Rockets

Malumbu - no Rahrahrah didn't talk about entitlement amongst "many" drivers but wrote about drivers per se - thereby tarring all drivers with the same brush - which seems to be part of the pro-closure lobby playbook - all drivers and cars are evil. And then you are, rightly, highlighting that Simon Still does not represent cyclists. So you cannot defend rahrahrah and then in the same breath criticise slarti. It cuts both ways. Your highlighting of ER is a very good case in point that people often, initially, get behind a group or a cause but then the extreme fringes within in it cause people to question whether they want to publicly support that group - which is often a case of a few within the groups tarring everyone else with their brush!

But sorry can someone tell me where these huge lorries are supposed to be going and by which route? I have never seen anything larger than a delivery van (with Co-op or Sainsburys) on it on any of these roads.

I thought the school and local residents were not supportive because 1) the initial plans were badly designed (completely blocking any residents access on the section of Goodrich in front of the school) 2) that they realised the measures would just push additional traffic onto other roads in the area 3) the council expected the school to take responsibility for opening and closing the barrier that they suggested using a version 2 of their plans. Also, where are you saying the 8-axle trucks are going - are you saying they are cutting along Dunstan's to get from Peckham Rye to Lordship Lane or are you saying they are going along Goodrich? The only bigger vehicles I ever see are either the Brakes lorry delivering to Goodrich (and they is very early in the morning before school) or builder's lorries that are delivering steels etc to one of the 3 million loft/kitchen diner conversions currently underway in the area.

Legal - that Eastendenquirer piece is very interesting and, altough I have no idea who is behind it and what their views are, it certainly feels as if you could do a find and replace on Tower Hamlets and replace it with Southwark/East Dulwich - it's an all too familiar story as to how councils are trying to strongarm their plans whilst ignoring the needs of the local residents. I am sure some of the pro-closure lobbyists will say that the writer is some sort of petrolhead but these sections rang very true to me: .....The specific reason for this public rebuke is when a complaint against the discrimination embedded in the Liveable Streets, a 2,000 signature petition, was dismissed at Council on January 20th 2021 the residents were portrayed as being climate change deniers. Seriously. This happened. Because residents complained about Liveable Streets they were all made out to be car enthusiasts intent on filling our streets with their 4?4 Kensington Tractors. Because they questioned the status quo they were all portrayed as cycle haters........... ........This opposition is not about cycle lanes or bikes versus cars. It is about the manner in which Tower Hamlets council, a Labour administration, has tried to force Liveable Streets on communities with little or no regard for the needs of those communities. The ?Liveable Streets? scheme is a fuse that has fizzled and now exploded the frustration of ordinary people who have been ignored for years. It may well be the cause of the demise of the 50-year-old rule of the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets and its replacement with a democratic system where ordinary people represent their communities with honour and duty.

Camp Blue for me - not a fan of dark chocolate.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets thinks it's 'very clever' to interpret > incomplete data to suit an agenda. > > There we have it. Oh deary, deary me.......the straw clutching reached epic levels! ;-) Let's just agree to disagree. Still waiting for any sort of constructive comment or thoughts you have on the way the council tries to make sure all the views of all residents being impacted are taken into account. How do you think they should manage it?

DC - but it certainly is a very clear sign of underlying trends that pro-closure lobbyists actively encourage other like-minded individuals to involve themselves in consultations that they really have no valid reason to input into. So, my point has been made and clearly validated - so thanks for your help in doing that. On the subject of Dulwich has Spoken I actually think that was a very clever move by the Alliance to get to the data on the Commonplace site (wherever it came from ;-)) before the council did. The council have been very clear on numerous occasions that the vehicle to register comments for local residents was the Commonplace website. Now I agree that the Commonplace site is not a sophisticated mechanism to determine local sentiment to the closures as the site is rife for manipulation (from both sides) but the fact that the assessment by DA suggests an overwhelming number of the comments are against the closure is interesting. Pair that with the fact that the council has retrenched and had a bit of a u-turn on their use of Commonplace (as a means of assessing local sentiment) since the publication of the analysis by DA also speak volumes - in fact probably more so than the analysis itself. So job very well done DA! And let's be honest they are only using the tools the council has given them to make their point so you cannot be critical of them doing that. But as we have seen time and time again, any evidence presented is automatically de-positioned and belittled by the pro-closure lobby. Unfortunately, if the council tees it up as part of the measurement process you cannot then be moan when a group of concern local residents takes action to assess the information contained within the tool. The pro-lobby groups are more than capable of doing their own assessment, as is the council, but as yet nothing to counter the data presented has been put forward. Of course, this all started when you de-positioned the 729 people who put their postcode in to a council system to register their opposition to the closures. Do you not actually start to get the feeling that there is a lot of negative sentiment towards these closures across Dulwich? Just out of interest, how do you think the council should assess and determine what Dulwich residents feel about the closures as every tool the council puts forward you seem to be unhappy with (only when it confirms your worst fears, I hasten to add)? Maybe we can find some common ground on your suggested way forward. And thank you for acknowledging the existence of the secret meetings in Dulwich Square - is it true that they take place in a room upstairs in Au Ciel - and is it true that the room is constructed solely from second-hand cargo bikes and recycled bike tyres and that it is festooned with Southwark Cyclists' cycling jerseys each of which carries the logo of a planter and the postcode of past LTN deployment successes? But let's be fair, Au Ciel's food is so good I may have to join the cult just for the purposes of enjoying the heavenly meeting break snacks ;-)

Yes I do mean CAMDEN's transparent online consultation process, which one presumes is in relation to CAMDEN issues for which the CAMDEN council wants to garner feedback from CAMDEN residents to make decisions which impact CAMDEN residents....are you getting the message yet....;-) I am sure you will no doubt claim that Julie Greer and the lobby group that brought it to her attention via Twitter have a deep understanding of those junctions in CAMDEN and are aware of all the local issues in play in CAMDEN and can share their in-depth knowledge. Or is it that they just want to manipulate and destabilize the process by throwing comments into the mix? It certainly looks far more like the latter and seems to be a tactic being employed by the pro-closure lobby. Maybe it's what we have to expect and live with in age of the The Closure Cult ;-)

Malumbu - not sure you should be going to Kent with your bike and chatting to people under the current lockdown rules. All exercise is supposed to be taken in your local area. Anyway, despite the fact you have seemingly broken lockdown rules ;-), I completely agree that the carrot is a far better way to influence change than the stick and the suggestion of incentivising people to ditch their cars is a good thing. My view from day 1 has been that we need to make improvements to transport and cycling infrastructure to entice people out of their cars but given the poor transport infrastructure in place (especially around here) that is a long-term strategy. Also whilst I agree road-pricing is a sound way to try and manage the macro issues it is laced with challenges - the most important being that the ability to drive cannot be just the reserve of the wealthy and those who can afford it. Maybe if you adopt a model like the Finns do for traffic violation fines (that the fine is based on your earnings) then maybe that model becomes fairer to all.

DC - you know as well as I do that it is a very bad optic that one of the council's pro-closure lobbyists and closest allies is encouraging people to get involved in a consultation they have no reason to be involved with. It is clear to everyone that is the point here and it adds fuel to the fire that this is a tactic being used by the pro-closure lobby. It is an incredibly daft post to put on twitter given Julie's involvement in the Dulwich LTNs and her relationship with the council. It's the type of post that makes council's reassess their association with certain individuals. It adds further weight to the concern many have that pro-closure lobby groups actively encourage this type of activity - the same accusation has been laid at the door of cycle lobby groups from outside the area in the past. I think this is further evidence that the council needs to properly engage with and poll the views of all local residents in the Dulwich area in a way that allows no room for misinterpretation. It sounds like you think that might also be needed to sort the wheat from the chaff so at least we agree on something. And please, don't try to play the goalpost card as you are part of a lobby group who have more goalposts than an Aussie rules football pitch! ;-) Enjoy your wine!

DC - Streets for People doesn't appear to have any affiliation to Camden either. I have felt for a long time that there are a lot of pro-closure lobbyists commenting on consultations they have no business commenting on. One wonders how much external interference there is on our consultation process as well. I know One Dulwich has been concerned by that for a long time - and rightly so. Maybe this is why Southwark refuses to put a proper registration process in place to determine who has been leaving comments. Julie has been caught red-handed!

DC - it's pretty clear the council needs to do a better job to gauge the level of support, or otherwise, for the closures amongst all Dulwich residents. Whilst you question the validity of the responders to petitions that challenge your view of the world one of your cohorts (Julie Greer) is providing feedback and encouraging others to do so on a consultation in Camden.....perhaps she has a home there too....or maybe she is part of a network of people within the pro-closure camp who like nothing more than to meddle in consultations in other areas... https://twitter.com/JulieAGreer/status/1363198718925807623?s=19

DC you might convince yourself that those 729 are a small number but do you realise that is a big number in local politics, pretty much about 50% of the numbers who voted for the councillors representing us? Most of them get elected on around 1400/2000 votes. And those 729 were unaided i.e. people had to go to the effort to register and vote on the petition. So you are only fooling yourself if you think that is not significant. Why do you think the council is desperately trying to restrict the LTN review area? They know what happens if the majority of residents in the area get their say.

DuncanW - but we do have the data. In the Waltham Forest LTN there was a sustained and continuous increase in traffic on the boundary roads of the LTN. A road 3.1m from the outer most edge had a 28% increase in traffic, and still has. Out of interest, do you have the data to back up that people do? And I am sorry but some of your comments are utterly unrealistic for most people - let's be realistic, people don't think "oh I got a ticket going through Dulwich Village, let me get a job closer to home/move closer to work". Well, not in the real world anyway.

Raeburn - throwing in more LTNs doesn't solve the problem - it moves it on and it was interesting on the Dulwich Hill ward meeting that when someone mentioned Underhill one of the councillors jumped in to say - let's look at ways to reduce traffic in that area. Maybe I am a little more community minded than others but it's domino displacement theory at work. Throw something in somewhere that makes life so unpleasant somewhere else that those people in somewhere else ask for measures like somewhere. Unfortunately it's a glorified Ponzi scheme as none of it is real - it just passes the onus onto someone else to sort/live with the mess - and that is not at all equitable or right. Legal - I agree with your comments on the councillors. I think a lot of them are completely out of their depth and bit off far more than they can chew when they decided to roll out the LTNs. I think they got a bit ahead of themselves and completely misjudged local public opinion towards them and have dug themselves a hole so deep they are struggling to find a way out. Perhaps one of them is trolling us on this forum - come on Malumbu let us know who you really are! ;-)

Yes I was amazed Cllr Rose said that and it further highlights how flawed these closures are because through traffic doesn't jump on a bike or walk - it goes another route and this comes back to my initial concerns on this whole programme - it doesn't know what it is trying to deal with and all it is doing to moving the problem a few streets over.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > OneDulwich are a group of 1,800 local > > (predominantly) local residents (check out > their > > website if you want to see where the members > live) > > who have concerns about the way the council has > > implemented these schemes and the way the > council > > repeatedly puts the interests of pro-closure > > lobbyists and groups ahead of the wider > community. > > I suspect the majority of OneDulwich members > are > > dismayed at the utter disregard shown by the > > council and the pro-closure lobbyists for the > > negative impact these closures are having on > the > > wider Dulwich community. > > > > I was speaking to someone the other day who has > signed up for One Dulwich - they want the council > to install *more* measures not less, so keeping > the current measures but do more to address > surrounding areas. Maybe they aren't clear what > One Dulwich want. Do people sign up to One Dulwich > thinking they'll get a permit? > > Signing up for 'news' flashes from One Dulwich > doesn't necessarily mean you agree with or fully > understand their proposals. > > As pointed out above by @March46 the commonplace > feedback is open to corruption, as was the > petition against the closures which didn't request > postcode verification. Interestingly the petition > that did require verificaton received a lot less > signatures. Hmmmm, I wonder why. > > One Dulwich would not have access to data to > detect multiple entries on the commonplace map. > > I expect replies to this will be 'well its the > council's fault for using unreliable tech to > gather info' - but that's just shifting the goal > post to avoid the point I'm making, which tends to > happen a lot here. > > Either you're against the methods or not. But > total hypocrisy to use the methods (you claim to > be against) in order to support your own agenda. What point are you trying to make exactly? It seems you have an issue that people are using the only means the council gives to them to voice their concerns and then when they do you default to "we don't know where they are from". And then when we point you to independent groups trying to galvanise support you say: "Do they know what they are signing up for". It's endless pointless de-positioning - I am sure you would find fault whatever dynamic was used to present data that opposes your view. So the second petition which required verification has received 729 signatures - that is very impressive considering it is a second petition and the log-in process was not working for many. So bottom-line can we agree that there are a lot of people in the Dulwich area who are not happy with the way the council has implemented these closures and the impact they are having on the whole community? Or are you going to tell us it's just a small, vocal minority......

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @slarti > > Why does the person who wrote the One Dulwich > report want to be anonymous? > The academics you mistrust so deeply are > accountable for their work and can be openly > challenged. > > One Dulwich pump our their theories dressed up as > 'News reports' and 'facts' in a nice glossy > format. But who are they? > They clearly have the time and money to spend on > this - are they a group of wealthy retirees in the > heart of Dulwich Village? I don't know, I'm just > speculating. But their anonymity doesn't inspire > confidence in me. OneDulwich are a group of 1,800 local (predominantly) local residents (check out their website if you want to see where the members live) who have concerns about the way the council has implemented these schemes and the way the council repeatedly puts the interests of pro-closure lobbyists and groups ahead of the wider community. I suspect the majority of OneDulwich members are dismayed at the utter disregard shown by the council and the pro-closure lobbyists for the negative impact these closures are having on the wider Dulwich community. The fact they are agitating the council and the pro-closure lobbysits so much suggests to me they are doing a fantastic job!

March46 - thanks for sending that. I do like it when people send me things to back up their argument as it forces me to do a bit more scratching beneath the surface (I just can't help myself) and 9 times out of 10 it helps further validate my point. This one is a classic example of that. So, here goes on this one (and I do hope you take the time to reply): 1) I am not sure the questions Cycling UK asked warranted an FOI as they are the type of questions you could ask any press officer and get the same response. Dressing it up as an FOI helps only to sell it as a "story". I was drawn to why the questions are at pushed to the bottom of the page and after doing some reading it became clear. LAS has been one of the most vocal opponents to LTNs (albeit privately to the councils) and I wanted to drill down on the responses of LAS as this is our local ambulance service. So....Cycling UK asked all the trusts this question: For the period from March to November 2020, for the following active travel schemes, can you name and identify any which have been implemented within the Trust's area without any CONSULTATION with the Trust. I have highlighted consultation very deliberately. Why? Well look at London's response: London said: "We are not aware of any active travel scheme that has been implemented without any consultation or NOTIFICATION to the Trust" So, does that mean they were both consulted and notified or just notified? I am sure you will agree there is a big difference and you need to ground that on noise that LAS were upset as they were notified of the changes and not consulted. And then you look at another LAS response: "LAS staff work closely with the boroughs' and TFLs traffic officers to ensure the design of proposed schemes BETTER REFLECT our operational needs, and also works with them to monitor, discuss and adapt schemes after implementation to improve traffic flow and emergency service access." Not sure about you but that better reflect part suggests to me that some schemes have been designed that don't reflect their operational needs. And again in another response: "No, the Trust does not support withdrawing funding for active travel measures. However, the Trust recognises that changes to road layouts, traffic management schemes and road closures all have the potential to impede our response to the most critically ill patients and could delay life-saving treatments or their conveyance to the nearest emergency department. For this reason, the Trust carries this risk on its Risk Register. The Trust also engages extensively with the boroughs and TFL to ensure changes and traffic schemes (to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and road safety, and promote active travel) reflect our operational needs as an emergency service." So whilst both Cycling UK spin and the Guardian article tries to convince everyone that the Trusts are happy with the measures one Trust is so happy they put it on their Risk Register....hmmmmmm... And finally Cycling UK redacted one response from LAS and flagged it as "an extract from a longer answer" - one wonders what was included in the longer answer. So, can you see how both the info from Cycling UK and the Guardian story is massively spinning the result of the FOI one way - to their pro-closure agenda? You could easily take that info and write a story that says: "LAS flags active travel measures as potential risk to patients". And those LAS responses scream that and yet the journalist didn't even touch on that so it makes you wonder whether they actually read the responses or ignored the real story? I am also surprised Cycling UK didn't redact the answers more but they probably knew they were only going to be able to sell it in to the Guardian and that they were safe from further scrutiny.

Ha ha - the irony of a pro-closure lobbyist questioning what evidence objections might be based on.....;-) I think we can now officially state we have come full-circle on this one! ;-)

Raeburn - sat nav systems may be updated but the emergency services still say today, and continue to lobby Southwark, that they do not support the physical blocking of any road. It was referred to in the council's LTN Phase 4 Peckham Rye consultation document - quite clearly stating that neither the fire service nor LAS supported physical, immovable barriers. Yet still, the Court Lane, Calton junction with DV has physical, immovable barriers blocking the road - why? Surely the council is putting lives at risk/extending response times as a result? Removable barriers are in place on Melbourne Grove so why not the DV junction? In fact the Southwark news article you linked to says: Internally the ambulance service says it has seen ?multiple no/low harm incidents reported and an increase to on scene to hospital times,? as a side-effect of traffic calming measures across the capital. The service?s chief operating officer Khadir Meer wrote to local authorities earlier this year to express his concern, and the ambulance service is consistently opposing physical barriers like planters on the grounds they could delay ambulances. Pretty compelling don't you think? P.S. mounting the pavement is not recommended for emergency vehicles (or their occupants) so that is not a rational argument ;-) And I will ignore your comments that bike lanes are a good option for emergency vehicles - as a regular cyclist I don't fancy taking my chances with police cars, fire engines or ambulances hurtling at speed to respond to an emergency - bike lanes need to be for bikes.

That Guardian article is fundamentally flawed in a couple of aspects and, when you scratch beneath the surface, reads like more of their pro-LTN propaganda via an article that is, dare we say it, wilfully misleading. Let's look at the article. Firstly the quote from Cycling UK, who submitted the FOI is massively revealing: Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, told the Guardian: ?What those freedom of information requests have revealed is that there is no evidence to support the argument that cycle lanes delay ambulances." He then adds at the end of the article: ?The claim that cycle lanes were causing mayhem and disaster for ambulances was manifestly untrue.? As I mentioned at the time the headline of the article refers to LTNs but Cycling UK is referring to an FOI in relation to cycle lanes - two very, very different things. I can't imagine that cycle lanes delay response times - LTNs on the other hand...... It looks like the journalist is confusing (perhaps deliberately) cycle lanes and LTNs - they are two very different things That's why, and it pains me to say it - that the Torygraph article is probably more accurate than the Guardian one in that the FOI they refer to is specific to LTNs and it confirms that there have been delays caused by LTNs (especially in the Dulwich area) with specific examples. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/06/road-closures-see-paramedics-struggling-reach-injured-cyclists/

Actually a lot of cars disable start/stop functionality automatically when the car isn't able to sufficiently charge the battery as it needs to be moving to charge. So, paradoxically, the increased congestion caused by the LTNs has a double-whammy negative impact as start/stop becomes less effective.

Waltham Forest Council's own data showed that displacement was, and continues to be, a big issue. Those who use it as the beacon of hope for LTNs fail to acknowledge that there was a big displacement issue created by it - the council's own stat showed that there was a 28% increase on traffic on a road 3.1 miles from the outer most boundary of the LTN. Given what Cllr McAsh said last night I think we can put another part of the jigsaw in place as to how the council are going to present their review. Given his focus on overall reduction in traffic volumes I suspect the council are trying to keep the review area deliberately small (only the roads, and the ones most neighbourly to them in the area) so they can show a decrease in traffic volume and claim this as success. This is how Waltham Forest was, and continues to be, presented - an overall reduction in traffic volumes within the boundaries of the LTN = success. It obviously doesn't. The council will do everything to fight against including displacement roads like Underhill and Croxted as then their figures will not show a reduction in overall traffic volumes (or one so small - the 135 journeys people are now doing on bikes in the review area as they drop their kids to Dulwich Hamlet school or whatever the cycle count number that was done by the pro-closure lobbyists shows - that it cannot be classified as a success). Everyone should lobby their local councillor to ensure the review is an area-wide review and data is collected and presented from all the roads that are being impacted - that is the only way a proper decision can be made and ensures the LTNs are fair to all.

Cllr McAsh, If the overall traffic has reduced (even by a small %) but because of the closures traffic, congestion and pollution has increased on roads neighbouring the closure area due to displacement would that be considered a success or failure? What you have said can easily be interpreted as that if you can prove that there has been a decrease in overall traffic then you would consider this a success (regardless of displacement impact). Can you clarify please as this is an important point, especially for those residents living with the displacement and, to be honest, is a bit of a u-turn on your comments on wanting to ensure the measures are fair to all?