The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

Earl, are you just playing daft for the audience, the giggles or the trolling?

I am taking offence to how you wilfully misinterpret everything anyone who dares disagree with you says. 

What you continue to do is ludicrously transparent. 

If you really still don't get it ask someone to explain it to you.

 

 

 

You don’t answer, because each of those statements are objectively, verifiably true. The claim that it is now more dangerous to cross the road, because the motor vehicles have been removed is therefore so obviously ridiculous, that you can’t even begin to justify it using logical reasoning.

2 hours ago, first mate said:

the design which makes it unclear what is and what isn't a cycling area.

This is also nonsense. The road is where it’s always been, it’s just been narrowed to expand the pedestrian space. It is clearly marked and is dropped from the pavement. Suddenly however I think I may understand how you appear to be constantly experiencing ‘near misses’ / getting sworn at. Are you perhaps walking in the road?

2 hours ago, first mate said:

It is no good spouting stats about cars.

Right. So when addressing a claim that removing motor vehicles from a road has made said road more dangerous, it’s no good using statistics, logic, or those awful, verifiable facts. We just need anecdotes about cyclists? 🤔 

Edited December 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[march46]

This is all disingenuous nonsense. I haven't seen a single mention from those concerned about 'dangerous cycling' regarding the motorcyclists speeding through illegally—one of whom collided with a 14-year-old girl riding her bike—or the fact that concrete blocks and other barriers have had to be placed to prevent reckless drivers from mounting the curb and driving through pedestrian areas.

Edited December 15 by march46
Typo

[Kathleen Olander]

@march46 I mentioned it on 22nd November:

"Happened to me today , but no-one injured,  I was crossing from Dulwich Burial Ground over to Harold George side.  A lady on a bike stopped at lights as it was green for pedestrians, and I started to cross, a motorbike/moped came along side her and went straight through red light.  A man also crossing shouted at him but was ignored.  This was at 12.30 p.m. today, happened so quick didn't get reg no."

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, march46 said:

This is all disingenuous nonsense.

Only in your world March. For the rest of us who use the Square without wearing cycle-tinted glasses the increased risk is very real. The junction now feels more dangerous to pedestrians than it ever did, it's just the risk now is from cyclists and the new design does not try to reduce the risk posed by cyclists, it actually makes it worse.

As Penguin said, when the junction was open to cars there was a clear order to it. It was (awfully) congested which also added to the order. The risk to pedestrians was minimised because of road layout, the traffic lights and the congestion. And before the usual suspects suggest this is some lobbying to reopen the junction it isn't.

Since the junction has been redesigned to prioritise cyclists that order has been lost and the biggest risk to pedestrians is now from cyclists. The design of the junction, without any speed mitigation for cyclists, further increases risk to pedestrians. Add into that the fact that many cyclists ignore basic traffic controls and you can see why many feel safe walking through the junction now. The new cycle parking places also encourages cycling on the pedestrian part of the junction.

The Highway Code says that pedestrians have priority over cyclists yet the majority of active travel interventions reverse that and prioritise cyclists. Why? Because they are designed and influenced by the cycle lobby who are blinkered by their own self-importance.

So, clearly it's not disingenuous nonsense. Far from it, in fact, it's an issue the council is unwilling to address as they pander to the cycle lobby - they have been repeatedly asked to slow bikes down through the junction (but, to be fair, they were asked repeatedly to allow emergency vehicles access and they ignored that too).

Anytime anyone calls for better monitoring of cycle vs pedestrian accidents the cycle lobby comes out with their usual "But what about the cars" distraction techniques and I think we all know why they are terrified of proper monitoring. Now was it Chris Boardman whp said there was no need for monitoring as you had more chance of being struck by lightning...now that seems massively disingenuous and wholly self-serving as clearly there's a problem that the cycle lobby refuses to acknowledge.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 14/11/2024 at 09:20, Earl Aelfheah said:

The council can't really win on this, especially with those who will oppose anything they do with the square.

Forget about it. These people aren't happy if they're not moaning online.

[Kathleen Olander]

The junction was completely dead today on one of the busiest shopping weekends of the year.  Still, plenty of cyclists going through it and over it.

Another section of the new paving has already been dug up by the burial ground, not sure for what utility though?  This is the third area now in last 2 weeks.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

It was (awfully) congested which also added to the order. The risk to pedestrians was minimised because of road layout, the traffic lights and the congestion

Unbelievable. You have claimed until red in the face that there was no issue with traffic on Calton Road / that the LTN was unnecessary. Now you say the traffic and congestion was ‘awful’, but that it was also necessary to bring ‘order’ and increase safety?!  🤣

No wonder you oppose measures to reduce traffic and congestion - you’re in favour of it!

🤪

Edited Sunday at 23:34 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Usual deflection.

Usual porky pies.

Usual Earl.

 

And they bizarrely think they are somehow furthering their cause - laughable. 

Anyone arguing with these folks can always tell when they land a pertinent point because of the bizarre deflectionary responses from the usual suspects. I refer you to Exhibit 2,653 above! 😉

 

 

[Whoeveritis]

On 13/12/2024 at 21:08, Whoeveritis said:

Where are the frighteningly good schools around here ? Do you mean the Harris Academies ?

Still no answers ?

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets Your words are clear. You’ve stated that increased traffic and congestion bought order and made the roads safer. 

10 hours ago, Rockets said:

It was (awfully) congested which also added to the order. The risk to pedestrians was minimised because of… the congestion. 

Where else would you like to see increased traffic and congestion in order to ‘improve road safety’?

Edited Sunday at 22:34 by Earl Aelfheah

[Kathleen Olander]

@Earl Aelfheah

"This is also nonsense. The road is where it’s always been, it’s just been narrowed to expand the pedestrian space. It is clearly marked and is dropped from the pavement. Suddenly however I think I may understand how you appear to be constantly experiencing ‘near misses’ / getting sworn at. Are you perhaps walking in the road?"

Do you actually know this area at all?  There is no longer a road, and there never was a pedestrian space to expand.  I think you have been looking at artist's impressions and basing your opinions on that.

Edited Monday at 10:50 by Kathleen Olander
Punctuation

[Sue]

On 11/12/2024 at 17:02, malumbu said:

My only collision between a bike and a pedestrian is when I ran out into the road in Westminster without looking.  The bike caught my hand, I apologised and the rider said no worries.  Very different if it had been the other way round where I may have used choice language.

On the opposite I have had numerous times when pedestrians have walked out on me without looking, I'm now far more aware of pedestrians on their phones etc, but the first times were before mobiles let alone smart phones when I worked off Fleet Street, or I'd cycle down Oxford Street.

I sense that some of you want conflict to happen so you can then post about it to support your anti-cyclist views.  Me?  Pavement cycling when pedestrians are on it is a nuisance.  If someone wants to scoot through a red light it doesn't bother me, if they cycle when I am crossing the road on my green light then that is out of order.  But I wouldn't feel angry enough it to go on a mission.

I'm far more angry about those speeding on Perry Vale, particularly when the school kids were leaving, and those parking outside the schools on double yellows.  Hats off to Southwark, that unlike Lewisham, have a much better policy including school wardens.  And Lambeth, is even better.  Bromley have a compulsory 40mph outside schools for their residents. 

40 mph?

Is that a typo?

[ArchieCarlos]

Now that it's been a few weeks, here are my impressions:

• The stones used appear well laid (unlike Lordship Lane's pavements) and the overall workmanship seems of good quality
• There is nice street furniture replacing the colourful ones which were starting to look badly worn down.
• It's a bit too 'mineral', but I think it's because we need to give time for the planting to grow and of course, we're in winter.
• The repainted road is easier to navigate than the temporary arrangements of before.
• Draining of rain seems to work well, something which in my experience is often an issue on these large paved areas. Perhaps the openings in the planted areas are helping with this. 

We could spend years debating whether or not this junction should have been closed to cars or whether it's good value for money, but that wouldn't change anything as what's done is done. I think it would be more interesting to discuss how to make the most out of what we have now since, whether we like it or not, it's clearly here to stay. 

Will the planting done be enough and should we have more? (e.g. in large pots)

Will cyclists cut across the space and need some obstacles to help guide them? (haven't seen it so far but it could happen)

How could businesses, charities and other organisations use the space to make it a bit more alive? Somewhere people spend time in rather than just go through.

Anyone else has ideas?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Kathleen Olander said:

Do you actually know this area at all?  There is no longer a road, and there never was a pedestrian space to expand

Yes I do. The pedestrian space previously consisted of just a pavement. It has been expanded to create the square. The road has been filtered to only allow for bicycles to pass through, (so might be better describes as a cycle lane) and is clearly separate from the pedestrian area which it runs alongside. Whereas previously the road was wide and straight, it’s been narrowed and now curves (which actually encourages people to slow). There is clear separation between the road / cycle lane and the pedestrian area / square. I actually don’t know how one cannot tell the difference, but if some people are walking in the road, that may explain why they are claiming daily ‘near misses’. Try not doing that.

@ArchieCarlos I absolutely agree with your post. It’s fairly pointless arguing, the square is here to stay. In my opinion it’s a much more pleasant and much safer space for having had the traffic removed. I think it will come into its own come the summer when the planting will also start to embed a bit.

Edited Monday at 12:42 by Earl Aelfheah

[Nigello]

ArchieCarlos, Cyclists are indeed veering off the designated route into the paved, pedestrian area to avoid waiting for a green or just because they need to get to a shop and CBA to dismount. Can’t say I’m surprised but it’s still annoying. 

[Penguin68]

As I've said before, cyclists tend to act as if they're pedestrians on wheels. They don't think they're on vehicles as such, to be constrained as other road users are. 

[march46]

St Barnabas Church will be hosting carols in the square on Christmas Eve at 3:30pm. It's always a heartwarming occasion to see the community come together and enjoy the festive spirit in this beautiful space. 

[malumbu]

Floating bus stops instinctively feel wrong but data suggests otherwise.  An article looking at both arguments is attached https://www.route-one.net/features/floating-bus-stops-debate-on-controversial-measure-goes-on/#:~:text=A 2024 Transport for London,over a three-year period.

This reminds me of my objections to motorcycles sharing bike lanes on main roads.  It felt so wrong but data proved otherwise. 

[Administrator]

In the last 24 hours this thread has become farcical. The majority of the posts were completely unrelated to the topic and full of personal attacks from both sides.

Posts from the last 24 hours have been removed and the thread will be locked for the next 2 days. (changed to until 26th Dec due to life commitments.