Rockets

And Madrid... https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/05/madrid-moves-to-ban-app-rented-e-scooters-over-safety-concerns

https://inews.co.uk/news/private-school-parents-attack-labour-vat-closure-3256850

A quick search revealed that that monster truck is in fact a rental vehicle and not someone's over-sized family wheels...no doubt much to the disappointment of Dulwich Roads... https://www.bookaclassic.co.uk/ford-f150-truck-london/

There was a survey of shopping habits of Lordship Lane some years ago, produced by Southwark Council, and it focussed on where people came from to shop there. I will see if I can find it as I think car was quite high as a lot of visitors came from neighbouring (and those further afield) boroughs.

Was it a concession given during the original CPZ discussion as I think you are right, many spaces are taken by the business owners during working hours? They were very vocal against the measures.

Except the ones like the police conducted at Bank junction due to the continual problems posed by bad cycling.....how many cyclists got PCNs.....? No cycling on the pavement is a nuisance and increases risk for pedestrians. Any ammunition given to those who oppose cycling on pavements is down to...well, cycling on pavements....which is not allowed and increases risk for pedestrians.... It's not cyclists it's bad cyclists we are angry at. Just as we are angry at bad drivers. But the difference is we don't try to defend bad driving and offer "yeah, but" excuses....

DKHB you got me! Congrats, you win a prize. I got that wrong and I stand corrected...there you see, admitting you got something wrong doesn't hurt and can be quite therapeutic...perhaps some of you and the council should try it! Bottom line remains the council chooses to spend millions of tax payers money on Dulwich Square yet Lordship Lane pavements are in a terrible state of repair and are often flooded. Perhaps Cllr Leeming can assure you the pavement on Lordship Lane is perfect and never floods and you can come on here and tell us you have proof all is good! P.S. is that a picture of Cllr McAsh and his grand CPZ plan per chance?

Especially when it comes to the council and their agenda and gaining constituent consensus. They always put self-interest ahead of their constituents.

Ha ha...you just can't help yourself can you! In one breath you are urging people to end the culture wars and by the end of your post you're continuing to wage one....can you not see the irony there?

There are probably so few threads discussing this because every thread that, for example this one, says there is an increasing problem for pedestrians being caused by cyclists gets hijacked by someone from the pro-cycle lobby saying...but cars kills more people than bikes do. Which is exactly what you have just done - again. Thank you!

https://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/24558055.lime-bikes-instructed-removed-brent-council/ Brent has had enough

I am also anti-champagne socialist as much as anti-Marxist so that's why I find it laughable that a council, who has been pleading poverty, can find £5m for Dulwich Square's repeated renovations...I bet the Marxists hate that as much as I do. And then I read the following which is said to be part of an email Cllr Leeming sent and you realise how much they are lying to everyone (the overwhelming majority clearly didn't respond to his council's repeated consultations!), how the consultatuon had no bearing on the outcome (approval 2.5 years ago - it was a done deal before the consultation) and what the real motivation is. If true this is damning. Meanwhile the pavements on Lordship Lane are in an awful state. #forthefewnotthemany

Given the £ the council is spending on Dulwich Square and the Hunts Slip works there is zero excuse for the shambolic nature of the pavements on Lordship Lane - I walked down there today and after any short amount of rainfall the pavements become very waterlogged. It's a bit like the leaf clearing (or lack of it) in Autumn - it seems Lordship Labe is very low on the priority list.

I do wonder if this is reflective of the ideology of the various councillors representing their wards: - Dulwich Village councillors happy to spend huge amounts of tax-payers money on beautifying the already most beautified part of the area to keep their neighbours/constituents happy - the Champagne Socialist approach to socialism - Goose Green councillors reluctant to spend money because the wealthy so and so's of Lordship Lane should think themselves lucky to have any pavement at all - the Marxist approach to socialism! 😉

I dunno, most of my neighbours and people I know who use the area hate it.

Funny that….one wonders whether the same advice was given to the current councillors….

But don't let your prejudice blinker your opinion...ahem The councillors spent time lobbying to retain the ATM at the Post Office so the Village'ites could withdraw their gold bullion - so if they can do that they can represent the needs of their constituents by lobbying to improve mobile provision for those who live, work and play in the area. But let's hope they do a better job because of course the day after the photo op saying they had saved the ATM it it was removed.....much to the embarrassment of the councillors….

Maybe I should have said Cllr McAsh foolishly wrote on his blog on LTNs 😉 .......this stuff can haunt you especially when you are both the local councillor championing those LTNs and now Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets and Waste - so his comments are very important. I suspect he is a little bit more politically savvy now as this did happen around the time of some other politically naïve decisions and actions. Accountability needs to be high on any politicians' radar and if you say something that doesn't materialise surely you have a moral obligation to address it? What he promised has not materialised - is everyone supposed to just turn and blind eye and pretend it doesn't matter. This is why politicians of all persuasions have such an awful reputation and trust in politics is at an all-time low - with party and politics being put before people.

But not their customers who try to access their networks. I really thing this is something councillors should be getting involved with as everyone is frustrated by it - a compromise needs to be found.

Well, it didn't did it? Just to remind you (again) the council did not monitor the whole area as major displacement routes like Underhill. Crystal Palace and Barry Road were not monitored. So any claims of traffic falling across the whole area is a wildly inaccurate falsehood spun by the council and parrotted by the pro-LTN lobbyists. And as Cllr McAsh famously wrote on his blog LTNs cannot be considered a success if they do not reduce traffic for everyone. And they haven't- so by his own bar they are a failure. Hurrah, well all that momey spent, delays to emergency service and massive displacement was worth it then because a handful of people now walk to Gail's. P.S. you know the council's own data on that junction showed most journeys through that junction were part of longer journeys because it was one of the only east/west routes across the Dulwich Area? The congestion wasn't being caused by people going to the Village to buy coffee.

But you did.......and by doing so did you not just engage in hipster racism?

But Malumbu - an ex local councillor is giving their opinion based on their experience of being a local councillor - that's not them playing into the common view. The above speaks volumes - something many refuse to acknowledge. And this seems like a perfectly sensible idea to address the issues. The current council have their priorities all wrong and have (perhaps deliberately) overlooked pedestrians and public transport and identified cycling as the cure-all. When they finish splurging millions on Dulwich Square compare that to the state of Lordship Lane if you want a visual metaphor on where their priorities lie.

It's not often that I feel compelled to come to DKHB's defence but there is a first time for everything...;-) And I cannot believe we are now arguing over whether Carnival or East Dulwich has a higher crime rate. And I am no Rachel Aldred but it seems comparing crime over a two day event where people go to party with crime over a month in East Dulwich isn't giving a true picture on the crime levels - the modelling needs to include some sort of adjustment to per day or per month! 😉 DKHB has shared the numbers for one day of Carnival not the total for the duration of the event (there were 334 arrests and 8 stabbings) and I think what concerned the Police this year was that the family day was marred by violence and stabbings (one that left one woman with life threatening injuries) and anyone who has ever gone to Carnival (and that includes me) knows that if you want to avoid the nasty folks who go there to cause trouble then it's best to go on the family day. The police deployed 7,000 officers to police the event over the weekend and I think the number who attend is nearer 1 million than two million. Unfortunately violence and crime has always been part and parcel of any event that attracts large numbers of people (I remember the risk from attending the dodgems that would arrive every bank holiday at the local park as a kid) and Carnival is no exception, in fact the police say it is one of the most taxing events for them because of the high number of people crammed into a small space (there have been repeated calls to move it to Hyde Park and if you remember a few years ago they made it a circular route as it was becoming dangerous) - in the 90s and early 2000s the risk was from "steaming", now, unfortunately it is a focal point for gangs many of whom no doubt go in search of a good time but come across other gangs doing the same and my experience has always been that if you are sensible and keep your whit's about you and your eyes open to what is going on around you - you can have a brilliant time. None of that is casual racism it's pragmatism. For the police Carnival is a massive focal point and it drains resources from across London and they have to prioritise accordingly.

You're reacting to a troll who is probably someone who posts on here in a pro-LTN capacity and recently set-up a fake account to post such pearls of wisdom - the clue is in the user name! And the detour argument is the most flawed logic there is and why displacement is such a huge issue with LTNs - people don't stop using their cars they just drive further, thus increasing pollution. It's the Achilles Heal of the LTN!

Dulwich Village residents can sleep well tonight knowing that, despite having a keen interest in everything that happens there, Malumbu has no intention to move into the area/borough….;-)