mr.chicken

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr chicken needs his wings clipped😉 Well it wouldn't matter if I could drive everywhere freely in the largest SUV I could finance. As it is I have to flap from Gail's to the park and I do find that obnoxious. Speaking of which I'm thinking of lobbying the council to remove the zigzags by that zebra crossing and the double yellow lines round all the junctions in the village so there's more parking spaces (for local residents only though). Can anyone help me get this added to the One Dulwich manifesto?

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it court lane or Calton Avenue that you live on > mr chicken? How many cars do you keep? I'm particularly miffed at not being able to drive to the park so easily. It seems a dreadful waste of time to walk. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t have a licence. I?m not sure why you are > suggesting I find an SUV and get some driving > lessons Absolutely. What we need is more cars.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mr.chicken Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > roywj Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Saw a black SUV (think it was a VW) driving > > down > > > Burbage Road towards Half Moon Lane with half > > the > > > number plate covered in gaffer tape around > > 9.05am > > > this morning. > > > > Is this technique endorsed by One Dulwich? > After > > all, all streets matter and we should be able > to > > drive our SUVs down them without restriction, > > because that will help the the under 17s and > over > > the over 60s who don't drive. It will also help > > people who can't afford cars. > > What a strange leap you made there, what drew you > to that fantastical conclusion ? I read the arguments of the anti closure crowd and you all convinced me. I'm less convinced by the idea of timed closures and permits since that would really only allow the wealthy local SUV drivers free reign. We need to make sure everyone rich or poor and pretty much even those without a license has a fair chance to drive the biggest SUV they can afford or borrow on the roads at as often as they can manage.

roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Saw a black SUV (think it was a VW) driving down > Burbage Road towards Half Moon Lane with half the > number plate covered in gaffer tape around 9.05am > this morning. Is this technique endorsed by One Dulwich? After all, all streets matter and we should be able to drive our SUVs down them without restriction, because that will help the the under 17s and over the over 60s who don't drive. It will also help people who can't afford cars.

Dulres3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Are you using protected characteristics as > pejoratives? Are you quoting me out of context in order to make me sound prejudiced when I'm clearly not? Do you support One Dulwich? > > Ah yes a "holistic solution", one that doesn't > involve you actually specifying what this magical > solution is, just that it's out there somewhere. > This is the thing, none of the people objecting > actually have a solution which is better or even > as good. And no, doing nothing is not as good. > > I haven?t seen any solution from the other side of A simple "no I have no solution and I think a mild inconvenience in a local drive is far more disruptive than the disruption of 4000 people dead per year due to pollution" would have sufficed as an answer. Why can't the pro pollution, pro traffic jam lobby come up with something more convincing than "nuh uh"?

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr Chicken, you seem miffed I have produced the > evidence you suggested was non-existent By "evidence" you mean a 1 line quote buried somewhere in a 276 page document for me to find. I on the other hand pointed to the specific page and specific numbers. I'm sorry if that disappoints you. > You question the interpretation of the data but > that is TFL's interpretation not mine. And I trust > TFL far more than Southwark's biased propoganda. I trust my interpretation of the data, that's why I read the numbers. Your counter argument appears to be along the lines of "nuh uh".

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mr.chicken Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Says "actually" and makes a claim with zero > evidence. Are you a One Dulwich supporter by any > > change? > > I was quoting the TFL "Travel in London" report 12 > from 2019. The precise quote is "Most people who > cycle in London.. tend to be mostly male, white, > in employment, and with relatively higher > household income". Happy with that? Glad you provided a source for your evidence, yes. It allows me to verify your claims. Somehow that quote doesn't appear to match the data. On P111, it gives a 50/50 split male/female. It does skew white (slightly less then car ownership), and as for higher household income, the large 20k-70k band is the highest, with the 0-20 and 70+ bands showing equal representation. There's a slight skew towards the employed, at 55/45. Basically you've overinterpreted the data in your favour. > I would much > prefer to see a holistic solution that does not > split East and West Dulwich and that achieves the > objectives of the OHS scheme. What does that have > to do with your comment? Ah yes a "holistic solution", one that doesn't involve you actually specifying what this magical solution is, just that it's out there somewhere. This is the thing, none of the people objecting actually have a solution which is better or even as good. And no, doing nothing is not as good. Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Oh. Ever actually thought that if there was > better public transport in certain areas, that > people wouldn't NEED a car? The reason many > people don't need a car is because they live near > multiple bus routes, can walk or cycle, or have a > tube line. I bet if we block off a load of roads we'll fine that fewer people NEED a car than claim and on closer examination merely WANT a car. And what better way to improve public transport than to get lots of cars off the road?

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Actually that is true of cyclists, particulalry > commuterones. They tend to be mostly male, white, > employed earning high income and middle aged. Says "actually" and makes a claim with zero evidence. Are you a One Dulwich supporter by any change?

I love how the angry drivers who only talk to other angry drivers are convinced that everyone hates the traffic changes and only a tiny minority like it. If traffic changes make life worse for drivers, but better for non drivers, there's a good chance the majority of southwark residents will be in favour because the majority of us do not have access to a car. Page 11. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-many-cars-are-there-in-london.pdf Drivers are in the minority in Southwark. Drivers skew rich, white, male and middle aged, so it's particularly funny to hear the "WoNt SoMeBody ThInK oF tHe ChIlDrEN/old people/cyclists (lol)/poor people" etc concern trolling. What's telling is the missing concern for the 4000 people dying per year in London due to pollution deaths, or any suggestion about how to stem the ever growing tide of traffic and attendant pollution. Tell you what drivers, people might take you seriously if you can actually come up with a plan which would actually fix the problem. "I paid for my car so I should be able to drive it" isn't a plan so much as a manifesto.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mr.chicken Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Well perhaps they asked me. I'm 100% in favour > of > > these schemes. The more the better, IMO, or in > the > > case of cars, the fewer the better. Perhaps if > > they're quick enough they can block off both > ends > > of the roads at once and trap some cars inside. > > You see, that is the sort of selfish and > ridiculous attitude which splits communities and > doesn't help anyone. Calm down. Work on > solutions not spite. Really? I think it's a quite brilliant scheme. Not only would it reduce traffic, but those cars would be permanently stuck forever and unable to cause any more pollution. Plus I love the idea of council workers with planters racing against SUV owners to see whether the planters can be placed before the cars can make it out of the road. I think that would make some excellent reality TV. Anyway I fully admit the plan isn't entirely fleshed out, but you can find more details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So sorry Mr. Clucking for getting your name wrong Is this sort of intentional misrepresentation representative of One Dulwich supporters? Perhaps the "grass roots" is a couple of SUV drivers and an army of sock puppets.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Correct Mr clucking, Mr Chicken if you please. > After all they've paid for > their cars, pay ved and other taxes so what's > wrong with wanting to drive. Oh, you paid money to buy some private property, I didn't realise. I think that means you are in fact entitled to do as you wish without regard for the consequences or future planning. > The big concern is that the council are > implementing experimental schemes without > consultation or proper monitoring of the before > during and after metrics. Well perhaps they asked me. I'm 100% in favour of these schemes. The more the better, IMO, or in the case of cars, the fewer the better. Perhaps if they're quick enough they can block off both ends of the roads at once and trap some cars inside.

Well clearly the best solution is to eventually block off those roads as well. But it's not like the council can jump from the bad situation we had before the LTNs started to perfection in one go. They need to give time for people to adjust to the new situation, then they can adjust it a bit, let purple adjust and so on until they actually get to where we need them to get to. Actually I think most people understand that perfectly but they just want to keep their cars and keep polluting no matter the consequences. Serena2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Does anyone on here not feel at all guilty > about > > traffic displacement? That report on 11% > > disappearing traffic is so out of date as to > be > > meaningless in the particular geography of our > > bigger area. I feel guilty about Croxted Rd > which > > will have it all coming down on them, along > with > > Rosendale Rd. Or Lordship Lane. > > As a resident of one of the roads directly > impacted (EDG) all I can say is that the traffic > has increased significantly as a result of these > closures. I am very concerned about what Autumn > will bring (both in terms of further closures; the > weather causing those who might otherwise travel > actively to jump into cars, and the impact of the > schools returning). > > Against this backdrop, the council?s seeming > reluctance to commit to any form of detailed > monitoring of the impact on the boundary roads > seems utterly bewildering. I can only assume that > this is because they wish to avoid the > inconvenient truth, which is that all these > schemes are doing is to shift the burden of heavy > traffic and resultant pollution from one affluent > part of the neighbourhood, where car ownership is > very high, to its poorer streets. Poorer streets > where car ownership is far lower, and where > accordingly, many of the residents are not the > source of the congestion, yet have to live with > the life long health consequences. Poorer streets > which house the majority of the area?s schools, > and a significant proportion of the area?s social > housing. > > They are doing so against the backdrop of a body > of overwhelming evidence demonstrating the > significant adverse impact air pollution has on > children; in the knowledge that idling traffic is > far more polluting than free flowing traffic, as > well as evidence indicating that even a small > increase in air pollution (of 1 microgram per > cubic metre of pm2.5) significantly increases the > risk of severe morbidity and mortality in the > context of COVID-19. They are also doing so in > full knowledge that the last census data shows > that many of the streets set to bear the burden of > these changes have a much higher BAME population > than those that will benefit, in circumstances > where evidence suggests that people from BAME > backgrounds are more vulnerable to Covid-19. This > in my view is utterly unconscionable.

northernmonkey Wrote: > > Also- for everyone commenting about people not > being able to get through on bikes- it looked like > only one side of the junction was being used so > plenty of space for cyclists to pass. "WoN't SoMeOnE tHiNk Of ThE bIcYcLeS". I have a new proposal (let's call it Two Dulwich because it's even better). I think we should repopen all the roads, and increase the speed limits to whatever drivers feel is appropriate given the conditions. For example at 2am when the roads are empty and there's no traffic it's safe to tare along Calton Ave at 60 mph at least. We should also let drivers cut across the pavements if traffic is backed up and they're in a hurry. Also drivers have invested a lot in their cars so they should be able to recoup the value by being able to park anywhere. Double yellow lines in particular should be reserved for drivers who have something important they need to get to. Sounding the horn will legally give a driver right of way. I would like to call on my fellow Two Dulwichers to help me explain to those unconvinced how this will make life better for everyone but especially bicycles.

It's quite entertaining how badly some people have lost it over the though that people might be dancing, dancing of all things, on a piece of road they can't even legally use for their cars. Because the people might stop thinking that cars are the ultimate evolution of society. When I was curious if the anonymous vandal of the traffic monitoring system might be a One Dulwich supporter some people here were worried I was casting aspersions on the anonymous vandal by even the curiosity of an association with such an organisation. I did think that was a bit excessive.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr chicken > Stop your silly clucking and twisting of my words > as you are scratching uselessly in the ground. Huh, well Today I Learned that reading someone's words and thinking through what the consequences of them actually are is "twisting them". I will endeavor not to engage my brain in future and consider such things. Boo buses bad! Cars good! > The point I was making is not that we should all > abandon public transport wholesale and move to > cars, simply that as public transport presents a > higher risk of germ and virus transmission then we > should abandon the drive to push more people onto > it as pre pandemic it was already at peak > capacity. But you're ignoring that the roads were also at peak capacity, so we can't push more people into cars either. Imagine we scrapped all cars and tripled the number of buses. People on buses would be spread further apart, lowering the risk of transmission. > There is an equal balance of the needs for cars, There's also a need for more land to build roads on to take the cars. Somehow the car lobby never has an answer to cars. It's only MOAR CARS!!11one!1!one. Of course when everything gets completely snarled up they whine too about how someone should really do something about the traffic... > public transport and other methods of getting > around and the push for cycling can't be touted as > a one size fits all solution. I like how cars count as one. But buses and trains and tubes and walking and bicycles and e scooters also count as one. [not sure what happned to my post] Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Guess the advice that has been dolled out to the > car wed could be applied to you here, if the area > doesn't suit then you could always move to the > countryside. It suits me much better now the roads are quieter. > > Or is that too much of a price to pay, much like > its too much of a price for car owners who it's > been leveled at ? Ah yes the price. We have 4000 per yer dying in London alone due to pollution, and many more with long term health problems. I think drivers ought to pay a pollution levy to offset the costs on the NHS and social care, so that the price of the cars reflects the true cost. Otherwise it's just a way of getting everyone else to subsidies them. But that aside, what's the prince you're talking about? It sounds like you make have to make some journeys on foot or by bicycle. Sounds like a negative cost to me!

Spartacus Wrote: > With this in mind, does it not imply that we are > all (regardless of race) actually safer commuting > in our cars than on public transport as there is a If you're going to wish for the impossible why not just wish that we're all immune to all future pandemics. The road capacity simply does not exist for Londoners to move wholesale from public transport to cars. Take the Victoria line (our closest tube). It has a capacity of 40,000 people per hour per direction, and it runs at capacity in one direction at rush hour. The busiest section of the M25 manages 250,000 vehicles per day in both directions combined. If you're going to move everyone into nice, safe single occupancy cars, you're going to have to turn almost the whole of London into nothing but 8 lane motorways. Then again, I think some "grassroots" groups might actually support that.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Mr Chicken, [...] what are you afraid of? Getting run over on a bike, getting pollution related heart disease or a lung condition. There's plenty to choose from.

Someone's cut the tubes on the pneumatic car counter on Calton avenue. It looks more like a deliberate disablement of it rather than kids vandalism. One dulwich supporter?

Metallic Wrote: > You clearly haven't heard that the cyclists coming > from Calton Avenue are on occasion cycling over > and through the green pedestrian light on Turney > Road. My friend was nearly knocked down, the > cyclist stopped to tell her he was on a green, and > she pointed out, so was she. One of her > neighbours apparently knows the councillors and > sent on her email about it, so I guess there is a > bit of a problem. I haven't seen it myself but I > am not out and about yet. "The main problem is > drivers got impatient trying to turn right out of > Calton and would zoom around and straight at > pedestrians trying to cross on a green man." I said it turned from awful to merely bad. You know in the sense that I'd rather be run over by a bicycle than a car if I was forced to choose. All things considered I'd rather not be run over at all, and I'm not going to claim it was a good junction. The thing that would have made it better is having much less time on green, larger red buffers and longer pedestrian time on green. Thing is that would have snarled up traffic along DV even more than it is now because it would have had even less car time on the junction. so that would have caused an even bigger gale of whinging from the car lobby. > In > all the years I have lived in my road and walked > down Calton to take my children to school, I never > once saw an incident like that, and certainly > never since the crossing was redone the first > time. It certainly happened to me more than once. The very best times, some cars would get stuck on the junction trying to turn right on to DV. The lights would go read and the man green and the drivers would advance. Thin is there weren't any lights actually controlling that gap so the cars would have no idea whether or not they even could advance. Most of them in fairness would wait for people to stop crossing on green before escaping. Some wouldn't. For extra fun you'd get the back driver hooting and flashing and trying to bully the front driver to push through the pedestrians. I actually exchanged pleasantries with a driver or two over that, something I'm glad I no longer need to do.

Metallic Wrote: > There has been plenty of complaints over the > pedestrian crossing at the base of Calton Avenue > and the danger to anyone using it, going back to > the day it was unveiled. And it cost over half a > million to make it so unusable we now have this > version. people have been injured there in > accidents, and who takes any notice? No one. Seems like a dubious claim since the implication is that no one was bothered by the old junction. As far as I see, the works changed it from absolutely terrible to merely pretty bad. The main problem is drivers got impatient trying to turn right out of Calton and would zoom around and straight at pedestrians trying to cross on a green man. This has now been fixed.

Wil72 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I travelled from East Dulwich to West Norwood > yesterday in the middle of the afternoon (to buy > paint so couldn't walk or cycle) How much paint were you buying? I bought a wheely basket (they sell them in Brixton, they're about a tenner and last for years even when heavily overused). With one of them, and maybe a couple of bungee cords, you can easily take a few large tins of paint on foot. > > Anyone that thinks these closures are creating > less pollution is insane. It's a well known thing in traffic engineering that habits take a while to change. People don't generally like being part of a traffic jam, so people will start to change their habits. If we insisted on instantaneous change then no changes would ever happen.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rah > Won't the extended ULEZ improve the environment ? > > I can see the glory grabbing now > Southwark saying we done good reducing pollution > by blocking streets and the mayor saying the same > by reducing older polluting vehicles (despite the > environmental cost of building new cars being > higher than keeping older cars running) The environment is more than just carbon. There's definitely a benefit to not pumping disease causing particulates and NOx into the air in a very high population area. womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > when/who is going to occupy the space in Dulwich > Village at the end of Court Lane- pop up pizzas? > fish n chips? cocktails? champagne and oysters

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr chicken > Your attempt to belittle my comments has shown > your ignorance concerning others needs and > mobility challenges which doesn't put you in a > good light morally. Your obvious misrepresentation of my arguments when I simply don't agree with you puts you in a substantially less good light. Since you're engaging in little more than "whataboutism" while inventing stances for me, I can play the same game, viz: "What about the 4000 people who die in London every year due to air pollution? The only way to save them is to drastically reduce the number of cars but you don't appear to be concerned with them. Morally speaking that doesn't put you in a good light." It's neither fun nor productive to play such a game, so how about we stop, eh?

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr chicken > My point was that walking or cycling isn't > practical simply because of things like > disability, age, The point isn't to eliminate all car journeys ever, it's to eliminate many of them. OK, so you're of limited mobility, use a car. The majority of car journeys are not made by limited mobility people though. And in fact heavily encouraging those without mobility problems to use other modes of transport will free up more road space for those who need it more. > needing to carry babies, You know every time I get in this debate, people tell me my sister doesn't exist. She does. There are plenty of people who manage to have kids and not own a car. I know one. > needing > to go long distances, carry heavy or impractical > loads and so on What proportion of journeys involve you carrying heavy or impractical things? Do you always drive a van so you can carry particularly large and impractical loads? Or maybe a lorry because a van isn't really big enough either. Where does that end? Like I said, the point isn't to ban all car journeys ever, just the ones where you don't actually need to go by car. > (the list goes on and if I wanted > to walk or cycle all the time I would move to > Holland 😃) This has got to the nub of the matter: you simply don't want to. > I actually am a confident cyclists but for various > reasons I can't at the moment and the lack of > public transport is not down to too many cars, we > aren't served by tubes and buses take too long We have trains. They're pretty decent. Depending on which part of Dulwich you live in, it's a half hour walk to Brixton where there's a fine tube. In fact pre-corona that was my morning commute. > (even when the roads are empty they take ages as > they need to necessarily stop to pick people up > !) If there were fewer cars, they could run more buses and they'd go faster. > I'm all for well thought out and consulted fairly > measures which isn't what is happening at the > moment. Seems good to me.