Rockets

Manatee...Charlie Smith will probably be round to introduce himself...he will be upset that there is someone who says they are local yet doesn't know who he is....he is very much part of the fabric of Dulwich life and has been for many years in his role as a Goose Green councillor. You suggest that first mate might be trolling from some far away land yet it is clear when you look back at people's posts who are local. That evidence suggests people like first mate are far more entwined in local issues. You arrived with a flurry of pro-LTN rhetoric, got banned (at least twice), don't know who Charlie Smith is and accuse others of potentially being a troll from a faraway land..... Out of interest what data have you seen that, in your view, supports the LTNs in Dulwich?

Obviously we cant comment on the particular implementation and determine what was happening there but my there are so many similarities with some of the frustrations many of us are feeling that appear in one of the articles about one of them (and shows how effective some form of councillor opposition in situ is)... "As locals, why were we not consulted when this was put in? This are our homes, our children breathing fumes from traffic jams. "It feeling to us like it was 'like it or lump it'." Information about the route, and other lanes across the city, was presented to councillors ahead of this week's key meeting. The report included traffic monitoring data, which showed there had been no decrease in average traffic speed on the road. However, residents say this is not the case. Patricia Weller said: "I'm not anti-cycle lanes, only ones which are not thought out and are not working. "We've invited councillors to hear our concerns but we have been told they're busy."

Ok, more evidence...here you go.... July 9th... July 11 - this is the crew I saw on the Sunday and look what Charlie Smith is holding...that would be the Labour paraphernalia to which you refer....freshly printed following the release of the interim report no doubt? Now where is that smoking gun emoji...;-) But hey, it's just a conspiracy theory so you don't have to believe it if you don't want to.

ohthehugemanateeLTN3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I do chuckle when I continually read the > continued > > de-positioning narrative on this small vocal > > minority of people against LTNs... > > You've been spending far too much time on the > forum, where pro LTN people seem to vanish from > the threads (I've been banned twice already!). Out > in the real world, the majority is in favour. > > > they are such a > > small vocal minority in Dulwich that the > council > > had to extend the review by a week and engage > in > > an urgent panic-led door-to-door canvassing > > Do you have anything approaching evidence, or is > they another anti-LTN conspiracy theory? Actually, > I say "another", it's more like one of the 3 or > four that you keep warming over and rehashing. > > > programme to try and counter said small vocal > > minority......;-) > > Is there something wrong with your eye? You keep > winking weirdly all the time. Either get some eye > drops or see your doctor. Manatee?.. July 9th Council publishes interim monitoring data July 9th Council announces review extended to July 18th July 10th?? On July 11th another group of councillors/activists also mustered outside Saucy to canvass?.they were carrying printouts of the interim report flyer?.how do I know this, because I walked passed them and saw them and have spoken to a number of friends whose doors the councillors knocked on? All of them lifelong Labour supporters who told the councillors exactly what they think of the LTNs??must be the small vocal minority again?. Any other evidence you need?..;-) I am not sure where in Dulwich you live but did they knock on your door per chance?

Brand New - well said, there been a few new arrivals to the forum in recent days.....

Artemis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But surely Rockets? point is that the > ?door-to-door stuff? only happened AFTER the > consultation was meant to have ended? Exactly. Before the consultation was extended no-one (bar the LCC or Southwark Cyclists of course) had heard anything from the council or councillors on LTNs (bar a couple of Zoom calls that you sense they were doing through gritted teeth). The consultation period is extended by a week and then miraculously, during that week and weekend, Dulwich is buzzing with swarms of councillors/Labour activists who are touting the council's interim data as proof the LTNs are working and encouraging residents to respond to the review; we didn't see that many councillors/activists door knocking during the general election. But, of course, this is all just co-incidence, those councillors and activists were just at a loose-end and thought "I know what (comrade) lets go and chat to the good citizens of Dulwich this weekend. We haven't spoken to them for years". "But what (comrade) should we speak to them about?" "I have a great idea (comrade) let's go and chat to them about LTNs, I have this handy data sheet that was sent to me by the LTNs Are Brilliant Bureau". "What a fantastic idea, let's go (comrade); but only this weekend mind as next weekend I have other very important plans and we are only allowed to engage with the good citizens of Dulwich once every two years"..... Or perhaps I am wallowing in yet another conspiracy theory.....;-)

I do chuckle when I continually read the continued de-positioning narrative on this small vocal minority of people against LTNs....they are such a small vocal minority in Dulwich that the council had to extend the review by a week and engage in an urgent panic-led door-to-door canvassing programme to try and counter said small vocal minority......;-) The problem is we have some councils pulling out perfectly good solutions (like the ones in RBKC) and other councils like Southwark digging their heals in around terrible solutions like the one in Dulwich. Somewhere in the middle there is the sweet spot but both aforementioned councils are examples of the very worst practice on both sides.

Northern - a number of people reported the same thing happening to their signs across the Dulwich area - so this one, that was captured on camera, was not an isolated incident. It's not beyond the realm of possibility to suggest that it is this person who has been targeting other houses because this is clearly not a random act of vandalism - this is very much targeted - look at the effort he goes to to remove the sign. I am sure you'll agree that if he has caused damaged to any properties or cars he should be held to account for that - he is pretty recognisable. He is clearly an idiot as so many people have cameras and Ring doorbells nowadays he was always going to be caught on one of them. As I have said before the idiots on both sides need to stop doing this type of thing and, if caught, should be held to account as it does neither side any good and is just childish in the extreme.

This is welcome news and about time. BBC News - Walking and biking prioritised in new Highway Code https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58021450

Yes I do wonder how many people who wage war on cars sit in houses with gas fueled boilers churning out all sorts of nasties... It would be refreshing to see people put as much energy into tackling all climate change contributors not just focussing on one of them.

That'll be one of those pesky kids with their chalk again......;-) Nice clear shots though....I wonder if anyone knows him....... I presume he was going down the road doing this to all the houses and then leaving the signs on the cars outside the house? It's beyond pathetic - just as damaging the planters is. The idiots on both sides really need to grow up.

Another interesting update from One Dulwich - was this the "something else" the council were alluding to on the review forms: As we move into the final weeks of the review of the Dulwich measures (the decision will be made in October), there is one central question: have Council officers already made up their minds what they plan to recommend? Based on the following evidence, the answer seems to be yes. Firstly, data analysts within One Dulwich (and the wider Dulwich Alliance) are working on the Council?s figures and uncovering a significant number of problems. If Council officers knew about these problems, it seems the late release of the traffic data (only four days before the original consultation deadline of 11 July) was intentional ? a tactical decision to make sure that no one responding to the consultation had time to raise awkward questions. Secondly, the air quality data has still not been published. No one responding to the review survey had any information from the Council about whether the measures were increasing pollution on roads like East Dulwich Grove, Croxted Road and Lordship Lane. Thirdly, the long-awaited Equality Impact Assessment was published two days before the extended deadline of 18 July ? again giving no one any time to respond. The EqIA was supposed to look at how the road measures affect groups in Dulwich with protected characteristics, like the elderly and disabled. This one, however, is an interim ?desktop review? ? in other words, an assessment made by someone sitting at a desk ? and it?s so general, and so incomplete, that it?s pretty meaningless. You can see our review of it here. Further engagement is planned, but nothing has been published about which organisations Southwark will consult. Meetings with elderly and disabled people have been postponed until August. Finally, information has just come to light showing that Council officers had already decided on a new plan for the junction in the middle of Dulwich Village before the public consultation had closed. An FOI (Freedom of Information) request to TfL (Transport for London), asking for any correspondence between TfL and Southwark Council about the temporarily closed junction, has revealed that Council officers were asking for TfL?s opinion on their new plan for the junction on 1 July. Please note the date. Southwark?s email is dated 1 July ? that is, before the close of the public consultation (11 July, extended to 18 July), before public questions on the traffic data at a meeting with the Council on 13 July (please see a list of the unanswered questions on the Dulwich Alliance website), and before the various meetings with residents? groups in Dulwich in the week of 19 July. In other words, the Council?s plan for amending the closure of Dulwich Village junction had been finalised without taking into account any views from the public. So what is this new plan? It shares a remarkable similarity with a leaflet circulated not long ago by a coalition of lobby groups in favour of keeping Dulwich Village junction closed. Council officers are proposing that emergency vehicles ? and only emergency vehicles ? should be allowed through the junction. In addition, they are proposing that cycles should have their own phase across the junction, and that the current staggered pedestrian crossing (between Harold George and the graveyard) should be removed. This new layout would apparently be temporary (for six to twelve months) ? although it?s hard to understand how physical changes to infrastructure like concrete pedestrian traffic islands could be temporary. So does this new plan answer all the concerns that local people have raised? It?s obviously welcome news that the Council is finally taking on board issues about access that the emergency services have been raising with them since the summer of 2020. But this new plan for the centre of Dulwich ? because it is still a 24/7 closure for everything but emergency vehicles ? does nothing to alleviate the traffic displacement on to neighbouring roads, which creates worse conditions for thousands of children walking and cycling to school, and serious delays to public transport (and, ironically the emergency services). It also does nothing to improve access for the elderly and disabled and those caring for them. It does nothing for key workers stuck in traffic jams, and nothing for local shops and businesses struggling to trade. It does nothing to help those from a wide area trying to reach after-school clubs, community and social groups, sports clubs, or dance and fitness classes, all of which are key to mental and physical health. It does nothing to address the spikes in congestion and pollution that are being caused by heavy increases in traffic on many local roads, including the South Circular. At a meeting with residents? groups on Monday 19 July, the leader of the council, Cllr Kieron Williams, said that no plan had been decided. Council officers, on the other hand, appear to have taken a decision already. Over to you, Cllr Williams. This is not just about road closures. This is about whether Southwark Council takes decisions in the best interests of the people it serves. It?s an issue of political leadership, and we badly need you to intervene.

Interesting update from One Dulwich today: ear all, Southwark?s new plan for Dulwich Village junction An FOI (Freedom of Information request) to TfL has revealed that Council officers asked for a meeting to discuss their new plan for Dulwich Village junction on 1 July ? that is, well before the end of the public consultation on 18 July. See the attached news report here. A few questions: If Council officers had already come up with a plan for the central part of the scheme ? which affects traffic and air quality over a wide area ? why bother with all the trouble and expense of a public consultation? What else have they already decided? Why wasn?t this plan mentioned at any of the public meetings in July? Or didn?t Cllr Rose know about it? The plan allows emergency vehicles through ? a long-overdue change that the London Ambulance Service has been fighting for since the summer of 2020. But do Council officers not understand that this limited concession doesn?t answer any of the concerns raised by residents and local businesses about traffic displacement, access, and discrimination against vulnerable groups with mobility problems? Our response to Southwark?s Equality Impact Assessment Two days before the extended deadline of the public consultation, an interim EqIA appeared on Southwark?s website. It?s so general, and so biased ? no data or knowledge specifically relating to the Dulwich scheme ? that it isn?t fit for purpose. You can read our review of it here. Data: the unanswered questions Please see the Dulwich Alliance?s summary of all the questions that remain unanswered from the Dulwich Streetspace Review data meeting on 13 July. Southwark has said it intends to continue to publish data throughout the summer (with April traffic data and air quality modelling data available at the end of July, and June traffic data by the end of August). Why is this all so late? Our legal challenge Given everything we?ve seen and heard over the past few weeks, we don?t feel confident that Southwark Council?s decision on the final Streetspace scheme in October will be fair or just. With our friends and colleagues at the Dulwich Alliance, we have appointed a senior and experienced lawyer who, over the coming weeks, will review all relevant material and advise on our legal options. Please, if you can, donate to our fighting fund.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dougiefreeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So any idea when we get to see the results of > the > > consultation? > > > > Have they said a timeframe? > > October. Metallic - do you know when they said this?

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there any outcome from the 8 July meeting > (online, I think) regarding traffic measures > around Goodrich School? Nigello, do we know what was due to be discussed?

Each device that accesses the internet is allocated a seperate and unique IP address (not just the router that is acting as the gateway) so unless the flatmates are sharing the same device then each device that logs-in is uniquely identifiable. Anyway, there are plenty of people on here who have expressed pro-LTN views and haven't been banned so your banning is obviously for something else. Sorry to break it to you but admin doesn't ban people on the basis of pro-LTN (or-anti) views and if they have barred your IP address then you have clearly breached the rules of usage for the forum. Getting banned in little under a day is very impressive! - that must be some kind of record!

Ah, so a deletion of ALL accounts....there you go....if you you were posting under multiple handles from a single IP address then that's probably why you have been banned. And rightly so....

Manatee - do you have more than one account registered from your ip address? Admin maintains a very balanced and fair approach to policing the forum so the removal of your posts will not be for a trivial matter.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what happens now? The consultation is finished > - are we waiting for the council to publish the > results? Or perhaps they have no intention of > doing so? I think that all probably depends on whether the extension to the deadline and subsequent fevered door-knocking by councillors has managed to swing the result their way..... But in all seriousness who knows....I am not sure they know themselves. They published interim results that was missing data from large parts of the most impacted areas so how do they manage the publication of that missing data? This has all been a lesson in council free-form jazz...just make it up as you go along.....

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Frankly I'm more concerned about the fact that > Southwark were asking TfL to meet and discuss > removing the staggered pedestrian crossing in the > Square of Shame (indicating a preference for > permanent closure) weeks before the consultation > even closed (see attached, am sure many will have > seen on twitter). Also mystified that there was > apparently no need to consult TfL before making > the initial closure... but now there is a need > (were someone's knuckles rapped?). > > Two options: (i) local councillors and the Cabinet > Member / Council Leader were aware of officers > trying to progress this before the consultation > exercise completed and comments were considered > (seems like bad faith to me); or (ii) the local > councillors and /or Cabinet Member/ Council Leader > weren't aware of what the officers were discussing > with TfL - in which case maybe they should be > making some noise and calling them out? > > Link to another recent FoI on TfL website for > completeness - > https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom- > of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI- > 0574-2122, seems Helen Hayes might be starting to > show some interest. Very interesting that they finally want to allow emergency vehicles access to the DV junction. I heard they have had their knuckles rapped about that as well.

Manatee I will pick you up on a couple of things: > You're saying that acting on the results of research represents a conflict of interest. Nor did they arrive > without any form on consultation or implemented > using the Covid pandemic as the "excuse". >Given you seem unaware of what actually happened, I claim you just invented that on the spot because you like the way it sounds.> Trust me - it is you who are unaware of what happened. The measures were all implemented to aid "social distancing". In fact, if you scroll back far enough you will probably find a councillor post claiming just that when the measures were first mooted. >People have been whining about DV and court lane have they not? Gilkes cresent for example provides a parallel route to DV and was closed long ago > Because the council's own numbers suggested 7,000 cars a day used the DV junction - we all flagged our concern when we realised that LTNs don't deliver anything more than single digit % reduction in vehicles and we did the maths and tried to work out where all that traffic was going to travel to. >Also literally not true. One Dulwich is proposing going back to how it was.> Again, if you had been paying attention you would know the history behind that and the fact that one Dulwich and Dulwich Alliance were left with no option as the council did not engage with them or give people any option other than: Change it....but the council did not give any idea what that change would be. Surely, even you would agree that you need to understand what you are voting for? "Change" is a little vague don't you think? And I am not going to go back and forth with you on Spartacus' post - it wasn't my post and, as I said at the time, I didn't agree with them using that analogy. Please stop trying to tar everyone on this forum who doesn't agree with your view on LTNs with the same brush - we have seen that tried before and it is an underhand tactic. If anyone wants to judge for themselves the thread in question starts on page 177.

Ok, here we go..... * Studying traffic for decades, reaching a conclusion and acting on that is biased (if it's not pro car). Academics are never allowed to make use of their knowledge. I presume this is based on our de-positioning of ex-London Cycling Campaign head of policy Rachel Alrdred's "evidence" of success of the LTNs and other various reports on the benefits of LTNs. Do you not think that there is a slight conflict of interest there and that we are right to question the impartialness of the reprots? * Washable chalk pavement drawings are as bad as engine oil in a planter, spraypaint graffiti covering legally binding road signs and other expensive vandalism They are not on the pavement and they are not all chalk. If you wander down Lordship Lane you can see them. The vandalism of the signs in people's gardens just because they don't support the LTNs - you have overlooked that. My message was clear - the idiots on both sides have to stop being idiots. * Lordship lane was a low traffic near pollution free zone before LTNs. Nonsense. That's your interpretation - no-one has ever claimed that. What we are claiming though is that pollution was not as bad as it is now. * ...as was East Dulwich grove See above * Cyclists are to be despised No-one has ever said that. I am a cyclist and don't self-loathe because of it. * Whatever an anti-LTNer's current mood is completely outweighs all data because that's collected by the illuminati lizard men or some other conspirators. It's the pro-LTN supporters who keep talking about conspiracies and us supposedly holding conspiracy theories. What we can say is that the council has made a right pig's ear of the process and this opens them up to criticism and accusations that they are manipulating the process to their advantage. * In fact, no hard data or science counts. Only stories. Preferable angry ones. But not from pro LTN people. Show us some hard data that can't be torn apart. Do you think what the council has shared is hard data - the monitoring sites east of Lordship Lane are missing yet their supporters, and the councillors themselves, are using this to demonstrate that the LTNs are working. * Despite decades of study and observations in practice well known traffic enfineering effects like induced demand and its inverse don't actually exist [en.wikipedia.org]) Please share with us how this is working in Dulwich. * While nudges have a strong track record of failing to ever work, they're going to work this time. Because reasons Not sure what this question is trying to say, it looks like you didn't finish the point. * We ought to go back to the way it was 18 months ago because the massive car growth over the last 40 years which shows no sign of slowing will some how sort itself out if we do nothing No one wants to go back to how it was - we want measures that actually address the problem for everyone - not just make it great for a few but a lot worse for a many more. * More traffic will lead to less pollution No-one has said this. We are concerned about more traffic down fewer roads leading to more pollution on those roads. * Why cut pollution? Just make everyone breathe their fair share. Again, no-one has ever said that. * Whatever we had at the moment before lockdown happened was the peak of fairness and if we ever move a millimetre away from that for any time at all the it's clear we're all rich scum who hate poor people Again, not sure what this question is trying to say. * An LTN which applies to everyone from anywhere going to anywhere is a gated community but a residents permit system which excludes outsiders somehow is not. Lots of non car owning anti-LTNers seem to want residents driving permits. * Quiet, traffic roads with ambulance gates are worse for emergency vehicles than the clogged roads we used to have The DV junction doesn't have an ambulance gate. The increased congestion on the roads outside the LTN area are causing delays to emergency services. * You're not allowed an opinion if you have a car (I don't so I am I guess?) Again, not sure what the point is here. * All old LTN measures are absolutely fine and no one minds them at all. I mean no one stated this, but there are ones dotted about but over very many messages, not a single anti-LTNer has suggested ripping up old road closures to increase traffic. So the message is clear. But the old LTNs to which you refer didn't all arrive at once and close off the major east/west route across Dulwich did they. Nor did they arrive without any form on consultation or implemented using the Covid pandemic as the "excuse". * And my particular top pick because it's so astonishingly offensive that it's actually sickening (why yes I am Jewish) is that the plight of car drivers is just like the Jews in Germany in the 1930s: No-one said this..... Someone made (what I thought and said at the time was) a clumsy, over-to-top analogy about the ideological indoctrination of schoolchildren in 1930s Germany on the back of Southwark council briefing school children on LTNs.

ohthehugemanateeLTN Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What an inspiring, if not slightly myopic, > first > > post that is?.welcome to the forum Manatee! > > > What's myopic about it Rockets? > > Is it myopic to read what the anti-LTN people > write and take them at their word? > > Is it myopic to call out holocaust > trivialisation? > > Or is this more of a case of "the data doesn't > count. Don't listen to science! If you cannot see > it is because you are blind"? > > > > ab29 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I live on LL, the traffic has been much, much > much > > worst after the LTNs were introduced, I do not > own > > the car, I walk pretty much everywhere. Unless > > you've lived on one of the main roads long > enough > > to compare the before and after the LTNs you > > really have no idea what you are talking about. > > > The LTNs were introduced during the pandemic, at a > point where traffic was incredibly low. The > traffic would be higher now than just before, and > moreso because people aren't using public > transport as much due to covid. Even if your > observations are accurate, your conclusions that > LTNs are at fault is not necessarily correct. > > But let's say it is, for sake of argument. Go on, > propose something that will reduce car use. Not > something vague, or impossible. Something real and > concrete. It was very myopic - the usual blinkered pro-LTN narrative that many of us have been dissecting and depositioning for a very long time on here. By all means feel free to join the debate but you claim you have been lurking for a while so you will be well aware that many on the anti- side of the debate have provided their own suggestions for solutions and gone to great lengths to answer many of the questions you have posed. Maybe check back in the thread. Out of interest, and in the interests of balance, is there anything from the pro-LTN that you think is absurd?

What an inspiring, if not slightly myopic, first post that is?.welcome to the forum Manatee!

It always makes me marvel how people line-up like lemmings outside Gails in the village for overpriced bakery products and rude service yet around the corner sits Au Ciel which is far better in every respect.