Rockets

Yes but some of us can acknowledge the need for action against the existential threat to our species without the need to go and break the law, cause massive disruption to innocent people or superglue ourselves to electric trains - I think that's called intellectual evolution! ;-)

I actually think XR do more harm than good - they turn people off the climate debate by their ludicrous protests - they seem to live in an alternate universe where there is a simple answer to everything - and they have scored more own goals in their short existence which has actually made them a bit of a laughing stock (Emma Thompson takes pride of place in that one followed closely by the one who superglued himself to an electric train) - some of them don't actually seem to know what they are protesting for/against and many seem to come from very privileged backgrounds (seemingly Oxfordshire seems to be the breeding ground for them!). In the same way Swampy created a negative perception of environmental protestors XR are doing the same and it seems even Sadiq agrees.... Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the actions of Extinction Rebellion protesters could ?discourage? others from joining the fight against climate change. Mr Khan said: ?One of the things that those who feel passionately about [climate change] have to do is to win over public opinion at the same time as putting pressure on the Government. ?My concern is some of the actions of XR discourage people from joining the campaign and don?t affect Government policy. I think all campaigning, protests, should be peaceful, lawful and safe, and I?m concerned that some of the tactics being used are counterproductive.? It is clear Southwark should not be allowing them to camp on Peckham Rye and should be doing their utmost to disperse them. Why should the council be supporting groups of protestors who are travelling to London who are coming here to cause havoc in London via illegal activities for a week and make Londoners' lives a misery to make a point that everyone already gets?

Well, they haven't been behaving very well thus far, they were at it today closing Tower Bridge and even Sadiq said their protests are counter-productive. Yet a few miles south Southwark are providing them a place to "regenerate" after their attacks - it's ludicrous. They are promising to grind London to a halt over the next week so the camp must be related to these efforts: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/08/extinction-rebellion-fossil-fuels-protest-grind-london-halt https://www.bigissue.com/news/activism/extinction-rebellion-london-protest-roadblocks/

I wonder if Emma Thompson will be jetting in first-class from LA to join the protest like she did on the Oxford Street sit-in.....ahem..... XR engage in illegal indiscriminate tactics designed to disrupt everyday life for many - there is no way the council should be encouraging that by giving them somewhere to base their attacks from. XR has spawned Insulate Britain and the Tyre Slashers (or whatever they are called) all of whom follow the same disruption tactics. Whether we agree or not with the over-riding aims of the groups the problem is the council set a precedent by allowing this to take place. And it is not just the cost to the council, this will likely require policing and there is a high chance we will see protests by XR in the local area that will cause massive disruption to everyone. So whilst a lot on here say...yes I will be welcoming them...would they say the same if it was a group they did not agree with? I suspect not.

If it is authorised then the council needs to explain why; XR are not a group they should be supporting or encouraging.

Yeah I suspect that if you or I went and pitched a tent on Peckham Rye for a few weeks the council would be less than pleased and would be doing their utmost to move us on. Travellers would not be afforded the same leniency. I am also concerned that people with a point to prove against XR might also be attracted to the park to make their feelings felt/disrupt the camp. Can we expect XR protests/disruption to be taking place in the local area during the duration of their camp - are they going to try and target roads like the A205 for example? The council should really be doing their utmost to not allow them to camp but I suspect XR know the law and how long they can stay before the authorities can get orders to move them on - I think the reference to common land might be quite telling. Owners of larger cars in the area might want to get themselves a portable type inflator just in case XR decide to bring their tyre deflating mates along with them.....

Admin - could you clarify where people are falling foul of the not sticking to the topic? On previous occasions the deviation has been clear and obvious - now it is much less so and the last two pages of posts pretty much all reference LTNs and between your two warnings all of the posts are in relation to the LTNs (unless of course some of them have been deleted). We all want to be respectful of the rules but it seems the forum members have been doing a good job self-policing and staying within the subject matter of the title of this new thread. Could you help clarify the rules of engagement please?

And this comment from DulvilleRes sums up, very succinctly part of the problem: "I do know a lot of people, however, who are looking to do something about the kind of world they will leave their kids." Once people start thinking about all kids rather than their own we will finally be able to make some progress. LTNs clearly benefit some kids not all...

Labour will retain control of Southwark but I wouldn't want to be in Cllr WIlliams' shoes if I presided over a collapse of the Southwark red wall. It's clear the Lib Dems smell blood and they could easily get enough seats to make things more uncomfortable for Labour moving forward. Keir Starmer has put a lot of focus on these local elections in May and, given the utter contempt for the Tories it will not be a good look if Labour loses share in any traditional stronghold areas - those local results dictate the national agenda. And given Southwark Labour's hard-left leaning tendencies a few key seats lost may force Labour HQ to take a closer look at what's going on. Party infighting has always been the Achilles heal for Labour and we may be about to see more of it break out if the results in May don't go well.

It's funny - you refer to some of us wanting a utopian world yet it is the pro cycle/LTN lobby that are often utterly misguided in their views on what is possible. Many of us just want a pragmatic, balanced approach to managing the issues of traffic and pollution - that is not utopian. What is utopian however, is the clamour of some groups of people to want to live in a car-free enclave whilst everyone else soaks up the displaced traffic - which is actually very dystopian. It seems that many of the pro-LTN/pro-cylce lobby (and I very deliberately intertwine the two as it was the cycle lobby who were responsible for pushing the LTN narrative) hold a utopian view of how living in certain parts of London should be. They crave a Trumpton like existence - living in a vehicle-free urban village complete with (organic) butcher, (artisan) baker and (expensive) coffee shops and high house prices. They rarely need to leave this urban village because they are wealthy, have everything delivered and have a big car for those jaunts to the big country hotel or pad. Their biggest decision of the day is if they get their coffee from expensive coffee shop X or Y. It's no co-incidence that many of the most controversial LTNs are in areas of wealth or significant gentrification (Dulwich, Islington, London Fields) as local politicians pander to the whims of, more often than not, middle-class lobby groups who are quite happy to put their wants and desires over everyone else. So really it is not us who crave a utopian world but those encouraging and supporting these unfair and unjust schemes. P.S. I noticed at the weekend that North Dulwich to London Bridge trains has been reduced by 50% as well

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Instinctively LDs should be pro measures to reduce > car use. Which many will consider a positive > thing They are, I just don't think, like many of us, that they think the ones in Dulwich are actually helping the issue - in fact, they are making the problem a lot worse. If Labour had been pragmatic from the beginning they wouldn't be in this mess - this is very much a problem of their own making and they thought they could manipulate their way out of it but I very much sense come May they will reap what they sowed. I really find it amazing that pro-LTN campaigners used, and continue to use, the term traffic evaporation. As we know if LTNs cause evaporation on one road it condenses and falls on another.....

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's simple. Your use is frivolous. Mine is > > necessary. > > Exactly, that's how people think when roadspace is > an 'all you can eat' resource > > When scarcity and recovery of environmental costs > are introduced, people are forced to think if the > car journey is really necessary. That's what LTNs > and road pricing do But LTNs only do that when there are viable alternatives...and it is clear in Dulwich with its low PTAL scores that there aren't enough other viable options for the types of essential journeys being made. And anyway, I think I can honestly say that the last frivolous car journey I made was when I was 17 after passing my test and I used to think....oooh, I might go for a drive....but that novelty soon wore off.......

Signoria

What a fantastic spot and what an amazingly intriguing story....I do hope you get to the bottom of it.

One Dulwich update. Elections on 5 May 2022 We understand that 5 April is the last day on which candidates can declare their intention to stand. News is still coming in very slowly ? nothing yet, for example, on any Green Party candidates. We will update you with a full list of candidates next week. What has Southwark spent on consultation? Southwark?s response to a February 2022 FOI asking what had been spent on the Dulwich Streetspace consultation (including fees paid to external bodies, communications and staff time) estimates a total of ?210,000 ? but this doesn?t seem to include the consultation survey itself, the latest March 2022 newsletter, or all staff costs (for example, the communications team). It?s likely, therefore, that the total is well over a quarter of a million ? although this is clearly affordable given the income from fines (see below). Southwark News on the ?whopping? fines See the Southwark News report this week on the ?6.6m brought in so far from fines (we estimate the total will be more than ?8m for 2021 once all 120,000 penalties have been collected). Decision-maker Cllr Catherine Rose (standing again for election in Dulwich Wood ward in May) is quoted as saying, ?We want to help local people to reclaim their streets.? As she knows, however, streets on the boundaries of LTNs ? like Croxted Road and East Dulwich Grove ? are not ?reclaimed? but have become more congested and more polluted. More LTNs in North Dulwich? As we dig into the rumours about a new LTN in the North Dulwich triangle, we have been reminded that this was a proposal put forward by Southwark Cyclists and Living Streets as part of the Dulwich Streetspace consultation (see option 7, page 23). It suggested the closure of Ruskin Walk, Hollingbourne, Holmdene, Elmwood and Beckwith from Half Moon Lane. Southwark Cyclists and Living Streets are very influential with the Council ? see our News piece from last week ? so this proposal may well re-emerge after the elections on 5 May. The redesign of Herne Hill junction Separately, more about the background to the Herne Hill Forum?s plans for redesigning Herne Hill junction can be found in the minutes of the Forum?s meetings. The September 2021 minutes record that Herne Hill ward councillor Becca Thackray (Green Party) and Dulwich Village ward councillor Richard Leeming (Labour Party) ?responded positively? to the scheme.

I think the LibDems are taking a pragmatic approach to the LTNs. They knocked on our door at the weekend (as did Labour) and I asked them about their approach as it was unclear to me if they were supportive or not of the LTNs in Dulwich and they made it clear that they believe, for example, that the LTNs in Borough are working and the ones in Dulwich are not (and much of this is down to the availability of other travel options in some parts of the Borough - the old PTAL Achilles heal of the ones in Dulwich) and that they would work to revise/remove the LTNs in Dulwich as a result. It is clear that the Lib Dems are targeting not only Dulwich but other wards in Southwark - they are going after Labour in those wards areas where Labour have managed to alienate/annoy large swathes of the electorate - the in-filling in Peckham came up as did the gentrification of Elephant and Castle. Their mantra seems clear - they feel they are the only ones who can disrupt the Labour machine in Southwark and the only ones who will be able to affect change. The Lib Dems seem very confident (based on the feedback they said they were receiving going door-to-door across the area) and Labour seemed to realise they are out come May in some Dulwich wards. In fact, Labour seemed more concerned whether these local issues would impact my national voting intentions after I made it clear I would be voting against Labour in the May elections on the basis of their handling of local issues. From body language alone it seemed both Labour and Lib Dems had been hearing a similar story to mine on much of their door knocking on streets local to ours - Labour looked brow-beaten and the Lib Dems excited!

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You see that @heartblock, other people see the > huge increase (7 times) in children using Calton > to safely get to school. But is this sufficient to justify the damage being done elsewhere? Are you suggesting that all of those children were being driven before? And can you clarify the 7x - it's all well and good throwing x's around but if the base was tiny then a 7x increase still makes it a small number. I know the council loves to throw an x into their documents but it means nothing without the baseline. I spend a lot of time on Calton during the day and yes, there is a plethora of kids on bikes at drop-off and pick-up (and this is a good thing) but then, for the rest of the day you see the occasional Uber bike and the member of the lycra racing club heading out for a lunch-break cycle - yes on the boundary roads being impacted by the displacement heavy traffic is a constant with peaks of nose-to-tail at rush-hour times. Again, can that be justified? It seems to be that the negatives far outweigh the positives.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can't even agree with this Rockets - i don't think > 'its clear they're manipulating data for their own > advantage' - i can't get past that its just > general underwhelming levels of competence in > terms of being able to arrange the process by > which it all needs to be shared. > > I share your frustration, but not your conspiracy > theories. I have written to Cllr Rose and > requested the data be shared though. You'll be > unsurprised to hear that I haven't had a response > . They have clearly manipulated data and the whole process. Let's look at the manipulation, or incompetence, rap sheet: - The manipulation of the original OHS process where the council allowed vested-interest lobby groups like the LCC to dominated the discussion - The use of Covid "social distancing measures" to allow them to circumvent the results of the OHS consultation to force the LTN measures through - The council putting monitoring strips in on only the closed roads in the first instance - The council then being forced to expand monitoring but they omitted key displacement routes like Underhill Road only to add them a long time after the monitoring started - The council then moving some of the monitoring strips from original locations (like the one near Court Lane on Lordship Lane that moved down near Melford after some months) to give them more advantageous results - The repeated claims that emergency services had been consulted and were supportive of the closures when the exaqct opposite was true - The lack of any sort of public debate or forum in the initial stages due to Covid - Once they finally gave in and organised some resident calls (like the Melbourne Grove one) they manipulated those calls to "randomly" select residents to speak who just happened to be the people behind groups like Clean Air for Dulwich and EDSTN lobby group and gave them a platform at the expense of others. They clearly changed their tactics after the first Zoom call which I believe was the Dulwich Hill ward call where they lost control of the narrative as most on the call were against the measures - The muting of chat functions on wider council calls - The blatant manipulation of the "consultation" process from the initial plans to only consult within the LTN area (which they relented on following constituent pressure) to the conclusions they reached despite an overwhelming majority of respondents saying they did not want the measures - The extension of the deadline for the initial consultation to allow Labour councillors to go door-to-door touting flawed data to try to influence the result (which of course failed spectacularly) - The presentation of flawed, incomplete or carefully selected data in relation to the LTN monitoring in the Streetspace materials - The complete omission of the at least 7% reduction in traffic across the whole of Southwark in their monitoring data (bar a brief mention in the opening blah blah blah) - The use of 3rd party cycling data from "independent" sources within the monitoring process - those independent sources are believed to be Anna Goodman, who data was torn apart upon close analysis. The same Anna Goodman who publishes paper after paper with Rachel Aldred lauding the greatness of LTNs and is seen as part of the pro-cycle lobby. So they can hardly claim that cycling data was independent. - The continued presentation of data in Streetspace flyers that stimulates more questions than answers as it desperately tries to paint a picture of positivity around the LTNs And these are just the examples that spring to mind and I am sure there are plenty of others. One of two could be put down to "oversights" or incompetence but the weight of examples suggests the council has been willingly trying to manipulate the process to their advantage from the outset. And by the looks of the latest Streetspace flyer they are continuing to do so.

Looks like Southwark councillors are, amongst others, coming under pressure on their failure to adequately meet the demand for cycle hangers and storage. Their lack of investment in the most basic of infrastructure to support modal shift has been really quite shocking - keen to close the roads, less keen to put facilities in place for those who don't own a huge house with a side-return and place to easily store a bike... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60835416

I think it is incumbent on everyone, for or against the measures, to challenge the council to share data that makes it crystal clear what is happening rather than dealing in half-truths and being deliberately obtuse with the data that they present to residents as fact. It is clear they are manipulating the data for their own advantage and we should all be very concerned by this - it's a very worrying trend. Is it not about time there was a public meeting on this where they share the data - they seem to have manipulated the pandemic to ensure they don't actually have to arrange any public meetings about anything anymore. Wasn't the last one they had that abomination of a meeting at the library to talk about the CPZs?

And still no response from Rahx3.....what a surprise! Speaking of propaganda the latest Streetspace Update dropped through our door today and the council still are touting their "reduction" % for Dulwich with no reference to the fact that it doesn't take any consideration for the area-wide reduction in traffic due to the pandemic. What is does say, interestingly, is that the council now has a full year of data showing that traffic on main roads is "still below the pre-pandemic level" - but they do not give a % figure. This is very telling as I suspect, given the way the council spins things to their advantage, that traffic on main roads will be only just below the pre-pandemic levels and I bet you that won't include any of the area-wide reduction in traffic so in reality traffic may have increased on the main roads taking the brunt of the displacement. Has the council shared the figure they tease people with in their Streetspace document?

Dougie it seems to be the modus operandi of many of the pro-LTN supporters on this thread - they don't ever respond to questions, especially those questions based on fact - they deal only in mistruths peddled by the council to support their argument and don't take time to actually analyse the council's data. It seems many are happy to be an organ of the LTN's are awesome propaganda and are happy to prop-up the narrative that LTNs have been a success when it is clear they have been anything but.

Rahx3 - you're flogging a dead horse and you are wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you say it you're wrong - the EDG Central numbers are modelled. You also seem reluctant to address my questions - one wonders why that might be....;-) Here is is, again, in case you missed it..... Here's a question for you - you claim traffic is down by 12% on all monitoring sites. Given Southwark-wide traffic is down by at least 7% as a result of the pandemic and that 7% has not been modelled into the council's report do you think that 12% figure can legitimately be claimed to be as a result of the LTNs? In fact, I bet if you factor in the 7% pandemic reduction in traffic and then remove the modelled data for EDG Central (which alleges a drop of around 3,000 vehicles) then you'll be getting very close to either no change or an increase in comparative overall traffic. Any thoughts on that?

But Heartblock...never let the truth get in the way of a good story hey...it amazes me when some on the pro-side post things that just validate what we are saying - perhaps they are actually double-agents..... Rahx3 - any response to my question on the 7% area wide reduction...or is that another case of not letting the truth get in the way of a good story too.......?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Btw, I just noticed that Rockets claimed the > traffic count data published was ?modelled? and > not based on actual vehicle counts. That?s not > true. Rahx3 - sorry, you're wrong - it is very much true. Take a look at the monitoring report and methodology, it's there in black and white - the EDG Central "reduction" numbers are modelled. Here's a question for you - you claim traffic is down by 12% on all monitoring sites. Given Southwark-wide traffic is down by at least 7% as a result of the pandemic and that 7% has not been modelled into the council's report do you think that 12% figure can legitimately be claimed to be as a result of the LTNs? In fact, I bet if you factor in the 7% pandemic reduction in traffic and then remove the modelled data for EDG Central (which alleges a drop of around 3,000 vehicles) then you'll be getting very close to either no change or an increase in comparative overall traffic. Any thoughts on that?