Metallic

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would probably look and read the tweet > properly..... BOOM

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think they run a train service from East Dulwich > to London Bridge nowadays.... I was clearly talking about London Bridge to the Council offices. And who knows the effort required to get to the station at the Dulwich end? This is the problem, older people find no empathy, even when they try hard to save energy, fight against poor air quality, use public transport or even, gosh, caring about others worse off than themselves.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @DuncanW I can't find Rockets' definition of > deposition either. > > - There were a maxiumum of 14 people pictured at > the Age Speaks demo - Rockets are you seriously > suggesting that if there were more than that they > wouldn't have done a nice big group shot? Or maybe > someone depositioned the photographer LOL > > People on this forum are free to point out that in > some instances people complain about the LTNs as > inconvenient. How is that creating a distraction > or a falsehood - other than because it's against > Rockets' 'depositioning' rule? > > Equally, someone is free to point out it was > dangerous to exit Dulwich Village, a main road, > especially cycling with children, when the exit > wasn't clear due to the previous Age Speaks demo. > > > The exit was shown to be blocked in plenty of > photos posted at the demo - so (see above) - why > on earth would Age Speaks not photograph > absolutely everyone in a group shot at Tooley > Street? Have they suddenly become less boasty? > > Rockets please explain 'depositioning' more > clearly so that we can follow your rules more > accurately :) > > BTW Not heard much about One Dulwich lately - have > they morphed into this smaller group of 14 people? I thought a few of them went in on the deputation? Anyway even if only one person turned up - and sorry for my absence - it would go to prove the point of all the elderly and disabled people worrying about getting around and having their life needs limited by sheer problems with LTNs and traffic hold ups. . A long way to walk from London Bridge, or I'm not sure how many buses would be involved, or an expensive cab being as how there are no parking places up there if you had used your car.

"Pretty soon Cllr Williams will start to worry that there might be a cull of councillors across the borough happening under his watch and that might get attention of Labour HQ - and the type of attention that could hinder his political aspirations. That's when he will start showing any sort of leadership on the issue." He hadn't better leave it too late, many people are angry.

You didn't mention the incredible addition of the small electrical recycling bin which is by the P4 bus stop in the Village. Do people from all over the borough drive down to use it? I would think a better place for it would be up near the old Lloyds Bank in Woodwarde Rd.

Please never, never compare traffic issues of any kind in Dulwich/East Dulwich with any area in the north of the Borough. If I had a Tube nearby I would not need to consider either leaving home 30 minutes before I need to, to get on a bus, or use my energy up to walk further than the two niles everyone goes on about.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Appendix 12 Impact on Urban Health (IoUH) > Streetspace Scheme Monitoring Report October 2021 > of the GSST funded project is worth reading. > This scheme is well organised has great data and > appears to be a far more rigorous and well thought > out scheme and report, with data analysed and > reported accurately. > The Dulwich scheme in contrast is poorly planned, > badly delivered and with questionable data (very > hard to see the actual collected data) and with > biased analysis. > Maybe the difference between an organisation > dedicated to showing real health outcomes and an > organisation dedicated to promoting individual > careers and political 'health' WOW

This is the scheme Guys and St Thomas' Foundation funded is it?

The more you look at the activities of Southwark Council, the more you see that they are completely dismissing any constructive criticism, even when it could be that it would positively help the Borough and its residents. Especially their own Council tenants who seem to be the bottom of the pile for getting their voices heard. The road issues have brought to the fore quite a few poor Council decisions, but the one I am most annoyed about is Williams promising all the data to be openly available, and now, somehow, (presumably he has been overruled) we can't see it.

Whether there are fewer bus routes or not, if they don't run freely at the times of day people need them, there goes your policy to get people out of their cars. If I lived in Gipsy Hill and use the 3, would I really walk all the way to Brixton because most of the route is a traffic jam in the mornings?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That junction used to have a reasonable free flow > of traffic as did ED Grove. > > Southwark redesigned the ED Grove Townley rd > junction and the Court-Calton - Village junction > at a huge cost and messed up both so badly that > they became dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists > and increased idling traffic. > > Both junctions are dreadful examples of town > planning, so I think the solution Southwark came > up with was to just close these junctions either > 24\7 or timed to try and hide the incompetence of > failed design and didn?t even think of the > consequences of displaced traffic on residential > and school roads. It shows a supreme lack of > thinking, planning and understanding of traffic > flow. > > My natural belief in Socialism as a way to make a > fairer society and my support of the Labour Party > is truly tested and in the local elections I will > not be voting for any Councillor that supports > these ridiculous pollution creating LTNs. Totally agree.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That junction used to have a reasonable free flow > of traffic as did ED Grove. > > Southwark redesigned the ED Grove Townley rd > junction and the Court-Calton - Village junction > at a huge cost and messed up both so badly that > they became dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists > and increased idling traffic. > > Both junctions are dreadful examples of town > planning, so I think the solution Southwark came > up with was to just close these junctions either > 24\7 or timed to try and hide the incompetence of > failed design and didn?t even think of the > consequences of displaced traffic on residential > and school roads. It shows a supreme lack of > thinking, planning and understanding of traffic > flow. > > My natural belief in Socialism as a way to make a > fairer society and my support of the Labour Party > is truly tested and in the local elections I will > not be voting for any Councillor that supports > these ridiculous pollution creating LTNs. Totally agree.

I agree with Artemis. I would be much more pro if only the council would not dismiss the reasons people have for being a bit anti.

bonaome Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have searched the Southwark site and this thread > and I cannot find the data and collection details > supporting the decreased traffic counts, increase > in cycling and reductions of pollution the council > claims are the effect of the LTNs. Would someone > share the direct links to the relevant > report/data? Good luck with that one - we are all still looking.

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Listening is not the same as having to accept the > respondents? views to remove all LTNs which, let?s > remember, formed a very small percentage of those > consulted within the area. > > Once again, the anti LTN belligerence and threats > of voting Labour out of office which is the aim > and sub text of this entire thread. Well, we?ll > see. I would hardly call it belligerent. Seems to me that what local people want - and have said - is they want these arrangements removed and proper consultation with the residents to design a better system. I don't know where you live but if you lived in the old Area B and were cut off from getting out except via traffic jams at many times of the day, maybe you wouldn't be so judgemental at people who will basically have to put up with this system forever just for a few non-locals and Calton Avenue nimbies (and not all of them by any means by the way!) to enjoy traffic free life and good air quality compared to the rest of the area. By the way, Woodwarde Rd, Calton Ave and Court Lane are dead dark places, I don't like that at all when I'm walking home from somewhere after dark. I bret if you took a vote on that the council would not be able to reassure anyone.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rupert james Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Probably for those that have adopted a polar > bear. > > > Rather than scoff about climate change and the > impact it is having, perhaps you can do something > about it. > > Bicknell - no, I didn't find it funny. > > 40 years time "granddad/grandma what did you do > during the great climate crisis of the mid 20th > century" - "Oh sunny Jim/Jan, I made facetious > remarks" > > Anyway, laid down the gauntlet - would be > interested to hear what you are both doing to > reduce your CO2 emissions including your transport > carbon footprint. You don't have any idea what anyone is doing, neither does anyone know what you are doing, so my suggestion is you don't insult posters, just keep to the brief.

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > traffic orders for duwlcih are up on southwark > site > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/t > raffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/ > traffic-management-orders?chapter=5 > > look at drawing for calton ave. cant see how an > ambulance gets through > > interesting that drawing done by MNRP - same as > did options report. not really that independant, > then. > > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1015 > 20/Appendix%20F2%20-%20Options%20review%20Report.p > df Be interesting if a 999 call LFB turned in when a load of cyclists come down Calton Ave, because of course it is their right of way, or so they are always saying.

Friends of mine have had some name calling at them because they are anti the junction of Court Lane, Dulwich Village and Calton Avenue being left closed. If anyone starts on me I will defend myself verbally. It is horrible how this has all developed. Councillors of varying places and positions are to blame.

Kept thin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It seems Dulwich Village was a popular venue for > collective demonstrations in the 1930s. > > ?The NSL held a number of meetings in Dulwich on > the corner of Calton Avenue and Dulwich Village, > outside Dulwich Library on Lordship Lane and > sometimes inside when permission for the use of St > Barnabas? Parish Hall in Dulwich Village was > refused).? > -------------------------------------------------- > That is a stretch too far. Talk about casting aspersions. No need to have said that AT ALL.

Actually off the point of OHS. Councillor Rose and pals have gone off the trail so no one knows what is happening. What we do know is that the Dulwich Community is horribly split and it won't recover whilst younger people make older people feel everything to do with choices, AQ, having to drive, is all their fault.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I anticipated that One Dulwich would inflate the > estimated numbers, but was anticipating something > along the lines of 500 given that the reality was > more around 250 even when you include those from > Hackney and other boroughs who are protesting in > general rather than specifically re Dulwich. > > But 1000??? This really is just One Dulwich > showing that what they say can?t be trusted > really. Delusional! > > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Latest OneDuwlich update....we made the BBC > > News.....! ;&) > > > > Our protest against the Dulwich road measures > > > > An estimated 1,000 people living in and around > > Dulwich ? young families, cyclists, older > people > > and those with disabilities ? took part in our > > peaceful protest on Saturday 16 October. Thank > you > > to everyone who came. You can see coverage on > this > > BBC local news item here, and we will be > putting > > up clips on social media and on our website > > shortly. Speakers included clean air campaigner > > David Smith (also known as @LittleNinjaUK on > > Twitter) and representatives from One Dulwich > and > > the Dulwich Alliance. > > > > Cllr Rose?s decision > > > > Just before our protest, we discovered that the > > call-in by Lib Dem councillors on Southwark?s > > Overview and Scrutiny Committee ? that is, > their > > request for Cllr Rose?s decision to be reviewed > ? > > had been turned down (see this report in the > South > > London Press). We have asked the Council to > > explain why, and are waiting for their > response. > > As far as we know, this means that there will > now > > be a 21-day statutory consultation period > before > > the traffic orders can be made permanent. We > have > > written to Southwark asking them for > information > > about this ? so far, we can find nothing on > their > > website. > > > > What next? > > > > 1. We will be holding further protests in other > > parts of Dulwich over the next few weeks, which > we > > hope will be good news for those of you who > > weren?t able to come on Saturday because of > half > > term. Details to follow. Let?s double the size > of > > Saturday?s protest and get even more media > > coverage. > > > > 2. We will also be asking you to respond to > > Southwark?s 21-day statutory consultation with > > very specific objections to all the measures > over > > the whole Dulwich area. Again, more to follow > once > > Southwark have provided details of the > timeline. > > > > 3. Please keep emailing your local councillors, > > decision-maker [email protected] > and > > your local MP, reminding them (i) that > two-thirds > > of those living and working in all three > Dulwich > > LTNs who responded to Southwark?s consultation > > opted for all the measures to be removed, and > (ii) > > that the council?s current refusal to listen > may > > be reflected in the results of the local > elections > > in May 2022. > > > > 4. If, at the end of the 21-day consultation > > period, Southwark continues to ignore local > > demands for a fair scheme that fulfils all its > > obligations as a local authority, we will ask > our > > legal team to advise on the best course of > action. > > Thanks to your generous donations to our > fighting > > fund, our legal team is reviewing all the > > paperwork and stands ready to move quickly. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > The One Dulwich Maybe they meant attendance over the whole 90 minutes, I wan't there for all of it. But were you keeping watch northernmonkey? Not that I'd know one way or the other. I see there is a twitter post saying on a day when all political activity and campaigning was suspended, all the Labour councillors were attending their conference, weren't they? I heard this secondhand in Lordship lane, don't know if it's true.

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Artemis - the council, as a result of listening to > the consultation, is going to allow emergency > vehicles through Dulwich Square. > > I thought it was great that people were out > protesting, as other posters have pointed out, > that right is currently under threat. The time I > was there, it felt pretty well run, though I do > find the incessant graffiti on signs a bit > depressing. > > A few people have mentioned why weren't the > councilors not there, and whilst I can't speak for > them, I wouldn't blame them for not coming. Even > in the last couple of days I heard of one of them > being targeted at their home address by person/ > persons of anti LTN sentiment. Over the summer, > the Police have had to be involved with anti LTN > people getting targeted. Clearly, this might be > down to as little as one individual who has no > formal affiliation with the anti LTN groups, but > it is fair to say aspects of this local issue have > been surprisingly nasty. > > Listening to what I did of the speakers and > looking around the attendees, I was surprised how > relatively upmarket it all felt, and how the > demographic skewed over 50 - very few young people > there, and very few people from a BAME background. > It didn't really reflect the make up of the > borough as a whole. Given the demographic of > Dulwich, this is probably to be expected, but it > didn't feel like some kind of broad-based > egalitarian inspired uprising to me, as some of > the anti-LTN rhetoric suggests. A cynic driving by > who didn't know some of the complexities of the > issues might be forgiven for thinking 'The rich > folk of Dulwich want to keep driving their cars'. > > I'm hoping that the sensible adjustments the > council has proposed are implemented - emergency > vehicle access, Blue Badge holder access - and > have had time to bed in, the LTN's might be seen > as part of the radical shift we're all going to > have to make to address the climate crisis. Given > that the UK contributes only 1% of the global > carbon emissions, it does feel like a long hard > road ahead, but fair play to the Council for > trying to do something. It would be great if they > were given a chance. I saw on twitter that a banner had been left on Margy Newens garden wall, it was her tweet. I don't think anything else has happened as she would say. When I was at the demo I didn't see her or any other councillor I might have recognised. Shame as they would have seen a peaceful protest because of their actions. Using climate change as a paternalistic 'we know best you're having LTN in you area' is highly offensive as it takes no notice of relevant and reasonable viewpoints. And this morning a tweet from Romeo Jones which suggests he has had enough. What a great pity.

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I cycled through. Both ways. The issue is that > this was a narrow area for two way traffic on > bikes. Turning from Village Way onto Calton was a > little tricky but do-able. If someone were cycling > the opposite way at the time I would have been > stuck in the middle of the roadway though. > Thankfully I was not. > > Edited to say there were no marshals that I saw on > my way thru. I'm sorry that can't be true because they were all clearly in high vis, and the police were there too when I was there.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see Clean Air Dulwich are claiming it was > dangerous for cyclists as it was all blocked. > > > 220094906372?t=LrQQm5VTB4tXDAStnhHONg&s=19 > > Well it wasn't as there was a dedicated cycle > route through the crowd which was taped off and > being marshalled as directed by the police. They > just chose not to use it. > > You have to wonder why some are so hell-bent on > de-0ositioning a group protesting. Maybe the issue > was there were so many people protesting that > groups like Clean Air Dulwich take offence to. In fact the pavements remained open, because I stood on the one by the Burial Ground for quite a while and saw cyclists using the cycle lane protected by tape. Some cyclists used the pavement rather than get off their bikes, but it was all perfectly safe. I suggest whoever Clean Air Dulwich is, it is a bit of bah humbug.

I attended. I did see plenty of people who live in Court Lane, Woodwarde Road and Calton Avenue present. With signs. I thought the speakers were very good. The chap in the chinos very on the Dulwich Alliance message (missed name as couldn't hear at the start), David from @LittleNinja who I admire tremendously for his work, and then the very sad stories read out on behalf of others. There must be so many people like them in the stories, I'm not affected in the ways outlined but then, I am proud to say I have a drop or two of empathy. Sadly no councillors or the MPs. And no other pro-LTN groups representatives around to engage with us who were there. I suppose it was half term and maybe people not available but to not see anyone making themselves known as a councillor was pretty sad. A missed trick.