Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

I am particularly concerned by the reduction of public transport access to Rye Lane and the key railway station.


The gridlock caused by the road closures are a very serious cause for concern.


Also not help by children using the new car free area as a playground - there are still bikes using this as a highway so only a matter of time before there is some sort of collision.

tiddles Wrote:

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


> Also not help by children using the new car free

> area as a playground - there are still bikes using

> this as a highway so only a matter of time before

> there is some sort of collision.


Number of pedestrians killed by cyclists in 2017: 3

Number of pedestrians killed by cars: 470


I know which one I'll be losing sleep over

Rockets Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Ask cars to stop driving through a few

> residential

> > streets and people lose their sh*t.

>

>

> But are they? Aren't they just saying that these

> particular closures are causing huge issues

> elsewhere and not dealing with the issue they were

> designed to...infact they are making things

> worse.



Well not everyone, but certainly when people are saying that they're going to leave the area and others are vandalising the planters - it seems like a fairly hysterical / disproportionate response imo.

Rockets Wrote:

> Aren't they just saying that these

> particular closures are causing huge issues

> elsewhere and not dealing with the issue they were

> designed to...infact they are making things

> worse.


How would the proposal from 'One Dulwich' for timed restrictions be better? Presumably the timed restrictions would include the morning and evening rush hours? This implies that the issue is a very brief diversion at quiet times? Is that what people are concerned about?

The timed restrictions by One Dulwich are a red herring in my opinion. If a small diversion at times when the roads are quiet is really their issue, I would be surprised.


When 'One Dulwich' say that they support the aims of the scheme (which are ultimately to reduce the number of car journeys)... well, the only way to achieve this is to make driving less appealing. Which means less convenient. In reality, this is what many of their supporters are against.


I wish they would be more straight forward, because then we could have an honest conversation about convenience / benefits versus the inconvenience / costs of non essential car journeys.

Rahrah why don't you getting the honesty ball rolling tell us about how your car journey you boasted about the other day was essential?


"> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I drove from townley/ EDH up through the

> > village

> > > to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5

> > minute

> > > diversion at most."

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Rahrah why don't you getting the honesty ball

> rolling tell us about how your car journey you

> boasted about the other day was essential?

>

> "> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > I drove from townley/ EDH up through the

> > > village

> > > > to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5

> > > minute

> > > > diversion at most."


I didn't say it was essential, or that only essential journeys are legimate. It would have been very difficult to do via public transport however, probably not impossible. Again, suggesting that we need to try and disincentivise car journeys (especially those which can be easily undertaken by alternative modes of travel, which one might characterise as non-essential), is not calling for a ban on car journeys. The idea that you are either 'pro-car' or 'anti-car' is an example of extremely binary thinking.


Also, I wasn't 'boasting' about my car journey. I was pointing out that the diversion that was necessary in order to undertake it (even at rush hour) was fairly minimal.


Your post just shows that you are not interested in actually debating the issues, but rather trying (poorly) to 'score points'.

Ah, that was the local kids, bored. They probably had no idea that the grown ups are engaging in a worthy debate about this.


thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> This is a great look, One Dulwich:

> https://twitter.com/simonstill/status/128514547519

> 7423616

dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> Would house prices actually go down due to these

> closures, surely a quieter road at the expense of

> other roads would make the prices go up on court

> road etc?


Yeah, I would have thought so, although it's probably pretty marginal either way. Not sure house prices is really relevant to why people are supporting or objecting to the scheme.

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> I dont know - im no expert - but if you dont

> need to close a road day and night why do it? If

> it makes life easier for people to have it open

> some of teh time, why not?


This is a reasonable question. I feel like the physical infrastructure and enforcement needed to do it, for the sake of a little more convenience for a small number of people at quiet times, might be excessive. But perhaps ?One Dulwich? could put forwards concrete proposal for how it might operate.

As someone who lives on Dulwich Village, I wouldn't characterise the road closures as creating a "gated community". What I see is that the main road through the village creates a highway from the South Circular to the north of the borough, and that when the weight of traffic eases, people speed along Dulwich Village. Do I have to be anti-car or anti-cycle to see this as a poor outcome?

If this was the case there could eventually be a position held by residents of that area where the Council have realised from finally listening to complaints that their ill-advised (if they were) changes to traffic were a mistake / over-zealous, but when they attempt to revert the changes they face opposition from those concerned their house prices will drop if that happens !!


spider69 Wrote:

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

> So if you had a choice to live on a closed off

> road or another with traffic you would not take

> it?

>

> Of course house prices would go up.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I am delighted to hear the development was approved.  In my opinion, the UK is building far too little housing. And unless we build on green belts, the only solution is to increase the density of our cities, which is exactly what this scheme achieves.  Where I'm from (France), planning is generally looser and in my home city it's common to see single dwellings being razed to make way for a 5-6 story block of flats, even in city centres. Does it change the character of the local area? For sure! But I don't see another way to provide the supply to meet demand and provide ample supply of housing for a growing population. My personal experience is that in the UK, there is a lot more time spent on consultations, on achieving a perfect outcome for everyone. This results in generally better and more harmonious building than in France, but it makes things slower and more costly, with the need to coordinate many consultants.  It's interesting to compare France and the UK as they have similar populations and population growth, with an economy centred on a huge capital city. When you look at the number of houses/flats built in France and the UK over the past 10 years, the result is pretty striking. # France UK Difference 2023 298,100 150,370 -147,730 2022 392,100 182,070 -210,030 2021 410,000 177,160 -232,840 2020 368,800 129,440 -239,360 2019 387,700 153,000 -234,700 2018 401,200 168,610 -232,590 2017 434,700 164,110 -270,590 2016 370,000 155,150 -214,850 2015 341,000 148,150 -192,850 2014 336,900 140,760 -196,140 2013 357,900 124,790 -233,110 2012 382,300 101,020 -281,280 Total 4,480,700 1,794,630 -2,686,070 Average 373,392 149,553 -223,839 When HS1 was built, the French engineers (it was built with the French high-speed signalling) were surprised at how Brits wanted to "gold-plate" everything. The UK arguably has the best, most effective, more reliable, more well-equipped high-speed line in the world, but we've only got 68 miles of it and it cost 2.5 times what it cost the French to build a line extension at the same time.  In my view, there's no magic wand: just deciding who will be the losers. In France, people in established neighbourhoods my lose out as they see them change dramatically, while the new entrants benefit from a much higher supply of housing (and thus cheaper housing). In the UK, we give greater priority to preserving the lifestyle and amenity of the established dwellers over the new entrants who lose out as the supply is choked and prices are higher. A final point of comparison would be the price per square foot of property in Greater Paris is £467 while in Greater London it's £667 - 30% cheaper!
    • This web page lists some companies that recycle CDs https://www.reducereuserecycle.co.uk/where_can_I_recycle/cds_and_dvds.php  
    • I heard it as well, woke me up, very strange.  I don't care for myself but I do worry for people with children and animals, it is a nuisance and happens more and more nowadays.
    • Has that ever actually happened? The bags are quite bright, and don't blend in with the pavement, so are quite noticeable. But surely there can't be many  cases where someone has bothered to put the s**t in a bag,  but then just leaves the bag on the pavement?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...