Rockets

To be fair @malumbu this is a bit rich coming from you, you've posted over 7,000 times on this forum! 😉 You can't just try and shut down a conversation because you don't like the subject matter. As we have seen time and time gain, these interventions, however local, have wide ranging implications. Underhill and Ryedale are soaking up the displacement from the Dulwich LTNs. If someone has found council communications in an FOI that do state that: "If we could bypass the internal governance processes to move this project forward" "likely to be a contentious scheme, with not much evidence to justify it" then it is important for people across Dulwich to understand the behaviours of our elected officials - or would you prefer that all to remain hidden from view?

Oh yes it does......just because you refuse to acknowledge doesn't mean it is not happening. How on earth do you explain the 6% increase in traffic on Underhill during the limit post-LTN monitoring done by the council? Also @Moondoox who says they live on Ryedale acknowledged that traffic had increased post the other Dulwich interventions....are you claiming to know better than someone who lives on the road concerned.....? Well I do hope they share it far and wide because if they do have FOI info that shows that there is a smoking gun for you..... FOI's are increasingly becoming the only weapon left to residents to expose council hypocrisy.

Well @march46 increasingly it does because one filter makes low traffic for one street by forcing it onto another. I refer you to the forthcoming Ryedale closure for a living, breathing example if you want to see exactly that in effect.

Brace yourselves the surrounding streets.....the Ryedale displacement is heading your way soon..... Honestly, this is the biggest admission that LTNs don't work - "we need an LTN to deal with the fallout from the other LTNs"!

Yes clearly something was going on as they refused to include Underhill in their "success" dashboard.

@Penguin68 I suspect it was there long enough for the council to realise that monitoring it wasn't in their interests - which, if that is the case, may actually be environmental fraud.

@Earl Aelfheah you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Waze works that is clouding your opinion. It diverts cars on the fastest possible route using realtime data from other Waze users. I am afraid for you there are strong correlations between the filters and all the things you mention - so it may be your unhealthy denial of reality, and the likely causes of that, that is the challenge here. I mean even @Moondoox, who says they live on Ryedale, admitted traffic had become worse following the implementation of the interventions. Except of course for the limited monitoring the council put in on Underhill that showed a 6% increase in traffic levels post LTN implementation.....which, I hasten to add were not used as part of the famed "traffic overall" stat you like to use at proof of success. One day you will realise that these LTNs do nothing more than displace traffic. Unfortunately for you what is happening on Ryedale is a living and breathing validation that our argument is correct and yours is wrong.

@malumbu I completely understand the benefits of active travel, I also understand your point on tactics being used to try to get people out of cars. But what if the interventions deployed thus far are just increasing congestion and pollution and the oft-celebrated increases in cycling are being propped up by people jumping on Lime bikes instead of walking a and delivery riders on souped up e-bikes. To try and get it back on track just look at what we are talking about- Ryedale being closed to through traffic to try to manage the increased flow of traffic caused by the Dulwich LTN displacement. There is very little evidence that these measures do what those who support them promised. If all you're doing is chasing the displacement (which is exactly what is happening on Ryedale and a resident on here admits that) then the approach is failing. What is happening on Ryedale is an admission the LTNs have not worked. Maybe it is, in fact, my knowledge of when to use primary position which means I have only had a couple of hairy moments on my bike over the years. Maybe it is because I cycle acutely aware of when other road users may struggle to see me and cycle accordingly. Maybe It is because I don't cycle thinking I am the only road user that matters. Maybe it is because I obey all the rules that apply to me as a cyclist.

The council had to make it a bus gate else the buses would not be able to use Etherow Street as a bus stand. Clearly buses pose less of a danger to school users than other vehicles!

@Earl Aelfheah you seem to like to try to claim the interventions are getting people out of their cars. Given what is happening on Underhill or Ryedale the jury would seem to be out on that...what the interventions are clearly doing is displacing traffic from one road to another. As @Moondoox said, traffic on their road (Ryedale) increased due to the interventions. If the active travel policy implemented does nothing more than displaces traffic from one road to another then it is a failure, especially if it results in increased congestion and pollution.

@Earl Aelfheah London traffic peaked around 1999 and has been in decline ever since - by 2011 it had dropped by 11% from its peak and has continued it's downward path ever since.

Have you been cycling or cycling for commuting for long? It's interesting - I do think there is a generation of cyclists who have been conditioned to believe that cycling is dangerous and that the only way to make it safe is to have dedicated infrastructure. I can honestly say I can think of two instances where I nearly came a cropper due to bad driving and I was doing a lot of miles. I actually think the cycling lobby, by the way they have pitted bike vs car, have created a perceptual fear that is far worse than reality. And, rather conversely, have created a generation of cyclists who think the rules of the road do not apply to them. No that is not what I am saying, what I am pointing out is that the numbers of vehicles and traffic flows have been declining for years (long before the first LTN) yet congestion is getting worse and worse and is as bad as it has ever been. With that congestion comes increased pollution and I think TFL loses sight that the No.1 objective of active travel is to cut pollution yet many of their interventions (which seemed to be wholly focused on placating the cycle lobby) are actually increasing pollution. The London Assembly meeting was fascinating in that regard when the chair had to remind the TFL spokespeople that they cannot answer every question about congestion with an excuse based on affirmative action for active travel.

Congestion should be reducing as vehicular traffic has been declining in London for years and years. But at the same time you say you live on a road made busier by the interventions (Ryedale) and that road is the one where residents have had to lobby to get it turned into an LTN due to the increase in traffic, and no doubt pollution. But you still think that is a price worth paying (maybe I should ask your neighbours on Dunstan's if they feel the same way! ;-)) The notion that cycling was not safe before infrastructure is utter nonsense - I used to take routes that used plenty of back streets to wind my way to West London and it was wonderfully pleasant - granted keep your wits about you around the Battersea Park roundabout and the mini-roundabout hell on North End Road and it was a breeze. The only horrible thing was losing a pedal in a torrential downpour miles from home one night!

@Moondoox you seem to be avoiding the displacement issue somewhat which clearly is the issue which has caused this problem on your road. Well, a good start would be not to put things in place that don't make it any better - or be honest about the impact the interventions are having rather than trying to bury the reality. Congestion in London is not going to be solved by cycling, in fact, there is growing evidence it is getting worse on the basis of the provision of cycle infrastructure. And I speak as a cyclist who was able to cycle across London every day without the need for dedicated cycle infrastructure! London is not Amsterdam - they are the polar opposites in terms of cities in size, scale, topology and historical development.

As I said @exdulwicher I was wondering if it might have been a splinter group from Tyre Extinguishers or someone with similar ideological beliefs. Yes it may have been bored yoofs but the fact @malumbu reports it has been happening for some weeks suggests it is a concerted set of attacks. I do hope someone has some doorbell footage to help identify the vandals and bring them to justice. Unfortunately, if it does turn out to be some sort of protest against cars it goes to show why some of us were saying that people (and many posters on this forum) should not have been condoning what TE were doing - no form of random acts of vandalism can be justified - no matter what the cause.