LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[mr.chicken]

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?

[tiddles]

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.

[thebestnameshavegone]

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

[Spartacus]

All of them I hope !

[thebestnameshavegone]

This is a great look, One Dulwich: https://twitter.com/simonstill/status/1285145475197423616

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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?

[eastdulwichlocal99]

.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[intexasatthe moment]

James - I assume,as you refer to it ,that you have some familiarity with the hierarchy of roads .Do those links give guidance as to a hierarchy for the priority for people living on roads for clean air ?

[Abe_froeman]

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."

[Earl Aelfheah]

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'.

[TJ]

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

[Earl Aelfheah]

Someone also tampered with the planters in the village.

[Edited to clarify - I think this was last week. Someone removed the bolts that hold them down I think]

[dulwichfolk]

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?

[Galileo]

I walked past on the school run early this afternoon and the planters were fine. Was that photo taken today?

[Earl Aelfheah]

The planters have all been fixed I believe.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[spider69]

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.

[Galileo]

...

[Bicknell]

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?

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[spider69]

Perhaps at some point the penny will drop and people will say perhaps we should have left things as they were because it worked and newcomers who think they know it all have got it all wrong.

Maybe.

[johnhinton]

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?

[KidKruger]

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.