Dogkennelhillbilly

https://www.met.police.uk/area/your-area/met/southwark/dulwich-village/about-us/crime-map This would be a good starting point and probably a bit more plausible than "I saw a suspicious male and this proves there is a crime wave".

Oh - is it a grass roots organisation or just someone's alter ego?

In this age of fake news and relentless bullshit, reposting claims from non-transparent sources is actually a bad thing.

At a guess, I'd say the BBC runs the BBC website. It's a formally-incorporated organisation that publishes extensive and exhaustive detail about how many employees it has, who its officers are, how it is governed, how it's funded, how it intends to ensure fairness and neutrality in reporting, and how it fixes things when it doesn't. In every respect, completely different from "OneDulwich", and a terrible comparison.

There are two problems with adopting an ironically stupid persona in online discourse. The first is that it becomes somewhat boring and suffocating, so it's hard to stay in character. The second is that ironic stupidity online is indistinguishable from normal stupidity online.

...you post paragraphs and paragraphs of stuff that's not about the West Dulwich LTN that is the subject of the thread. 🙃

lol! 🤣🤣 Please, tell us more about how you're not opposed to LTNs but you have really profound, substantive concerns about how many metres from the junction a pneumatic tube counter was placed one Tuesday in 2020...

Actually, this thread is supposed to be about the proposed changes to the West Dulwich LTN, but some monomaniac is still wanging on about Southwark Council's supposed crimes in East Dulwich 4 years ago...

Thames Water management are awful but even I doubt that they're trying to boost their numbers by going around fraudulently misreading individual user's meters to overstate water consumption and chisel another £200 out of them. It's much more likely there's a leak, a cockup in data collection or a cockup in meter setup.

Unless someone is willing to state their name and qualifications (malumbu, exdulwicher, uncle Tom Cobbly), any pseudonymous poster's supposed expertise is irrelevant because they could be making it all up. God knows we've seem enough barrack room traffic engineers, statisticians and physicists talk absolute nonsense on here. The only thing worth discussing is factual data cited to real sources. Not "my online mate Terry reckons that Dulwich Park will be flooded next year" or "I've seen data that shows 80% of taxi drivers are left handed".

As an follow-on observation, there seems to be a enthusiasm in some quarters for claiming to have seen things but not citing or sharing the actual data. For example: https://x.com/DulwichCleanAir/status/1838479733199376440

One pseudonymous poster rehashing another pseudonymous poster's memory about a third pseudonymous poster's opinion is not data or evidence either! 🤣🤣🤣

One pseudonymous poster rehashing some other pseudonymous poster's option is not data or evidence. ...and the suspicions of a pseudonymous poster online are not data or evidence either. Neither has our friend from West Dulwich Action Group popped back to: a) substantiate their claims about data b) explain some of their own quirky but supposedly data-support claims (here and on Twitter) The "data doesn't care about your feelings" crowd do really seem to struggle with the concept of citing data and providing sources. 🤔 QED

NB no data or evidence cited.

I don't believe it. This place is a veritable Las Vegas de nos jours of conspiracy, corruption and high speed bicycle chases, or so I've been told on here. Intrigue hides around the corner of every planter!

Where are there traffic lights on Limesford Rd? I don't think I understand the story. Anyway, it sounds you might have come across an idiot. There are a few in London.

NB that no evidence or data was cited.

If you're going to claim this, you should give full details with the underlying source of the data so that people can understand what specifically you're saying. Your group's claim above seems a bit ropey and you haven't addressed it (or other questions on this thread): https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/350461-west-dulwich-ltn-action-group-needs-your-support/?do=findComment&comment=1680839

Good question. I have no idea what to do either. Right now I'm on whatever the no-cap default plan is for British Gas, and that's probably the worst option! Today is the first day I've put the heating on too...

🤣🤣🤣

ooooooOOOOooooOOooooHHhhhh Nope, these were all trying to cut through from College Rd to Court Lane - they drove through the inner gate (which I think is being replaced, finally), along the pathway to the Court Lane gates, and then realised their mistake. 50/50 on whether they then squeezed through the bollards across the pavement or backtracked. I think it's more a case of the drivers "seeing" the surface on a GPS and trying to outsmart the route they've been told to take. I dont think it happens very often - bollards are pretty effective at traffic management, and one of the PHVs was let through by poor traffic management after one of the events.

I imagine it's going to look and feel pretty similar to the mixed use development about 300m to the north, but bigger. https://maps.app.goo.gl/84WNyXLpvHmiLuHA7?g_st=ac

I've seen a delivery van, 2 PHVs and multiple Deliveroo motorcyclists...just this year!

This definition, if it were ever useful in Europe where CAFE is not an issue, has long since been disposed of by the industry itself. SUV is a marketing term, not a technical one.

Bit of an odd post from West Dulwich Action Group here (hoping the link works): https://x.com/WDulwichAction/status/1838117258104545427 It claims to show a massive year on year increase in the volume of traffic along Rosendale Rd. It actually seems to show percentage splits of speeds of an unspecified volume of traffic along an unspecified road on an unspecified date. It's not terribly compelling...