exdulwicher

Picking up on the point about the buses that James Barber makes very well. Ironically, the bus cuts (and re-routes) were due to too many buses arriving on Strand, Oxford Street, etc from all over the suburbs. That was leading to more congestion in the centre of town which in turn impacted the bus timetables. Position of bus depots, driver shifts /rotas and so on make it surprisingly difficult to do "half routes" (where you keep the suburbs part but not the going into town part).

Ryanair posted some job adverts earlier today - first of the conditions of employment was an EU passport with unrestricted right to live and work across the EU. Musicians Union are very concerned about it too -a no-deal Brexit or arduous visa processes would effectively end orchestra touring. British sports teams travelling in/around Europe to compete are in the same situation. It's not just "trade", it's the basic tenets of travelling, working across borders (which I've done numerous times, sometimes 3 or 4 countries in one day). Even basic things like standardised roaming charges - that took YEARS for the EU to bring in and we're going to throw it away in a few months.

dbboy Wrote: ----------------------------- > > Does anyone have any information about where the > name Dog Kennel Hill originates from? From a London history website: One theory for the name is that Prince George of Denmark had kennels for his hounds here. However, Edward Alleyn, the Elizabethan actor, owned much of what was, at the time, the manor of Dulwich and some of the land here was recorded as Kennels, Kennoldes Croft and Kennold?s Acre. That means a more likely theory is that an earlier landowner (date unknown), one Monsieur de Canel, resided there, and Dog Kennel is a heavily anglicized version of his name.

FreyaMikaelson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You've* got issues. That's rich. But if I have any > issues it's with angry little delusional leftists > like you trying to destroy a country you're not > being forced to live in. If you love the EU so > much, what are you doing here on the ED forums > raging at those who don't want to be controlled by > a foreign country? If you want to be controlled by > Brussels, go live in Brussels, or any other > country abiding by their laws, or suck it up and > get over it. Something to do with you removing my rights to freedom of movement...

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alleyns has more than once obtained permission to > develop land which is designated MOL e.g. the > theatre They did that by claiming the community benefits outweighed the loss of green space and as the "green space" was all their wasteland or "non functional sports grounds" anyway, it was a fairly easy sell to the council. Same way they got the hockey pitch swapped from grass to Astroturf. Building car parks is another kettle of fish entirely and is almost certain to be rejected. The problem is not really the parking - yes there's a few of the 6th Form pupils that drive but more of an issue is the drop-off / pick-up and extra parking wouldn't solve that. Most councils now are at the point of being legally obliged to do something about the air quality, congestion and so on. Doing nothing and waiting for ULEZ to kick in isn't an option. Doing nothing and waiting for everyone to drive electric vehicles is also not an option. And EVs do nothing to solve congestion. You simply swap a fume-laden traffic jam to a clean traffic jam but it's stll a traffic jam preventing people from getting around efficiently.

Serena2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In particular, I would be very interested to see the > modelling of likely impact on traffic flow and > volume, as well as understanding whether any > improvements to the hazardous junction between > East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane are > considered. I'd love to see that one - the junction is very small, comes almost right onto the roundabout at Goose Green and takes buses. Maybe - just maybe - the hoped-for reduction in traffic along ED Grove means that the LL / EDG junction doesn't actually need any mitigation as it'll be quieter anyway?

@Serena2012 Some of what you're saying implies that the volume of cars currently using Calton Ave, Townley Road and ED Grove is going to remain the same and be shunted elsewhere which won't be the case. Induced demand is a well-known phenomenen - build more roads, wider roads, free parking etc, make it easier to drive and more people drive (whcih is why new roads simply fill up to capacity within a couple of years). The reverse is also true - make it harder to drive, facilitate modal shift, charge for parking and people will drive less. Some of those car journeys currently made now will change. Maybe to cycling or walking, maybe to car sharing or public transport or maybe they simply won't happen at all (ie they were not essential journeys). Not all of them of course and I'm quite happy to accept that some of those journeys will of course be essential and (for whatever reason) not practical by other means. However it will not be ALL the current vehicles shunted elsewhere - some of them will simply disappear. It's well-known and well-studied. I've not seen the detailed modelling but I'd be interested to know how many cars from either the LL end or the DV end going along ED Grove actually turn left or right respectively into Townley and how many of them turn into Calton. Because if you can't do that (either due to timing restriction on the turn into Townley or because you can't get out the DV end of Calton), there's no reason to go along ED Grove in the first place. Obviously some traffic will be going straight on so that's unlikely to change but anything into Townely during restricted hours wont have that option. Unless of course everyone tries to turn into Greendale, drop kids etc off there and turn around and get out again which will be a nightmare! Hopefully you've put your points down in the consultation though? There's definitely lots to discuss about the ED Grove corridor and this IS just an initial consultation; there's plenty of scope to amend things, revise the scheme etc at this stage.

DulwichFox Wrote: > > But why do we have to pay ?Billions to have them inforced. Why do you pay taxes? It's because collectively funding things is far better than just each individual (or each country in this case), making do by itself. It's because by working together as one entity, ecah chipping in bits here and there, each drawing on expertise and experience and labour and resources, you can do amazing things collectively that would be impossible on your own. Gallileo (the European GPS project), the European Space Agency, Euratom (the European Atomic Energy Community), one joint set of standards or rules or laws that work across countries, Europol (the European version of Interpol), the Eurofighter. Loads of major infrastructure projects requiring specialist resources. Funds can be allocated to deprived regions that the country itself could not afford. The UK has been a major recipient of EU grant funding over the decades, countless projects funded (or part funded) when Government could not or would not pay the full amount. In three days time, we cast ourselves adrift from all of that (although we still have to pay tens of billions of pounds of previously committed funds, this time without any benefit or gain from that).

Try @CleanAirDulwich on Twitter, they may have some info on traffic stats in and out of term time. Which is the generally accepted way of getting people out of private cars. You make the neighbourhood permeable to buses, bicycles, scooters, and on foot and then direct cars around the long way. Works well in places like Ghent and Amsterdam. Madrid and Oslo have recently introduced very similar systems too. You allow traffic in and out (obviously - plenty of people need a car in some apsects of their lives) but you just restrict the "throughflow" - the people who drive straight through, use it as a rat-run, don't stop and use the shops, don't benefit the community. To be fair, as mentioned above, the whole area needs drastic action. Tinkering around the edges with CPZ and speed humps and parking charges in the parks isn't really helping much. Ultimately you have to force modal shift sometimes; carrot works for some of it (like making it easier to travel by bike or on foot) but you need some stick too (like charging for parking or making it more difficult to drive a couple of km).

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There are over 4,200 UK laws that are under EU > influence. Yes but the UK (by being part of the EU) ratified all of those laws and indeed wrote or co-wrote a lot of them. They're not FORCED on us, they're debated, amended, consulted on and eventually signed by all member states. The people doing that are elected by one process or another (it varies across the various committees, councils etc but you can look it all up online). But what you've failed to answer is the aspect of WHICH specific laws negatively affect you in your day to day life. Because most of them are esoteric measures aimed at Governments around things like environmental protection, medicine and food standards, trade rules, etc. The UK retained the right to set all sorts of UK specific laws. Age of consent. Speed limits. Immigration. Planning regulations. So without mentioning Sov-rin-ty or bendy bananas, which EU laws are you looking forward to the UK repealing?

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As Fox says himself, his only gripe is with > ?Brussels telling us what we can and cannot do? > > So let?s have what it is ?we? were trying to do > before Brussels stepped in saying ?you can?t do > that?? > > Because personally (and we live in the same city, > same country etc) I can?t recall going to do > something and someone or anyone telling me I > couldn?t do that. > > I run a business, import stuff, have a house, have > children, went wherever I fancied pretty much. Ate > drank lived, and to my recollection nobody ever > stopped me. > > Did I miss something? > > Please tell me Fox, or anyone else, so I can wet > my appetite for the things I didn?t know I > couldn?t do, but will be able to do in this new > era. I asked a similar question a while ago but it got studiously ignored. Maybe I could answer for him though? Have you gone to buy s lightbulb and been unable to get incandescent bulbs, instead being FORCED (against your will obviously) to buy an energy efficient one? That's the meddling pesky EU. Maybe you've bought a new car and found it had catalytic converters and daytime running lights? That's the EU, FORCING you to drive a safer and less polluting car. The interfering bastards. Perhaps you've taken your children on holiday and seen, on the beaches, the Blue Flag indicating a clean beach? That's the EU, forcing Governments to clean up the water and preventing you from swimming in raw sewage! How very dare these unelected bureaucrats do that to your British seaside! When you buy food there are certain standards. How dare they stop you buying chlorinated chicken! There's probably a few more ways they've dared to improve your life. The unelected interfering bastards. Just imagine how much better life will be when the Government can decide not to abide by these meddlesome things and can resume dumping raw sewage, stripping your working rights and generally running roughshod over regulations. You can look at your blue passport and your Brexit 50p piece (worth 20p due to the currency crash) and sigh with happiness at it all.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The atmosphere in some places is going downhill > fast (not specifically ED that I have in mind - > but some pubs seem to be running on an amount of > staff that won't be sustainable and are losing > custom fast). > > Wondering if some are just running down for > selling to developers. There's a pub local to me that's throwing a Brexit Party with fireworks on Friday 31st. Presumably they'll only be drinking British drinks, none of that forren muck. But already the atmosphere on their FB page is horrific. Bullying "we won you lost get over it", racist / xenophobic comments, division.... I'd hate to be one of the many local Polish or Romanian builders wanting to go for a regular Friday night drink that evening.

And this is the issue wih all teh Leave arguments above. There are many reasons to want brexit and they all walk a similar line. Sovereignty, freedom to to what we want, Johnny foreigner not telling us what to do any more? These are all laudable desires and are very important to some people; the fact that we either already have these things or they otherwise have no basis in fact simply does not matter. You were sold a dream. Brexit is all about feelings. Remain can recite facts all they like but the sad reality is that Leavers Just Do Not Care. They don?t care about trade agreements, or about the reciprocal benefits of things like Euratom or ERASMUS or Galileo or the Open Skies agreement, you know, the complicated stuff; many of them probably don?t even know these things exist, and pre-referendum that was probably most if not all of them (and most remainers too come to that). Project fear, price worth paying, I don?t understand why we can?t just leave. We?ve seen this movie before. That?s why leave won and how they?re still winning today. In sunny Brexitland the heart trumps the head. You won?t ever get an answer when asking someone to name the tangible benefits because there aren?t any, but there?s intangible perceived benefits by the truckload. All the Leavers saying the EU now isn't what it set out to be, it's not what "they" wanted. In spite of the fact that "they" literally had no idea about 98% of what it does and most of their EU "knowledge" comes from total bollocks spouted by the Daily Wail and Boris's completely made-up opinion pieces in the Telegraph over the last 10 years. And I hate to say it but Leavers are still onto a winner, No matter what happens it'll be the fault of Remoaners or the EU or Labour or traitor MPs who didn't vote for it and you'll all refuse to belive that it was and is a catastrophically stupid idea that does nothing to sorting out any of the UK's problems.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But of course. We aren?t there yet. We are STILL > in the pretend stage. All existing agreements all > still in place. No cause to alarm the citizens > yet. The citizens are currently being kept in their place by the mainstream media dutifully reporting Harry & Meghan rather than anything about how we're about to fall out of the best thing that ever happened to Europe. Add in a few paragraphs about a pandemic (thanks China, good timing!), maybe a few bits and pieces on Trump impeachment or the Grenfell enquiry and we'll all be good quiet little people forgetting about Brexit. A mere eight years ago, London put on one of the greatest global sporting events ever with people from all over the world watching, attending and competing. Even five years ago most people wouldn't have cared one way or the other about EU. Most people didn't really know or mind either way. Now look how you can turn half the country with a bit of sleight of hand, a few total lies over the years (Barmy Brussels Bans British Bangers!) and a pack of lies working off the back of a bit of nationalistic pride.

paulipedia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No VED is paid to park your car or drive on public > roads No it's not. VED is simply a vehicle tax, paid to overall Government coffers - it doesn't give you a right to drive. That comes from having the relevant licence and insurance. It's also a voluntary tax - you can choose to pay it or not (by choosing to own a car or not). And if you do choose to own a car, you can choose how much to pay. Electric vehicles (and some other classes of vehicle like agricultural, emergency services) zero. But they can still drive on the roads and park wherever. So VED (colloquially known as road tax) means nothing to a "right" to drive or park anywhere. Paying more tax (eg on a big 4x4) doesn't give you any more right on the roads (driving or parking) than a zero tax electric vehicle. There are loads of vehicles on the roads that pay no VED. Bicycles, horses, emergency services vehicles, agricultural vehicles, electric (and most hybrid) vehicles... They all have a right to be there but it seems fair to ask that if they want to store that vehicle for a period of time on public land, that they pay for the privelege. You don't get any sort of discount if you walk or get the bus to the park. Why should you get what amounts to a free allocation of public space if you drive there? Over the next 10 years or so, parking and also VED is really going to come under the microscope. VED because it's simply not sustainable to keep driving (pun intended) people towards low/zero tax EVs and hybrids - the losses to Government in terms of VED and fuel duty are not sustainable. Parking, because councils simply can't afford to be providing that amount of space for temporary storage of private property especially when you consider (against the climate emergency sceario) the externalities of pollution and congestion caused.

paulipedia Wrote: > > I'm pretty sure I pay for that privilege Council tax? Or are we going down the Road Tax rabbithole? Local roads are paid for out of council tax - the council own them and have the responsibility of maintaining them. So everyone who pays council tax, pays for the roads (and pavements) regardless of if they have a car or not (or indeed what type of car it is like a zero-tax electric vehicle or a massive high-tax 4x4). There are a few extras around roads like utilities (if a utility company dig up a road, they have the responsibility and cost of putting it right again afterwards). The council are maintaining a huge area of tarmac within a park for no other reason than for you to leave your personal property on it with the associated costs of pollution, congestion and the fact that that area can't be grass or trees or play areas. It's not unreasonable that they might want some compensation for that. Literally no-one else benefits from your car being there. So paying for it seems perfectly reasonable, no?

paulipedia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd rather become a Park member and pay an annual > fee than this. Did the council ever think to ask > what the residents wanted. Having lived all over > south London, one of the many great things about > our area is you don't have to pay for parking. > It's such a minor thing but has such a negative > impact on your day. This is so shortsighted and > infuriating Bit one thing that really needs to change is this ingrained attitude that your personal property can simply be left, free of charge, anywhere you please. The amount of land given over to free storage of people's private possessions - their cars - is insane. Land prices in SE London - if that square footage was a garage it could be rented out for thousands of pounds a year. Free parking leads to vastly increased driving which in turn leads to congestion, pollution and a feeling that the roads are less safe (due to the traffic volumes) which leads to more driving. Council budgets have been slashed to the bone, they have to recover that cash somehow! Blame the Government for austerity, not the council.

It's also useful to know the exact make/model of the bike along with a description - colour, any accessories fitted, anything that stands out a bit like odd tyres or dirty bar tape. To a cyclist, things like that stand out a mile off and (when I was working in a central London bike shop), we'd recover 2 or 3 stolen bikes a month just by picking up on "out of the ordinary" things. Just saying "my partner's Orbea" isn't much help to me if I see an Orbea being ridden down East Dulwich Grove. And +1 to what others have said about how it was locked, what to, was it snatch and go or a pre-planned theft requiring angle grinders etc.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Too big to be a wren? Baby green parakeet. If found, please return it to this thread: /forum/read.php?5,2088535 😂

eddeal1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bicyles should be registered with Nubmer Plates > and Insured just like cars..you will see the > differance in the Cicylist behavior.just like bad > car drivers Lots of Bad cyclist Rude and > Aggressive. how many car drivers do you see > jumping Red lights ..you go and look how many > cyclist jump red lights.......Registered with > Nubmer Plates and Insured....sooner the Beter for > all road users. What on earth has that poorly written rant got to do with 20mph speed limits?

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > New cars from 2022 will have intelligent automatic > speed assist (based on GPS and a database of > limits) - it's an EU thing but the UK is > implementing it anyway. You'll be able to override > the limiter by pushing down hard on the gas pedal > AFAIK. > > Just hope it's more accurate than the GPS speed > limit indicators in the last couple of rental cars > I've driven. I drove a high-level Merc for a bit and that had cameras that recognised speed limit signs. The car would, if you let it, just adjust the cruise automatically. It could be overridden if desired. Paradoxically, it was also insanely powerful and would easily do 150mph (9 speed gearbox and twin turbos). While that was fun, it was also utterly bonkers to make such stuff available in a country with a 70mph speed limit.

How do you cope going outside and seeing/hearing hundreds of them? Or is your life just one great Hitchcockian nightmare of birds everywhere? As mentioned - leave them alone, it's against the law to disturb birds nests.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought robins were territorial? Only with other robins. They're fine sharing feeders with tits, nuthatches, woodpeckers, finches etc.

It's not always councils. Utilities can be dug up at pretty much anytime by the relevant company without the council necessarily needing to give permission (they just have to be aware). Not always, but quite often. The utilities companies can be charged/fined for over-running works so it's usually in their interests to get it done as quickly as possible. Actual roadworks - maintaining and improving the highway - is the council responsibility but the problem is now that there's so much traffic (which is much heavier than traffic 20 years ago - cars weigh far more, there are far more of them) that the roads simply don't last as long. You get one pothole and as vehicles crash over it and water gets into it, it erodes more and more. The cheap patchwork repair job (fill it in with gravel and tar) isn't up to standards and will fail again and the process repeats. However councils don't have the funds to do a proper repair job where you dig up half the road, fill in and strengthen the whole lot then re-surface. They'll just make do and mend. Short term fixes.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Itatm I may have got the job title wrong not > police officers but officials with red waistcoats. > Maybe they are traffic wardens They might be "monitoring officers" or suchlike from Alleyn's. I know they had a couple of (presumably contracted) staff in a while ago "keeping an eye on things". Which probably means that if you have an argument with a driver about idling engines, you'll find your picture being circulated to the police...