Earl Aelfheah

I mean it is objectively a minority who respond to consultations 🤷‍♂️ …and it will definitely be a minority who turn up to this event If a majority of local residents do turn up to the meeting, then I'll happily stand corrected.

More people have been taking to cycling. it's also worth investing in improvements to infrastructure for existing buses, pedestrians and cyclists, which this schemes seems to do. I haven't 'spread lies' what a ridiculous and offensive thing to say. There are people on here saying they don't want bike lanes / more routes for bikes and that 'Cyclists seem to think they can just take over roads'. The ambivalence to cyclists (often outright hostility) across this section of the forum is well documented. You have also said multiple times that you think cyclists are dangerous and called for the use of bikes to be more strongly regulated. You have even said: "...if there were much greater numbers of cyclists I'd probably stop cycling. On the few occasions I have been out cycling and there have been lots of other cyclists on the same route it has felt quite dangerous and unpleasant" For me to paraphrase that as some people not wanting to encourage more cycling, is hardly a stretch. It's certainly not 'spreading lies'.

People who are fine with the changes aren't going to bother going. Those vehemently opposed will. Ends up being an opportunity for an angry minority to shout at councillors. Feels fairly pointless.

How have you concluded that there has been a trebling of pollution? The data I've seen suggests pollution (NO2) has been dropping across the area: SDT Location 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 139 Lamppost (2139 - L29) Grove Lane 33.2 24.1 27.5 18.6 136 Lamppost (2160 - L12) adjacent to Dog Kennel Hill School 33.8 20.2 23.9 22.3 20.1 138 Lamppost (2127 - L11) Pytchley Road 31.1 24.7 27.4 25.9 23.4 114 Lamppost No 1 Goose Green / East Dulwich Road 37.4 31.6 33 22.6 25.2 25 21.8 161 Lamppost 2120-02 adjacent to 8 East Dulwich Grove 29.2 25.3 162 On the southern downpipe at Harris East Dulwich Primary School, Lordship Lane 23 22.1 151 Junction of Townley Road & Lordship Lane Lamppost ( 2300 - 01) 28.6 18.6 22 20.1 17 97 Barry Road 37.5 37.3 32.5 24.3 26.8 24.4 23

The change to the number 40 (i.e. no longer going to London bridge) was a long time ago - I think more than 5 years ago?

Sounds like a fairly rare point of agreement on this thread. Suggest people email their councillor suggesting the use of professional polling to establish a representative picture of local views on changes in future, and ensure minority views do not dominate the discourse.

Conspiratorial stuff aside, I absolutely agree that the council should use professional polling to get a proper idea of local sentiment (as I already said). Wherever representative polling does take place it shows most people want less priority given to cars and support for things like LTNS. I have absolutely no doubt that a representative sample of those living locally would show a large majority in favour of retaining Dulwich square.

Personally, I would like to see Southwark using professional polling to establish a representative picture of local views and to ensure that minority views do not dominate the discourse. I believe that this is now recommended by central government.

Just for a little balance, the 'review' was undertaken by anti-LTN campaign groups and looks at the responses to online consultation exercises. These exercises are not remotely representative. Polling involving representative samples, consistently show majority support for LTNs.

If you're concerned about speeding in the local area, you can email [email protected] and get involved in helping to do some community monitoring. You will quickly sese the problems of commonplace / normalised speeding and get a sense of the types of vehicles involved (it's not push bikes).

I started this petition about 10 years ago in relation to the Heygate 're-development' (which was corrupt to the core imo). Unfortunately it didn't change anything. But the stats quoted are still shocking. Southwark ended up making a loss on the sale of a hugely valuable piece of central London land and turfed many, many families from their homes in the process. It's the same story - you have massive property / development companies, who manage to completely out manoeuvrer / run circles aorund councillors, often destroying communities and doing very little to make properties more affordable or address the housing crisis. Rather, they add further 'heat' to an out of control, international 'property investment' market. We need more council housing - high density, but mid rise imo.

It might work as some sort of community space. Perhaps a softplay (easy access from the south circular, with parking), or arts centre. Or much needed housing. ... would like to see the skatepark retained.

I think Pablogrande is right here. You can't stop in a loading bay in order to go into a shop and buy something - even if you're going to load it into your car afterwards. So unless there is confusing / non-compliant signage or some other grounds to appeal I suspect you're unlikely to overturn it.

I'm surprised at how relaxed everyone appears to be about the works. They've been designed for: “capturing about 6 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of surface water and releasing it very slowly” in the park. This has been done at taxpayer expense, to mitigate an increased risk of houses flooding, caused in no small part by the failure of Thames Water to invest in a drainage and sewage system in dire need of upgrading / modernising, and unable to cope. Thames Water have paid out millions in bonuses and dividends since privatisation, run up huge debts, and are now on the brink of bankruptcy. Meanwhile we are paying for their under investment in the drainage and sewage system. The park will likely be waterlogged more frequently and for longer.

There has been roughly 30 casualties as a result of collisions around that junction in the last 2 years. It depends how narrowly you want to define the area you're interested in of course. Based on data here

Have you asked tried asking ChatGPT?

Thanks, done!

Considering how nascent AI really is, should we be alarmed that is is already showing an ability to deceive and to self replicate? It's a genuine question, i don't know much about this field, but just feels like we're running headlong into what could potentially be quite dangerous technological developments. 🤷‍♂️

Ok, so you think I've talked down to people. Perhaps it would be fair to provide an example. It's interesting how people rant in really general terms about 'cyclists', make wild claims with zero evidence to back them up, but as soon as one tries to discuss the danger motor vehicles represent, using data, it's 'talking down to everyone'. This is the problem, speeding and dangerous driving is completely normalised.

Who is talking down to everyone else and how?

Has anyone, anywhere on these pages, argued that.? I mean, obviously I'm paraphrasing and using a little comedic licence, but it's not far off: There are people saying they don't want bike lanes. and all over this section, suggesting that cyclists represent an almost unique and singular danger to pedestrians (obviously they can pose a danger, but one that is several orders of magnitude smaller than that posed by motor vehicles, which people seem to be completely blind to). And of course, the same people obsessed with speed limits for pedal bikes, are the same that complain about police enforcement in relations to motor vehicles.

The point is that there are far fewer people travelling by bicycle than motor vehicle. And even fewer of those who are travelling by bicycle over the speed limit (as it applies to cars). And at the same time, a far greater proportion, of the far greater number of people travelling by car, regularly speed. And they speed not just at 20mph, but up to and beyond 70mph. And of course they seriously injure and kill many many more people.

So in summary, people want to discourage bicycles. And until there are fewer people travelling by bicycle, any action to improve things for pedestrians are futile? Yup, that's pretty standard for the 'roads and transport' section. ...because it's definitely people using bicycles, and people using cars, that are serious injuring and killing thousands of pedestrians each year.

They rarely do. Most non sport cyclists would struggle to maintain speeds over 20 for any length of time, let alone 30. There is little evidence that it's a significant problem. And it's notable that speed limits are regularly exceeded by motor vehicles, that there is clear evidence that it leads to death and destruction on a significant scale, and yet nearly all of the attention on this forum is directed at the former. Feels a lot like a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

Have you looked at the proposal? It will create new crossings and will widen and declutter existing pavements.