Rockets

How dare they....how dare they walk to and stand in a road closed for the supposed benefit of "everyone". How dare they momentarily impede the route of cyclists. How dare they force cyclists to have to deviate from their entitled path. The protestors must have forgotten that the junction is for exclusive use of cyclists only and that everyone needs to get out of their way. Honestly......this is really exposing some painful home truths about the myopic attitude of many on the pro-LTN lobby. Rahx3 is no doubt aware that when the "Party in the Square" takes place that the organisers physically barrier some of the gaps between the planters on Calton to protect the pedestrians from cyclists. Maybe the issue at the heart of this is that far more people turned up to this anti-LTN protest than have ever turn up for any of the "Party in the Squares".

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep, a small number of idiots blocking the right > turn for cyclists with their bags and placards. > > ?Open the roads? they say, whilst obstructing > their use for the many families passing through. > 🤦‍♂️ Rahx3 - why do you refer to these people as idiots? Is it because as a pro-LTN supporter you have become so used to your peers name calling anyone who dares to try and have a voice that amplifies a view other than your own that it has become something of a Pavlovian response? These people hardly look like idiots - it looks very much like a group of people who are protesting against the closure and they are providing no more of a blockage than the time Southwark Cyclists/LCC descended en-masse (in an organised group coming from the Lordship Lane area) to celebrate the closure of the junction earlier in the summer and pose for the photo op they organised with Southwark News. Why can't you just respect that these people want to protest?

Metallic - what will happen next is whatever the council wants to happen. They seem hell bent on ignoring and depositioning any opinion or view that differs from their own!

Covid was the catalyst for the increase in active travel not LTNs. As Heartblock says all LTNs have done is shift pollution from one area to another and have been a ludicrous vanity project built upon the back of aggressive lobbying from the cycle lobby. The council appears to be doing everything in their power to create the impression that LTNs have been the magic bullet to solve all the problems. The reason they chose to use the baseline from 2018 rather than the surveys done right before the LTNs went in is so transparent - perhaps they will explain their rationale. Surely the council could finally organise a public meeting for us all to have our say - seems to be no reason why public meetings can't start again now?

Rahx3??your timing is perfect.here?s some data analysis of council numbers?..what do you think of this?..is the increase 231% or just 8%?.? https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/has-cycling-on-calton-avenue-gone-up-by-231 Is the council trying to manipulate the numbers they publish to influence public opinion?.like they did with the 47% increase in traffic at the DV junction during OHS?.looks like they might have dropped another smoking gun at the scene of the crime!

My family walked to Herne Hill station yesterday and we wandered past the Party in the Square (whatever it is called) and this image really brought home to me the madness of these closures. A picture speaks a thousand words and all that....

My you all love a pile-on don't you? Heartblock didn't circulate the tweet from the Labour councillor showing the decline I did. And I referenced TFL in my message but the data is from DfT not TFL so that was my error - the text links to the data the councillor used to source are embedded within the graphic. He has been pushing the cycling in decline message for some time so he must believe the data supports it. I do think it is interesting that a Labour councillor neighbouring one of the areas supposedly benefitting from LTNs is taking such a strong position against them. His tweets are very interesting.

slarti b2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DuncanW Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > So... Dulwich active travel levels are already > super-high, probably couldn't get higher - > they're > > at the maxiimum basically. But also... cycle > journeys had a boom in the first lockdown, and > that has now all but evaporated. > > Might take me a little while to process that. > > Why? Cycling journeys are a very small proportion > of active travel journeys, less than 10% according > to TfL. So a big increase in cycling can lead to > small increase in active travel. And remember 68% of local journeys were already active travel yet only 3% of those were cycling. I know some people don't want to hear this but maybe ploughing huge amounts of money into trying to increase the cycle share of active travel isn't the answer. The obsession with trying to make London the new cycling Amsterdam may well be hugely flawed and a complete white elephant.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Oh and TFL has also published data that cycle > use > > has dropped back across London to almost > > pre-lockdown levels...I imagine quite a few > > bicycles on gumtree soon, not my little two > > wheeled horse though, she travels pre/post > > lockdowns and pandemics, but doesn?t like rain > > 😜 > > Any link to this data? > > And any evidence that making driving easier, > reduces car journeys? There is lot's showing the > opposite. > > I know you've said previously that it's best not > to respond to requests for evidence or to > questions from others, but this is a discussion > forum, so perhaps you'll reconsider? > > Re. walking, if people decide not to make a > journey in their car, many will walk it instead. > LTNs discourage car use, particularly for short > local trips. Rahx3 - this Labour councillor in Hackney has been pointing people to a lot of the data from TFL showing that there was a cycle boom in the first lockdown that has now all but evaporated. It is certainly noticeable around Dulwich how fewer cyclists there are (of course, school holidays will impact that but still we aren't even in winter yet). The figures show that even with good weather this summer cycling numbers have dropped significantly/hugely since the first lockdown. And it seems this trend is being seen nationally too. https://twitter.com/SingleFilePlz/status/1426861705586380804/photo/1 Unfortunately modal shift to cycling seems to have been a temporary blip that was unsustainable but many of people did predict this. The cycling revolution just doesn't appear to be happening - maybe the council and supporters of LTNs will go back to the drawing boards to work out why.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even if councillors have spoken to businesses it > doesn't mean that the quality of the exchange is > any use at all. I doubt it was. > > By the way. Be prepared for the great "we are not > going to change anything except for allowing > emergency vehicles through the closed junction" > announcement. It's getting ugly now....

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Much more pressure needs to be put on the schools > - state and private - whose huge number of pupils > means that there are above average road trips in > this 2 or 3 square mile area. Nobody can deny that > traffic is always less dense by at least 10 > percent (I am being conservative) during school > holidays. Why not demand that the schools do more > to effect positive change, such as more perks for > staff and or parents who don't drive there and > back? Crude but effective, even if it means some > will feel "disempowered" or victimised or some > such... Nigello - spot on. But unfortunately such a sensible approach doesn't lead to more funding for cycle projects so the cycle lobby won't get behind it.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are right to point out that these LTNs were > implemented under the pretence that they would > help social distancing (even though you claim all > the shops were closed anyway) > > That was part of the reason although it was more > relevant to the pavement widening schemes. > > LTNs were put in to prevent or mitigate the risk > of a car-led recovery. The fear being that lots of > people who used to travel on P/T would be afraid > to do so because of crowded conditions and would > instead make the journey by car which would lead > to a vast and unmanageable increase in traffic > everywhere. > > > but now that we are out of the other side there > is no longer any global pandemic justification for > keeping them > > There's still the minor problem of a global > climate catastrophe. You know, that thing caused > by burning fossil fuels. Err, Ex- pavement widening....where exactly did that go in? The council were slow to put any sort of widening in place on Lordship Lane....it took them months to widen the pavement outside Moxons....their focus was solely on cycling and measures to support the cycle lobby....they were caught sleeping at the wheel in terms of helping pedestrians on Lordship Lane..... Also, it was clear that the council, and the councillors, were saying the LTNs were being driven by the need for social distancing....correct me if I am wrong by Cllr McAsh started a thread on the very subject of the Melbourne Grove LTN measures as a social distancing tool during the first lockdown.....and it is increasingly clear that was just a Trojan horse used by the council to get the measures in.

It is increasingly delusional to also suggest that cycling is the solution to London's congestion problems. The big issue is, of course, that the council has wedded themselves to the cycling solves all issues narrative and has so jumped on the boat that they have wasted huge amounts of tax payers money into schemes that totally failed to deliver.... ... but they keep telling us to wait for them to bed in when all the data shows cycling (despite the money put into it) is at its lowest for a long time in London.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >Good public transport is the answer and waiting > longer for the miracle of evaporation is like > wishing for unicorns. > > The 37 and P4 will never be good as long as so > many cars are in their way. Reducing the number of > private cars and vans is a precondition for > improving public transport. There will never be an > effortless shift for drivers from their private > cars to public transport Oh my......

Duncan - not sure anyone has said it but beyond the LTNs what else has the council done in the last 18 months? I think they managed to install a couple of cycle hangars....that's it...nothing else. Neighbouring councils have put Southwark to shame with some of the segregated cycle lanes that have been put in in Bromley and Croydon.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope it's everyone looking at their lives and > making this more sustainable, including cutting > down unnecessary journeys, purchases, deliveries > etc. Relying on the commercialisation of electric > vehicles, or rocketing into near space, is putting > your head in the sand. Sadly our world doesn't > work like this. But it looks like Dulwich residents were already making the right decisions in terms of active travel - so why punish them by implementing measures that are impacting them negatively? It makes absolutely no sense. We hear about nudge theory initiatives but Dulwich didn't need a nudge - we didn't need a stick we needed a carrot - more cycling infrastructure and storage, better transport links - all of which the authorities have resolutely failed to deliver on. LTNs were a flawed, blinkered and ludicrous idea that were destined to fail and were probably implemented as the council had zero other ideas and had been lobbied hard by groups like LCC convincing them that they were going to be the magic bullet.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Those against: Journeys are longer because of LTNS > - people who drive less than a mile now have to > drive further. > Those for: Why are they driving less than a mile? > Those against: Because they are disabled. > Those for: What about mobility scooters? Is a > single occupancy car the best way to do a short > journey in climate emergency? > Those against: Not ALL drivers are disabled - some > are working parents or key workers getting to > work. > Those for: Well *some* of those people are > abled-bodied and could walk / cycle / use public > transport. They are more likely to switch to > sustainable transport if the safe routes are there > for them to do so. > Those against: ??? Those against: But 68% of local journeys were already done as active travel Those for: Not enough of that active travel was cycling.

I think the council misjudged the sentiment amongst those living within the LTNs. They probably thought they would be supportive of the measures but a large number of people I know and have spoken to within the LTNs are concerned about the impact the closures are having on those living outside of them.

Rahx3 - do you have anything to support the notion that LTNs reduce the number of cars? I am not aware of any substantive data that shows that - didn't the Waltham Forest LTN actually see an increase in car ownership within the LTN? Yes, LTNs reduce traffic within the LTNs but they do not reduce traffic outside of the LTNs - in fact, due to increased congestion they could well be increasing pollution as a whole. It is interesting we have seen no pollution data from the council in July as they promised. Moving the pollution from one part of Dulwich to another part of Dulwich is not the solution. ULEZ is a great initiative and will have a far more positive impact than closing a few roads and forcing traffic onto fewer roads and thus increasing congestion. Also, you say that ULEZ will lead to reduction in some car ownership - it will but don't lose focus on what the ULEZ is aiming to do - it's not just cars it's all vehicles as many of the problems are high polluting commercial vehicles.

Ex- what you and the rest of the pro-LTN lobby fail to acknowledge, perhaps deliberately, and the point many of us have been making since the outset of this disastrous programme, is that there isn't an LTN that has delivered anything more than minimal permanent modal shift. And so those people who have to make car journeys get forced down fewer roads thereby increasing congestion and pollution for those who have to live, work or be educated on them. The "any modal shift is worth it" narrative is so blinkered and self-centered that it becomes laughable. So does the...it takes time to bed in nonsense we hear all the time....how long are people supposed to give them to actually deliver on what was promised..5, 10, 15 years - I thought by then it's too late? I just came back from London in a cab and the drivers father lives just off the Essex Road in Islington and he said his dad was having to live with awful levels of increased pollution so others in the area could live with less. Yet another council forcing the same issues on groups of people who live outside the LTNs. I just don't understand how these measures ever saw the light of day - they were flawed from the beginning and instigated by supposed experts who we should now be asking if they are fit for the job. If us mere mortals could work out what was going to happen why the hell couldn't they? The council, and others, have wasted 18 months doggedly pursuing a flawed policy that is failing to deliver on its objectives (no matter how much the council and supporters try to position it and dress it up). In years to come I suspect people will look back on this and write papers on..."the great LTN scandal - it did the opposite of what was intended - what the hell were the council and the lobbyists thinking?"

Penguin - you make some very valid points - part of the issue as well is that people are getting bigger (taller) and so cars are too. Compare the original mini to the modern mini. Also, as you rightly point out bigger cars are favoured by people with families - car seats and their attachments are about as wide as the original mini!! But the reaction on here when someone admits they use a 4WD or SUV (P.S. there are plenty of 4WD that aren't SUVs) is so depressingly predictable...... But, the fact remains, that calling people out or referring to people having a Chelsea Tractor doesn't seem to have done anything to diminish their appeal. In the US I am not surprised SUVs are killing more people because a Ford F150 or Cadillac Escalade are beyond ludicrously and unnecessarily big and if one of those hits you you don't stand a chance because of the height of the engine grill. They make Range Rovers look small. Bottom line is that we need to do as much as possible to protect all road users and reduce the amount of accidents and injuries. I sadly read that another cyclist died in London yesterday after an accident with a lorry - every death or injury is one too many.

Didn't we get a wave of, ahem, opinionated newcomers to the forum this time last year who expressed their views on the Dawson's Hill evening frivolities? This is becoming something of an annual event - it must indeed be something to do with the time of year.....at least these ones seem to be able to string a sentence together, something last year's influx seemed to struggle with!

Unfortunately there seems to have been a plethora of people registering for the forum in the last couple of weeks who seem to be here just to antagonise and be unpleasant. Strangely, a lot of them seem to have animal based names!

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think Southwark is withholding data 'for > East Dulwich Grove' given it hasn't released any > further data at all. > > I wasn't clear at the meetings I went to that an > exact date was given for the pollution data, but > it would be helpful to see it along with the > further traffic volume data that was discussed. Does anyone know why all the data wasn't released at the same time? There have been, for example, monitoring strips on Underhill Road for a very long time now.

Manatee - you are sharing data that doesn't back-up your claims, in fact it validates my points not yours..... You claim that car ownership has gone up in Southwark (which it has year on year) but you will probably not have noticed the caveat put into the dataset: Significant changes in the number of vehicles from year to year can often occur when companies with a large number of vehicles change their registered address. Look at the figures - the overall trend in Southwark is down not up over the last 10 years and down significantly from the peak in 2004. And one final question - how do LTNs solve the problem caused by delivery vans and PHVs exactly or what further action do you suggest to combat that problem? P.S. I am afraid it wasn't me that reported you and no, I won't indulge you in your attempt to get the thread lounged! ;-)