first mate

Tsk, HP, you'll get hauled into master/mistress Malumbu's study for rule-breaking if you are not careful and you know he/she is in charge😉

This is the way our councillors seem to prefer to communicate- https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/faqs-on-goose-green-ltn-measures

Legal, did you mean to post a link? legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This book review by Prof Alfred back in 2008 is an > interesting read and perhaps gives some insight > into the Marxist perspective on car dominance (a > partial driver of some current policy?) I?ll leave > people to form their own views.

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I personally don?t care whether a hundred thousand > cyclists turned up all living in SE22 (or all > living in Kent) for the flotilla, it?s quite > frankly irrelevant as it is not in any way > representative of the real world day to day > normality of road use in the area. > > The fact is most active travel is made on foot. > And in my view any measures that are put in that > cause greater levels of pollution and/or > congestion jeopardise the health and safety of all > those making those active journeys. > > I don?t believe there is any validity in the > notion that removing LTNs is wrong because it > would be putting more cars on side streets and so > anyone pushing for that must ultimately have the > goal of more cars on side streets. > UNLESS you also accept that the very > implementation of the LTNs in the first place put > more cars on side streets (LL, EDG etc are hardly > bigger than the ?side streets? that have been > filtered - they?re still residential roads after > all). > > The scheme is a failure, completely unfair and > should be replaced with something else entirely > (with proper consultation with all residents). Cue > the ?ah so you just want to go back to loads more > cars on the road - you?d rather just do nothing..? > brigade. No, of course not. But I don?t believe > that the ideology of cyclists and the > environmentally conscious should somehow trump the > rights to clean air of a selection of unfortunate > residents. If you cannot give clean air and quiet > streets to everyone, then your scheme needs work. > If you are giving wealthy residents clean air and > quiet streets at the expense of a selection of > (arguably less wealthy) residents then your scheme > is not fit for purpose. There is simply no > acceptable excuse for forcing these measures on > people. > > Until a fair solution can be found, air pollution > (as horrific as it may be) should be shared > equally by all residents as it is all of our > burden to bear (not just an unfortunate > selection). Well said.

Lots of young, healthy people out enjoying a summery ride over the holiday season...no biggie really. Those of us who can will all enjoy a bicycle jaunt on a gorgeous day. So what?

Or having seen there was a fairly large group of demonstrators at the junction and seeing that the situation might be hazardous, choose to avoid? It does seem fairly simple. It also seems to be the case that you are choosing to make a very big deal out of your own experience and in a post above are listing further grievances seemingly in an attempt to shore up your position as the apparent 'victim' in all this. Meantime, deflecting attention from the reasons the protestors felt compelled to go out in such numbers in the first place. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes, I think that would be the sensible thing > to > > do if it was as dangerous as you suggest. > > I simply said it was dangerous. Which if you look > at the link you posted yourself and think about > having to get off your bike and then help two > young kids off theirs whilst standing in the > middle of the road, with traffic on either side - > I think you'd have to agree it is. Certainly more > dangerous than someone moving their bag.

DC, The children's safety in regard to this one event is moot, even a bit of a straw man. As others have said, you can see an event well ahead, you assess and take a decision whether to proceed on bicycle or not. If you feel your children are in danger you avoid. On the other hand, you seem to be entirely dismissive of the issues raised by LTNs for the elderly and disabled. You have not expressed any concern in that regard.

Well I have only said it once and not aware of anyone other than you repeating it so doubt it is a catch phrase...yet. You have used the 't' word not me. Again, posters that are so outraged at alleged 'danger' to a cyclist and their children seem to have zero empathy with the many elderly and disabled protestors. Why is that? hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > ------------------------------- > > Calling this a 'tactical confection' - is this the > new catchphrase to replace alleged 'trolling'? > HP

RRR, so in a nutshell the protestors are 'idiots' and 'selfish'. You cannot find any reason to consider they too may have a point. BTW, I did not say your children were endangered, please don't put words into my mouth, you suggested they were placed in danger by the actions of the protestors; so if that was the case why did you not avoid what you viewed as a dangerous situation? Why continue forward. I really don't think many posters are convinced by what you are saying. Why not just give up on this particular tactic, it is not working. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > RRR, it was a protest, you made a choice to > turn > > up on bicycles with your children. Any danger > to > > your children could have been avoided. You > would > > have been inconvenienced no doubt by having to > > avoid that route but protests often do cause > > inconvenience. > > > > Your 'danger to children' line is tactical hype > > and not at all convincing. > > I didn't even know there was a protest. > > You could just say, I agree with their aims, but > yeah, perhaps not a good idea to block people > trying to turn off the main road into the square. > > But you chose to say I'm endangering my children, > by being unfortunate enough to run into some > selfish people blocking the turn off the main > road. > > Sure.

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?

RRR, it was a protest, you made a choice to turn up on bicycles with your children. Any danger to your children could have been avoided. You would have been inconvenienced no doubt by having to avoid that route but protests often do cause inconvenience. Your 'danger to children' line is tactical hype and not at all convincing.

But no comment or care for those who are finding closures so difficult they feel compelled go out and protest? As for RRR comments about dangers to cycling children, my goodness, if it was so terribly dangerous why not avoid that route? There is a choice. The 'danger' thing is tactical. I don't think many are buying such an obvious attempt to undermine the point of the protest. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Like I said. Not commenting on the protest, just > the comments saying rah was wrong and that > everyone was on the pavement. > > I?m sure that the organisers would have requested > those attending not to block access, but it?s > factually correct to show some did. The whole > discussion has arisen because multiple pro people > have come on to deny that was the case. Standard > position of only correcting mistruths

Sorry, this looks really tactical. You are so obviously trying to create an impression that undermines the validity of feelings of those at the demonstration. Some cyclists 'may' have been blocked for a few hours (views seem to differ as to whether this was the case) but none of you seem to note or care that elderly and disabled residents feel so negative about the impact of LTNs they assembled to protest. What about their right to get around?

I know of a number of pedestrians badly injured after tripping and falling because of poorly maintained paving around ED. It is a problem. If winter cycling increases sections of road will also present a hazard.

It was a protest, it is generally accepted that protests may cause inconvenience to others. Look at the M25. It is interesting RRR and others get on their high horses about the temporary effects of one protest by the elderly and disabled who are negatively affected by LTN changes. At the same time they are intensely relaxed and 'okay' about increasing traffic on other roads because the ends justifies the means- including perhaps the sacrifice of some children's lungs.

Lovely idea but where do you store something like this? Unless you have a large house with a side entrance to your property and an outhouse or garage, I suspect it is totally impractical for most people. Similarly, electric bikes are touted as a solution for older people who might find the hills around ED a challenge, but they are also heavy and expensive, how do you lug them in and out of your home and where can you leave them that is secure- if you want to go shopping or similar?

Well something does not add up. Demand for social housing is rising, so much so there are plans to infill and build on green land, but demand for school places is dropping? Go figure?

Am I missing something? The recent narrative has been about a desperate need for new schools because of rising population? Hence knocking down an old hospital and building a new school(Charter), a new primary on Lordship Lane (Harris) and so on. How does that square with, presumably, not enough children applying for pre-existing schools?

Would agree with both of you. The driving children to school issue, when a major rationale for LTNs is to 'save children's lungs', is almost paradoxical.

'Living my best life'

Northernmonkey said: "If the September figure was chosen as a baseline and compared with Sept post measures, from memory it would produce something in the region of a 35% increase in cycling". Weasel words NM. Phrases like "from memory" or "something in the region of" are not useful or convincing.

🤣 Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've now got a vision of you two standing near > each other taking photos and nodding to each other > without actually knowing who each of you is ... > > Go ahead say hello and see what happens 😃

The first photo is not accessible at all ( sorry, cannot open it) but the second shows quite a queue. Why quibble about exact times? You have evidenced significant traffic buildup, right next to a school and health centre. What we need is videos or photo evidence taken over a number of months at various times.

Slarti b has done a great job of casting doubt on Southwark's statistical 'argument' in favour of LTNs, and you do not seem to have a response based on very much that is concrete, instead seeking to challenge the integrity of those holding different views to your own. On the note of peddling lies and half-truths- where has Slarti said 'Southwark are evil'? No doubt Heartblock can also produce photos and video evidence to support his/her case. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure 200% plus is the right figure - but > your approach of 'southwark are evil because they > have deliberately tried to mislead people' is > laughable in the face of your support for One > Dulwich. > > The 8% they raise in this 'paper' is also > undoubtedly massively understated - but obviously > chosen for effect and the hope that people will > read the headline and move on. > > One Dulwich lie and use half truths to perpetuate > a narrative of fear to stoke up support. > > > > slarti b2 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > northernmonkey Wrote: > > So - I cracked and read this 'report'. > > > > Following my earlier response to you I have now > > read through that OneDulwich Report in more > > detail. Well researched and balanced though I > > think it pulls it punches a bit. The main > issue > > that strikes me is, not the fact that > Southwark's > > claims of a 231% increase are desparately over > > inflated, but that Southwark council officers > seem > > to be manipulating and deliberately suppressing > > data to support Councillor's political agenda > and > > mislead residents. > > > > The fact that Soutwark published these > misleading > > statistics just before the end of the Dulwich > > Streetspace consultation period (presumably to > > avoid scrutiny?) then encouraged respondents to > > revise previous responses in the light of the > so > > called success of the road closures is > absolutely > > outrageous. > > > > This confirms a pattern of deceit by > Southwark's > > Highways department which is surely not fit for > > purpose. Equally at fault are the councillors > who > > willingly promulgate these false statistics. > > > > Sadly we appear to live in a one party state > with > > no effective scrutiny or opposition to our > local > > (Labour) councillors, the (Labour) cabinet and > our > > (Labour) MP who seems to be a glove puppet for > the > > (Labour) councillors.