LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[first mate]

Well I have only said it once and not aware of anyone other than you repeating it so doubt it is a catch phrase...yet. You have used the 't' word not me.

Again, posters that are so outraged at alleged 'danger' to a cyclist and their children seem to have zero empathy with the many elderly and disabled protestors. Why is that?

hpsaucey Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

>

> Calling this a 'tactical confection' - is this the

> new catchphrase to replace alleged 'trolling'?

> HP

[rjsmall]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> There is no problem with people hanging out in the

> square. It is shared space.

I not too sure how true this is - the planters / bollards make it a no-through road to cars but it is certainly still open to non-motorised traffic along with e-bikes and e-scooters. Mixing people and forms of transport that still go at a fair pace seems like a dangerous combination.

[DulwichCentral]

These pictures attached clearly show people blocking the road, and standing between the planters will have caused problems for people turning from Dulwich Village. Fact.

When the events were on in the square there were clear warning signs that an event was taking place and marshalls in high viz jackets asking people to walk bikes through the square but not making them dismount whilst still on dulwich village. Fact.

As to whether people empathise more for children's safety or elderly people protesting about the inconvenience of not being able to drive as freely as before is a matter of personal opinion - not fact.

Most people would be both concerned about children's safety AND genuine issues concerning the elderly.

It is possible to hold two thoughts at the same time.

[slarti b2]

@DulwqichCentral

You do realise that, as far as the council is concerned, the junction is closed to traffic?

[Rockets]

DC - no those photos show people standing on one side of the road. The other side of the road is completely clear in the first photo - the people are congregated on the Post Office side of the road so the other side of the road is completely unobstructed.

I am not sure what narrative you are trying to conjure here.

Again, this is amplifying the blinkered and myopic attitude of many LTN supporters that is turning more and more people against the measures.

[dougiefreeman]

RRR, saucy, DC.. correct me if I'm wrong but you all seem to be under the impression that cyclists have right of way at this junction?

My understanding is that it is a shared space and so pedestrians have just as much right to be there, standing wherever they happen to stand, as cyclists.

Of course it can be argued that a pedestiran standing between a planter causes a hazard for a cyclist, but how is that different from anywhere else in London?

There are hazards if you go out cycling - you need to be vigilant and adapt to the circumstances as you arrive at them.

The idea of having to wait to turn right being a strange and perilous concept is bemusing. You use the roads, you accept the fact you may occasionaly have to wait. Are you going to brand anyone and everything an idiot for blocking your exit? I can think of multiple occasions in the last week where I've had to wait a while to turn because the exit was blocked. If you're not comfortable waiting in between traffic then maybe cycling on the roads isn't for you.

Additionally, that right hand filter lane is a full car width wide and practically a bus length long so I would argue not a dangerous place to wait by any stretch until the exit is clear. And being only 8 feet away from the crowd, it is not inconceivable that you couldn't have just shouted 'please let us through'. Did you try that?

RRR, all this to try and distract from your clear and complete lack of empathy for those who have been adversly affected by the LTNs.

[Metallic]

hpsaucey Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Come on Northern, you can choose to continue on

> a

> > route or not. Aside from issues of

> inconvenience,

> > no one is forcing RRR and his/her children to

> > continue moving forward on their bicycles into

> > 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' to

> > children is quite obviously a tactical

> > confection.

> >

> >

> > northernmonkey Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > How was there a choice to turn up first mate?

> > Was

> > > the protest advertised in advance?

>

> So - what would you do if you were stuck with two

> kids in the middle of the road wondering whether

> to turn or not? Not a nice situation to be in.

>

> Calling this a 'tactical confection' - is this the

> new catchphrase to replace alleged 'trolling'?

> HP

When you are on your bike, do you look ahead to make sure you can turn? Do you wait for a clear road? Of course you do, you don't turn from a turn right lane (bikes only) in front of traffic. So why was this so dangerous when there is room to wait at the barrier when you ask pedestrians to get out of the way.

[slarti b2]

@Dulwich Central

You said "When the events were on in the square there were clear warning signs that an event was taking place and marshals in high viz jackets asking people to walk bikes through the square but not making them dismount whilst still on dulwich village. Fact.

Have a look at this FB page from one of the council taxpayer funded progaganda events as the closed junction. 360 degree view.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10157517348291724&set=pcb.1234948850183829

- Can you point out the marshalls in high-viz jackets?

- Can you tell me where the "clear warning signs" were placed. I can't see any in the photos

- Can you see people standing in the road ? If so do you condemn that?

So much for your "facts".

[Metallic]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> These pictures attached clearly show people

> blocking the road, and standing between the

> planters will have caused problems for people

> turning from Dulwich Village. Fact.

>

> When the events were on in the square there were

> clear warning signs that an event was taking place

> and marshalls in high viz jackets asking people to

> walk bikes through the square but not making them

> dismount whilst still on dulwich village. Fact.

>

> As to whether people empathise more for children's

> safety or elderly people protesting about the

> inconvenience of not being able to drive as freely

> as before is a matter of personal opinion - not

> fact.

>

> Most people would be both concerned about

> children's safety AND genuine issues concerning

> the elderly.

> It is possible to hold two thoughts at the same

> time.

I thought you and your colleague said you never used the word 'square' to describe the closed junction?

[KidKruger]

Gotcha !!

[legalalien]

Interesting that there are different views on the ?shared space? v ?filtered road? status of the closed junction. I thought the latter as that?s how the road traffic order works - it?s a prohibition of certain types of traffic isn?t it? (Need to re-read). I assumed that cyclists would have right of way.

[dougiefreeman]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Interesting that there are different views on the

> ?shared space? v ?filtered road? status of the

> closed junction. I thought the latter as that?s

> how the road traffic order works - it?s a

> prohibition of certain types of traffic isn?t it?

> (Need to re-read). I assumed that cyclists would

> have right of way.

Interesting. This sign says otherwise...

Apologies for the dreadful picture quality - screenshot of google streetview..

But it says 'Pedestrian Priority'

[Abe_froeman]

That photo by March actually shows a cyclist sitting on their bike who has passed through the road closures and is waiting to pull out onto Dulwich Village.

You might have missed it because the cyclist is on the wrong side of the road (naturally, the Highway Code is ignored by all cyclists)

But still, it shows that there was no problem whatsoever for cyclists accessing Calton Avenu / Court Lane from DV on a bike. It also shows there was plenty of room to wait on a bicycle on Calton Avenue rather than in the traffic on the so-called "main road"

[Earl Aelfheah]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Come on Northern, you can choose to continue on a

> route or not. Aside from issues of inconvenience,

> no one is forcing RRR and his/her children to

> continue moving forward on their bicycles into

> 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' to

> children is quite obviously a tactical

> confection.

>

>

> northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > How was there a choice to turn up first mate?

> Was

> > the protest advertised in advance?

Bikes turning right have to pull into the middle lane. You have one lane to your left going straight on and another on your right approaching you. You are sandwiched between to lanes of traffic. If people block the entrance to the square, then it's not possible to turn right, or go 'straight on'. You are left stranded in the middle of two lanes of traffic. If you don't understand this, then you clearly don't understand the road layout.

[first mate]

DC, The children's safety in regard to this one event is moot, even a bit of a straw man.

As others have said, you can see an event well ahead, you assess and take a decision whether to proceed on bicycle or not. If you feel your children are in danger you avoid.

On the other hand, you seem to be entirely dismissive of the issues raised by LTNs for the elderly and disabled. You have not expressed any concern in that regard.

[dougiefreeman]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Come on Northern, you can choose to continue on

> a

> > route or not. Aside from issues of

> inconvenience,

> > no one is forcing RRR and his/her children to

> > continue moving forward on their bicycles into

> > 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' to

> > children is quite obviously a tactical

> > confection.

> >

> >

> > northernmonkey Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > How was there a choice to turn up first mate?

> > Was

> > > the protest advertised in advance?

>

> Bikes turning right have to pull into the middle

> lane. You have one lane to your left going

> straight on and another on your right approaching

> you. You are sandwiched between to lanes of

> traffic. If people block the entrance to the

> square, then it's not possible to turn right, or

> go 'straight on'. You are left stranded in the

> middle of two lanes of traffic. If you don't

> understand this, then you clearly don't understand

> the road layout.

Utterly ridiculous to claim you are 'sandwiched' between two lanes of traffic.

It is a very large cyclist only filter lane at least 6 foot wide. How often do you have a cyclist only filter lane at a junction in London? This junction is safer than most and is not in any way dangerous (unless another road user does something dangerous).

[Rockets]

Legal - the green signs next to the Road Closed signs shows access to the space is for all (bar cars) so the signage certainly suggests that it is a shared space. And given the council pays money for people to host concerts within the road area it's clear that pedestrians are being encouraged to use the space and that it is not just for cyclists.

I think much of the problem here is that some cyclists presume that they are the only people allowed to use it and ALWAYS have the right of way.

So when Rahx3 says Bags over people what they meant to say was bags over bikes.

I am struggling to understand how some on here are suggesting these old folks blocked the road to cyclists and caused danger. It's not as if they chained themselves together to prevent any access. Perhaps someone left their bag between a couple of the planters but it hardly warrants calling them idiots. It's clear there was access throughout the course of the event.

Time for some people to take a chill pill and live and let live a little bit.

[dougiefreeman]

As posted above - the signs on the planters clearly state 'Pedestrian Priority'. So anyone moaning about cyclists being blocked by pedestrians.....

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Come on Northern, you can choose to continue on

> a

> > route or not. Aside from issues of

> inconvenience,

> > no one is forcing RRR and his/her children to

> > continue moving forward on their bicycles into

> > 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' to

> > children is quite obviously a tactical

> > confection.

> >

> >

> > northernmonkey Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > How was there a choice to turn up first mate?

> > Was

> > > the protest advertised in advance?

>

> Bikes turning right have to pull into the middle

> lane. You have one lane to your left going

> straight on and another on your right approaching

> you. You are sandwiched between to lanes of

> traffic. If people block the entrance to the

> square, then it's not possible to turn right, or

> go 'straight on'. You are left stranded in the

> middle of two lanes of traffic. If you don't

> understand this, then you clearly don't understand

> the road layout.

So Rahx3 are you saying that as you turned right all of the access to the junction was blocked by old people protesting? Or was it just that they were congregating on the left-hand side of the road as you were trying to head up Calton? Was the right-hand side of the junction blocked too because all the photos show the right-hand lane completely clear?

[Earl Aelfheah]

dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> As posted above - the signs on the planters

> clearly state 'Pedestrian Priority'. So anyone

> moaning about cyclists being blocked by

> pedestrians.....

Pedestrian priority does not mean you can block the right turn from the main road with your bags. It means that the square is shared space and that cyclist should give way to pedestrians and take care when cycling through it. In the same way as cars should give way to cyclists on the road, it doesn't mean that cyclists can line up their bags across the entrance to a side street.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > first mate Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Come on Northern, you can choose to continue

> on

> > a

> > > route or not. Aside from issues of

> > inconvenience,

> > > no one is forcing RRR and his/her children to

> > > continue moving forward on their bicycles

> into

> > > 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' to

> > > children is quite obviously a tactical

> > > confection.

> > >

> > >

> > > northernmonkey Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > How was there a choice to turn up first

> mate?

> > > Was

> > > > the protest advertised in advance?

> >

> > Bikes turning right have to pull into the

> middle

> > lane. You have one lane to your left going

> > straight on and another on your right

> approaching

> > you. You are sandwiched between to lanes of

> > traffic. If people block the entrance to the

> > square, then it's not possible to turn right,

> or

> > go 'straight on'. You are left stranded in the

> > middle of two lanes of traffic. If you don't

> > understand this, then you clearly don't

> understand

> > the road layout.

>

> So Rahx3 are you saying that as you turned right

> all of the access to the junction was blocked by

> old people protesting? Or was it just that they

> were congregating on the left-hand side of the

> road as you were trying to head up Calton? Was the

> right-hand side of the junction blocked too

> because all the photos show the right-hand lane

> completely clear?

The right side (or left side depending on which way you're looking) was clear heading out onto Dulwich Village Road I think.

But the turn from the main road was blocked, leaving anyone in the right hand turn 'box' stuck in the middle of the road with nowhere to go.

I didn't initially make a big thing about this, although I thought it was dangerous and inconsiderate at the time. But seeing as I got roundly attacked for simply suggesting that there were a 'few idiots blocking people turning off the main road', I feel it's reasonable to defend the comment.

I'm genuinely amazed that there are people who think it's reasonable, but I can only assume that they don't understand the junction / road layout.

[Abe_froeman]

There's a pedestrian crossing at the end of the cycle-only filter lane. Next you eel so vulnerable there you might consider dismounting in the filter lane and crossing at the lights.

you dismount here where the little bicycle picture is and walk to the traffic island where the green man is

https://goo.gl/maps/m3aYWiQPv2wvfBLC7

[Chris_1]

I was there for probably 40-45 mins and at least 2/3 cyclists came through at that point without any problems, went between the boxes and whizzed off up the hill. Plenty of space for everyone, despite it being the biggest gathering at that junction to date I think!

[dougiefreeman]

> I didn't initially make a big thing about this,

> although I thought it was dangerous and

> inconsiderate at the time. But seeing as I got

> roundly attacked for simply suggesting that there

> were a 'few idiots blocking people turning off the

> main road', I feel it's reasonable to defend the

> comment.

>

> I'm genuinely amazed that there are people who

> think it's reasonable, but I can only assume that

> they don't understand the junction / road layout.

Sorry, but you insulted a group of elderly people protesting about a scheme that has severely affected them.

And then proceeded to repeatedly argue the toss and refuse to retract your insult.

In my view that is the definition of ?making a big thing out of it?.

If you?d wanted to , you could have cleared this up in post #2..

[Earl Aelfheah]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> There's a pedestrian crossing at the end of the

> cycle-only filter lane. Next you eel so vulnerable

> there you might consider dismounting in the filter

> lane and crossing at the lights.

>

> you dismount here where the little bicycle picture

> is and walk to the traffic island where the green

> man is

>

> https://goo.gl/maps/m3aYWiQPv2wvfBLC7

You think it's OK to get off your bike and then help two young kids off theirs whilst standing in the middle of the road, with traffic on either side. look at that link and really think about that. Perhaps people could just move their bags?