Lane many of us loved so much is changing beyond all recognition.

How often had they been updating it before - was it every 3 or 6 months? No updated data for 8 months suggests there is either one due or they have stopped publishing it.

Malumbu - is there any evidence that CPZs make a difference - the fact that some suggest they help climate change is perhaps the most obvious form of greenwashing out there? What they do is make the council money and no-one should be in any doubt that that is the council's motive.

Interesting note at the bottom of the council’s explanation for the u-turn. How will this work given the cycle race track running through the middle of the Square, will they have to redesign it again…not sure public events and the speed some cyclists rattle down Calton Avenue towards the DV junction are good bed fellows. In response to the feedback from the community and key stakeholders, we're seeking to gain permission from the Department for Transport to designate the highway and public realm of Dulwich Square for permitted public events. There will be a consultation in May with all interested stakeholders

Update from One Dulwich….interesting how negative respondents are cited for u-turn by council yet result was very similar to Calton closure responses yet they forged ahead with that….does this leave the council open to complaints about consistency? Well done Dulwich for fighting this ludicrous idea….I wonder how much of our money was wasted on it…. Campaign Update | 17 May Turney Road closure scrapped and Dulwich Village junction consultation postponed Southwark Council have announced that – having considered the responses to the consultation held in October and November last year – they have decided not to ban vehicle access along Turney Road from the Dulwich Village junction. This seems to confirm what many had suspected, that the proposal to close Turney Road was a “false flag” tactic designed to enable the Council to say that it has listened to feedback and to draw attention away from their failure to respond to the community’s wishes in relation to the Calton Avenue/Court Lane/Dulwich Village junction. It is not clear why, when 66% of those commenting on the proposed closure of Turney Road to vehicles objected to it, the Council have decided to retain vehicle access, but when 64% of Dulwich respondents in a previous consultation objected to the closure of the Calton Avenue/Court Lane junction to vehicles, the Council decided to ignore them. Council’s report shows majority against design objectives and proposals The Council says that “the feedback from the consultation was broadly supportive”. In fact, it shows the complete opposite. As the Council’s own consultation report states, “there was limited support for all three objectives”. When asked what other objectives should be considered, the key responses were: “displaced traffic”, “access for key workers”, “equality of access for disabled people”and “opposition to junction changes”. None of these have been addressed, despite Southwark Highways’ Dale Foden assuring One Dulwich on 30 October last year that he had “heard your aspirations” about allowing vulnerable car-dependent road users through the junction and that they were “currently working on means to give better access to blue badge holders, SEND transport and other groups”. Only one in three respondents supported the designs for the junction. When asked to comment, the most popular responses were: “don’t support children’s play”, “don’t support seating”, “don’t support public art”, “don’t support planting” and “waste of money”. Hardly “broadly supportive”. As the third anniversary of the junction closure approaches next month, the Council says the consultation on the redesign of the junction, promised for “early in 2023”, will now commence in Autumn 2023 and be implemented in 2024. Vulnerable residents and Helen Hayes MP After writing to our MP Helen Hayes in November last year asking her to help Blue Badge holders and other vulnerable road users to be allowed access through the Dulwich Village junction, we received a series of emails from her requesting the names of One Dulwich “activists” (see our 15 February Campaign Update) before she would correspond further – despite our having explained why this was inappropriate. We have since asked Helen again if she will champion the needs of vulnerable road users through the junction but, so far, her support has not been forthcoming. The One Dulwich Team

Ex- but it is also true is it not that transport includes a broad variety of vehicles beyond the private car and would you not agree that the private car is a problem but not as much as say buses, taxis, PHVs, delivery vehicles or HGVs - that invariably spend far more time actually on the road. I have always felt that for council's to somehow claim that CPZs are implemented to impact climate change is classic greenwashing. Also I must challenge you that even though you say congestion does not contribute to increased pollution yet the report you link to states: Congestion can increase local air pollution but its impacts are complex and depend on several factors. We are all in agreement that a lot has to be done to improve the quality of our air but, by far, the biggest challenge is for things beyond the private car: gas heating, building works and the fact 40% of the airborne pollutants and particles come from outside the city (from agriculture etc). And when I see councillors post things like this: https://twitter.com/margynewens/status/1652724866896805892?t=qXu8rAKfE72AL86zkbOAsA&s=19 it just really frustrates me, especially as Cllr Newens talks about the heavier the car the bigger the problem (which is true but few cars are as heavy as a delivery van, bus or HGV). I also do note with a smirk that Cllr Newens refers to herself on her Twitter bio as a Socialist-environmentalist. Do you remember the time she used to refer to herself, if I remember correctly, as a Sugar Trader - of course sugar production is a really environmentally sound practice.....

Ex- what do the Vivacity monitors look like - are they the little square greyish/white boxes fixed on top of road signs and traffic lights? Earl - a clarification - the traffic data from the pneumatic tubes has been published - and the issue people have with that is, per the aforementioned thread, the data is unreliable and the manufacturers of the tubes recommend only using them in areas of free-flowing traffic (not close to junctions as they don't properly record crawling traffc) and Southwark has put a lot of them very close to junctions. That isn't a conspiracy theory - just walk around Dulwich Village and see where the tubes are positioned for yourself and ask yourself - is that an area of free-flowing traffic - if not then do you think he data that has published is accurate? And remember, the data had been moving in the wrong direction for the council as many of the streets on the dashboard were red so I posted this thread because I was interested to see whether the red trend continued and when we could expect another update from the council on the dashboard. The longer it goes on the more people rightly should question why the council isn't publishing the data and has removed many of the the tubes (maybe because they are using the Vivacity sensors and will publish that data in due course - but no-one has heard anything from the council so we are all left guessing).

Ex- thanks for responding, that's really interesting and useful. I can see that this will also leave councils in a bit of a bind as when they switch to a new system if that new system demonstrates there were inaccuracies in the old system it will likely fan the conspiratorial flames with those opposing LTNs saying - told you they were lying to us! Although I have also seen those on the anti-side saying that many of the modelled estimates for cycles etc (because of the weaknesses of the tubes to record those) were wildly optimistic and inaccurate after councils published better quality/realistic data from the Vivacity sensors. It will be interesting to see whether Southwark plans to update the dashboard and if they do whether they rely on the old systems or the new ones and whether the transition throws-up any anomalies.

Just leaving this here with (for once ;-)) no comment: https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/profile/35482-mrchicken/content/

I think it is interesting that Ex-, who works in the industry, stated that there are multiple ways to measure traffic - which I wonder is a narrative the industry is pushing in light of the controversy over the sub-10km/h limitation of the tubes that have been used, almost exclusively, to monitor traffic levels for Streetspace in Dulwich. As far as I am aware, and Ex- correct me if I am wrong, but pneumatic tubes are the only measurement device used for the dashboard numbers Southwark used to publish. And we know that many of the tubes mysteriously moved themselves closer to junctions when the measures went in (Lordship Lane South for example that started near the junction of Court Lane but then moved very close to Melford Road - which sits under slow moving traffic for large chunks of the day). Is it a co-incidence that the dashboard numbers are not being updated and many of the tubes seem to have been removed completely after people became more aware of their sub 10km/h limitation? Are the council tryng to mitigate potential exposure? Cllr McAsh hasn't been seen around these parts for a long time so maybe someone who lives in his ward can pose the question during a surgery or by email to get a response?

It very much is a deflection game and is also very reminiscent of the golden days on this forum for trolls, multiple account holders and other single subject posters like ohthehugemanatee (v1/v2/v3/v4), LTNBooHoo and others (who were clearly existing forumites creating new accounts solely for the purposes of trolling) - we have seen this tactic many. many times before.

Don’t worry Malumbu, you haven’t missed much just Mr Chicken running around like a headless namesake desperately trying to win a debate about the subject matter of their posts. They seem to have been deeply offended when presented with said facts about their posting history. Malumbu I know you’re not a great fan of people positing exclusively on one discussion topic and have always called them out on it so perhaps you could be an independent adjudicator on this one and check Mr Chicken’s posting history and see if you can find anything that isn’t LTN, parking, all streets matter or driving nightmare related…..they seem to think they have posted on a broad range of subjects beyond those but a quick click on their posting history suggests that is very much not the case. Come on, do it for all our sakes as it’s all getting rather boring now! 😉

Fingers crossed it’s a good Chinese!

I think Cllr Rose’s “mansplaining” outburst was a sign all was not well, she looked so stressed and wound-up - she has been thrown to the wolves by the council and her fellow councillors have been more than happy to push her into the firing line whilst they cower.

That’s some rant Mr Chicken…..but, not surprisingly, still no response to the original question, and that probably suggests we have won the argument! Pontification is not a smart defence! 😉

Good catch Heartblock - just changed it before the Lounge police got their way….;-)

Ha ha but you're not responding to my comment on the 4 threads you have only ever commented on that are all exclusively on one subject matter are you... do you have a defence or not...? 😉 Come on...only fair, you called me out and I responded with my defence and now you seem not so keen to try to prove me wrong...or maybe that's because I was right all along. Which one is it? Perhaps you should be the one apologising to me for calling me a liar... Are the facts I posted earlier incorrect or not or has Mr Chicken crossed the road to find something else to peck at? 😉

Mr Chicken, as I mentioned previously (that you seem to have ignored) of your 87 posts they have all been in 4 threads...(and this data comes from the See All Users' Post tab associated with your account) And let's look at the evidence - you have posted 86 times and those posts have been exclusively in threads with 4 subject lines: 1) Parking permits 2) LTN - Our Healthy Streets 3) All Streets Matter 4) Driving Nightmare Maybe attach a post of yours not in any of those and I will stand corrected and you can attach me to the back of your cargo bike and drag me round the streets of Dulwich as a punishment! 😉 My vested interest? Seeing something that addresses the climate crisis that is fair to all. What's yours?

Mr Chicken - I was merely highlighting the fact that you have only ever posted on this forum about LTNs or things about cars and pondered what the motivation for that was and whether you had a vested interest on the basis of that - it is highly unusual for anyone to post solely on one set of topics - even though many accuse someone like me of doing so. And let's look at the evidence - you have posted 86 times and those posts have been exclusively in threads with 4 subject lines: 1) Parking permits 2) LTN - Our Healthy Streets 3) All Streets Matter 4) Driving Nightmare So, unless you are claiming your other posts have disappeared, or you have multiple accounts (which I am sure you are aware due to the nonsense the previous admin had to deal with is banned), it seems you only post on one set of subject matter - so I haven't invented anything. I have never suggested I was the gatekeeper of the topic but, in the same regard, are you appointed judge and jury on the tone of people's posts? No, I didn't think so and let's be honest you have been more than happy to be less than civil to people in the past so it seems a bit rich for you to be critical of others. Additionally, you should know that I am more than happy to debate and do spend a lot of time countering people's points - and that's usually the point the pro-lobby resort to attacking me because they don't have a considered response when presented with some of the realities of the numbers and items them present in support of their position. We will agree on one thing however and that is that I also believe there is a way to make transport better for everyone - where we probably disagree is the path authorities in London are taking to try and get us there.

Please everyone pass the word to friends and family to keep their wits about them. Be wary of any kids on black bikes dressed head to toe in black with big jackets with hoods up and face covering - it's the uniform of muggers; they all dress the same and ride the same bikes as it becomes almost impossible for police to identify them. And do not make yourself a target by wandering around with your phone out - it's rich pickings around here due to the number of people who chat on the/stare at their phone whilst wandering down the street and they target the area because they know people have expensive phones (iPhones in particular).

He is probably long gone now but there was a boy on a bike in a black Trapstar jacket with his hood up and wearing a balaclava targeting people for their phones at lunchtime today. I had seen the same guy near Kings about 45 minutes earlier so he is obviously doing circuits on the look-out for phones. I could see he was sizing up a woman on her phone pushing her pram walking along Townley and managed to call out to her which put him off.