Homstall Road - Humps

[expat]

>and temporary (I stress temporary) lights were installed

>>However we will take the opportunity to see if the signals provide a better solution at the junction with Forest Hill >>Road and if so consideration could be given to retaining them.

Not sure if the word temporary is tthe correct one.

[Vickster]

Missing the point again, and twisting my words. I did not at any point request a sticky or demand that other threads be shut down, I asked whether it would be ok to resurrect the old thread to bring to the attention of those that had an interest in this issue before the fact that it was beng discussed again. I asked if it should then be locked, to prevent having two concurrent threads running. Posters would then be free to use this thread. If I have misunderstood the use of the two terms "sticky" and "lock" then I am sure you will be the first to let me know, but my understanding is that the resurrencted thread would soon get buried, as it in fact has done. My very impartial post on the original thread, if you care to take a look, just raises the fact that the council are considering this issue and links to this thread, thus alerting those that had requested notifications of new posts on the previous thread.

I have made my views known once on this thread, and e-mailed and written to the council. Hardly waging a campaign. My subsequent posts have been to defend my actions against your quite astonishingly incorrect accusations. Not quite sure why, but I think you have blown my request (note request) that the old thread be locked, which was done in the misguided hope that I was doing the right thing, out of all proportion.

You will note that I have not felt the need to attack those with views that the lights should stay, other than to suggest to one person that if removed, it is unlikely they will be replaced with nothing, as I recognise the value and validity of others points of view and the right to express them. Unlike you. I know who comes across as a bully in all this and it isn't me.

I actually applaude the council for looking into the issues and establishing the stengths and weaknesses, as if there is found to be a clear case for the lights staying on a safety basis, I would be happy for them to stay, but like Marmora Man I am unclear as to how this can be accurately shown when a safety review was not implemented when the crossing was there.

Oh and by the way, I a not a motorist, well on a very infrequent basis. I live locally and catch the 63 and 363 to work, and often write my posts waiting at the stop while the buses idle away far up Forest Hill Road, held up by the lights.

[Huguenot]

"I have not felt the need to attack those with views that the lights should stay"

I think Vickster that if you check back again you'll discover that you only got a broadside from me when you suggested my opinion and my mickey take of MM's letter was 'inane drivel'

So come on tiger, really you were happy to dish it out but didn't like it when your insult got short shrift.

I celebrate anyone, in this case the local council, that give pedestrians a priority over motorists when considering these schemes. That's a default position for me.

If you think people are speeding down your road, then the local police support team will be willing to stand on your road and use the speed gun. If it tells you they're not speeding then you just need to forget about it.

I've no doubt that the amount of traffic using these roads will have marginally increased. The question is the degree to which this has happened, and whether this is worth sacrficing the needs of young families, pensioners and schoolchildren to rectify. My guess is no.

You can always test it of course, by 'suspending' the crossing for one month. Do traffic counts at the beginning and end of the study.

[*Bob*]

You seem to have missed my post, Huge.. selective reading?

If you're seriously suggesting that somehow these crossings 'give pedestrians a priority over motorists' then you've either got jam for brains OR you live six thousand miles away and have no regular experience of using the crossings as a pedestrian whatsoever.

[intexasatthe moment]

Or possibly Huguenot's only interest is in goading and winding people up .

[Marmora Man]

I think I preferred it before the bring back Hugenot campaign was successful.

[Huguenot]

:))

Nah, I don't believe you. You'd get bored without someone offering a counter viewpoint to keep you on your toes.

Although I must say itatm, your pursuit of me from thread to thread slagging me off makes me think that my quiet conviction that you're a person who holds a misplaced grievance and engages in vendetta was absolutely spot on.

You gonna do for me like you did for KCH - concerted smear campaign?

[louisiana]

I've used this junction quite a few times over the last couple of weeks, as a car passenger, as a van passenger, as a cyclist, and as a pedestrian. I live within 0.5 miles of the junction.

I have found the lights useful in getting across FH Rd on all of these occasions. This morning, for example, they allowed me to get across the road to the doctors' surgery without taking my life in my hands (oh the irony). Yesterday evening, they allowed out car to easily cross FH Rd and do the same on our return, when picking up items advertised on EDF. And the same for when we've been picking up building materials.

This morning I stood at the junction for a while and counted the number of vehicles in each direction. For example, on one change of lights, there were 6 doing the Dunstans/Colyton directions, and 9 doing the FH Rd N/S directions. This was at 12.15pm. On each occasion there were more cars waiting on FH Rd than on Dunstans/Colyton, but there were always 5+ cars waiting on Dunstans/Colyton. Numbers will no doubt vary at other times of day, but I think it's clear that there is a fair bit of traffic Dunstans/Colyton (particularly coming from Dunstans).

As a pedestrian, I do also feel the lights help somewhat in supporting pedestrians crossing. It's not just the Park they are trying to get to/from, it's also the medical centre, the chemist etc. And many of those visiting the medical centre are elderly, less mobile etc.

MM is speaking from the position of someone on Marmora Rd. It has to be said most people living in ED, or who use this junction, do not live on Marmora Road, and we should probably not be taking decisions on traffic based on what 'people on Marmora Road think'.

[trinity]

I live close to the junction and use it regularly as a pedestrian, cyclist and car driver. I also cross the junction with my children.

I preferred this juction in its previous form - that is no traffic lights but a zebra crossing to enable people to cross Forest Hill Road. I feel that this made the junction more pedestrian friendly as the wait for the traffic lights to change and the green man to appear is currently very long. The zebra crossing provided an immediate crossing for pedestrians. I am not aware of any accidents at that crossing whilst it was in situ - if anyone has any info to the contrary I would be interested to hear it.

The pedestrian crossings on Dunstans and Colyton I feel are entirely superflous. These are minor side streets and don't require controlled crossings anymore than Mundania, Therapia or Marmora. They are easy roads to cross and ones that I would be happy for my children to cross on their own.

Although traffic now backs up on the side streets using that junction as it is held at a red light, this was not my experience before the lights were put in place. Often there was a waiting period to turn onto Forest Hill Road but it feels that now you often wait longer as the traffic lights hold you in place even with very light flow on Forest Hill Road. In addition the lights are 3 way ie Forest Hill Road priority, then Colyton only, then Dunstans only, then pedestrians. This makes for a very slow junction when any of the 3 directions have little traffic.

Overall I feel that the previous junction was better for pedestrians and road users.

[Huguenot]

Well there you go *Bob*, seems your four year old hasn't done her research.

I wouldn't be too harsh on her, just maybe 60mins on John Locke and Empiricism, with some follow up sessions on the importance of both reason and data from the works of Descartes, Liebniz and Spinoza?

[*Bob*]

Do you even know where Forest Hill Road is, Hugenot?

Let me give you directions: turn left out of your apartment, head for the airport, check in, board flight, fly for twelve hours. Get a black cab from Heathrow - they should be able to find it for you.

Then, when you've actually - you know - had a look and actually used it a few times - you might be qualified to offer a vaguely considered opinion - like the ones offered above, whether they be yes or no. Oh - it would help if you lived here for a number of years prior to the change so you can get an insight into the better / worse thing too.

And he's a boy, you ex-pat tit.

[Huguenot]

Well I guess 'tit' was an insult, so does the juxtaposition with 'ex-pat' make that an insult too? It seems a little harsh to be so rude to everybody who lives outside of the UK just because you don't like my views on arguments to remove a pedestrian crossing?

Or perhaps you just lost your temper slightly.

I fear it says more about you than me. It seems to diminish you slightly.

[*Bob*]

I'm sure most people would agree that 'ex-pat tit' has a better ring to it that just 'tit'.

You're no more entitled to a view on this particular zebra crossing / lights issue that I'm am as to, for example, whether you're current haircut is any better than the one you had two months ago. (Though my guess would be that it's probably 'about the same').

[Huguenot]

Thanks for your advice *Bob*.

If you read back you'll find that I don't have a view on this specific set of lights, my views were on the arguments being used to call for it's reduction:

That the views of a majority of posters was being misrepresented as a majority of users

That the needs of car drivers were being elevated beyond pedestrians

That claims of rat runs were anecdotal

That claims of speeding were unsubstantiated

That efforts for serious investigation by the council were being rubbished before they could be reviewed

That posters were claiming to speak on behalf of an unidentified 'other' majority

That the views of people for whom the lights were very useful were being dismissed without reference

That proponents of the decommission of the lights were a little bit presumptuous in asking for the thread to be locked to the top of the board

The lights may well be useless, I don't have a view. I don't believe I need to have seen the lights to recognise that these arguments are flawed. If it acts as a spur for people to get the right data and make informed choices then my contribution may have been useful.

However, for people who want the lights gone because it suits them regardless, I'm sure i will remain a 'tit'.

PS Love the argument that as a 'foreigner' I'm not entitled to an opinion, what other unpleasantness is hidden behind your veneer of bonhomie?

[Vickster]

Please point to excactly where I asked that the original thread should be stuck at the top of the baord. That would have been presumptious, but that was not what I asked. I think you are still confusing locking with sticky. My suggestion about locking was to prevent two threads on the subject, and it was a question I asked not a presumption made.

[*Bob*]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> PS Love the argument that as a 'foreigner' I'm not

> entitled to an opinion, what other unpleasantness

> is hidden behind your veneer of bonhomie?

Nice try - but ah-ah! You'll have to do better than that.

Let's hear from some other people as to whether these lights (the ones that Huge hasn't even seen) are better or worse than the old system - before we read Hugenot's A-level paper. Real people - people who use it!

I'm nailing my colours to the mast as a non-Marmora Road living, crossing-using, non-driving person with a young child. If I'm in the minority than so be it.

[Penguin68]

PS Love the argument that as a 'foreigner' I'm not entitled to an opinion, what other unpleasantness is hidden behind your veneer of bonhomie?

Surely the issue wasn't about foreigness but about lack of immediate knowledge. To challenge 'anecdotal' views of those who are actually on site, as it were, seems a tad presumptuous - none of us (of course) is either undertaking independant, statistically significant surveys or giving evidence in court, when hearsay evidence could be discarded. Those who have been posting, in the main, are however here (in ED) to observe/ participate in the effects of the lights now, and most remember the position before the lights - I certainly do and I recall that crossing the street at the crossing was entirely safe. Drivers tend to be more careful of crossings than they do of lights - because they actually have to think and observe. And I definitely 'rat run' to avoid the hold up at the lights. I have lived relatively close to the junction (continually) for more than the last 20 years.

[Huguenot]

Vickster, the request on 'Ask Admin' was specifically this:

"A request from Vickster Vickster Request and the thread Vickster would like locked at top of East Dulwich Issues"

'At the top of...' is about as clear as you can get. Locked at the top is a sticky.

Penguin68 you may well be right, but I wasn't talking about the lights, I was talking about the flawed arguments and tactics that were being employed.

Living abroad, whilst it might make me and apparently everyone else abroad 'tit's, hasn't relieved me of the ability to recognise when people are running campaigns to change public facilities based on gut feel, personal prejudice and self-interest.

I'm not saying that to be rude, and it's not an attack. In the absence of any data that was just what was taking place.

[Vickster]

The request on Ask Admin was not from me so your entire attack on me in this regard is incorrect. I also took the poster to mean that the thread was currently at the top of the board. A retraction of your accusations against me would be nice, but I suspect unlikely, as your sole intention is to inflame.

[Huguenot]

"so your entire attack on me in this regard is incorrect"

I think my entire attack on you in this regard was limited to 'it's a wee bit preseumptive' until you started asserting that I was talking 'inane drivel'. At that point I said you were attention seeking.

I think suggesting that you were attention seeking in response to being accused of 'inane drivel' is not an unreasonable response, and it was you that threw the first abuse after all ;-)

Sure, I recognise that it was Marmora Man describing your request, but that mistake really pales into insignificance when compared with your absurd over-reaction.

[Vickster]

How is being accused of bullying on a public internet forum an overreaction? I have a view on this subject from first hand experience and I expressed it as requested by the councillors. It was your assertions that I was ignoring other people's views and bullying that was both incorrect and an overreaction to what was initially a very simple question.

[Huguenot]

Crikey, each time I answer your complaint you move the goal posts?

So now you want to know where the bullying assertion came from. It was this comment:

"It seems that the overwhelming majority of the people who contributed were against the installation of the lights"

A comment like that isn't designed to win the argument by validity, it's to try and win the argument by weight of numbers. This is defacto bullying. You may prefer not to use the word bully, but the phrase is designed to pressurise your opponents psychologically instead of rationally by making you part of a 'bigger gang'.

Many people do it out of habit, and even think it's reasonable. I just don't happen to agree.

PS I might have used a softer phrase if you hadn't started throwing mud at me with 'inane drivel', so really, you reap what you sow.

[Vickster]

That was a statement of fact based on the replies to the original thread, which another poster had gone to the trouble of totting up. The key phrase being "the people who contributed". I was not saying that this was the view of the overwhelming majority of people in East Dulwich and who are affected by this decision in general. A comment lke that wasn't intended to win any argument, so no bullying defacto or otherwise.

I think you are getting a little carried away if you think I have opponents on this thread (well perhaps with the exception of you). I have a view which is as valid (and anecdotal by the way) as anybody else, including those that are for the retention of the lights. You seem to be rubbishing everyone on here who wants to speak up for the removal of the lights, because you do not agree with them. What evidence do you expect local people to give other than anecdotal for goodneess sake? That is bullying. Arguments aren't flawed because they are based on someone's personal experiences.

[Huguenot]

Well we'll just have to differ. For me, bullying is taking advantage of a real or perceived imbalance of power. To assert that you have an 'overwhelming majority' is to establish an imbalance of power in the minds of those people who disagreed with you.

In fact it stops people disagreeing with you, because people may not want to put themselves in what is perceived to be a weak minority.

You are quite right that it was indeed a statement of fact, just like 'I'm bigger than you' is a statement of fact. In a particular context both of them are bullying.

To ask people to provide evidence to support their assertions is not bullying. It might be excessively direct, or challenging, or slightly autistic in its lack of social niceties, but the one thing it isn't is bullying.

[Vickster]

Yes we had better agree to differ, as this is getting tiresome, particularly for everyone else I imagine.