Rockets

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People who live round here just beginning to > realize they will be fined ?130 if they drive > through resrictions on Townley, DV, Burbage or > Turney... I wonder how many of the 47,000 drivers who got a fine in Lewisham in the space of a month or so driving through LTNs were local residents who were caught out just driving home. Going to be a lot of disgruntled people very soon....did Lewisham categorise the 47,000 as a small, vocal minority perhaps....;-)

All the school streets are very welcome.

Which of course was highlighted to the councillors by many on this forum at the time that these closures were mooted well before Covid - funny how so many of us could see it but the councillors couldn't.....

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is possible to be pro-cycling, a cyclists, a > green campaigner and be against the pollution and > increased traffic caused by poorly planned > LTNs....there are complexities that have not been > addressed by Southwark?s intransigence, either due > to abject wilfulness or just plain stupidity. Completely agree, I think most of us are annoyed by the way the council has implemented this and the fact their measures are delivering the exact opposite of what they intended yet they will not admit the mistake they have made and are trying to ignore and deposition anyone who doesn't dare agree with their view.

It is incredibly complex. Much of the criticism I have of the pro-closure lobby is that they start from a position of "well everyone can cycle so why don't they". I consider my family to be very lucky that we have a nice house with a small garden and we fully appreciate that not everyone is as lucky as we are. At the weekend we went for a family cycle and I spent 45 minutes levering myself and various kids bikes into various yoga-like positions to get the bikes out of the garden, up the stairs into our kitchen and through our house to get out (we, like a lot of people do not have a side-return). We had a lovely cycle through Dulwich Village and whilst on this cycle it occurred to me that much of the pro-closure noise is coming from people who live in the biggest houses in the area, who have side returns or bike storage boxes in their front-gardens, many of whom can spend ?6,000 on a family cargo bike to transport the kids to school each day. This is just not the reality of most people's lives. Dulwich is an outlier - it is not at all reflective of life in London and many of the bike lobby forget that not everyone lives the privileged existence many of them do. Yet they speak as if everyone can go and jump on a bike. Cycling remains dominated by white, middle-class men and whilst efforts are being made to make it much more inclusive I can't help but think that moving it out of the middle-class demographic is going to be the biggest challenge of all as so much about cycling is about accessibility - i.e. your ability to store your own bikes. The large majority of people do not have that option. At the beginning of the last lockdown all of the residents on our street registered to try and get one of those bike rack things but we hear the council won't be installing anymore and there are years of waiting lists for the others - so at a time when the council is telling people don't use your cars - they are doing little to help people to make the transition. Yes they are closing roads but what happens if only 1% of the population in the area are able to store bikes - it doesn't solve the problem it makes it worse. I see a lot of #modalshift pictures from the pro-closure lobby but they are of predominantly white middle class families pottering around some of the poshest streets in London - there was one last week of two families on electric cargo bikes and I looked online and was completely shocked at how expensive they are - (you won't get much change from ?5000 for the most basic one). And this is where it is complicated and where the pro-closure lobby do nothing to help their cause as they fail to acknowledge the challenges most people face in making a shift to other means of transport. Ironically these lockdowns do more to get people out on their bikes than any road closures - the reason, because people are living their lives in a 2 mile bubble from their house - they are not having to go to work etc. But, as we have seen in a normal world people's bubbles are much wider than that and the moment lockdown ends people start venturing further afield and can't do those journeys on bike or foot.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "despite what the council and pro-closure lobby > would like people to believe it is now a majority > of people who object to what the council is > doing" > > source please? and don't say Donald Trump Let's start with the e-petition - currently 2778 who have signed the petition to remove the closures and 54 who have signed the petition to keep the closures. Now, of course, that isn't scientific and the pro-closure lobby will accuse the 2778 of having been swelled by the mass ranks of the Daily Mail reading cab drivers! It was interesting because at the time it was set-up I was aware of a lot of local What's App groups that were alerting people to it and a lot of people on my street were aware of it and passing it on via their own What's App groups and word of mouth. Of course, there are no postcodes associated with the council e-petitions (a failing of the council not the person who set it up). Of course One Dulwich has been collecting postcodes of those people who have registered with them. They have 1700 registered supporters here https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters and they plot where the people are from. It's pretty compelling. I also hear lots of people talking negatively about the closures from across all 4 corners of Dulwich. Once again, not scientific but, as someone who has been discussing CPZs and OHS for some time I can assure you many more people are discussing these closures. Why? Because it impacts people directly. Most people in Dulwich own a car (somewhere between 70%-80% depending on which part of Dulwich you live in) and anyone who has a car will be impacted in some way by these closures. Also, you only have to shop on Lordship Lane to realise how detrimental these closures are being on traffic across the area. So, I am pretty confident it is a majority and I think it will get even higher once the cameras go in next week as more and more people fall victim to the timed closures. Remember nearly 50,000 people fell foul of the Lewisham LTN cameras in the first month or so. Finally, look at the numbers of people across London who are fighting these closures. Thousands of people have been on marches across London - there are groups in every borough fighting these closures and fighting the councils who are doing it. I very much suspect this is organic - if not it is the best organised guerrilla protest organisation ever! ;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is plenty of evidence of pro car groups > campaigning against local initiatives from outside > the area. I'm sure there is probably the same > thing happening on the other side too (those in > favour of low traffic neighbourhoods). The council > should assess the reality and do what in their > judgement is best for the area. I am pretty > suspicious of online petitions tbh as you can find > one arguing for almost any position nowadays and > it shouldn't be about how shout loudest. I am not sure the council will be too keen to engage with the wider community on this as they know which way the dialogue will likely go. Remember, many of them have admitted they are getting a lot of emails about it and the majority of those are voicing negative sentiment towards the closures.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've never been fined for anything (except > jaywalking on my second day in an Australian city > - I had no idea there was such a thing)! I am so > boring. But for the record I don't think that has > any relevance to my views on the current council's > failure to provide adequate /accurate data, > consult fairly and properly (and possibly as > required by law), provide a sufficient level of > transparency/ attempt to engage with all members > of its constituency on a fair and equal basis, or > respond to criticisms that it is failing to meet > its own stated criteria for the implementation of > its LTN policy. > > These issues are bigger than the question of > whether or not LTNs are a good thing: if the > council acts in this way on this particular issue, > there's every chance they are acting the same way > on other issues. Once you start scouting around > the recesses of the council website you find all > manner of things that never see any degree of > public scrutiny. So it's potentially a problem > for us all at some point. > > And yes, it is true that we all have the ability > to make ourselves engage more (I am trying to do > that): but from my experience that requires a LOT > of time, effort, lateral thought in terms of > trying to find information - and it's not > reasonable to expect everyone to do this, many > people don't have the time/ resources (in terms of > internet etc access) or skills. > > And breathe. Indeed and the silver-lining to this issue is that people are going to now scrutinise everything the council does. They got away with it during the CPZ debacle and have now, by their actions, alerted a lot more people to how they behave, how they manipulate and gerrymander things their way. There is no hiding place for them now - they can't bury things or rely on people not caring. This will force them to have to be more accountable to their constituents. In the longrun I think they have just made their lives a lot worse for themselves and they may be regretting fast-tracking these closures through in such an amateurish way - remember how they tried to pin this on social distancing in the first weeks of lockdown - they have been treating the electorate with contempt for way too long.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh dear, time to blame the cyclists. It's a bit > like being in the playground. > > I've been fined for everything, speeding, jumping > a light, being a few microns in a bus lane, > cycling, wearing a loud shirt in a built-up area > (google that). Some fully deserved, others a bit > over the top, and a few times told off and told > not to do it again. > > There is a whole argument about proportionality - > sometimes I fully deserved it, other times it felt > unnecessary and over the top. I am far more > annoyed at inconsistency where there are some > drivers who flout the law all the time, where as > other's who are nice law abiding citizens get > alienated for a minor transgression. > > But I'd happily have average speed cameras > everywhere, it would transform our whole attitude > to speed. As coppers who let me off years ago > racing from traffic lights on a motorbike said (it > was brief bit of acceleration) - if you want to > ride like that go onto the motorway (or race > track, or go cart track, or get a road or mountain > bike or other ways to get the adrenaline rush). > > Anyway I thought that local authorities were > supposed to issue a warning first, rather than go > straight to a fine, for LTN transgressions. I > wont find out as I wont be driving in these areas, > but enjoying the peace when I cycle, particularly > on Court Lane. > > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I would agree with that on condition that they > also insisted cyclists were registered and > licensed so they could be penalised for all the > red light jumping and pavement cycling they do. > > > PS as well as being unworkable what a bureaucratic > nightmare licensing push bikes and their owners > would be. Oh, wait a second, did I hear Farage is > proposing this? I don't think anyone is blaming cyclists - we all acknowledge that more has to be done to protect cyclists and also encourage people to cycle but the cycle lobby groups and the way they are used as a trojan horse by councils to help force these changes through create resentment. Also, many of the pro-cycle lobby are not pragmatists and view cars, and their drivers, as the enemy and treat them as such. Time and time again we have seen the usual suspects come on here and tell us everything is now being righted in the world by liberating roads from cars. If only the lobby groups and hardcore activists could take a more collegiate and collaborative approach we might actually get somewhere and see some progress. Look at the nonsense of the cycle lane wands at the junction of DV and EDG - there are some on here who can't, or won't, acknowledge that it is causing a problem. As long as they can get into the cycle box without impediment then damn the consequences for anyone else. It's that selfish and blinkered attitude that gives cyclists a bad rap - and I speak as a cyclist from a family of cyclists who loves cycling.

I think they would love to but, from what I understand, they are not allowed to. So they have to fritter a lot of money every year on road projects like the recent replacement of paving stones around many of the roads in East Dulwich - which when the councils are complaining about not having enough money from government for other more important needs seems utterly ludicrous. Just look at the volume of LTN fines Lewisham has issued to raise that ?3.1m in a couple of months - they say they have issued 8,248 warning notices and 46,917 penalty charge notices. 47,000 PCNs from 4 streets - that is utterly ludicrous and I bet you the large majority of those people are local residents - it is shameful. Residents in Lewisham can no doubt look forward to nice new paving slabs on the basis of the ?3.1m. We also have this to look forward to as I suspect a lot of people will fall foul of the timed closures going in next week. Good luck everyone!

Are the enforcement officers council employees or working for a 3rd party?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Rockets, > I did chair Southwark Cyclists 20 years ago. But I > do cycle, walk, car, public transport locally. > > I would genuinely like to understand the 2,500+ > petition against the local LTN's. If those are > genuine local residents then it needs to be looked > at again. > > Equally, if the LTN is going to stay then we need > to make it work better and get people tempted to > shop in those Melbourne Grove shops. Perhaps a new > street market at the Grove Vale end. James, despite what the council and pro-closure lobby would like people to believe it is now a majority of people who object to what the council is doing. Those pro-closure groups suggest that because there are no postcodes added on Southwark e-petitions then the 2,700 names cannot be trusted, making the suggestion that it had been infiltrated by ?outsiders?. The irony is, of course, that many of the cycling and pro-closure lobby groups have been encouraging members to leave comments on Commonspace Southwark websites etc and it is the council that doesn?t insist on postcodes for their e-petition website. The pro-lobby also tends to overlook the 1,700 members OneDulwich has gathered - and they do have their postcodes and plots the distribution on their website. It is clear a lot of people across Dulwich do not like what is happening. In your experience how do we get the council to look at them? The council seems to be doing everything at the moment to avoid any discussion with the wider Dulwich community about these closures.

Ah but it doesn?t reduce your council tax....it can only be reinvested in road infrastructure! ;-)

We have to hope candidates emerge for the next council elections who will stand to represent the majority of residents. Maybe then the council might finally drop the narrative that opposition is coming from a small vocal minority! This council desperately needs some opposition and some councillors who will hold them accountable. At the moment it's a bit like meetings of the Politburo.

Going to be good business for the council when it all starts on Nov 17th. Lewisham made 3.1m from the LTN camera controlled closures in the first couple of months in Lee Green. A lot of people will be getting some very unpleasant lockdown mail from Southwark council in the coming weeks!

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The irony is, though, that most of the residents > of DV that you speak to are equally unhappy about > the situation. I'm actually starting to come away > from the view that this is being driven by the DV > ward councillors as a vanity project - they may > however have been willing to turn a blind eye to > the deficiencies in process in an effort to > satisfy some of their more vocal constituents. I > think maybe it's more driven by the "coalition" of > interests referred to at healthystreetsscorecard > above (sustrans, london/southwark cyclists/ > mumsforlungs/ livingstreets et al with Rachel > Aldred advising them, coupled with a highly > inadequate (some might think deliberately) > consultation process, designed to effect a bigger > cyclist/ climate emergency agenda before the > ordinary person in the street realises what is > happening. > > And that's not to say that such an agenda is not > well-meaning/ well founded / well-justified. But > the plan seems to be to impose it on a kind of > "means justify the ends" basis. And that's where > I have a problem. I'm wondering where the > "opposition" Lib Dem councillors sit in all this, > given the "Dem" part stands for democracy.... > > > > dulwichfolk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I just wonder how the councillors of wards > outside > > of DV are happy to accept all the pollution and > > cars that these measures will bring. > > > > We might as well have a big tip in the middle > of > > lordship lane for the DV resident to throw any > of > > their excess rubbish in, and they might as well > > make some the parking spaces available to DV > > residents only. Why stop there how about a > speedy > > bus service which cuts out all the inconvenient > > stops outside of DV. > > > > Makes you wonder why some people take up the > > position in the first place and how the > transport > > planners if they have any say are happy to go > > along with this form of social inequality. Therein lies part of the problem - there is no opposition. It is a one-party state and the council have abused that position over the years. Unfortunately, one of the ex-Lib Dem councillors for the area (James Barber) is, or has been, a senior figure in Southwark Cyclists so you won't find much support for the majority view of the world from him in this debate!

I am not sure such a thing even exists at the council! ;-) Each of the councillors seems to be working autonomously of the other focussing on keeping their own ward happy no matter what the impact is for everyone else. It was amazing that the councillors on the recent Environmental webcast didn't seem to know that the emergency services don't like planters and want removable bollards yet this had been published some time ago on the Peckham Rye Phase 4 (I think) recommendation documents, which subsequently got scrapped. Seems like there is no overall planning or oversight from anyone in the council, each councillor pursuing their own local vanity project to appease a handful of pro-closure and cycle lobbyists.

I think it is clear the long term plan is this. Put the timed closures in. Residents complain. Council offers them permits if they agree to a CPZ.

I thought the council was pretty much furloughed during the first lockdown. I think what you are exposing here is how the council has been playing the system, talking to the lobbyists only and railroading things through without any sort of proper consultation. What is happening now, due to the great work people like you are doing, is that more people are getting engaged which will force the council to be more accountable and transparent. They have been getting away with murder for years. If nothing else this will level the playing field a little and they may find that getting stuff done without broad agreement will become more difficult. They have made this bed and now they have to lie in it.

Ex- it is bad. Here is a segment from Southwarks own report from April 2018.... https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf Some very telling info in that report...worth a read.... PTAL is a measure of accessibility used by TfL based on distance and frequency of public transport. The areas with a high level of public transport accessibility usually score 5, 6a or 6b on the PTAL scale, whilst areas with very low levels of public transport accessibility will score 0, 1a or 1b. The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich. Additionally it is interesting that the report you highlight on the increase in miles in Southwark, which I know is flavour of the month for the pro-closure lobby across London right now, but that report does actually show that the Miles peak was in 1999 (438m) and has been declining significantly until a few years ago it looks like it had declined by about 25% until 2013 (338m) and is now back up to 384m - is there any other data to support any conclusions as to why it is increasing - people seem to be happy to throw the stat around but there must be some rational behind it? Could this be around the time home deliveries became popularised?

Yes good point, only emergency, refuse vehicle, taxis and bikes will be allowed through. No resident permits will be issued so residents will be prevented from using the gates too. Apparently the council said residents can only get permits when tied to a CPZ! At a time more people are having to use home deliveries due to lockdown you have to wonder how popular this will be.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > maybe it's linked to the Townley Road thing in > some way...eg no through route to East Dulwich > Grove? > > (to stop lots of traffic going to the end of > woodwarde/ calton and then realising it can't get > through?) > > ps and now I have "Road to Nowhere" on repeat in > my brain.... Talking Heads, takes me back to the > mid 80s... It's facing towards Grove Tavern so well past Townley and communicating to traffic heading out of Dulwich towards the A205. Unless it is telling people the A205 has no through route to Dulwich Village during those hours. It's brand new as still covered in plastic before the great unveiling!

Anyone noticed the new red sign that has appeared on Lordship Lane southbound near the junction of Court Lane. It is covered with plastic but what I could see refers to No Through Route on Mon to Fri 8 until and the rest is obscured. Does anyone know what this is for or are the planters coming out at the Court Lane/DV junction and cameras going in? I wondered if it was for Eynella but the sign is facing the wrong way for that.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These wands are exactly where they are needed, by > allowing cyclists to get safely to the advance > start zone. I cycle this way very regularly and > approx 60% of the time I couldn't get to the > advance start zone as the cycle lane was blocked > by cars. > > From what I can see, approx 70/80% of the road > width here is still allowed for cars. But they are causing increased congestion aren't they as no-one can proceed forward until the right filter has cleared? Or is it that in your view that doesn't matter as long as you can get into the bike box more easily?

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The 'even now' is confusing in this post like > even now there are wands on that bit of cycle lane > the cyclists still go to the ASL. > > That tiny cycle lane is to allow access to the > ASL. With a few exceptions (eg the one in Dulwich > Village by the school) thats how ASLs are designed > - there is a tiny cycle lane leading in. See ED > Grove at Townley Road or Red Post Hill going south > into Dulwich Village! Its not the case that > cyclists would use one or the other! > > Also Rockets: > > "I am in favour of segregated cycle barriers where > they make sense - and I talk as someone who is a > cyclist and has done long commutes across London > on a daily basis. It makes no sense having cycle > barrier for that short section of road - unless, > of course, they are purposefully designed to > throttle traffic flow through the junction. I do > wonder whether the council got wind that the > cameras weren't going to go in at the DV > roundabout so decided to create a bottleneck" > assume this particular conspiracy theory has been > dropped now? Maybe when the Dulwich Village > restrictions go in the cycle lane wands on the > north side won't be an issue then! > > > > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > redpost Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > There was a cycle lane before the barriers > were > > > put in, however being frequently blocked by > > > drivers selfishness so it was necessary to > put > > a > > > barrier in. > > > > > > > > > n dulwich northerner Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > march46 Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > Interesting how you blame the council, > when > > > > there > > > > > was always traffic there > > > > > > > > Of course, and because their attempts to > > > improve > > > > things have been misconceived. While the N > > > Dulwich > > > > traffic lights' new right filter may have > > > > mitigated the tailback the council caused > by > > > the > > > > Calton/Court Lane closure, they coupled the > > > filter > > > > with limiting the left lane to cyclists > (see > > > any > > > > in the photos?) which means that vehicles > > > heading > > > > for Village Way or Red Post Hill are stuck > in > > > the > > > > tailback. > > > > There has always been a cyclist area at the > front > > of the lights too. Most make their way to it, > > even now. I yesterday watched three do this > while > > I was waiting to cross east Dulwich Grove. But they are causing more congestion aren't they - go on admit it...we all know you want to!!!!! ;-) Just utter those three simple words..."yes I agree"....;-) Yes, you are right they do become a bit of a moot point if the timed closures restrict traffic significantly during the hours of operation but, of course, the timed closures are not all day or at weekends. So maybe we can revisit this conversation once the timed closures come in and we will see what the congestion is like. Maybe we can have a little wager on it - I reckon it will be fine when the cameras are on but more congestion during the times when they are not on and they will actually create more pollution as a result. One hopes the council, ahem, brains have given this due consideration......