LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Metallic]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I think Alice is right, for Dulwich Village it was

> never about cyclists or clean air for all

> residents ... it was for very rich people to have

> access to all that a large city provides,

> cleaners, gardeners, Waitrose delivery, wine

> shops, sourdough, expensive restaurants, excellent

> private education, private areas for parking the

> second car - while living the life in an exclusive

> area, as close to a rural Village as

> possible...and they don?t give a flying fig for

> anyone who suffers from displaced traffic. Croxted

> Rd and Lordship Lane residents do not matter to

> the Villagers.

That is completely untrue. If you care to ask people who are apparently benefitting you will find the majority are embarrassed at the money spent, and furious.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I think Alice is right, for Dulwich Village it

> was

> > never about cyclists or clean air for all

> > residents ... it was for very rich people to

> have

> > access to all that a large city provides,

> > cleaners, gardeners, Waitrose delivery, wine

> > shops, sourdough, expensive restaurants,

> excellent

> > private education, private areas for parking

> the

> > second car - while living the life in an

> exclusive

> > area, as close to a rural Village as

> > possible...and they don?t give a flying fig for

> > anyone who suffers from displaced traffic.

> Croxted

> > Rd and Lordship Lane residents do not matter to

> > the Villagers.

>

> That is completely untrue. If you care to ask

> people who are apparently benefitting you will

> find the majority are embarrassed at the money

> spent, and furious.

Furious but not very vocal.

[ab29]

This is not true - I have found out about the consultation from this forum and from One Dulwich emails. I live on LL and neither I nor my neighbours received any communication - no leaflets, no email, no text message (as it doesn't have to be a paper version).

redpost Wrote:

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

> LTN's and the consultation process have been all

> over the TV news, print news, leaflets, shop

> windows, internets etc for the past year

>

> Just to make sure everyone is aware of the

> process, perhaps southwark should pay for a

> gorillagram to personally deliver the leaflet to

> every household in south London?

>

> Of course, you would then be the first to moan

> about the cost of consultation

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > They have to do a better job of communicating

> with

> > everyone on this. We are all aware of the

> review

> > but many people have no clue it is going on and

> so

> > will not have an opportunity to give their

> input.

> > I suspect the council is more than happy with

> this

> > as they know this is going to become a numbers

> > game and if the weight of public opinion is

> > against them then it becomes more and more

> > difficult to justify.

> >

> > It's clear that everyone who lives on one of

> the

> > roads on the pulldown menus (but remember the

> > fight many of us had to put up to have our

> roads

> > added) should also receive the leaflet as a

> matter

> > of course.

[legalalien]

Not true. Metallic is right. Plenty of people in the Village are being very vocal. Many of the people making deputations to the council, arranging petitions, and (like me) trying to keep people informed, live in or close to the Village. It really, really is not about ALL villagers either "loving" the current situation, or being wilfully blind to the problems caused. Many long time residents are conservative with a small c and not that thrilled with the changes. Not trying to start an argument - just want people to know that there is plenty of support from within, so to speak...

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote:

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

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > heartblock Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I think Alice is right, for Dulwich Village

> it

> > was

> > > never about cyclists or clean air for all

> > > residents ... it was for very rich people to

> > have

> > > access to all that a large city provides,

> > > cleaners, gardeners, Waitrose delivery, wine

> > > shops, sourdough, expensive restaurants,

> > excellent

> > > private education, private areas for parking

> > the

> > > second car - while living the life in an

> > exclusive

> > > area, as close to a rural Village as

> > > possible...and they don?t give a flying fig

> for

> > > anyone who suffers from displaced traffic.

> > Croxted

> > > Rd and Lordship Lane residents do not matter

> to

> > > the Villagers.

> >

> > That is completely untrue. If you care to ask

> > people who are apparently benefitting you will

> > find the majority are embarrassed at the money

> > spent, and furious.

>

> Furious but not very vocal.

[rupert james]

redpost Wrote:

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

> richard tudor Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Speaking with a friend he told me that his son

> who

> > lives outside of london but has been coming

> > through DV for the past 8 days has just been

> > informed that he has been fined on every day.

> He

> > had no idea you could not go north.

> >

> > He said he did not see the signs and just

> followed

> > the flow of traffic. When he was told told he

> > looked and said it was impossible to see these

> > signs unless you were looking for them.

> >

> > So 8 days pay going to Southwark in fines to

> keep

> > Dulwich residents in their bubble of peace.

> >

> > Just how much is this scheme fleecing people?

>

>

> There are many idiot drivers who speed and drive

> dangerously, does he blindly follow them?

>

> Just tell him it's a new government tax on the

> inattentive, the signs are perfectly visible and

> easily comprehended if driver is fully engaged and

> concentrating. If he feels differently, then he

> has the right to fromally object and lie that he

> couldn't see the sign even though in truth he

> wasn't looking in the first place.

So every driver that has been caught out is in you words

"There are many idiot drivers who speed and drive dangerously, does he blindly follow them?"

As most of the posters on this thread have said you do not see the signs until it is to late.

Think you need to grow up a bit.

[malumbu]

redpost Wrote:

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

LTN's and the consultation process have been all over the TV news, print news, leaflets, shop

windows, internets etc for the past year

Just to make sure everyone is aware of the process, perhaps southwark should pay for a gorillagram to personally deliver the leaflet to every household in south London?

Of course, you would then be the first to moan about the cost of consultation

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

I had a nice cycle today which included the lovely hills of Lewisham. This takes me around the back of Hither Green, and an opportunity to check out the LTN there. Signage all seems good to me - not sure if this is just because I know it is there and I have a good vantage point. I've been aware of both Southwark and Lewisham LTNs from the media coverage so still struggle to understand why so many people are getting tickets. Well one of us is going to challenge their FPNs in court so we shall see if this is foolish, revolutionary or an opportunity for some martyrdom.

I'm looking for a new career so a gorrillagram could suit me fine. I once shared a house with a Champagne Charlie (gent who dressed in a dinner suit would provide champagne at birthday parties - he kept his clothes on). That's another story for another thread, but expect would make more interesting reading than this one.

[first mate]

Well said Rupert.

rupert james Wrote:

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

> redpost Wrote:

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

> -----

> > richard tudor Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Speaking with a friend he told me that his

> son

> > who

> > > lives outside of london but has been coming

> > > through DV for the past 8 days has just been

> > > informed that he has been fined on every day.

> > He

> > > had no idea you could not go north.

> > >

> > > He said he did not see the signs and just

> > followed

> > > the flow of traffic. When he was told told he

> > > looked and said it was impossible to see

> these

> > > signs unless you were looking for them.

> > >

> > > So 8 days pay going to Southwark in fines to

> > keep

> > > Dulwich residents in their bubble of peace.

> > >

> > > Just how much is this scheme fleecing people?

> >

> >

> > There are many idiot drivers who speed and

> drive

> > dangerously, does he blindly follow them?

> >

> > Just tell him it's a new government tax on the

> > inattentive, the signs are perfectly visible

> and

> > easily comprehended if driver is fully engaged

> and

> > concentrating. If he feels differently, then he

> > has the right to fromally object and lie that

> he

> > couldn't see the sign even though in truth he

> > wasn't looking in the first place.

>

> So every driver that has been caught out is in you

> words

>

> "There are many idiot drivers who speed and drive

> dangerously, does he blindly follow them?"

>

> As most of the posters on this thread have said

> you do not see the signs until it is to late.

>

> Think you need to grow up a bit.

[alice]

It?s good to hear that people within the beneficial zone of Dulwich Village are embarrassed by or do not agree with some of the changes; perhaps they could add their comments to the consultation map because at the moment it?s weighed in favour of those who love the changes.

[legalalien]

The consultation map is a joke, I think everyone can agree. I commented a while ago but suspect most have lost faith. Lots of stuff shows as orange and if you drill down there are plenty of reds and one or two greens. Plus the colouring isn't just based on yes/no. And there are no controls on number of comments. I guess the administrators must be able to filter to see where there are multiple entries from the same email address but it doesn't stop people using different email addresses, plus the map doesn't show the location of the person making the comment, it shows where the person commenting dropped the pin before making the comment. That last point is important.

[heartblock]

I?m heartened to hear that some of the Village is embarrassed and think that the changes are counterproductive, so thank you for that correction. I just haven?t personally witnessed this myself.

[Rockets]

redpost Wrote:

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

> LTN's and the consultation process have been all

> over the TV news, print news, leaflets, shop

> windows, internets etc for the past year

>

> Just to make sure everyone is aware of the

> process, perhaps southwark should pay for a

> gorillagram to personally deliver the leaflet to

> every household in south London?

>

> Of course, you would then be the first to moan

> about the cost of consultation

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > They have to do a better job of communicating

> with

> > everyone on this. We are all aware of the

> review

> > but many people have no clue it is going on and

> so

> > will not have an opportunity to give their

> input.

> > I suspect the council is more than happy with

> this

> > as they know this is going to become a numbers

> > game and if the weight of public opinion is

> > against them then it becomes more and more

> > difficult to justify.

> >

> > It's clear that everyone who lives on one of

> the

> > roads on the pulldown menus (but remember the

> > fight many of us had to put up to have our

> roads

> > added) should also receive the leaflet as a

> matter

> > of course.

Redpost - but news of the council's review has not, I am sure you'll agree, had quite so much attention so maybe given the council's desire to see a fair and equitable review they need to ensure that everyone in the area is aware of it. Or perhaps they are expecting people to sense there is a review and take a punt negotiating the awful council website to try, on the offchance, to find the review page.

No, it's clear what we are seeing here is a council desperate to try and maniulate things to keep the review under the radar as much as possible to try and influence the outcome of it. They know, and I suspect you do too Redpost, that if, for example, people living on Goodrich Road or Dunstans Road were aware of the review they might want to respond and leave their (probably) less than favourable feedback due to the increase in traffic on their roads.

Trust me, I won't moan about them spending a few thousand on making sure all of their constituents being affected by these LTNs receive a leaflet.

I mean, what on earth could they be afraid of......;-)

Anyway, has anyone noticed that the monitoring strips seem to only have gone in on the "main" roads (except I hasten to add the closed roads). As far as I am aware there are no strips on Underhill, for example. Could it be that the council is really going to do the assessment and then say that the "main" roads are where this traffic should be going to justify their nonsense schemes?

[slarti b]

@heartblock

I?m heartened to hear that some of the Village is embarrassed and think that the changes are counterproductive, so thank you for that correction. I just haven?t personally witnessed this myself.

Our RA, one of the roads road in the LTN area, carried out a survey back in March last year. There were about 100 responses and 75% of them opposed the closure of the junction so you can be assured that there are many in the area who agree with you, not just our roads but several others who had similar results. The Councillors of course dismissed this as a minority viewpoint.

The council claimed "strong support" for closing the junciton in phase 2 of the OHSD process. But don't be misled, there were only 54 in favour from within the whole LTN area and most of those were from Calton or close to the junction. See https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-village-junction

If the forthcoming consultation is objective, open and fair, I think you will see many people supporting your view. However, it has not got off to a good start, with leaflets not being delivered, boundary roads not being included and one of our Village Ward Councillors encouraging responses from activists outside the area; almost as though he is afraid of his own constituents.

[heartblock]

Thanks Slarti, as someone on a boundary rd, I haven?t had a leaflet, my neighbours didn?t know about the consultation, so I imagine most of my street are unaware. If most in the Village don?t want the ?square of shame? and it?s just 50 or so residents in Calton (which on my last stroll has a high ownership of SUVs) that have forced this closure...is there something we don?t know about the Village Councillors?

[legalalien]

You?re right in that the parklets are Southwark?s flagship response to the climate emergency.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2020/nov/southwark-council-celebrates-climate-action-week-with-a-new-micro-park

They?re one of the main reasons why climate emergency activists have pulled their support for the Council it seems:

https://london-tv.co.uk/turmoil-over-southwarks-climate-commitments/

... following widespread ridicule on Twitter

alice Wrote:

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

> ?The greening of the square? begins

>

> So it wasn?t about bikes at all.

[slarti b]

@heartblock

...it?s just 50 or so residents in Calton (which on my last stroll has a high ownership of SUVs) that have forced this closure...is there something we don?t know about the Village Councillors?

The Councillors have very willingly allowed themeselves to be manipulated by a small but very vocal minority of activists into thinking they represent the local community. Often, like Clean Air for Dulwich Village, Friends of Dulwich square, Mums for Lungs (and to a certain extent SRS) these are small, shadowy, overlapping organisations with no constitution or public accountability. Neverthless, these are treated formally by Southwark Council as key stakeholders representing those who live in the area and their views are given undue weight.

These groups formed the basis of the secret working party the councillors set up to help steer the OHS consultation. However, they have very little local support which is presumably why they also invited Calton Avenue RA to join given how much they would benefit from the closure.

Interesting that since the road closure the former chair of the Calton Avenue RA has sold his house in the now delightfully traffic free semi-gated community. I bet he is feeling very smug.

[73jem]

I live in the area now isolated by the closure of the crossing in the village. I have lived here for many years and am not rich or smart, but old, and I am no longer able to get anywhere including Kings and my doctors surgery in my car during the forbidden hours

Added to this, crossing the new square from Court lane towards the Post Office as I did today on foot is a hazard, as bicycles sweep down Calton Avenue and through the new square with no concern for anyone crossing the road. The space seems to be regarded as road for cyclists which means that it is not a safe space for pedestrians.

This has happened to me twice recently. The new square is not safe for the old or the young to cross, I have not noticed anyone else mention this.

It seems to me to be the worst of all worlds, pleasing few and distressing many who can find no-one to listen.

[devs]

I agree completely with the above comment. As someone with a disability who cannot drive, the cyclists have become emboldened by the lack of cars on that junction. I walk too slowly to get out of the way and it can be frightening as they are also silent. Its a similar situation in the park, where cyclists are supposed to go at 5mph and give way to pedestrians. Some do seem to think it's a race track.

[Nigello]

73jem - I too have seen groups of Sunday cyclists sweep through the lights at the Village Calton crossroads. It?s high handed and boorish but they likely think because they?re of a certain social bracket, probably better educated than most and with more responsibility at their places of work, they don?t need to obey the law. (I did mention this some three weeks ago.) One small group of cyclists did stop but only after I?d glared at them as they approached the red bike light at speed.)

[73jem]

Sadly not just Sunday cyclists, it was today that I was nearly knocked down by a bicycle! perhaps cyclists should be required to dismount, or at least stop for a moment when they get to the village, this would also discourage motor bikes which also occasionally go through the space.

I am not sure that it is a class thing, anyone can behave badly; the original planters had a very pretty effect on the space, then car drivers started getting through by going on the pavement, so those very ugly red and white bollards were added. Now we are stuck with an ugly mess in the center of the village with no gain to anyone except perhaps passing bicycles.

As someone who is too old and disabled to cycle I find this a bit hard to tolerate.

[malumbu]

My experiences are very different. I've had to be even more careful about pedestrians walking across me as I am cycling. Often as they are looking at their phone, texting, and just not looking when they cross the road. I've never ran into anyone because I was at fault. Government stats show that around 100 times more pedestrian deaths are caused by drivers than cyclists, and about 50 time more reported collisions with pedestrians. Sadly many pedestrians are killed each year due to cars mounting the pavement so I wonder if some collisions between bikes and pedestrians are due to pedestrians not using the pavement due to fear of cars mounting this.

Sorry that you have had close misses. Some signage would help, as you get on the Surrey canal, ie warning cyclists to respect pedestrians. Not sure what you do on Rye Lane, as this is a bit of dog's dinner.

In the not too distant future it will be electric scooters and the like where the collisions with both pedestrians and bike will soar.

[malumbu]

A really nice podcast here - Ed Milliband's Reasons to be Cheerful - on Your Bike, with the academic Rachel Aldred and the Guardian's Peter Walker. https://podtail.com/en/podcast/reasons-to-be-cheerful-with-ed-miliband-and-geoff-/84-on-your-bike/

[slarti b]

@devs, @73jem

To be fair to the cyclists going through the junction (of whom I am one) it is a main commuter cycling route and on Quietway 7 (or whatever it is now called). Indeed the objective of the expensive, but flawed, remodelling of the junction 4 years ago was to make it easier for cyclists.

Now however our local Councillors have decided to turn this cycling route into a vanity-project square with no proper consultation and no consideration of displaced traffic or indeed cyclists. It is a poorly thought through, badly implemented mess, dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists alike. I am astonished (though not really surprised) that the council officers were prepared to carry out these measures; did they carry out any sort of safety assessment or is one not needed?

[rupert james]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> My experiences are very different. I've had to be

> even more careful about pedestrians walking across

> me as I am cycling. Often as they are looking at

> their phone, texting, and just not looking when

> they cross the road. I've never ran into anyone

> because I was at fault. Government stats show that

> around 100 times more pedestrian deaths are caused

> by drivers than cyclists, and about 50 time more

> reported collisions with pedestrians. Sadly many

> pedestrians are killed each year due to cars

> mounting the pavement so I wonder if some

> collisions between bikes and pedestrians are due

> to pedestrians not using the pavement due to fear

> of cars mounting this.

>

> Sorry that you have had close misses. Some

> signage would help, as you get on the Surrey

> canal, ie warning cyclists to respect pedestrians.

> Not sure what you do on Rye Lane, as this is a

> bit of dog's dinner.

>

> In the not too distant future it will be electric

> scooters and the like where the collisions with

> both pedestrians and bike will soar.

Bring back the buses to the Lane, enforce common sense on pedestrians and cyclists and you can cure the problem.

You will also revive Rye lane to an extent as people return to shop.

It may annoy those people who treat it as party central regardless of the pandemic but it needs Southwark to act which will not happen.

[legalalien]

I agree slarti b- the space now seems like something designed by committee - is it a square? Is it a cycle quiet way? Is it saving the planet from climate change? (Apologies for last facetious comment). The pedestrian square vs quiet way thing is an issue though from a safety perspective. Technically it is still a road open to cyclists, the street furniture etc sends a different message to pedestrians, bit of a recipe for disaster.

[Rockets]

Completely agree legal - the Square is just really confused as to what it is now - a mish mash of poorly thought out implementations. No-one knows who has right of way and no-one seems to know whether the traffic signals apply to them anymore or not so just ignore them.

It's another example that this council really hasn't got the first clue how to manage anything professionally.