Rockets

I honestly don't think the council have the first clue how this review will run. They have created a rod for their own back and I suspect are struggling to work out how they judge whether it stays, goes or gets massively adjusted (or are trying to work out how they spin the monitoring numbers). On a walk today I noticed a lot more of the new green Clean Air For All posters in windows around Dulwich.

I think the reality is, unfortunately, that if someone wants your bike enough they will get it. I am looking at an Asguard bike store at the moment but it seems from most forums that they will only slow the thieves down or might deter them if they think it will make too much noise. Ground anchors seem to be good to slow them down and definitely worth doing if you go for something like an Asguard. There is also an argument that something like an Asguard attracts thieves as they presume an expensive bike is stored within it. Bikes are very attractive to thieves at the moment. A friend of ours had a cargo bike stolen and, as they had it property marked, when they go it back (it was found in a shipping container with hundreds of other bikes), it still had the tracking sticker on it that the thieves had stuck to it. Apparently they stick them on the bikes to be able to follow them to where they are stored and then go to steal them.

Maybe it's just reflective of the impact of them in the local area and the fact lots of people have questions and point to raise about them - it is different people starting them each time so not as if some of us usual suspects are creating threads for the sake of it! ;-)

But Rahx3 the beauty of the forum is that when people stop posting (i.e. the thread runs its's course) then the thread drops down - it's self-policing in it's own way. Lots of the threads, although linked to the same issue, are discussing different elements of it and Admin is good at dealing with those that are truly duplicative.

Rahx3 they most definitely should but e-bikes and e-scooters do come with a whole host of unique challenges. As someone who has visited Munich a lot I am shocked by the numbers of e-bikes and e-scooters that are left in clusters all over parts of the city - I believe a lot of that was due to rapid re-regulation and a host of operators rushing in to try to make money so hopefully London's approach will be more controlled.

Very much agree - Inside72 was something else everything a local hostelry should be!

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Storage is an issue. We are a household of 4 > cyclists with no car. We have two in a bike > hangar. Our cargo bike is currently parked in the > living room, looking out enviously at the car > spots out front. We have requested a new hangar > that can house a cargo bike from > cyclehoop/council. I'll see if I can dig up the > link to request a bike hangar on your street and > edit it in here later -- you can add in that you'd > like one to accommodate a cargo bike in the > notes. > > Ah - here is all the info in this tweet thread: > > https://twitter.com/cyclehoop/status/1380092582705 > 909761?s=20 > > Also - if you don't have space for a cargo bike > but need to move things occasionally, the guys at > PedalMe can carry anything for you - including > fridges as well as doing house moves by giant > cargo bikes and they are often cheaper than the > man with the van enterprises. Otto2 - completely agree that storage is a massive issue (not just for cargo bikes) and one the council has failed to adequately address and they massively missed an opportunity to enable more modal shift to cycling. Look at the stats - back in 2018 68% of all local journeys in Dulwich were by foot or bike but only 3% were on bike. If we are a typical family then I think I know why - we walk all the time to Lordship Lane and have never thought of cycling - why? Because there is no where to park our bikes. I really wish the council had analysed the data they had in 2018 and looked at why so few of those local journeys were on bike and made infrastructure changes then things would be a lot easier for families like ours to use bikes more. We have been trying to get cycle hangars on our street for years but to no avail - you have to question whether this was a massive missed opportunity by the council. Cargo bikes are a great solution and allow people to make that change. Yes, they are expensive but against the cost of owning and running a car they aren't - if you can make the shift. And that's where so many people will struggle due to the lack of infrastructure provided by the council. Even though cycle hangars can store a cargo bike it looks like they take up numerous spaces from the twitter thread you linked that could store normal bikes (correct me if I am wrong) and there are not nearly enough cycle hangars to satiate the demand for normal bikes yet alone cargo bikes. The council really should have been doing far more over the last 18 months to provide cycle infrastructure rather than throwing money at closing roads and the infrastructure to police that.

Heartblock - well said. I am sure some are upset by the use of the phrase but it comes as no surprise that many of the most vocal pro-LTN advocates are using it as an excuse to attack the organisation behind it and to deposition them and their position. That's fair enough and it is to be expected but they need to be careful they don't overdo it as DA has apologised and reprinted the posters and as they say - they're is no such thing as bad publicity! The thing about posters such as these, regardless of message, is that they are a very good viral marketing tools and once one goes up others feel, if they agree with the message, that they want to show their support - especially when people think that they are not being heard or listened to. I have been very pleasantly surprised by how many people are displaying the poster, it really is starting to show the numbers of people who oppose the closures and I very much suspect many of the advocates for the LTNs really don't like it and are focusing on the use of the phrase as an attempt to attack the group behind the message and the message they are delivering. The council failed to deliver information on the review to the majority of Dulwich residents but DA and the other groups are doing an amazing job to drum up awareness and support despite the best efforts of the council! The review is going to be fascinating.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shame to see Pickwick Estates doubled down and > underlined the tone deaf slogan > > https://twitter.com/unceyj/status/1392753883370360 > 833?s=21 But Northern - please see above. They didn't underline the message did they?

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure that anyone putting up a tone deaf poster > is 'deserving of an apology', rather they should > have a think about whether it was good judgement > to put it up in the first place. > > It is possible to support a campaign and yet still > exercise some judgement as has been stated > previously. No, you're missing the point. Bels123 made an accusation against Pickwick Estates, a well established local company, that was wrong in relation to "doubling down and underlining the tone-deaf message". Surely that requires some sort of apology or retraction as it was completely inaccurate? We have seen many on the pro-LTN side attack local businesses, lobbying for boycotts etc, so I am sure Bels123 would want to put the record straight on that error.

Bels1233 - That's all well and good but I think you owe Pickwick an apology because it is clear they did not "double-down and underline the tone-deaf message" as you claimed in your post.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shame to see Pickwick Estates doubled down and > underlined the tone deaf slogan > > https://twitter.com/unceyj/status/1392753883370360 > 833?s=21 Bels123 - did you check whether that underlining was done by Pickwick or the person who posted the picture to draw attention to it? Take a walk past Pickwick to check for yourself - whilst you're there, I am sure you will want to pop in and apologise to them for your post because there is no yellow underlining on the poster in their window.......;-)

DKHB - to be fair the same accusation of being "self-centred twonks who don't consider the impact of their actions on others" could be levelled at supporters of the LTNs! #justsayin The bottom line is that lots of posters are appearing all over Dulwich and it is a very visual reminder that it is, much to the annoyance of some, anything but a small vocal minority who oppose these measures. The council ought to be taking note......

Thanks DKHB??you just illustrated my point perfectly???.by default then are you suggesting Labour MP Rupa Huq is a white supremacist?

Genuine question: was there a backlash when Labour MP Rupa Huq used the phrase during her LTN presentation to a government minister in Westminster a few weeks ago which, in their apology, the Dulwich Alliance has cited as their inspiration for the use of the phrase? You can do a google search for Rupa Huq LTNs and see the speech where she says it. Whether the Dulwich Alliance were right or wrong to use the phrase is a debate that could rage forever but the important thing is that they have apologised and changed the poster - its the type of contrition and openness to correct a wrong that some of us would love to see from the council in relation to LTNs!

Siduhe - a great post - I think a lot of people feel the same way. I also thought it was interesting what Cllr McAsh said - it would be interesting if he shared more on where he thinks the measures may need improving - but it is an interesting change in tone - from an agnostic position/very much supportive to one of admitting that it need amending. I wonder if the council are seeing the monitoring data starting to come through and it is, indeed, showing what many of us have been saying about displacement for a long time. I very much suspect that the review will focus the council's mind on the need for changes and action - as I sense that a lot of people are going to use the review to finally be heard (or at least try to be heard through the official channel now given by the council).

Does anyone know why a no through road (except cycles) sign has gone up on Goodrich as you head up just before you get to the school?

Legal - I think something has to be done to relieve the throttling of east west routes across Dulwich so they have to look at the Court Lane DV junction and reopen some part of it (I had heard the council was exploring some one-way element). I think they will also have to remove the restrictions through Dulwich Village and Burbage. Melbourne Grove and Townley will probably end up staying in place.

DC I agree with many of the items on your list but how many of them are in play or anything more than a long term wishlist? It highlights what many of us have been saying that LTNs will never work in isolation, they need to be part of an area wide approach to traffic reduction. The council has had 18 months to work out what they could do but put all bets on a couple of LTNs, which are actually making things worse. What are we supposed to do, sit tight and live with the displacement and increased pollution for 10 years before they work out what the rest of their plan is? The LTN experiment has been a complete failure and it is time the council admits it - but we all know they won't as taking responsibility for their actions doesn't come easily to Southwark.

Duplicate post.

Or maybe, just maybe, they can see the negative impact these closures are having on their fellow Dulwich residents.

So DC you must then be concerned by the displacement being caused by the LTNs and the impact it is having on local residents? What other measures are you suggesting and when can we expect them to have sufficient impact to improve conditions for those living with the displacement? And remember, no LTN has ever delivered enough reduction in car use to not have a displacement impact.

And, in the fairness of balance, some on here are obsessed with LTNs being "the solution". On a other subject I am very heartened to see so many of the End 24 hour closure posters going up in windows throughout Dulwich Village. Maybe the councillors will now start to understand the level of opposition even amongst those households within the area benefitting most from the LTNs. How much longer can they pretend not to hear from their constituents?

We are angry at drivers making unnecessary journeys, we just don't agree that you fix the problem in the way Southwark council have tried to. In fact, I believe it is making things worse....and I would suspect the council does to because they refuse to monitor pollution levels. I am not sure that being misguided that's being sanguine...;-)

The biggest worry to me is Raeburn seems to be repeating a narrative that we have seen Cllr McAsh begin to circulate when he moved from a stated position of any increase anywhere means the measures have failed to if there has been an increase on some roads that has to be weighed up - almost that A roads were built for more traffic. It's a very worrying development and may be the way the council is going to try to justify these flawed measures. It's yet more obscufation and goal post moving from the supporters of LTNs. Oh and combine that with the...I haven't noticed any difference nonsense from Cllrs like Charlie Smith and you have the denial full house.