first mate

I don't think anyone on here was suggesting it was not a scam?!

Popular with some but deeply unpopular with others. The consultation process questionable. As already observed, some 300 locals used a GE vote to indicate their dissatisfaction with the current state of play. I don't think this is going away any time soon.

Doesn't really matter if one or many. The questions OD are/is asking the council reflect the views of many- not all- living in ED and Dulwich. I for one am glad they are keeping up scrutiny and pressure.

Does anyone know who funded it?

Penguin68, as an unintended consequence, it certainly makes sense that criminals try to get a slice of the action.

Thanks for the clarification, some posters playing fast and loose with the facts maybe? Again, can the more myopic cycling proselytisers respect thread titles and cease trying to derail them, please!

Not only that, he and some others are back to derailing threads that query any aspect of their rose tinted view of local cycling infrastructure. Please go and post on your 'joys of cycling thread'.

They are very good; I just wish they hadn't included a suicide help flyer in one of them. I hope that was not deliberate as would be incredibly insensitive.

Looks very much a spoof to me, especially with a name like "emmaroyds".

Please don't try to derail and take this thread off subject; it is about cycling behaviour. Do start another thread on the railings and whatever you think caused them to fall over. BTW, I do not think stating law that applies to all road users, including cyclists, can be classified as "anti cycling rhetoric"?! I pasted this in the context of the video of multiple cyclists running red lights in Dulwich village: Crossing the stop line when the traffic lights are red (jumping red lights) is an offence which the police usually deal with via a fixed penalty notice (FPN) fine (typically £50), as is riding across a cycle-only signal crossing if the green cycle symbol isn’t showing.

Crossing the stop line when the traffic lights are red (jumping red lights) is an offence which the police usually deal with via a fixed penalty notice (FPN) fine (typically £50), as is riding across a cycle-only signal crossing if the green cycle symbol isn’t showing. Where there is an advanced stop line (ASL) cyclists can position themselves ahead of the motorised traffic but behind the ASL, though crossing the ASL on red is still an offence. It’s also an offence to ride through an amber light, unless you are so close to the stop line that to stop might cause a collision, although if the traffic lights aren’t working all road users are permitted to treat the situation as they would an unmarked junction, and “proceed with great care”.

Never mind Mal, enough of us are very glad someone is maintaining pressure and scrutiny on the council and its position on local LTNs. Great work by One Dulwich and more power to them.

I think most of us agree that single issue candidates are almost irrelevant at a GE. But, I also agree, it is noteworthy that some 300 locals were prepared to vote in support of a candidate against LTNs, especially if those voting were concentrated in a small area. It was always going to be a Labour candidate at national level, as most of us wanted the last govt out. However, perhaps that certainty emboldened a few to use their votes to make a local point as well?

Is it a stated requirement for dogs to be put on lead on what now seems to be the shared dog walk/ jogging path? Dogs should be on lead in other areas of the park but they need to be able to run somewhere?

Thankfully, in all my years of cycling I have never had a near miss or collision with a pedestrian. I have had two near misses with a car and a lorry but the most near misses have been with other cyclists, when they were cycling recklessly and at speed.

Malumbu wrote: "Myself and all the cyclists I know would be horrified to have a collision with a pedestrian, even if every near miss and the one collision I have had, is due to the pedestrian not looking" I cannot believe this was not meant as some kind of provocative joke? How many near misses with pedestrians have you had then?

Recent revelations about the Dulwich Society sub committee Chair's background also suggest possible manipulation of stakeholder input into dialogue and consultation with the council on changes to that junction.

Doing a quick search suggests that festivals may well be taking money away from other music venues. Outdoor festivals have created a different expectation of what is on offer and people would rather save to attend those than drip feed smaller or indoor venues. Whether access to parkland should be sacrificed to prop up an ailing nighttime club scene is moot but as a starting point for event justification it is the thin end of the wedge. In a city where there is so much noise and stimulation overall, the option to access quieter and calmer areas of green and nature should be heavily protected for the benefit of all. There is new research on just how vital for physical and mental health these green spaces are. If a three day event could be mounted without taking sections of the park out of use for weeks in summer and without the need for extensive remedial work to repair damage, that would be best.

And the Brockwell Park model is exactly what Southwark Council have in mind , if they can get away with it. As to the observation that festival- goers also like to have an event in 'pretty' surroundings; I am sure they do, why wouldn't they. It also arguably makes that event even more saleable/profitable. But the inherent contradiction that the event they attend then removes degrees of prettiness for others, not only during the event but for weeks afterwards, cannot be denied either.

A number of us are puzzled that the event is not held on the common, this is where events are usually mounted, leaving the more ornamental section of the park free. Again, the objection is not so much to the three day event itself but to the fact that for the sake of three days a large section of the park is taken out of use for weeks, in high summer. There is also significant damage to that section of the park, seriously limiting its use for months. If music venues are closing in London I wonder if this is because they are having to compete with myriad park festivals, of which there has been an explosion.

Does not sound as though that sub committee could by any stretch be described as apolitical. The overall impression is that a subcommittee has been harnessed as a useful stakeholder tool in helping to drive through a council agenda.

Other posters are entitled to their views and there will inevitably be opposing views, that is the beauty of the forum. The issue for many of us is that year on year we would prefer that a large and popular section of the park is not taken out of use for weeks on end, does not have to undergo significant remedial work each time or undergo unnecessary tree lopping to accommodate event structures, and does not have its ornamental aspect impacted at the height of summer, when all of us would like to enjoy it. If the impact of the event was literally only for three days, that would be different. As it is, we are talking weeks and months. There is also the question of long-term impact on substructure and wildlife, who knows... Many thanks to Peckham Rose for raising matters with the event organisers and Southwark Council events.

Sorry, I have to check, you don't mean quad bikes, motorbikes and cyclists are going into Dulwich/Sydenham Woods? I must have the wrong end of the stick...I hope.

This thread should not be in roads and traffic then.

Jazzer, is that link the right one? Edited to say you have to click in the first post in X to see all the other comments. A lot of very upset residents. I hope Southwark Council, Southwark Events and Cllr Catherine Rose, Cabinet Member in charge of parks and who has supported the Gala event come what may, have a good look at all of this and a rethink.