first mate

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.

Probably because the 5th was a weekday. We still have the weekend to come. Also, some fireworks going off nearly every night for the last few months. Last night something was being let off that made a very deep booming noise every 10 seconds or so. That said, if the general public are beginning to see the harm done by firework noise and choosing to use low noise options and refusing to support organised events that still use the full throttle type, I for one would be very happy. Does anyone know if the Herne Hill Velodrome Halloween fireworks event used low noise options?

So that suggests the consultations with 'community' are just a tick box exercise where information given cannot be relied on. Not a good look. I hope Renata Hamvas who is the local councillor, as well as licensing, finds a way to stop the wholesale, spreadingmonetisation of an important green space in summer. If they get this it'll end up like Brockwell Park before you know it.

There are lots of trees, shrubs, a pond and a large area of wild grass all of it which are habitat for a range of flora and fauna. Do you mean the common- that is mostly grass, some of it laid over an old car park? However, the festival won't use that bit, they prefer to be "nestled" within the park (more aesthetically pleasing for festival goers, who like to be 'at one with nature' while they enjoy the booming bass, and great marketing for the festival owners who can also use the plentiful trees as a sound barrier- it saves them forking out to mitigate the noise.

Surprise, surprise. It didn't take them long, did it. This will be something of a test as to how much the council really care about parks and the environment. A footfall of 60,000. Are they mad? There is no way this park is designed for or can sustain that sort of use. Just had a look at the schedule. If allowed to go ahead, this will involve a large slice of the park (not the common) sectioned off and out of use for three weeks of May and the first week of June. Here's an idea, why not trial the festival in one of the other Southwark Parks, so the 'goodness' can be shared around the borough?

Earl, it is disingenuous to use the results of a borough-wide consultation on a raft of issues and interventions, as the counter response to a highly local and issue specific consultation. If you want to understand the views of those living in a specific area on a specific issue, then which route is likely to be more accurate, one which is area cohort and one issue specific, or something much broader, bringing in views from all over the borough?

Are you seriously asking me this? Please cite where I have ever said this?

Again, they waive thousands, as previously pointed out. Most of which were not of the discretionary type I refer to, a point you have deliberately ignored. The thousands you mention were repaid because Southwark literally had no choice as they were down to internal errors and maladministration- a completely different matter. For someone that repeatedly accuses others of twisting, turning and deflecting (as well as lying, of course) you make a pretty good fist of the same.

Earl said "When you drive along, or 'cut across', an active bus lane, you are liable to be fined". You now seem to be shifting your argument. You now accept that Rockets as likely 'cut across' or as he put it, clipped, the bus lane as he turned left. This is pretty clearly an accidental consequence of a manoeuvre to turn into another street. It just feels very different from driving along a bus lane. Yes, a fine is made because cameras cannot exercise discretion, but at appeal the human end can - if they want to. It feels like Southwark will only waive a fine if they absolutely have to; - of course that fits with their stated agenda to make driving as difficult as possible. TFL just seems a more 'human' in its approach. I guess it boils down to whether we think every single accidental infringement of a 'rule' should be punIshed - an £80 fine is not peanuts. Clearly, if you are fanatically anti -car you will celebrate each and every fine as a means towards an end. Others might feel an accidental and momentary lapse should not be treated in the same way as, say clear, deliberate rule- breaking ( so long as that lapse has not caused injury or worse). But in this instance the accidental and the deliberate breach carry the same penalty.

Earl is just relentless; it doesn't matter how many times the person who was fined explains they were not 'caught' driving along the bus lane ( I think they said they drove across it while turning left, clipping the edge of it), Earl will insist that person is lying. They also insisted I was lying when I posted about an upsurge in the numbers of cyclists I had seen cycling carelessly in the area. The reason given that I must be lying was that Earl had not witnessed this, so it could not be true.

I don't think you are miserable; the fireworks 'thing' seems to be growing. It used to be that you knew when they would likely happen and they were relatively rare, two or three times a year, for just one evening each time. Now, not only do there seem to be more and more large organised events, with extremely loud fireworks, even making Halloween a must do fireworks date- but people just seem to randomly let off four or five really loud ones at odd times of the night, for around 6 months of the year. Given the environmental impact, I'd have thought the council might want to encourage use of low noise fireworks at large events. I really, really hope something can be done.

Or be involved in research used by the council;)

Does anyone know what time tonight's events, the second night of the new phenomenon of Halloween Fireworks, end? These do sound too major to be anything but large- scale organised events and they are loud, very loud. So anyone, for their own reasons, that dislikes or objects to this level of noise for the next x amount of hours, really has no choice in the matter! Could those addicted to loud bangs possibly have a kind of silent disco setup with the bangs sent through headphones, so the rest of us could be spared?