Lordship Lane pavement on a rainy day is a disgrace

[Earl Aelfheah]

The point is that many of those spaces are not used by people visiting the shops as was claimed. They're used for long term storage (whether a rental car, a lease car, or one owned outright is entirely irrelevant). We have narrow pavements up that end of the lane, which are packed at weekends and difficult to navigate (especially if you use a wheel chair), so maybe half a dozen people can store a car there, often for days, weeks or even months on end, free of charge. It might be better to use that space to make it easier for the hundreds of pedestrians visiting the shops. 

Edited September 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

What a funny little Alan Partridge like post. You're so far down your rabbit hole that to score internet points against a twitter account you don't like, you're now appearing to excuse an untaxed vanity hire car with illegal number plates taking up space on LL. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

8 minutes ago, snowy said:

What a funny little Alan Partridge like post. You're so far down your rabbit hole that to score internet points against a twitter account you don't like, you're now appearing to excuse an untaxed vanity hire car with illegal number plates taking up space on LL. 

Exactly. At the point that people are arguing that this is the best use of space... 🤷‍♂️

Edited September 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Snowy - I am point scoring about people using incorrect facts for point scoring.

Like you just did. 😉

The vehicle is both taxed and has a valid MOT which I believe makes your post far more Alan Partridge than mine...

Honestly a little bit of research goes a long way....

But thank you so much for validating my point.

 

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

34 minutes ago, snowy said:

What a funny little Alan Partridge like post. 

I’m dead against it, to be honest.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's a choice. You can prioritise maybe half a dozen people being able to store their car on the high street long term and free of charge; Or you can prioritise the hundreds of people who regularly crowd the pavements some of who struggle to navigate their way to and from the shops along (in places) very narrow pavements.

The type of car being stored there is really not relevant to the above. 

[Rockets]

Careful DKHB - you're the one who started the illegal plates discussion that then turned into (somehow only Snowy knows how) to the not taxed monster truck.

I found that report from Southwark on Lordship Lane shoppers. It's from 2015 and showed that 22% of those surveyed had driven to Lordship Lane (37% had walked and 31% got the bus and those were the two highest)

29% came from SE22

17% SE15

11% SE12

5% SE5

And then the rest from boroughs much further afield (that the report author commented on because it was surprising that it had such a pull)

 

47 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Or you can prioritise the hundreds of people who regularly crowd the pavements some of who struggle to navigate their way to and from the shops along (in places) very narrow pavements.

Not to mention the problems with flooding which clearly don't warrant any $ from Southwark because it's not Dulwich Village....

 

[first mate]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The point is that many of those spaces are not used by people visiting the shops as was claimed. They're used for long term storage (whether a rental car, a lease car, or one owned outright is entirely irrelevant). We have narrow pavements up that end of the lane, which are packed at weekends and difficult to navigate (especially if you use a wheel chair), so maybe half a dozen people can store a car there, often for days, weeks or even months on end, free of charge. It might be better to use that space to make it easier for the hundreds of pedestrians visiting the shops. 

The greatest likely issue for wheelchair users and those with limited mobility is uneven surfaces and cycling on pavements. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

found that report from Southwark on Lordship Lane shoppers.

Can you please upload it or link to the data? Thank you kindly in advance.

[teddyboy23]

95% of cars parked from boras down to farmers .are all commuter parking.they start from 5am till7am.park up then all use the busstop outside the gym.thats why the same cars are there every day.5 days a week.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Can you please upload it or link to the data? Thank you kindly in advance.

Here you go. 

LSBU High Street Report - Lordship Lane High Street (2).pdf

[malumbu]

I'm liking the idea of a car free day, maybe monthly, in LL.  Buses would need to be diverted but could pick up and drop either at GG or further up LL.  Could arrange for supervised bike, cargo bike and Lime bike parking 

[first mate]

What do you mean by supervised?

Sounds a bit like creating chaos for one day a month. Those relying on buses may not thank you as presumably some may have to walk further? 
 

But shall we try to keep this thread on the subject of  the state of local pavements on a rainy day? Do you think more should be done to rectify poor paving on LL and roads like Northcross?

Edited September 9 by first mate

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Here you go. 

LSBU High Street Report - Lordship Lane High Street (2).pdf 738.68 kB · 5 downloads

Thank you!

In some ways, quite straightforward: it’s a local shopping street for locals, and not much else to say.

but interesting that almost a decade ago punters said they came to Lordship Lane because it had a wide variety of shops…but the thing that it was missing was a wider variety of shops! 

[Penguin68]

On 09/09/2024 at 18:51, teddyboy23 said:

95% of cars parked from boras down to farmers .are all commuter parking.they start from 5am till7am.park up then all use the busstop outside the gym.thats why the same cars are there every day.5 days a week.

And of course, all commuters should be shot as being the scum of the earth. Can I remind you that to get to ED (if you live on an East West axis), you are almost bound to use a private vehicle, as east west commuting using public transport, where most routes run north to West End or City is a huge chore and time-waster. 

These filthy commuters are the people who teach our children, nurse, doctor or dentist us, serve in our shops and restaurants - or, even worse, travel further into town to earn salaries and pay tax. We certainly don't want those sort dirtying our pristine roads.

Commuters are what keeps the local, and national economy afloat. Without people commuting in to serve us, and/ or to generate wealth, we would be in dire straights. 

We should have more parking to support commuters (or a great deal more public transport linking communities other than those directly north and south of us).

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

6 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Without people commuting in to serve us, and/ or to generate wealth, we would be in dire straights…We should have more parking to support commuters

Gore blimey, you’ve made me tear right up, you have.
 

I’ll petition the council immediately to get the unrestricted parking off Lordship Lane (where it obstructs the far larger numbers of bus + bike commuters, and even car-borne shoppers) and onto your street. No residents allowed. It’s the sacrifice you’ll be proud to make for those plucky (car) commuters. 🫡

[Penguin68]

As I have off street parking for 3 cars, bring it on! 

And please realise that commuters are the people who bring services to our own streets, or would you prefer we had no schools, no surgeries, no shops, no restaurants locally? 

Maybe close all these down so you can keep commuters away from you. (We are poorly served by anything other than North South public transport. And not well served by that.) 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

36 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

As I have off street parking for 3 cars, bring it on! 

🤣

[first mate]

On 11/09/2024 at 22:16, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Gore blimey, you’ve made me tear right up, you have.
 

I’ll petition the council immediately to get the unrestricted parking off Lordship Lane (where it obstructs the far larger numbers of bus + bike commuters, and even car-borne shoppers) and onto your street. No residents allowed. It’s the sacrifice you’ll be proud to make for those plucky (car) commuters. 🫡

oh yes the hordes of cycling commuters we see daily. In fact, if there were much greater numbers of cyclists I'd probably stop cycling. On the few occasions I have been out cycling and there have been lots of other cyclists on the same route it has felt quite dangerous and unpleasant at times, with the speed freak element whether on e-bike or unpowered, seemingly oblivious to anyone else.Of course, these types of cyclists will keep cycling on all and any pavements for as long as they can get away with it.

Back to pavements. If the council can throw the sort of money they have to turn Dulwich Junction into a 'Square' how and why have they turned a blind eye to the state of ED paving?

Edited Saturday at 07:33 by first mate

[teddyboy23]

Penguin all I'm saying is most of the cars are commuters parking I'm not slagging them off. Calm down your getting your pants/knickers in a twist

[Penguin68]

And all I'm saying is that commuters aren't evil, and if they are parking, so what? Many will be doing so in order to undertake employment in ED. The ones that aren't will be gainfully employed, and paying taxes, elsewhere. 

[teddyboy23]

I dont give a toss wether they park or not . Who said their evil or scum not me . Anyway that's it jesusJ,

[Penguin68]

Apologies - in the past Southwark Council has used the excuse of 'commuters' to try to impose CPZs on people, implicitly suggesting that we would agree that those sort of people aren't wanted here. So when I see parkers described as 'commuters' I read this  as part-and-parcel of the 'keep nasty 'foreigners' out of our streets' rhetoric. The 'ED streets for ED people' mindset. Apologies again if you weren't thinking that.

[teddyboy23]

Thank you penguin I did not mean anything bad