Rockets

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......

Update from OneDulwich tonight. Our councillors tell us that Phase 2 (camera-controlled restrictions on Dulwich Village, Turney Road, Burbage Road and Townley Road) will be going live in the week beginning 16 November. Local residents will be receiving letters alerting them to the changes. The Experimental Traffic Order that closed Calton Avenue and Court Lane to motorised traffic will be reviewed after six months. Formal objections must be lodged with the Council before Christmas. We believe there are good reasons why the Council?s actions can be challenged, and will send out information shortly about how and when to make objections. In the meantime, One Dulwich is working with a network of different groups across Dulwich, all asking the Council to modify the current traffic orders. Please get in touch via our main email hub [email protected] if your group would like to join this initiative. Finally, we now have more than 1700 supporters. Please remember that anyone over 18 can register ? you?re not limited to one per household. The more of us there are, the more we can make our voices heard.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > She was great and has had a Labour Councillor > > wishing her a ?place in hell?. A cult! > > > I missed the parliament thing yesterday but you > can read it on Hansard > https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-11-04/d > ebates/5CA1BC02-327D-4ACC-B499-434E3FBFBEE5/Covid- > 19EmergencyTransportAndTravelMeasuresInLondonBorou > ghs > > I saw the twitter thing - I think the chap is one > of the North London councillors - > https://twitter.com/RupaHuq/status/132401517356533 > 7608. Rupa's twitter account also has some video > extracts from yesterday's hearing. Cllr John Burke doesn't seem to be a very nice human being....but I am enjoying the threads where people are taking apart his recent tweets (that the likes of Cllr Newens and Leeming have been retweeting) about his increase in traffic in London which some are saying is based on estimations when real data showed actual decreases.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...they coupled the filter with limiting the left > lane to cyclists (see any in the photos?) > > Still photos prove nothing (to either side of the > pro / anti LTN argument). > > https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106586987-15 > 92830070587gettyimages-1069298836.jpeg?v=159283030 > 4&w=678&h=381 > > I could repeat that picture above for road, > ferries, airports showing either total congestion > or absolutely empty and none of it would prove > anything either way. > A picture of a traffic jam does not mean LTNs or a > cycle lane are to blame; a picture of an empty > road does not mean no vehicles ever use it. > > There was a short video on Twitter the other day > demonstrating the principle. It started with 4 > seconds of a completely empty cycle lane and then > (as the lights behind where the camera-person was > standing changed), a stream of cyclists passed. A > still shot of either anytime in the first 4 > seconds (empty) or anytime after that (very busy) > would have been incomplete and misleading. > > Part of the reason they installed such visible > counters on Embankment cycle lanes was to show > clearly and obviously, the number of people using > it, even though there were lots of stills > circulating of empty cycle lanes and to get away > from the accusations of biased / made up numbers. > > Edit: sort of agree with the comment above, that > traffic island needs to come out to make the cycle > lane work properly but then the lights need > re-phasing to accommodate a complete walk across > rather than a 2-stage walk where the pedestrian > stops at the island half way so there's pros and > cons (to drivers and pedestrians!) Ex - I very much appreciate your input on this subject as you come from a position of knowledge and your contributions are much more valuable than some of the purple-minion responses we get from some of the pro-closure lobby on here but all across Dulwich traffic is desperately trying to find a way around these closures and is inflicting problems on a much larger percentage of the population than those who are benefiting from them. Anyone who takes a walk through Dulwich can see it. Ask anyone who lives on Underhill Road what it is like now, ask anyone who shops on Lordship Lane, ask anyone who lives on East Dulwich Grove, in fact ask anyone beyond the pro-closure cultists and you will hear that no-one is happy with what is going on. Yet the council repeatedly paints the residents who have concerns as a vocal minority. They refuse to engage in any sort of debate and just push forward with their poorly designed and implemented plans. The DV bike wands are a classic example. To be honest, after watching the council meeting last night it is clear they have not got the first clue how they should be doing this and are just guessing - and we, the residents of Dulwich, are living with the consequences.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No i don't > > rockets - I thought you were in favour of > segregated cycles lanes down EDG? but fromt this I > guess you're only in favour when it doesn't reduce > car road space, which means nothing 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. Your comment that you don't think the new measures are causing more congestion is exactly why so many people get so frustrated with the pro-closure/pro-cycle cult - you can't view the world beyond your own myopic gaze. As long as you are catered for and happy then damn everyone else.

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. Would you not agree that the barriers are now causing more congestion and pollution than there was before?

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People just don't sit in traffic like that if they > could walk or cycle. > > Oh they do! > We did some modelling work years ago on something > similar and the actual inconvenience that an > individual has to be subjected to to force change > is quite incredible. This is part of the reason > that LTNs and other traffic measures take months > to bed in, not just a week or two. > > This has been mentioned before in these threads > but as with most things, there's a series of > reasons, it's never just one. > > For some people, they're in a warm comfy home > entertainment centre on wheels and (especially if > they're not paying fuel due to it being a company > car or work vehicle or they view their car as a > status symbol), they really don't care. Even if > there are quicker ways to get from A to B, they'll > take the car. "need" doesn't come into it. Sitting > in traffic in your Aston Martin is simply an > opportunity to show everybody else that you own an > Aston Martin. > > A surprising minority actually HAVE to drive - > there is no other way they could complete that > particular journey without considerable extra > expense / inconvenience. The problem is that most > people see themselves as being in this category - > there's a related sub-category of people who don't > know any other way. They've grown up being taken > to school / the shops / leisure trips by car and > they just continue that, it's their comfort zone, > what they've always known. They'll find it > inconvenient, they'll moan about traffic but it > takes quite a lot for them to actually think "hang > on, there must be an other way". Usually (not > always), these people are the ones convinced that > everyone else should drive less, thus freeing up > the road for them. > > There are people who WANT to do it by other means > but they're scared (of traffic, usually) and there > are plenty who have to use other options (public > transport or active travel) because they don't own > or have access to a car. Usually, the latter > category have no choice other than to put up with > conditions or not do . > > I'm hoping you knocked on every car window and > asked how long / far their journey is and if they > could use alternative methods but I expect it is > the usual finger in the air scientific conclusion > made on assumptions and lack of local and > realistic baseline data ? > > A little over a third (35 per cent) of all car > trips are shorter than 2 km, just under a third > (32 per > cent) are between 2 and 5km and the remaining > third are longer than 5km. Data from TfL: > http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-tr > avels-by-car-in-london.pdf > > Fairly obviously, not all of those journeys are > people carrying a fridge or a double bass or > returning from the shops with a new 60" TV. > They're not all disabled, they're not all taking 3 > kids to 3 different activities, they're not all > carrying precious cargo that simply could not be > done any other way. At least half of them fit into > the first two categories above - the "don't care > and will drive anyway" and the "I'm convinced I > have to drive". It would be interesting if we could map car usage onto PTAL scores. I suspect those who think they have to drive is driven, in large part, by access to public transportation - which we know is terrible in this part of London. It's why the council's own recommendation was to implement schemes in areas with high PTAL scores - Dulwich does not have high PTAL scores - in fact it has low PTAL scores, which is why lots of people have to drive.