Rockets

I know it is One Dulwich article and the pro-LTN supporters will take it with a pinch of salt but given significant numbers of traders turned up to the meeting to vent their feelings on the issue and to all oppose the LTNs it will be putting Cllr Rose under a lot of pressure and it will be interesting to see what decision she, and the council, makes. It is clear that there is overwhelming opposition from large swathes of the Dulwich community against these measures and no matter how many people the council manage to encourage to "have their say" in the review they have to start listening to their constituents. We wait with baited breath to see whether they put ideology ahead of constituents.

A word of warning. My wife was a victim of an attempted bag snatch today on Grove Vale and whilst her vice-like grip on the bag prevented it from being taken the thief did get her phone. It happened at lunchtime. The police told her there are groups of thieves working Dulwich at the moment on bikes and there have been multiple daily robberies this week. The thieves are always dressed head to toe in black clothes and ride black bikes (so they cannot be easily identified) and will approach from behind, knock into you and then snatch what they can whilst you are disoriented. Apparently there are 5 of them who are well-known to police who are working the area. Keep your wits about you everyone.

This thread over the last few days reminded me of this.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah Rockets - how we've missed you replying to > messages with your opinions presented as facts. > Welcome back -was a bit worried about you as at > least 2 people had expressed an opinion and you > hadn't been on to own the narrative! > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DulwichCentral Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Chris_1 Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > Plenty of space for everyone, > > > > despite it being the biggest gathering at > > that > > > > junction to date I think! > > > > > > Did you not see this event based from the > > square > > > and passing through it several times? It was > > > bigger > > > > > > > > > https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-families-ge > > > > > > > > > t-on-their-bikes-to-show-support-for-safe-cycling- > > > > > > routes/ > > > > > > I love the fact that one of the pictures you > > shared is of the flotilla of (LCC/Southwark) > > cyclists who cycled down Woodwarde Road from > > outside of Dulwich and had to be directed to > the > > "square" for the photo opp! ;-) Northern - I am afraid those are facts because if the picture had been taken as they came down Woodwarde Road I would have probably been in it as I was walking the other way up Woodwarde when I saw the cycle flotilla and heard the ringleader calling out to people which way they needed to turn at the bottom of Woodwarde. So putting two and two together would suggest, would it not, that many of the cyclists were not familiar with the area and had been (I won't say bussed in) cycled in especially for the event that got sold as Dulwich residents showing their support? Anyway, glad you've missed me ;-) BTW did the tide turn and our dear friend Manatee floated off out to sea?

It may well be a power outage of some kind - does it have any electricity company branding on it? We had a powercut in the depths of winter once and the engineers turned up at about 10.30pm and determined they needed to dig up the road to fix it and said you have two options 1) we start digging now through the night or 2) you have a generator. Being a considerate neighbour we went for the generator - little did we know that once you take the generator you drop to the bottom of the engineer priority list so we had what sounded like the old InterCity 125 chugging out diesel fumes for 2 days before they came to fix the issue.

Every day is GroundHog day!!! ;-)

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Chris_1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Plenty of space for everyone, > > despite it being the biggest gathering at that > > junction to date I think! > > Did you not see this event based from the square > and passing through it several times? It was > bigger > > https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-families-ge > t-on-their-bikes-to-show-support-for-safe-cycling- > routes/ I love the fact that one of the pictures you shared is of the flotilla of (LCC/Southwark) cyclists who cycled down Woodwarde Road from outside of Dulwich and had to be directed to the "square" for the photo opp! ;-)

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DC - no those photos show people standing on > one > > side of the road. The other side of the road is > > completely clear in the first photo - the > people > > are congregated on the Post Office side of the > > road so the other side of the road is > completely > > unobstructed. > > > > I am not sure what narrative you are trying to > > conjure here. > > > > Again, this is amplifying the blinkered and > myopic > > attitude of many LTN supporters that is turning > > more and more people against the measures. > > If you are cycling along DV and turning right into > the square you would not be expecting a large > crowd blocking the planters. If you are stuck in > the middle of the road with children on bikes you > can't easily reverse to enter the square on the > other side away from the crowd. > > In the original post this is what happened to RRR > > Then there were numerous posts from anti low > traffic people denying that people had blocked the > road. > > Then that was proven to be factually incorrect > with photographic evidence. > > What's the narrative there? You're the expert ;) DC - this so called photographic evidence shows the post office side of the junction partially blocked by a group of old people protesting. Those same photos show the other side of the junction is completely clear. In fact, one of the photos actually shows a cyclist exiting the junction from Calton on the side of the protestors so claims that the junction was blocked is the only factually inaccurate statement in all of this. But we know this is a tactic being repeatedly used by pro-LTN lobby - attack the anti-LTN lobby on anything you possibly can. The real issue here is that the pro-LTN lobby are annoyed that at one protest more old people bothered to turn up in numbers greater than all of the "party in square" events combined.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > first mate Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Come on Northern, you can choose to > continue > > on > > > a > > > > route or not. Aside from issues of > > > inconvenience, > > > > no one is forcing RRR and his/her children > to > > > > continue moving forward on their bicycles > > into > > > > 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' > to > > > > children is quite obviously a tactical > > > > confection. > > > > > > > > > > > > northernmonkey Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > How was there a choice to turn up first > > mate? > > > > Was > > > > > the protest advertised in advance? > > > > > > Bikes turning right have to pull into the > > middle > > > lane. You have one lane to your left going > > > straight on and another on your right > > approaching > > > you. You are sandwiched between to lanes of > > > traffic. If people block the entrance to the > > > square, then it's not possible to turn right, > > or > > > go 'straight on'. You are left stranded in > the > > > middle of two lanes of traffic. If you don't > > > understand this, then you clearly don't > > understand > > > the road layout. > > > > So Rahx3 are you saying that as you turned > right > > all of the access to the junction was blocked > by > > old people protesting? Or was it just that they > > were congregating on the left-hand side of the > > road as you were trying to head up Calton? Was > the > > right-hand side of the junction blocked too > > because all the photos show the right-hand lane > > completely clear? > > The right side (or left side depending on which > way you're looking) was clear heading out onto > Dulwich Village Road I think. > > But the turn from the main road was blocked, > leaving anyone in the right hand turn 'box' stuck > in the middle of the road with nowhere to go. > > I didn't initially make a big thing about this, > although I thought it was dangerous and > inconsiderate at the time. But seeing as I got > roundly attacked for simply suggesting that there > were a 'few idiots blocking people turning off the > main road', I feel it's reasonable to defend the > comment. > > I'm genuinely amazed that there are people who > think it's reasonable, but I can only assume that > they don't understand the junction / road layout. So you didn't consider doing what every other cyclist is doing as a matter of course right anyway now and just use the other side of the junction to enter Calton from DV? Surely that was the most common-sense approach? It's pretty clear that there was a clear route through the junction - you just seem to have not chosen to take it. It seems you are deliberately trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and using it as a rod to try and attack people whose agenda you don't agree with. I suspect what really happened was you cycled up, saw a load of people protesting, thought to yourself "what a bunch of anti-LTN idiots" and then created an "issue" when none really existed to try and smear the event and the attendees.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Come on Northern, you can choose to continue on > a > > route or not. Aside from issues of > inconvenience, > > no one is forcing RRR and his/her children to > > continue moving forward on their bicycles into > > 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' to > > children is quite obviously a tactical > > confection. > > > > > > northernmonkey Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > How was there a choice to turn up first mate? > > Was > > > the protest advertised in advance? > > Bikes turning right have to pull into the middle > lane. You have one lane to your left going > straight on and another on your right approaching > you. You are sandwiched between to lanes of > traffic. If people block the entrance to the > square, then it's not possible to turn right, or > go 'straight on'. You are left stranded in the > middle of two lanes of traffic. If you don't > understand this, then you clearly don't understand > the road layout. So Rahx3 are you saying that as you turned right all of the access to the junction was blocked by old people protesting? Or was it just that they were congregating on the left-hand side of the road as you were trying to head up Calton? Was the right-hand side of the junction blocked too because all the photos show the right-hand lane completely clear?

Legal - the green signs next to the Road Closed signs shows access to the space is for all (bar cars) so the signage certainly suggests that it is a shared space. And given the council pays money for people to host concerts within the road area it's clear that pedestrians are being encouraged to use the space and that it is not just for cyclists. I think much of the problem here is that some cyclists presume that they are the only people allowed to use it and ALWAYS have the right of way. So when Rahx3 says Bags over people what they meant to say was bags over bikes. I am struggling to understand how some on here are suggesting these old folks blocked the road to cyclists and caused danger. It's not as if they chained themselves together to prevent any access. Perhaps someone left their bag between a couple of the planters but it hardly warrants calling them idiots. It's clear there was access throughout the course of the event. Time for some people to take a chill pill and live and let live a little bit.

DC - no those photos show people standing on one side of the road. The other side of the road is completely clear in the first photo - the people are congregated on the Post Office side of the road so the other side of the road is completely unobstructed. I am not sure what narrative you are trying to conjure here. Again, this is amplifying the blinkered and myopic attitude of many LTN supporters that is turning more and more people against the measures.

How dare they....how dare they walk to and stand in a road closed for the supposed benefit of "everyone". How dare they momentarily impede the route of cyclists. How dare they force cyclists to have to deviate from their entitled path. The protestors must have forgotten that the junction is for exclusive use of cyclists only and that everyone needs to get out of their way. Honestly......this is really exposing some painful home truths about the myopic attitude of many on the pro-LTN lobby. Rahx3 is no doubt aware that when the "Party in the Square" takes place that the organisers physically barrier some of the gaps between the planters on Calton to protect the pedestrians from cyclists. Maybe the issue at the heart of this is that far more people turned up to this anti-LTN protest than have ever turn up for any of the "Party in the Squares".

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep, a small number of idiots blocking the right > turn for cyclists with their bags and placards. > > ?Open the roads? they say, whilst obstructing > their use for the many families passing through. > 🤦‍♂️ Rahx3 - why do you refer to these people as idiots? Is it because as a pro-LTN supporter you have become so used to your peers name calling anyone who dares to try and have a voice that amplifies a view other than your own that it has become something of a Pavlovian response? These people hardly look like idiots - it looks very much like a group of people who are protesting against the closure and they are providing no more of a blockage than the time Southwark Cyclists/LCC descended en-masse (in an organised group coming from the Lordship Lane area) to celebrate the closure of the junction earlier in the summer and pose for the photo op they organised with Southwark News. Why can't you just respect that these people want to protest?

Metallic - what will happen next is whatever the council wants to happen. They seem hell bent on ignoring and depositioning any opinion or view that differs from their own!

Covid was the catalyst for the increase in active travel not LTNs. As Heartblock says all LTNs have done is shift pollution from one area to another and have been a ludicrous vanity project built upon the back of aggressive lobbying from the cycle lobby. The council appears to be doing everything in their power to create the impression that LTNs have been the magic bullet to solve all the problems. The reason they chose to use the baseline from 2018 rather than the surveys done right before the LTNs went in is so transparent - perhaps they will explain their rationale. Surely the council could finally organise a public meeting for us all to have our say - seems to be no reason why public meetings can't start again now?

Rahx3??your timing is perfect.here?s some data analysis of council numbers?..what do you think of this?..is the increase 231% or just 8%?.? https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/has-cycling-on-calton-avenue-gone-up-by-231 Is the council trying to manipulate the numbers they publish to influence public opinion?.like they did with the 47% increase in traffic at the DV junction during OHS?.looks like they might have dropped another smoking gun at the scene of the crime!

My family walked to Herne Hill station yesterday and we wandered past the Party in the Square (whatever it is called) and this image really brought home to me the madness of these closures. A picture speaks a thousand words and all that....

My you all love a pile-on don't you? Heartblock didn't circulate the tweet from the Labour councillor showing the decline I did. And I referenced TFL in my message but the data is from DfT not TFL so that was my error - the text links to the data the councillor used to source are embedded within the graphic. He has been pushing the cycling in decline message for some time so he must believe the data supports it. I do think it is interesting that a Labour councillor neighbouring one of the areas supposedly benefitting from LTNs is taking such a strong position against them. His tweets are very interesting.

slarti b2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DuncanW Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > So... Dulwich active travel levels are already > super-high, probably couldn't get higher - > they're > > at the maxiimum basically. But also... cycle > journeys had a boom in the first lockdown, and > that has now all but evaporated. > > Might take me a little while to process that. > > Why? Cycling journeys are a very small proportion > of active travel journeys, less than 10% according > to TfL. So a big increase in cycling can lead to > small increase in active travel. And remember 68% of local journeys were already active travel yet only 3% of those were cycling. I know some people don't want to hear this but maybe ploughing huge amounts of money into trying to increase the cycle share of active travel isn't the answer. The obsession with trying to make London the new cycling Amsterdam may well be hugely flawed and a complete white elephant.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Oh and TFL has also published data that cycle > use > > has dropped back across London to almost > > pre-lockdown levels...I imagine quite a few > > bicycles on gumtree soon, not my little two > > wheeled horse though, she travels pre/post > > lockdowns and pandemics, but doesn?t like rain > > 😜 > > Any link to this data? > > And any evidence that making driving easier, > reduces car journeys? There is lot's showing the > opposite. > > I know you've said previously that it's best not > to respond to requests for evidence or to > questions from others, but this is a discussion > forum, so perhaps you'll reconsider? > > Re. walking, if people decide not to make a > journey in their car, many will walk it instead. > LTNs discourage car use, particularly for short > local trips. Rahx3 - this Labour councillor in Hackney has been pointing people to a lot of the data from TFL showing that there was a cycle boom in the first lockdown that has now all but evaporated. It is certainly noticeable around Dulwich how fewer cyclists there are (of course, school holidays will impact that but still we aren't even in winter yet). The figures show that even with good weather this summer cycling numbers have dropped significantly/hugely since the first lockdown. And it seems this trend is being seen nationally too. https://twitter.com/SingleFilePlz/status/1426861705586380804/photo/1 Unfortunately modal shift to cycling seems to have been a temporary blip that was unsustainable but many of people did predict this. The cycling revolution just doesn't appear to be happening - maybe the council and supporters of LTNs will go back to the drawing boards to work out why.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even if councillors have spoken to businesses it > doesn't mean that the quality of the exchange is > any use at all. I doubt it was. > > By the way. Be prepared for the great "we are not > going to change anything except for allowing > emergency vehicles through the closed junction" > announcement. It's getting ugly now....

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Much more pressure needs to be put on the schools > - state and private - whose huge number of pupils > means that there are above average road trips in > this 2 or 3 square mile area. Nobody can deny that > traffic is always less dense by at least 10 > percent (I am being conservative) during school > holidays. Why not demand that the schools do more > to effect positive change, such as more perks for > staff and or parents who don't drive there and > back? Crude but effective, even if it means some > will feel "disempowered" or victimised or some > such... Nigello - spot on. But unfortunately such a sensible approach doesn't lead to more funding for cycle projects so the cycle lobby won't get behind it.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are right to point out that these LTNs were > implemented under the pretence that they would > help social distancing (even though you claim all > the shops were closed anyway) > > That was part of the reason although it was more > relevant to the pavement widening schemes. > > LTNs were put in to prevent or mitigate the risk > of a car-led recovery. The fear being that lots of > people who used to travel on P/T would be afraid > to do so because of crowded conditions and would > instead make the journey by car which would lead > to a vast and unmanageable increase in traffic > everywhere. > > > but now that we are out of the other side there > is no longer any global pandemic justification for > keeping them > > There's still the minor problem of a global > climate catastrophe. You know, that thing caused > by burning fossil fuels. Err, Ex- pavement widening....where exactly did that go in? The council were slow to put any sort of widening in place on Lordship Lane....it took them months to widen the pavement outside Moxons....their focus was solely on cycling and measures to support the cycle lobby....they were caught sleeping at the wheel in terms of helping pedestrians on Lordship Lane..... Also, it was clear that the council, and the councillors, were saying the LTNs were being driven by the need for social distancing....correct me if I am wrong by Cllr McAsh started a thread on the very subject of the Melbourne Grove LTN measures as a social distancing tool during the first lockdown.....and it is increasingly clear that was just a Trojan horse used by the council to get the measures in.

It is increasingly delusional to also suggest that cycling is the solution to London's congestion problems. The big issue is, of course, that the council has wedded themselves to the cycling solves all issues narrative and has so jumped on the boat that they have wasted huge amounts of tax payers money into schemes that totally failed to deliver.... ... but they keep telling us to wait for them to bed in when all the data shows cycling (despite the money put into it) is at its lowest for a long time in London.