Rockets

DC - there is certainly a weight of evidence that it was the lobbying done by a few vocal local residents and self-interest lobby groups like Southwark Cyclists that influenced the council's decision-making process here (and during OHS) - it's all documented in various council meetings on the matter (from a time when councils and councillors actually held meetings). Now what has happened is that since the measures went in everyone in Dulwich has become aware of them and many have looked into how we got here. The majority don't like the measures (some like you, do like the measures) and those against the measures (which bar those roads benefitting most in the area) are a majority. The problem is that those, like you, who like the measures are now outweighed by those who do not like them and it seems that those few who do support the measures (and are living on car free roads) are, understandably, reluctant to admit there might be problems being caused elsewhere and are taking a deliberately blinkered view. These were the same people telling us...they need time to bed in, evaporation takes months....and yet 15 months on things have got no better and there is no sign that any evaporation has taken place. The more I read your posts the more it does look like NIMBYISM - you're happy that your son doesn't need to walk down a congested road but you seem to care little about those who now have to walk down even more congested roads so you don't have to. Passing the problem to someone else isn't dealing with the problem is it - it's called sweeping it under the carpet? P.S. I am glad you have cited Brandolini's law - do we take it that you do, in fact, believe that the council's data is BS to begin with.....at last, some progress....;-)

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > a) the entire neighbourhood are not against the > filters > > b) not all those who opted to remove the measures > even live in the area > > c) some people don't care that this was the > reality previously because they choose see this as > a 'us' or 'them' dog eat dog imaginary class war > when instead of being divisive they could support > what the council have done and push for more. But DC, the majority of residents who responded to the council's mechanism to determine the views of constituents towards the closures said remove them (68% in fact). Unless you have some other survey that shows a perspective that differs from that I am sure it is safe to say that the majority of residents don't want the measures. You may just have to accept that you are in the minority on this. And I know it was awful that your son had to walk down a congested Calton but that doesn't make it right that someone else has now has to endure that in even higher levels so you can walk down Calton with many fewer cars on it. Surely you can agree that robbing Peter to pay Paul does not solve the underlying issue? To be fair, I know you were trying to make a point but I can't help but sense a bit of NIMBYISM in your message. I think the bottom-line is that there is a have and have not element to all of this - there are those who have to live with pollution because some people are not having to live with it anymore and what annoys a lot of residents across the whole of Dulwich is that many of those not having to live with it anymore refuse to acknowledge that things have got worse for many, many more people so they can live in a car-free nirvana. And the next step on from that is a natural one where people say those living in the most affluent part of what is an affluent area are benefitting most at the expense of those who do not and seem to be turning a blind eye to the problems created for everyone else. That is not a class war that is the very definition of all the negative things associated with class.

DC I do think there is a case to press the council on why they selected DV to the be focal point of these closures. According to their own advice on the use of LTNs it is the worst place to site one so it does beg the question why they thought it was a good place for one. Do you have any ideas?

And let's be honest, the council hasn't been slow to release the data; they have missed their own deadlines for releasing said data. Why is it that they are so keen not to share the raw data and methodology....hmmmm one wonders? To challenge OneDulwich that they are making assertations and speculations that are unsupported by data is blindingly hypocritical when the council steadfastly refuses to deliver the raw data or methodology they have promised to support their own assertations which means the council's own conclusions remain, at best, speculations. We all know why they are afraid to share the raw data - because they know it doesn't back up their report conclusions. If they had confidence in the data they could have released the raw data and methodology at the same time as they published the report. And until such time as they do release both it remains a massive smoking gun - but as we know politicians tend to dig deeper when trying to dig themselves out of a hole and it doesn't take a genius to work out what is really going on here.

When you see if all listed out like that it is really astonishing - so many broken promises and holes in the council's analysis and granularity of the data that they have based their assumptions on.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hats off Dulville for your articulate post. Why > cannot others agree in principle in this even if > you disagree with the approach to closing roads. > As Greta says there is a lot of blah blah blah > from both politicians, but also the masses about > climate change. Not suggesting that this thread > is full of blah blah blah of course..... > > > " Ultimately I see the LTN's* as part of a raft of > measures that, if as a community we are serious > about climate change, are coming down the track to > change our relationship with the motorcar. When > people drive less, it will follow there will be > less traffic on any road. I can imagine for many > people growing up in a generation where the > private car was a powerful means of freedom and > independence, and indeed a symbol of success, > learning to adapt to measures that prevent them > driving at will is going to be hard. But the world > is changing fast." > > * insert a less emotive term such as 'local > restrictions' - which we have had imposed on us > certainly since I have lived in London > > (edited for typos) Blah, blah,blah....I can agree with the objective just not the means to get there....but let's pretend the means get us there whether it does or doesn't...#blahblahblah....

And let's not forget the council also repeatedly ignored the requests of the emergency services to remove the permanent closures...that to me is unforgivable and something I would not expect from Labour.

So sorry for your loss. Our thoughts are with you.

Dulville - the measures have been in for over a year already (about 15 months now) and the monitoring completed by the council clearly demonstrates they have not delivered against their stated objectives. They have bedded in and so has the displacement. So, they don't work but I think what the council is now doing by stating to play that hand is buying themselves more time because they will say "we have made changes and we now need leave them for a year to see what happens". It's repeating what that have done on Champion Hill - permanent measures under the guise of temporary to get around any proper accountability. On the subject of the ambulance gate - why did it take the council 15 months to agree to doing something about that when LAS, the police and fire service were telling them lives were being put at risk by their permanent closure? Also, I am interested in your comment that LTNs are part of a raft of measures....what other measures have Southwark and our local councillors actioned since the LTNs went in? It seems to me that the council is a bit of a one-trick pony and that trick was LTNs.

Heartblock - you hit the nail on the head. The pro-LTN lobby seems to just want to point fingers and name-call rather than engage in the debate and we know that is the first sign that someone realises they are losing the debate and don't have any responses..... And DC - according to the responses to the council's consultation it is, indeed, an overwhelming majority.....

DC you really are trying hard to deposition One Dulwich aren't you - it really does validate what a cracking job they are doing?! The fact you are trying to throw mud is wonderful - unfortunately none of it is sticking..... What must really annoy you is that the supposed "small, vocal minority" isn't small at all - that must really grate when you were being told that by the councillors in the hope the noise against these measures would just fade away. The fact you can see where One Dulwich's supporters are from (and by far the overwhelming majority are from the Dulwich area) is a thousand times more granular and transparent than anything the council has done in this whole debacle. And, please, don't start on the bussing people in nonsense because there are far more smoking guns in that regard on your side of the fence......

What is driving this - do the councillors think there won't be any repercussions come council elections in May or do they believe they are untouchable?

Redpost - per the comments of Penguin68 and Heartblock your comment on PTAL scores is massively undermined by the council referring to Dulwich having a "low level of public transport accessibility" and a low PTAL score. The full report can be found here, should you wish to take a look: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf It's pretty compelling. Maybe the transport links are good compared to other parts of the country but this isn't other parts of the country this is London, a densely populated urban area sandwiched between other densely populated urban areas. Within the London Borough of Southwark the PTAL scores for Dulwich are some of the lowest and the council has used that low PTAL score to explain why car usage is at the level it is but, interestingly, no higher than in other parts of the borough. It says: This is confirmed also by more general DfT accessibility statistics which show that, in general the area has a lower public transport accessibility level than the remainder of Southwark whilst by car it tends to be on par with the other parts of the borough or somewhat higher for hospitals, particularly due to the proximity of Dulwich Community Hospital. So, can you explain why the council decided, against it's own advice, that Dulwich was a good place for LTNs? Don't you think in light of the council's own data in reports like the one above that it was clear what the only outcome of the LTNs going in was going to be?

hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichCentral Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > For anyone new to this forum - just to > summarise > > 7,775 posts: > > > > Anti Low traffic measures: > > - People who drive *always* need to drive > because > > they are poor, disabled, elderly, key workers > or > > single parents. > > - People who cycle are privileged, smug, > wealthy > > because they have big houses with bike storage > > facilities. > > - No more people will switch from driving to > > active travel in Dulwich because they've all > > already done so. > > - The only people benefiting from the filtered > > roads are wealthy mates of the councillors > > - The filtered roads never needed any changes > in > > the first place, and cycling is just a Covid > > related fad > > - Southwark Council are a totalitarian > > dictatorship. > > - The only way to stop people driving is > improve > > public transport and road pricing - which will > > take years so we may as well give up. > > > > Pro Low traffic measures: > > - Safe routes enable people to switch from > driving > > to active travel > > - More monitoring and assessment needs to be > done > > - More needs to be done to reduce non-essential > > car journeys > > - More Safe routes needed to link up throughout > > the area - and London-wide > > - 24/7 bus lanes - removing parking at pinch > > points - would reduce congestion > > - We're in a climate emergency so it's good the > > council have made a start - it needs improving > and > > more done. > > Love it DC!!! Not just good for newbies - also > pretty bloody useful for those who've doggedly > ploughed through most of the thread. > > HP *other, more balanced, perspectives may be prevalent in a majority of Dulwich residents ;-)

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nigello - you realise that what you've essentially > just said is 'how can you think this how > ridiculous, have a word with yourself, then also > added - if you don't think that, don't dare > comment'. Really dude, its not how discussion > forums work! You don't get to comment and then > say - no comebacks. > > Rockets was the one explaining how the idea of > walking 15 mins on both ends was something that is > offputting for people in using public transsport. > I'm inclined to agree that it can be offputting if > you have an easier option. > > > Nigello Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Goldilocks - if walking fifteen minutes both > ends > > is a deal ender, well, what a state of affairs. > (I > > don't say that you think this is too much to > walk > > or not, so don't have a go if not. If you do, > > then, see above!) And yes that was my point - in an area with such low PTAL scores it naturally means that many people are some way away from public transport and that when they factor that in it becomes part of the decision-making process whether they jump in the car or not - which is why, of course, Southwark initially suggested that LTNs should on go in in areas with high PTAL scores.....which, of course, Dulwich is not. Additionally, the reason school buses comes up is that still many people drive their children to state schools - we do, however, need to be mindful that school catchment areas are growing - didn't Southwark say as part of their school place funding discussion claim some are now travelling 4kms to schools? Just go and stand outside any of the state schools in Dulwich and you can see parents dropping children off every day. School traffic still accounts for a large proportion of the journeys in Dulwich, be that state or private schools, and if the council would funnel more energy into working with schools to fix that problem then there probably would not be any need for LTNs.

Pugwash - and there are thousands of people like you who rely/relied on their car to do their job - getting on a bike or public transport is not feasible. I do think the uniqueness of the Dulwich area does lead some to believe that their way of life can be adopted by everyone. Dulwich is something of a unique bubble in London in that it has a thriving high street within walking distance of most who live in the area (which goes some way to explain why the area's active travel is already much higher than other parts of London), it has both an older and younger generational mix and it also has some of the most expensive housing stock in London. So it naturally leads many who live here to view the world only through their lens. They may only ever need to go to the local shops, they may not need to work or are retired and they may live in properties where storing bikes is easy to do. It's why my wife argued with the lady she met outside of Au Ciel many months ago when the lady was lauding how good the LTNs were. My wife challenged her on some of her assertions as they were clearly based on this lady's particular bubble. But the lady would not listen and had a "bubble-influenced" response to everything my wife said: where people work vs where they live/bike storage etc etc - the lady couldn't, or wouldn't, grasp that some people weren't as privileged as she was. It's easy to be holier than thou when your ability to embrace a lifestyle shift is easy because of how much you have or the house you live in.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "but the only thing that will get people out of > their cars is when road pricing comes in - > everything else is just window-dressing." > > I keep thinking that there is little point in > posting but Rocks you then provide me with more > ammunition. What a bizarre sweeping statement. > I've certainly stopped driving and I can't be the > only one over the years due to numerous hard > interventions: > > - Restrictions on the rat runs that only I and the > cabbies knew > - Congestion charging, particularly now it is 24/7 > (that goes well beyond road user charging) > - Increased and often 24 hour bus lanes > - More parking restrictions, and more expensive > parking > > > And on the odd time that I have tried to use the > South Circ outside late eve through to early > morning in recent years, that is enough to put > anyone off driving and it is worse than I > experienced when I first came to London. > > Not sure why you are so blinkered in some aspects > of your thinking. You know more about traffic > counts than any normal person and by all means > talk about that level of detail with others. Not > me. But do cut out the knee jerk stuff. > > The Hammersmith example is yet another gem. Who > on earth, unless your journey is absolutely > essential, wants to get stuck crawling around > Clapham Common, Earls Court and the A4 in rush > hour. Even changing tube in central London cannot > be that masochistic. And the air quality is > particularly awful in the latter two, and has been > so for donkeys years. > > Heartblock, on a lighter note hadn't realised I > had assigned a gender to you, always try to be > gender neutral, and similarly keep myself gender > fluid. But Malumbu (still waiting for you to answer my questions BTW ;-)) you've stopped driving (but didn't you say you still had a very old car for journeys when you need a car or have you got rid of that now?) but these measures don't encourage enough people to stop driving. Car ownership within LTN areas is not declining nor is car usage around them - so what are they achieving? 60 more cycle journeys in an LTN is not enough to justify the chaos LTNs outside of LTN areas. Your claim that the Hammersmith example is a gem is more reflective of the parallel universe some of the pro-LTN lobby live in. So you can't understand why people might prefer to jump into their car compared to: walking for 15 minutes to East Dulwich station, jumping on a train to London Bridge, getting on a Jubilee line train to Westminster, change onto the district line to Hammersmith and then another 10 minute walk to the office. And then that all back again on the way home. I decided to cycle when I used to do that journey and on so many occasions there were delays due to the number of changes I had to make. This is the reality of travel in London. This is why people drive. Maybe you don't have to do that type of journey every day but many people do. There are even more people who rely on vehicles to transport tools or do multiple drops of visits. Again this is why LTNs will never work and were doomed to failure from day one.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd imagine that the decline in cycling (which i > think is mainly referenceable to the counts in > central London rather than areas like Dulwich )is > down to people no longer being in the office every > day. > > Since lockdown I cycle to the office, but only on > the days that I go in. I never used to because I > thought that cycling the route I needed to was > hostile, but have now sorted out better links as > cycling during the pandemic meant that I learnt > just how easy to get around it was. Its longer so > around the 15km mark, but worth it to avoid the > worst bits of the route. Linking back to your > previous posts though Rockets about how when > you're freezing cold it being tempting to get in > the car, I think that this is the issue. If I > don't cycle my alternative is public transport > (which is unreliable at the moment and frequency > still down), whereas those going to non central > locations still have a viable alternative of > driving. Asking people to use other modes of > transports has roundly failed, so putting in place > methods to inhibit car usage are key. I am not sure it is just people cycling to work that has caused the decline - remember the growth happened after lockdown and even fewer people were in work then. I think what has happened is that people were cycling to the park for exercise etc and did so as many times a day as they were able and now lockdown has lifted their patterns have changed and so just don't cycle as the pressures of life returning to normal means that cycling is no longer the go-to mode of transport for many. Couple that with those that used to cycle to work are doing so less frequently so the numbers have plummetted but, given the amount of money, effort and resources dedicated to increasing cycling it's not a good return on that. Also is there any proof that inhibiting car use actually works - wasn't it Greece or Turkey who invoked odd and even number plate days for cars and people just bought two cars? People are tied to their cars, unless you understand why that is you won't ever deal with the issue - just throwing in road blocks won't help, people just drive around them and when you layer in the fact that traffic growth has been driven by PHVs and delivery vehicles you can understand why LTNs are the bluntest of blunt tools. This is why so many believe LTNs increase pollution not reduce it and all of the evidence suggests they are failing to deliver on their objectives. Oh and the worst cycling related issue I had was when a pedal sheared off almost exactly halfway home from Hammersmith....during the mother of all rainstorms. After a mile or so I conceded defeat and ordered a cab to get me home.....

DC just being realistic about why a lot of people don't cycle. But I agree but the addiction doesn't seem to have materialised post-lockdown which suggests something bigger is going on. Lots of people cycled during lockdown but now it appears cycling had declined to lower than pre-pandemic levels (which might be of course partly influenced by people, especially in London, no longer travelling to the office every day of the week). Any ideas why cycling levels are plummeting post-lockdown - bike sales went through the roof, huge amounts of cycling infrastructure went in, roads were closed yet people aren't maintaining the pandemic levels of bike use?

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The reality is that we aren't going to get masses > of east - west train / tram transport in the > coming 5-10 years, so whats the alternative. > Busses are the most obvious, but we need far fewer > private cars on the road to make busses feasible > and fast enough. Otherwise we're stuck with more > and more congestion. > > Car travel is the reality because frankly its > quicker than public transport and much more > comfortable. Until that changes then there is > little incentive to stop driving. ULEZ will > help eliminate some journeys for those with non > compliant cars as there is an assessment of > whether its worth paying the fee, but don't expect > it to make huge differences locally (although > would love to be wrong on that. > > The route you mentioned to Hammersmith in the > realm of 'longer commutes' is only 15km each way - > thats under an hour on a normal bike and far less > on an ebike with no need to be 'fit enough' to do > the journey (but with the added benefit of still > adding some built in exercise). The majority of > journeys carried out in London are shorter than > that and I would imagine from the area we live in > (zone 2) shorter still than average. Buses needed fewer LTNs......;-) What you say is absolutely right but the only thing that will get people out of their cars is when road pricing comes in - everything else is just window-dressing. You don't have to convince me of the merits of cycling to Hammersmith I did it for years but there were plenty of times when I couldn't feel my fingers in the dark depths of winter that I longed to be in my car with the radio on! That also plays a big role - even though the stats are something like if you cycled every working day for an hour each way for a year you would only get rained on 12 times the long dark winters are enough to test the hardiest cycling soul - it's why there is such a pronounced drop off during the winter months. And right now so much money has been invested in cycling infrastructure the bigger concern is that if cycling levels have indeed returned to below pre-Covid levels then has it all been wasted - are people just not willing/able to embrace cycling beyond the hardy few? Maybe the reasons are far more deep-rooted in lifestyle - the fact cycling boomed when everyone was forced to be at home might give some clues as to why the growth has completely reversed.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't actually work anywhere at all convenient > from London Bridge station - but where I work > isn't relevant here - we live in a city with > millions of other people so having individuals > commute in private cars is just unfeasible. > > > Hammersmith is a bit of a hassle to get to on > public transport I agree, but thankfully advances > in ebikes mean that cycling is becoming more > accessible for a much wider group of people and > lots of people aren't really making 15km trips, > more the under 5km ones that could easily be > swapped (and yes there is loads of data on the > average trip length in London). But it is relevant because any journey to the centre of London is easy - journeys across London are not easy because that's not the way the transport system developed - it followed lines in and out of the city not across it - it's why Crossrail has been demanded/mooted/needed for years. Commuting in cars is not unfeasible it is certainly unwelcome but it is, I am afraid, a reality of the city we live in. And life revolves around realities not fantasies and ebikes are not going to make much of an impact in terms of converting people from longer commutes in cars. We have to ground the debate on what is feasible and take a pragmatic approach to dealing with these issues and no-one ever accused the council of taking a pragmatic approach to LTNs!

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In Heartblocks world - to square off her dislike > of LTNs shes constructed a parallel universe where > drivers are mostly 'busy mums taking kids to > school and then going onto their 'little job' or > care workers. Completely ignoring the fact that > car ownership is a luxury and one that many of the > poorest cannot afford. I'd also like to know > where all these 'mums' are working where they can > drive to work - and why that should be preserved. > I work in central London, I don't expect to be > able to drive to work because it isn't practical > in a city of this size. The same is true of zone > 2. Goldilocks - you work in central London. You live near a railway station that takes you into central London in under 15 minutes, so maybe having a car is a luxury for you but a lot of people don't work in central London. I used to work in Hammersmith and getting there by public transport from East Dulwich was a nightmare. So I used to cycle but a lot of people can't cycle those type of distances so for them a car is not a luxury but a necessity. This is the folly of the pro-LTN lobby - they lump everyone in a car as the category of "making an unnecessary journey or a journey that could be done in something other than a car" and, unfortunately, the world isn't as straight-forward as they would like it to be. A bit like the woman my wife argued with in Dulwich Square whose response to being presented with the dilemma that some people work a long way from where they live in parts of London other than central London was to say: "well they should move closer to where they work then".....

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have both 'actually looked at the report' and > read it. Nothing you have posted in that link > changes anything I said upfront. > > There are lots of responses from streets directly > affected, this is still not the same as a majority > of residents though. Its not actually even clear > that its a 'majority of residents' on those > streets. > > This is the problem that yet again the data isn't > really good enough to make such granular > assessments, so we're back to high level comments > - and my high level comments were accurate. > > ockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > goldilocks Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > If 7542 was made up solely of responses to > the > > > mailed out survey then you would have a point. > > > > But it isn't. It also includes responses > from > > > anyone who filled it in online, of whom you > > have > > > no means of knowing where they live. The > > relevant > > > detail from the consultation report is below: > > > > > > A consultation newsletter was posted to > 19,729 > > > postal addresses in May. We also notified > 3,339 > > > people by direct email, after they > > > had registered in the previous phase. 576 > paper > > > surveys were posted to people who had > requested > > > them. > > > We received 7,542 responses to the survey. Of > > > these 209 were voided as being duplicates > > (people > > > providing more than one > > > response). Of the remaining 7,333, some 5,538 > > > identified themselves as living or working on > > > streets within the consultation zone. > > > We operated a ?unique identifier? system with > > > numbers available either on the envelopes > that > > the > > > newsletter came in or in the > > > emails that were sent ? however only 1491 > > > responses included anything in the ?unique > > > identifier? field, and many of these were > > > incorrectly used ? therefore this metric has > > not > > > been used in the analysis below. > > > > Goldilocks - have you actually looked at the > > report or are you basing your assumptions on a > > presumption? You do realise the council has > broken > > the feedback down by a street-by-street basis > as > > well as within the Consultation Zone as a > whole? > > They even plot a map to show the % of > respondents > > on each street..... > > > > Take a look at the report - it's pretty > compelling > > that an overwhelming majority of those people > > within the Consultation Zone responded that > they > > wanted it returned to its original state. > > > > > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1015 > > > > 17/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultat > > > ion%20Report.pdf But bar Court Lane and Calton a majority of residents responded against the closures didn't they? And the majority of respondents living within the Consultation Zone area responded against the closures didn't they? You say that it isn't clear that it is a majority of residents on those streets - why isn't it? Don't you think the council must have a high degree of certainty to plot the results, street-by-street, as they did? Just because you don't agree with the sentiment doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hundreds of people who live in the area went to protest at the DV junction - perhaps you will try to convince us they were all taxis drivers from Surrey or figments of our imagination!? Just because you live on closed LTN street and your neighbours think they are great and support them doesn't mean that the next street along people hold the same view. I think it is pretty safe to say that the majority of people in the Dulwich area are not supportive of LTNs, they support the rational for doing it but not the specific execution and the consultation responses confirm this.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If 7542 was made up solely of responses to the > mailed out survey then you would have a point. > But it isn't. It also includes responses from > anyone who filled it in online, of whom you have > no means of knowing where they live. The relevant > detail from the consultation report is below: > > A consultation newsletter was posted to 19,729 > postal addresses in May. We also notified 3,339 > people by direct email, after they > had registered in the previous phase. 576 paper > surveys were posted to people who had requested > them. > We received 7,542 responses to the survey. Of > these 209 were voided as being duplicates (people > providing more than one > response). Of the remaining 7,333, some 5,538 > identified themselves as living or working on > streets within the consultation zone. > We operated a ?unique identifier? system with > numbers available either on the envelopes that the > newsletter came in or in the > emails that were sent ? however only 1491 > responses included anything in the ?unique > identifier? field, and many of these were > incorrectly used ? therefore this metric has not > been used in the analysis below. Goldilocks - have you actually looked at the report or are you basing your assumptions on a presumption? You do realise the council has broken the feedback down by a street-by-street basis as well as within the Consultation Zone as a whole? They even plot a map to show the % of respondents on each street..... Take a look at the report - it's pretty compelling that an overwhelming majority of those people within the Consultation Zone responded that they wanted it returned to its original state. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101517/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultation%20Report.pdf

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Rockets - there were some respondents - they > were overwhelmingly negative, agreed. This > doesn't mean they are a majority of people > locally. Its not 'trying to belittle responses' > its stating something that is factually true. > > The only 'truth' is that people who responded to > the consultation were not in favour. This is > unequivocally not the same thing as a majority of > people no matter how many times you say it. It > could be that the majority of local people are > against the measures, but you don't 'know' this. 7542 respondents in fact. Of which 68% said remove the measures. The review was mailed to over 19,000 addresses in the Dulwich area. In terms of response rate that is incredibly high for a consultation. You may be desperately trying to convince yourself otherwise but the numbers speak for themselves and it comes as no surprise. Looks like that small vocal minority we were told the anti-LTN voices were was in fact a vocal majority.