first mate

At the last ED CPZ consultation, there were concerns that any CPZ would negatively impact local shops and their trade by removing parking for shoppers in cars (a point that was raised by businesses in LL, if I remember). The Council response was that there would be more paid for parking on LL to make up for this, as well as paid for spaces on residential streets adjacent to LL. If parking is decreased on LL it is likely to increase on residential side streets, especially where parking is free. I don't think we are anywhere near a tipping point that all those shoppers in cars will suddenly switch to buses or bikes.

There seem to be all sorts of blocks for this event being mounted on the Common, one is that it was 'designed especially' for the current site, though the organisers seem to have had absolutely no problem rejigging their plans to the original site footprint to expand the event to what we had last year- which I think really imposed on a large part of the park and spoilt the feel. I would suggest pressing very hard for relocation to the Common ( also closer to transport links). There must be a way, surely? If not, then wholesale relocation to a more suitable venue. I just do not think the park should be subjected to a festival-goer footfall of 60,000 plus over the summer.

I may be viewing things through rose tinted spectacles but I have not seen one road sweeper on the residential streets near me, in the past I would see them almost daily in the autumn/winter. I especially remember a lovely guy who was I think a Rastafarian. He was really diligent but I think now retired. He was celebrated by the Council a number of years back with a large banner with his face on it. It could be that I am missing the replacement sweepers, or that automated sweepers have replaced the people, only I have not seen them and the streets near me have a lot of wet and slippery leaves along the pavement, something that cannot be safe for various types of pavement user. It also disguises dog poo that has been missed by the odd owner!

The pavements definitely need mending along stretches of LL, I have known a few people come a cropper as a result of cracks and uneven walking surfaces. I would though resist pavement widening; I think it may create more problems than it solves. However, I suspect the Council would be all ears at the suggestion. On another note, wouldn't it be great if the Council could reinstate street upkeep, like leaf sweeping. The leaves have been a bit of a slip issue this year. Others can correct me, as I am not sure, but could some of the substantial council parking fine slush fund be used for this sort of essential pavement upkeep?

The timing of all this is interesting. After the second ED consultation when the council decided to make three roads a CPZ, they stated that they would be allowing timed paid for parking slots along LL, to help shoppers. I had queried at the time whether this would hinder bus travel. Pavement widening will mean shoppers are likely to find it harder to park on LL and more of them will probably try to park on residential side streets, especially for free parking, or perhaps not visit at all. Of course, placing parking pressure on side streets will also probably propel more streets to go for CPZ, something the council wants. The council has also stated that it will put in more double yellows everywhere (it says for safety but a handy side effect is to further reduce parking). It also says that in the interests of fairness and to balance the needs of shoppers who drive against those of residents, it will place paid for parking slots on residential streets off LL. I am not sure I am in favour of the knock-on impacts of pavement widening. Surely it would increase congestion on LL at certain times, as well as residential side streets, as shoppers and residents drive round looking for places to park.

Don't you think we have suffered enough road and pavement upheaval, for now? Why not have a break? That said, I do agree the pavements need mending as in many places they are a major trip hazard, but widening, no.

Yes, but he knows the visual association more than makes up for that, yes, it might as well say 'Southwark safer streets, sponsored by Lime'.

I don't know for how long you have followed the traffic threads but if you have then you may be aware of discussion and disagreement about a range of issues. It is all there if you care to read back.

I don't want to go down another rabbit hole on this but calling someone a liar and racist can be both insult and an accusation, I'd say. So you are both right 🙂 I am also glad that you qualified misinformation with an 'apparent'. To be clear about that you would have had to follow the threads closely over the years (something you may have done, hence your wise qualification). There has been plenty of twisting and misinterpretation throughout by many concerned. There are some very well qualified individuals who have questioned and countered assertions by Earl et al over the years, but who finally left the threads because of continued obfuscation.

Same here. Incredibly selfish behaviour. Also illegal.

I am keeping my fingers crossed the next few days are not so loud. I honestly think it is the private, back garden displays that are most problematic as, in general, there is no way of knowing when and where they might happen. For those letting off a few bangers in the garden I get it is tempting to think what's the harm in a few minutes of 'fun', but it is the absolute randomness of sudden bangs that can do irreparable damage to people and animals. With organised events that are well advertised there is some forewarning at least, and the hope is that organisers of such events can be persuaded to adopt and make a virtue of using only low noise displays in future.

Earl, you inferred I was making stuff up, and did so repeatedly, when I posted about my experiences with cyclists at Dulwich Square and other local areas ( having reminded you many times that I am also a cyclist). Your main rationale was that these things could not have taken place because it was not your experience. That is hardly a fact or evidence -based approach, nor is it debating in 'good faith'; it is also offensive. I agree with Rockets that a number of posters who have disagreed with you and the 'pro' posters about local traffic management interventions, seem to have been hounded off threads. Malumbu often reminds us he is some sort of expert in traffic/ transport and more recently that he drives round checking on the efficacy of interventions within the borough ' as a community service'; certain other posters seem to access Southwark documents on traffic management the rest of us cannot find or access. It has felt like there have been deliberate attempts to stifle debate, one way being to consistently repeat that those who disagree are liars, peddlers of fake news or members of a shadowy far right cabal using criticism of local LTNs and CPZ as a route to topple the council and bring in Reform (and we are accused of being conspiratorial). We can all agree to disagree, that is fine, and I completely accept how boring and off putting these sort of 'ding dong' threads must seem to most, but I cannot agree at all to the notion that Earl is some kind of purer than the driven snow community hero, they have done their fair share of spinning, obfuscating and deflecting. Rockets, like all of us, is far from perfect, but to suggest all he ever does is make stuff up and create false narratives is just nonsense.

The 'misinformation' line makes it sound as though everything thing stated or inferred by the pro Southwark traffic management supporters on this forum, is without flaw and always accurate and true. Of course, not everyone agrees.

But, equally, those who have expressed criticism or reservations about a number of local interventions have been called 'daft', 'petrolheads', likely supporters of the far right, of reform and similar, members of One Dulwich, and finally, it has been inferred some of us are outright liars and things we have witnessed cannot be true because they conflict with the views and preferred narrative of some on here. It may suit some of you to see the work of certain posters as a "public service" but I have to disagree.

And, to be frank, many of us would disagree with Dulville on that last statement.