Residents Melbourne Grove, Adys Road, Bromar Road - Traffic increases due to Champion Hill

[talfourdite]

So, for all other people who think there is a need to have some roads in London that can accept traffic, and wish to live in the real world, particularly those disproportionately suffering as a result of this closure, please do fill out the Southwark consultation. Over and out.

[rendelharris]

talfourdite Wrote:

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

> So, for all other people who think there is a need

> to have some roads in London that can accept

> traffic, and wish to live in the real world,

> particularly those disproportionately suffering as

> a result of this closure, please do fill out the

> Southwark consultation. Over and out.

It's so good of you to be so unselfishly concerned about others and not about your own ability to send nanny on the ratrun. Does you credit.

[Passiflora]

Just to say Rendel that you did post a very rude reply to the OP on Saturday night which was probably read by lots of people on the forum but was then edited the following morning.

[rendelharris]

Passiflora Wrote:

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

> Just to say Rendel that you did post a very rude

> reply to the OP on Saturday night which was

> probably read by lots of people on the forum but

> was then edited the following morning.

Absolute rubbish. But then in your weird Passiflora-aggressive way you think anyone's rude if they disagree with your "let me drive whenever and wherever I want" outlook. It's much easier to accuse people of rudeness than produce a substantive counter-argument, isn't it?

[intexasatthe moment]

"It's so good of you to be so unselfishly concerned about others and not about your own ability to send nanny on the ratrun."

"But then in your weird Passiflora-aggressive way you think anyone's rude if they disagree with your "let me drive whenever and wherever I want" outlook."

I think comments like these are rude . They add nothing to a debate about Southwark's actions with regard to traffic management or pollution in general . IMO they detract from that debate .

[rendelharris]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> "It's so good of you to be so unselfishly

> concerned about others and not about your own

> ability to send nanny on the ratrun."

> I think comments like these are rude . They add

> nothing to a debate about Southwark's actions with

> regard to traffic management or pollution in

> general . IMO they detract from that debate .

talfourdite started this "debate" with an OP frankly scaremongering, trying to persuade people from a wide catchment area to object to the CH closure by saying people like him/her would have "no choice" but to drive through their neighbourhoods (which as pointed out above, isn't true in their case at all). S/he has made great play of being concerned for the impact of pollution levels on children etc, but has failed to point out that one of the polluting vehicles, as is obvious from his/her previous advertisements on this forum, is/was driven by his/her nanny taking the kids to private school (and yes that is relevant, sending children to private schools a distance away is a choice). talfourdite's main motive is not protecting neighbourhoods or lowering pollution, it's keeping the ratrun open so his/her kids can get to school more quickly. If pointing out hypocrisy's rude, so be it.

[nxjen]

I agree with Texas. You do it again and again Rendall on many threads stifling debate with petty point scoring, determined to get the better of any poster who views things differently from you. I agree with much of what you say on many subjects but you make it all so unpleasant.

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> I agree with Texas. You do it again and again

> Rendall on many threads stifling debate with petty

> point scoring, determined to get the better of any

> poster who views things differently from you. I

> agree with much of what you say on many subjects

> but you make it all so unpleasant.

Jolly good, anyone else want to join in? Sally Buying, you'll surely want to join the gang?

Look, I join in debates on here on things about which I feel passionate - pollution and unnecessary selfish car use being one of them. When people are propounding a selfish, destructive argument for their own selfish ends, yes I will oppose them and point out where they're wrong. If that's "stifling debate", tough - if people don't want silly, unsupportable or hypocritical views pointed out, perhaps they should keep those views off public fora.

If you don't like what I say then feel free to skip over my posts. If my posts are in contravention of forum rules, feel free to report them to Admin for deletion. Otherwise, I'll continue to comment as I see fit on what I wish in whatever way I (not you) feel is appropriate, as is as much my right as it is yours. Cheerio!

[cella]

I can't see any examples of Rendelharris being rude. He is robust in his posts and argues his point energetically on issues. This is very different to some posters idea of what is "rude".

[intexasatthe moment]

I don't have time at the moment to look again at the posts and consider whether I agree with RH's judgement of them as being hypocritical but ..

Rendel ,like others I often enjoy your posts and appreciate your contributions but there are ways to point out perceived hypocrisy and keep the discussion/debate going in a constructive way .I think your comments are often sarcastic and rude , tend to distract from the main issues and to close conversations down .

[intexasatthe moment]

cella - people have different views ,personally I think RH's robustness often becomes rudeness .

I'm conscious that I'm leading this thread away from traffic management into a discussion about posting style .

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Passiflora Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Just to say Rendel that you did post a very

> rude

> > reply to the OP on Saturday night which was

> > probably read by lots of people on the forum

> but

> > was then edited the following morning.

>

> Absolute rubbish. But then in your weird

> Passiflora-aggressive way you think anyone's rude

> if they disagree with your "let me drive whenever

> and wherever I want" outlook. It's much easier to

> accuse people of rudeness than produce a

> substantive counter-argument, isn't it?

If you want to avoid giving off the impression of being rude and offensive, prefacing your posts with statements like "OK, you may find this question offensive..." isn't exactly helping your cause (post 79 of this thread, assuming I can count correctly).

I also saw that comment on Saturday, by the way. I don't particularly care if you are confrontational, I know I can be just as bad on topics I feel passionately about (and this is the internet, after all). But the fact that you edited that post the next morning suggests that you know your comment went beyond the line of just disagreeing with someone, and it was genuinely rude.

[goldilocks]

Without getting into the rude / not rude comments above there are a few points i'd like to make.

In principle i'm for measures to encourage people to drive less and use active travel or public transport more. This is especially true for shorter journeys of up to 3-4 miles. Unless you have disabilities then realistically everyone should be considering whether there are better options than sitting in their cars contribution to the congestion that is a huge issue for our area of London. Yes, there are issues that make cycling etc trickier - but they're often not insummountable (panniers / baskets for example help with lots of the stuff that needs carrying, musical instruments don't need taking every day for most children and unless they play cello / double base most can be made into a backpack carrying arrangement and still ride a bike). Cycling is often way quicker than driving or taking a bus too.

However, this road closure isn't doing that - it isn't enough really. The pain of it isn't really sufficient to make car drivers choose an alternative means of travel, yet the impact on the alternative routes is significant especially given the amount of schools directly on the routes that the traffic is being re routed onto.

We need a much more joined up view of road closures - preferably to ensure that all children have the option of a 'safe route to school' from a pollution perspective to encourage more to travel actively and to make it safer for those who already do so.

The congestion around East Dulwich Grove is massively exacerbated by the private schools in our area as their pupils travel from a much wider area and therefore the number of parents driving their children is staggering. Any solution to cut down traffic needs to work with the foundation schools and consider measures to increase alternative forms of travel for their pupils - be it school streets to deter parents driving, more foundation coaches at different times/ with more flexible terms. This isn't intended to come across as "private school bashing", or deflect the very tangible impact each of us can make, but more that closing one road alone isn't helpful.

[wulfhound]

... and to bring this back full circle, what this comes down to is that people will cut their cloth to fit their means.

This has two key implications:

1) That when those means are changed by external factors, people will - quite reasonably - get upset about it. If you've planned your life around a 20-minute car journey to school, and all of a sudden that 20 becomes 30, it's fair enough that you'll feel put out..

but:

2) That people, generally, will do what's easy. Very few are so environmentally worthy that they'll put themselves out to walk and cycle everywhere, if it's much slower and more dangerous than the alternative. Which in turn leads to the conclusion that if you want to change peoples' behaviour, and their decisions around how to organise their lives, you have to change what's easy - but it's reasonable to expect that that will lead to inconvenience and unhappiness in the short term, as people who are used to doing things a certain way are forced to adjust.

Cue cries of "social engineering" from those who lean to the Classical Liberal end of the political spectrum. Newsflash: all engineering is social. Nobody describes Tinder or the M25 as social engineering, despite the massive implications for society. I've personally got no problem with the authorities taking it upon themselves to undertake this kind of project, as long as there's a modicum of democratic accountability.

One thing puzzles me though.. zooming out a little, one of the following must be true:

1) It's too easy to drive short trips (of say 3 miles and under), and it should be made more difficult in order to discourage such trips.

2) It's too difficult to drive short trips, and it should be made easier (by, for example, widening the South Circular, building new ones, opening e.g. Green Dale up to motor traffic, reopening the Dulwich Park road, increasing urban speed limits to 40mph).

3) The status quo in which we find ourselves is somehow, per Goldilocks, just right.

Now, should someone here argue for 2), from the point of view of economic growth, social mobility or some such, I'd vehemently disagree, but I'd at least recognise the consistency of their position. It's reasonable to want different outcomes and argue for them. If you want to live in a world where economic wealth and efficiency matters more than air quality, say, that's a legitimate point of view - just not one I agree with.

And yet almost nobody is making that argument. And while I'd strongly disagree with 2), I think it's at least more plausible than 3), which seems to enjoy wide support, yet on closer examination just seems somehow... unlikely.

[rendelharris]

Cardelia Wrote:

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

> If you want to avoid giving off the impression of

> being rude and offensive, prefacing your posts

> with statements like "OK, you may find this

> question offensive..." isn't exactly helping your

> cause (post 79 of this thread, assuming I can

> count correctly).

That's somewhat disingenuous to quote that and not the following section which said "sincere apologies if you have a disability and need to use your car..." or similar. Perhaps I should have said "You may find this question offensive..." That doesn't indicate that I think the question is offensive, it indicates that I know that some people, as it involves what they will perceive as a challenge to what they believe in, will choose to take it offensively. It's not as if I said "You may find this offensive but fuck off", is it?

> I also saw that comment on Saturday, by the way. I

> don't particularly care if you are

> confrontational, I know I can be just as bad on

> topics I feel passionately about (and this is the

> internet, after all). But the fact that you edited

> that post the next morning suggests that you know

> your comment went beyond the line of just

> disagreeing with someone, and it was genuinely

> rude.

No, I didn't edit it as I thought it was rude (unless I remember incorrectly, the bit I deleted was commenting on the fact that the OP employs a nanny to drive her children to private school, wasn't it?) but because I knew on reflection it was offering the OP and others the opportunity to accuse me of being off-topic, personal etc to distract attention from from the hypocrisy and weakness of their position. Which they have now successfully accomplished.

[James Barber]

I agree with wulfhound.

[cella]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> cella - people have different views ,personally I

> think RH's robustness often becomes rudeness .

>

> I'm conscious that I'm leading this thread away

> from traffic management into a discussion about

> posting style .

People do indeed have different views, which us what the Forum's for, and I disagree with yours on this!

[Jules-and-Boo]

I also agree with Wulfhound

People are putting their own convenience above the good for the environment and the bigger picture.

My children walk or take the bus to school and I do the same for work.

While there are people who struggle with mobility, most people drive out of personal convenience.

[Administrator]

Please play the ball not the player, and in doing so you'll keep this on topic. Happy days!

[EDBoy]

Just a reminder, if you have observations or concerns about how the *Champion Hill No Entry Trial* is operating in practice, please submit your comments using the attached link:

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/champion-hill-no-entry-trial-monitoring-form/

The closing date is 30/09/2019.

If you have strong opinions either way, then perhaps canvass your neighbours who are either not on the EDF or are unaware of the monitoring form on the Southwark Council website and make sure they submit their feedback.

[zerkalo]

I think there will be a time, perhaps not in our lifetimes, that driving short distances around built up urban areas - such as for the school run for example - will become socially unacceptable. Unfortunately, it might be too late by that point to tackle air pollution.

[Sally Eva]

I don't know -- depends how old you are now obviously :) -- but social change comes quite quickly I think -- it hits a tipping point. Even 2-3 years ago only the environmentalists (and the EU) talked about pollution. Now, here we are discussing it.

Reminds me of the laws against drink driving in the 1970s -- probably hard for younger people to realise how hotly these were opposed -- death of the country pub "I drive better when I've had a few" "I know when I've had too many".

i remember sitting (as a journalist) in a country magistrates court hearing one of the first cases of "drunk in charge of a car" against a salesman who had passed out in the driving seat of his car with his car keys in his hand. The magistrates apologised for having to take away his licence. The difference in public attitudes in that 50 years is overwhelming and it came quite quickly, I think.

As you imply the young already care about pollution. My daughter and her husband chose their house because it was well away from the main road and pollution would be less. The argument is over.

[betternowthanthen]

FOR THE ATTENTION of rendelharris

I've noticed that a lot of people here are utterly annoyed by your 'TROLLING' style, as I've said to you before on this forum, your helping nothing, only distracting the attention of other people's comments here, turning it against them, your sarcastic style is making for bad reading (when they are right, and your totally wrong IMO). I really wish you went elsewhere....

Your making things negative, (again), and spoiling good conversation, (again), your name is just coming up everywhere (again..

Why not start a new thread for yourself, so you can be center of attention for your self, perhaps call the thread 'the rendelharris only' conversation, and you can spoil that section all you want!! hurray!, and then you can just do what your doing here, totally interrupting and changing direction of the what people here are posting about, a very bad decision of the council regarding the road closure....Please troll style your way..away :)

[nxjen]

Rendelharris has left the building

[mrwb]

What about East Dulwich grove and village way too?

It used to be possible to use champion hill to get to herne hill avoiding east Dulwich grove. Now east Dulwich grove is the alternative route for most going to Herne Hill I would think.

There are 4 schools on the new route this traffic is taking. The new Charter campus, Alleyns and Alleyns junior, pre prep and Judith Kerr.

Has no one thought of the children?