mr.chicken

Rockets Wrote: > > It's because the folks of Calton/Court Lane/DV are > considered differently than others - do you know, > for example, that the council cleans their green, > brown and blue bins every couple of weeks.....? Rockets my man, I appreciate your efforts against the LTN, I really do and stirring up hate against a small group is a very effective tactic. I applaud your effort, but unfortunately it only works if the things you invent are even vaguely credible. The VIP bin cleaning company has sadly for us nothing to do with the council. It really doesn't help our cause if you paint the anti-LTNers in such a bad light.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You said: "So... they work then?" > > Pushing air pollution from one street to another > does not reduce the overall air pollution Exactly! I will sit for 30 minutes in heavy traffic before I walk for 15 minutes for the same trip. This is why the LTNs can never work, because nothing will get people out of their cars no matter the inconvenience and ease of alternatives. Also please ignore @Rocket's claim that people drive for less distance because of the LTN. I am beginning to suspect that they are not one of us and in fact a crypto LTN-supporter, acting like they are anti-LTN but then every so often dropping pro LTN facts.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Re: school drops Court Lane is also a school car > park at drop-off and pick-up time but at least > they are walking the last 100 yards!!! ;-) We need to re-open the junctions so they can drive the last 100 yards. I think it's unfair for people to have to walk anywhere when they have spent good money on cars. ;-)

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are suggesting scrapping, or even just > altering, the so-called LTN's? What an outrageous > suggestion. Absolutely! We should get rid of them all. You and I would both rather spend 30 minutes in traffic in a car than walk a formerly drivable journey in 15 minutes: this is how we know that LTNs can't reduce traffic, only divert it. And if they can't reduce traffic then what's the point? It is important that people be able to take a quick pop to the shops in their SUVs and so we should absolutely aim to maximise the throughput of cars to the greatest extent possible, e.g. by repurposing minor residential roads. I think with a few tweaks, e.g. banning on street parking on both sides, making it two lanes one way and upping the speed limit to 40, we could turn Calton avenue into a major thoroughfare taking a significant portion of traffic off EDG. I think in the reverse direction we could make use of Court Lane and streets like Desefans with similar modifications. One way systems are a little irritating, but I think we could very effectively increase the number of cars. > Me and my neighbours on Calton Avenue put a lot of > effort into persuading Margy and Richard to close > off our road I don't know Margy and Richard. Are they nice?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a bit odd, almost every poster against > LTNs seems to own a bike as well as a car and > nearly all in favour seem to own a car as well as > a bike. Go figure! I think it's more fair to say us anti-LTN-ers rightly despise cyclists as the scum that they are. After all did our own heartblock not say that cyclists are "Lycra clad kings of the road" who knock over kids with funny names? I don't recall any of us disagreeing with him. Lycra, my man, lycra! How can they not be the worst?

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also if you are the landlord would you want > this type of bike damaging the fabric of the > building when it is stored and moved in and out. Absolutely! I think it is important that we keep our priorities straight, and landlords are probably the most important. We cannot take the risk that we might cause them to incur extra costs of doing business, such as providing bike storage or occasional minor repairs. I think it would be much fairer to spread the costs over everyone else instead. And to do that we can should scrap the LTNs right now so the people living in their 3 flat Victorian conversions can take their kids to school in their SUVs without having to worry about costing landlords money because of bicycles. Also what landlord would want tenants strutting around in Lycra? I'm astonished that the plight of landlords hasn't received more attention, that just goes to show you how bad the pro-LTN crowd really is.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even cycling up to Dulwich Park or Peckham Rye, Oh careful there my good fellow. Unfortunately you tipped your hand upthread referring to cyclists as "Lycra clad kings of the road" who knock over kids with silly names which makes it sound like you despise cyclists (an eminently reasonable position for someone against LTNs). So I'm confused who should we be against? Cyclists, or just kids with funny names? I would be very grateful if you could clear this up because I think we should keep our messaging clear, not like the flip-flopping over the slogan on the posters.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's embarrassing. The council got so side-tracked > by obsessing over trying to close Dulwich Village > to traffic that they took their eye off the ball. > Look at how much money they have spent in the > village to try to close it to traffic yet people > across the wider Dulwich area have been crying out > for infrastructure to be put in place so they can > store bikes. Over the last 18 months of the > pandemic the council's efforts to install bike > storage infrastructure has been beyond pathetic. Now Rockets, it sounds like you're saying the closures are structurally fine (though plants are expensive) but the council needs to do much more to get the most out of them. If you keep up with this pro LTN, pro bicycle rhetoric, the rest of us might have to reconsider whether you really belong in our Confederacy of Drivers.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Let's discuss whether we can install measures on > your road". > > It seems the preferred council solution to the > chaos these measures cause is to pass it onto > someone else. The fundamental truth is that people will always go somewhere by car. And if the council prevents that by closing roads, then they will just find somewhere else to go by car. I'm *not* prepared to take a 20 minute walk (looking like the unloved relative of those awful lycra clad kings of the road who we anti-LTN ers so rightly despise) when there is somewhere I can drive by car. I'd rather spend two hours in traffic than 20 minutes on foot. That will teach those councillers and the dreadful kids with silly names who use Dulwich Square for things like skateboarding or worse. There is nothing at all which could ever reduce the amount of traffic. The council should just accept that. In fact I think the council should unwind all of the LTN like stuff they have engaged in over the years, like the undemocratic banning of cars from Dulwich park in 2003. Are you with me?

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For non-participants, where has this discussion > got to so far? If I may be so bold as to speak on behalf of anti LTNs, the points we have in favour are: * The Lycra Clad Kings of the Road are awful so their opinion doesn't count. * Kids with names we don't approve of (which we shall poke fun at as Chlamydia and Epididymis) also don't count. * There is both too much and too little traffic on Lordship lane and it was just right before so we should go back to that * More cars helps ambulances go faster which is why we should replace planters with more open junctions, rather than just install ambulance gates. * Emergency services will forever be stuck on maps from last year so we can't actually change anything. * Traffic will get better all by itself. ETA: * Also the anti LTN people make the most posts here so we clearly are a democratic majority and anyone who thinks we should stop making new threads is arrogant and selfish.

PollyGlot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Southwark's intention seems to be based on > reducing traffic in LTN areas so that they can > claim improvements there in traffic and pollution > reduction. That can't be right! We know that while traffic grows to fill the roads, the reverse can't possibly be true and nothing will make the total traffic go down. I for one would much rather sit for half an hour in a traffic jam on a formerly 5 minute journey than walk to the shops in 15 minutes. What am I? A pedestrian? Heartblock, do you have any opinions on pedestrians? I know you despise cyclists (lycra clad kings of the road! 😉😉😉) as one should, so do you have any quips about them? Or are we to be left only with the funny kids names?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also > have contacts in LAS through my profession, but > not able to post anything which is not in the > public domain. Well that evidence is good enough for me! Clearly we must be rid of LTNs. > Southwark > Experimental Transport Measures > 16/07/2020 Well we can't expect anyone to update their maps within a year. I think this is strong evidence, or at least anecdotes that we can never change anything ever.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "claiming there are too many threads" - you are > absolutely right Firstmate, arrogant and selfish > individuals like rahrahrah or Dulwich Central. Quite right ab29! The sheer volume of anti LTN posts proves the point. If people were actually in favour of them they would be tirelessly posting the same points on as many threads as they could. We can therefore conclude there is no support for LTNs and so any opposition to the removal is anti democratic.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is interesting to see the various methods > adopted by some of the more extreme pro LTN > supporters- denial of available evidence, > persistent attempts to derail and obfuscate/ > trolling on threads, trying to stifle views/ > claiming there are too many threads, and now > defacing posters displayed that are objecting to > the current incarnation of LTNs. It just doesn't > feel very adult, democratic or like there is a > willingness to face the flaws and have a rethink. Absolutely, those awful Lycra-clad roadkings just keep posting here. We know their opinions are wrong and the democratic thing for them to do is just pipe down and let the rest of us repeat anti LTN points unobstructed. I am still shocked that they have the gall to have opinions that differ from the majority on this thread. It's like they're trying to pretend there are valid opinions for the LTNs. Absurd, I'm sure you agree. As far as I can see the only way to counter them is to join anti-LTN folks in a name calling campaign, to shame the cyclists for being lycra clad road kings and those dreadful children playing in an area denied to cars with silly names like Chlamydia or Epididymis. Their names alone should be enough to disqualify them from any consideration. I mean honsetly. As you so rightly pointed out the fact that none of those pro-LTN folks came onto the forum between 8:30pm and 9 the next morning to rebut your point means they simply don't have valid opinions and everything you say is completely correct by default. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep FirstMate - the report to Southwark includes > an ambulance delayed by the Calton Ave hard > closure adding time to a Cat 2 call on Desenfans > Rd and an inability to use Derwent Road because of > a hard closure to avoid heavy traffic on Grove > Vale responding to a Cat 1. > The report ends with a request to make changes due > to 'previous feedback' and wonders about an > 'update' as 'we still seem be experiencing delays, > that are very concerning and leading to patient > safety concerns' This just proves my point! Having more cars on the roads helps ambulances. No one has reported not being delayed by lack of enormous rush hour queues along Dulwich Village (the fact that there's no mechanism and no one's checked anyway is immaterial) just proves that more cars helps ambulances. That's why we shouldn't open the junctions for emergency access, we should allow all cars. Can you help me with some logic to back up? None of the lycra-clad road-kings you so rightly despise seem to buy my arguments. Can you help me firm them up a bit?

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh Mr. Chicken I really love how you reinforce the > stereotypes of all cyclists are lycra kings. Oh thankyou! Unfortunately I am unable to claim credit for this particular piece of genius (it is in my opinion exceptionally witty): credit must go where credit is due to our very own heartblock. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The infamous square will... if it stays, make it a > no through for cyclists in case little Chlamydia > or Epididymis is knocked over by a Lycra clad king > of the road. I also am delighted at the dig at the kid's names. They cannot have a valid use for roads because roads are for cars and they are too young to drive. Unfortunately I am still at a loss to counter the nefarious cyclists' (is there any other sort) opinion on how allowing cars won't actually be beneficial to ambulances. Car drivers and especially SUV owners all seem to agree that having more cars on the road will help emergency vehicles, but I'm terrible at explaining why, so hopefully a One Dulwicher can help me out.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, so far, this has not been contradicted, so I > guess we can conclude it is true. If lycra clad road kings can't contradict an uncited post within 12 hours at night it is clear to me and every anti LTN activist that they must agree with it. Therefore I declare your analysis to be correct. This is what we must do if we want to win on LTNs. We must do all we can to rule out input from the lycra clad kings of the road. After all we both know their opinions don't count so we must make sure they are not counted. That is the only fair and equitable thing to do.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, is it true as reported, that in Sept 2020 the > London Ambulance Service reported delays to life > threatening emergencies and asked for Southwark > Council to remove the hard closures in Calton, > Derwent and Melbourne? Citing traffic jams on > Grove, EDG and Croxted and no alternative routes. I'm wondering if you as a One Dulwicher could help me out here? You see I broke my principles and actually talked to one of those lycra clad kings of the road. A bit of a sin I know but all that lycra just really got me going, you know? I know you know! That lycra gets you going too as you have commented. Anyway I didn't enjoy the conversation because he had a point I wasn't really able to counter and I was wondering if you could help so I can win the argument next time. You see he said that if the closures remained but were accessible to emergency vehicles in an emergency then not only could emergency vehicles use the routes, but they'd be guaranteed to be almost completely car free, thereby allowing swift passage. He then pointed out that as we get rid of more and more cars, life will get easier and easier for emergency vehicles. This got me angrier than a timed closure when I want to pop quickly to the shops. Like you and Alice, I know in my heart that it is right that cars should be able to use those routes, especially if ambulances can, but I just didn't have the words. Every time I argued about ambulances he said closed routes with ambulance gates would be faster because no cars would be in the way. This cannot be right! Help me out here, what should i say next time?

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The best way to make a barrier permeable is to > remove it. > > Anything else wastes time. Exactly! We both agree that cars are more important than emergency vehicles. If the cars have to waste time sitting in traffic then like you, I demand that emergency vehicles should too. There must be no special access to low traffic roads for ambulances. If they can use roads, I can too. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The infamous square will... if it stays, make it a > no through for cyclists in case little Chlamydia > or Epididymis is knocked over by a Lycra clad king > of the road. Those Lycra Clad Kings of the road are just plain evil. I can't stand the way they have the temerity to get in the way of my motor vehicle on my roads! I will never give them the time of day, and yet I can feel them judging me, always judging judging judging. We should stop at nothing to rid ourselves of them. Plus they're massively and I might add unfairly skewing the results of the LTN consultations by being in favour of them. I think if we could remove them from the process we could get a majority of support for removing LTNs.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One way Melbourne towards Kings would allow > ambulances to avoid Lordship Lane. Excellent idea. When are people going to understand? Cars are much more important then emergency vehicles, so if a barrier is open to ambulances then we must allow cars too. We cannot allow the idea of making a barrier permeable to emergency vehicles.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (I can't wait for the > all electric Hummer EV SUV to be launched next > year - it will cause such apoplexy in so many of > the righteous) It's amazing how much we see eye to eye! I do think having more road space taken up and worse parking situation is more than made up by the laughs I will get from imagining how annoyed lycra-clad cyclists will be. HAHA suck it cyclists the electric hummers are coming!!

PollyGlot Wrote: > 4. Most of the "rush hour" traffic in Dulwich is > parents on the school run some of which may have > kids at 2 or more of the local public schools. > This group are best able to afford electric > vehicles and should incentivised to use EVs. I agree with Polly, it is important we provide financial incentives for people to switch over their SUVs to electric. Partly I think it will provide aspiration for those less able to afford the switch and encourage them to get electric SUVs as well, in the mean time it will ensure that we move towards a community where only the local SUVs get to use the roads which I think this is the best solution to traffic jams while maintaining accessibility for those who deserve it. I don't think it's remotely reasonable to expect people to walk to schools or take the bus, it's deeply unfair to ask people to do such a thing when they've spent so much money already on motor vehicles.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What this means is that all the borough and > perhaps even london-wide, pro cycling groups and > various clean air, anti- pollution and climate > change groups will be called upon to respond in > force, including their children. Perhaps even > babies can have a proxy voice. I don't think they should be allowed a say. They can't drive cars so they shoudln't have an opinion on how roads are used. All they can really do is cycle, and cyclists don't count because they wear lycra and are smug. I'm fairly sure that chap with the cargo bike is wearing lycra under his clothes and is judging me. Smugly. We should ensure that car voices for ROADS count and not others.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What we need is better public transport and school > street hours for the closures. Absolutely. The car but not bus road closures are clearly ridiculous because they can't possibly improve journey times for buses on those routes. Also, frankly the permanent closures are annoying and inconvenient. Can you believe I now have to walk to the park? I think it would be much more fair to open the roads during the day so I can take all those short, local journeys by car like a disadvantaged person rather than walk or cycle like a rich person with lots of SUVs. Keeping Dulwich Roads for Dulwich People is much more fair. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The bottom line is that lots of posters are > appearing all over Dulwich and it is a very visual > reminder that it is, much to the annoyance of > some, anything but a small vocal minority who > oppose these measures. The council ought to be > taking note...... Indeed they should. It's obvious to me and Rockets (and probably Metallic and ab29) the anti LTNs are in the huge majority: people posting signs at street level clearly represents the will of the people, so that's what we should follow. There's obviously no support for LTNs except from cyclists but I don't like them so they don't count.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That the Dulwich LTNs benefit those already > wealthy at the expense of those less privileged is > undisputed. Absolutely agree, with multiple cars per household poor people now are spending even more time in their SUVs stuck in traffic. Improving journey times for the P4 is disgustingly elitist, because it only benefits those inhabitants of Dulwich Village who have a bus stop right outside their huge houses. I see so many rolexes and "all streets matter" pins on that bus, it turns my stomach. Anyway it's just logical that the problem of traffic will fix itself if we simply leave it. After all traffic and congestion has been decreasing steadily for the last 30 years.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We are angry at drivers making unnecessary > journeys, We definitely are. I mean I am. All those people clogging up the road makes it much harder for me to drive. What should be based on distance a 5 minute drive is sometimes 15 minutes sitting in traffic! At that rate it would be quicker to walk which seems pretty unacceptable to me. I'm sure school buses will fix all the problems.