Rockets

To which one do you refer - the original OHS consultation from 2017? BTW here are the guidelines on consultations: Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set. It seems the voice only apllies if constituents agree with the council's proposals...if they disagree thays when they claim "this was not a referendum". ...you forgot to mention that the polling was conducted amongst those who live WITHIN an LTN...an important, perhaps deliberate, ommission on your part..

Prior to the LTNs do you have many examples where the results of consultations were not acted upon? Seems to me the council is picking and choosing when they action the feedback from their constituents....... Have you looked at the results from that, if not, tale some time to have a look, its quite enlightening..it seems the majority do not think the changes will have the desired effect....but you know it's not a refendum so the council has chosen to ignore the feedback of constituents. They must be assuming full responsibility for ignoring residents feedback- clearly they think they know what's best for us. If it all goes wrong let's see if they take responsibility! Earl, here's a question for you (and i know you wont answer it but lets see)...why do you think the council has never asked a yes/no question to local residents about anything to do with the LTNs - wether they exist or whether we think the changes they have suggested (using our money) are needed/worthwhile? Or a consultation with a yes/no answer but we all know why. I still laugh that the council had to re-run the CPZ consultation with a yes/no answer and finally had to listen to their constituents...they took a hell of a spanking! They have been cheating the system for years and getting away with it. So does that not apply during consultations then? (P.S before you answer take a look at the definition of a consultation as provided by the Local Government Association).

But you don't think the same protection should be afforded to those on the anti-LTN side...? Given the witch hunt some are be conducting to unearth which local residents are involved (see numerous examples on this forum), given the vandalism of the anti-LTN signs and interference with cars, labelling of anyone who opposes as some sort of petrol-head facist and given even Anna Goodman's tearing down of an anti-LTN poster you still think you only want anonimyity for those on one side of the argument? Does that not seem slightly hypocritical...it's why your first post on this issue entertained so many of us - it seemed ever so one-sided and summed up the challenges anyone who opposes the measures has to fight?

The most recent one did, despite the council making it very difficult for anyone to object (which interestingly they were forced to change for the CPZ consultation and look how that went for them). I will dig out the responses for you when I have more time so you can enlighten yourself. Ha ha...the language used by councils when they see the results of a consultation and need an out to ignore the views of locals...;-) Did you not notice how this only became a thing once the consultation had been run....one wonders why!? Earl you can bluster all you like but you cannot ignore the fact the council closed the junction to emergency services and put lives at risk and resisted all calls (from the emergency services) to open it for them. Surely you can't defend that or are you willingly turning a blind eye to that too? Ha ha, which kind of begs the question then why so many of you get so vexed by One Dulwich? Surely you could compartmentalise their work if the above was true? I suspect it has a lot to do with the accountability that they are forcing and the fact some don't like it.

Because the council responsible for it is far-left.... And you haven't answered whether it is worth diverting emergency vehicles because a few cars drive through the LTN and why some lobby groups have been so desperate to close it to emergency vehicles. Emergency services hate non-permeable junctions as they lengthen response times....f you remember it's why the council had to redesign the DV junction because emergency services kept telling them they needed to be able to drive through it...but the council resisted and resisted until they finally relented because the emergency services said their LTN had increased response times....sorry if the truth gets in the way of a good story but those are facts. The council was putting lives at risk because they refused to open the junction to emergency services. Why? What could have been the motivation for that? So, in fact, it was the emergency services who forced the council (kicking and screaming) to remove the permanent barriers and allow emergency services access. So the council finally opened the junction to emergency services and is now coming back to re-close part of the junction. Why? Perhaps you should be asking who is lobbying the council to close the junction or parts of it or why the council is happy to waste so much of our money on it - who are they representing as even their own consultation demonstrated they did not have support from the local community for the measures? The results showed the majority of local residents were against the measure...but they are going ahead with them anyway. In time, I am sure the truth will come to light and those rewponsbile will be held accountable but you have to admit there is something very unusual going on with that junction - its the very definition of a (very expensive) white elephant.

But you have to assess whether these persistent drivers are creating more safety issues than diverting emergency vehicles on a longer route and clearly they are not. The fact members of the pro-closure lobby have built their argument on this actually shows how desperate, some would say selfish, they are to have the junction closed and just the way they want it. And unfortunately they seem to have the council over a barrel on something as the council weakly concedes to their position without hesitation. Was this not borne from an FOI that said one of the emergency services confirmed that they had not been consulted on the new DV design that Cllr Leeming then said was actually a mistake by the emergency services - and then it's a case of whether you believe Cllr Leeming or not....and his track record is hardly unblemished when it comes to all things LTNs? Exactly! When the "small vocal minority" was given a mouthpiece that proved it was anything other than small then some have repeatedly tried to discredit the mouthpiece. The far-left has never been very good at accountability and One Dulwich is forcing our local councillors and council to be accountable to constituents and it wouldn't surprise me if the council are behind a lot of the depositioning activities as One Dulwich is stopping them from getting CPZs rolled out and must be seen as a huge thorn in the side of the idealogical plan they have. Southwark Labour has a long track record of trying to stifle constituents with a view that differs from theirs (see Cllr Leo Pollack for one example) or depositioning anyone trying to represent them (see Cllr Williams during the infamous Cllr Rose "mansplaining" episode. But you know, some think it's One Dulwich that are the greatest threat to local democracy and should not be trusted! 😉

Ha ha, some people really don't like an opinion that differs to theirs do they! Bravo One Dulwich - you're magnificently rattling the cages of people who don't want to hear a differing opinion and the fact they get so irate about it is the icing on the cake! Some spend so much emotional energy trying to convince themselves One Dulwich is some shadowy, agitator state-funded lobby group when all they are is a group of local residents giving a voice to the majority of residents impacted by the measures.

Malumbu, by that measure are police efforts to cut down on anti-social driving by issuing tickets and fines a token effort as well? Surely punitive measures for cyclists breaking the rules will encourage them not to break the rules again? A bit like when you got stopped and taken into the cab of an HGV. The police are currently using that tactic to show those who break the rules cycling that it might lead them to being hit by a lorry due to the driver's having limited vision - the cycling equivalent of a speed awareness course for drivers. When they stopped you was it because you had broken a rule or was it just more of an education programme and they asked you to take a look and did it change your cycling behaviour in any way? As I said previously there are those who break the rules on cycling out of ignorance (and those out of arrogance) and I am sure they are using HGVs to educate those in the ignorance category and then hitting those in the arrogance category with the PCNs.

They are certainly persistent - they try to sell us it every time we walk up and down Lordship Lane - no matter if you told them no thank you three minutes earlier! Anyone else feel that sense of relief when you walk and see they have someone they are talking (invariably looking like they are trying to get away) allowing you to walk past without becoming their next sale target?

DulvilleRes - that's the best post...honestly - never have I seen more perfect example of the over-riding problem here...was it posted as a joke? The fact that some, who clearly come from the pro-LTN side of the argument, are so vexed by what One Dulwich puts out there shows what a great job One Dulwich are doing to ensure both sides of the argument are heard and that is the very essence of democracy at play - the fact some are trying to demonise them for doing so speaks volumes. Do elements of the Dulwich Society fear that One Dulwich are going to mount a coup and turn Dulwich Village into a multi-storey car park.....or maybe it's more a case that One Dulwich are, in fact (and this will probably vex a few people), a community action group run by local Dulwich residents who are interested in a range of wider issues covered by the Dulwich Society?

The whole defence of "this isn't an issue because drivers cause more harm" is just blinkered nonsense. There is clearly a problem which is why the police are doing what they are in the City and issuing PCNs for offenders - 1,000 is a hell of a number (and another 9,000 being spoken to) if these are being issued by officers standing at junctions - I would love to know how they are doing it do they watch them jump red lights and wave them down further down the road? I did see a cyclist once ride up from Monument onto the pavement and across the lights in front of a police motorcyclist who just shook his head as the bike rode in front of him with the pedestrians crossing and then, once the lights went green, zoomed off to pull the cyclist over. I mean that is just daft by the cyclist! Hopefully the message will start getting across that everyone is supposed to obey the rules of the road.

Cyclists certainly do have a bit of a perception problem at the moment and when I cycle I see a lot of examples of arrogance and ignorance that gives all cyclists a bad name - it does seem that many cyclists have caught the entitlement bug many drivers seem to have.

But Spartacus didn't mention the significant amounts of land being used for car storage - that was most definitely you. And I am afraid when you apply your same measure to other transport uses (like cycleways and cycle lanes - Malumbu is your stat on the 360 kms of cycle network cycleways or cycle lanes?) then it most definitely is relevant for the debate. Should we assume then that if all this ULEZ money and government bailout money is being poured into TFL then the system is, financially at least, broken or is it a case that the money is being mis-spent (like the DV junction project)?

Is Sadiq worried about voter apathy/protest votes? Just got another flyer through the door, it seems to be one every couple of weeks, suggesting the Tories are closer than any opinion poll suggests and that people should not vote for the Lib Dems or Greens.

If it was then that would have required me to have deviated the discussion onto that particular subject but I didn't did I - you did - you started the "land given over to cars" cost narrative within the discussion did you not? Clearly whomever dreamt up the "land given over cars" narrative (remember that wonderful graphic people were posting on the forum?!), was so blinkered that they didn't bother to think it through properly....but hey ho...not the first time we have seen this happen! Clearly ULEZ money is not going back into public transport or maintaining roads and I think that was the point that was being raised - so it does beg the question where the money is being spent. Perhaps it goes to fund projects like the Dulwich Village £1.5m re-design of the re-design of the re-design.....

In London huge swathes of public land have been dedicated to the sole use of cyclists (often to the detriment of other road and pavement users and at a massive cost to the tax payer - the overwhelming majority of whom won't ever use them).

But this is what you said...that has nothing to do with emission standards. You're clearly advocating land use be charged so therefore you must support the same for cycle lanes. That's not whataboutery...that's pointing out the clear flaw in a flawed argument.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/cyclists-fined-city-police-london-bank-junction-b1152140.html It looks like red-light jumping cyclists might become a nice revenue generation opportunity for councils...I wonder how long it is before Southwark catches-on to this missed opportunity!! 😉 I suspect being forced to sit in the cab of an HGV to see how little they can see is a humbling and sobering experience for red-light jumping cyclists and probably sends a very powerful message to them about the dangers of jumping lights.

So, by that measure, I presume you would be happy to charge for use of cycle lanes then?

We saw the flash and heard the bang from ours (never heard anything like it) and I said it sounded like it had landed nearby - glad no-one was hurt!

We have seen this narrative peddled as some sort of issue - can someone explain why some are so fixated on the amount of land for car storage - it seems to be the narrative of those (mainly the bike lobby) who want the space turned over to their chosen use? Surely the true value of car ownership is the flexibility of being able to jump into a car and perform a journey and not be beholden to the limitations of public transport? If it is (and I am not convinced it is) then is the transport system in London fundamentally broken? Given the repeated bail-outs TFL has had to fight central government for and given the increased revenues from ULEZ (and other revenue generation schemes targeting motorists) combined with the continued reduction in public transport is something foundationally broken with the whole system or is it now the mother of all political footballs with both sides happy to give it a good kick?

Bus services have been being cut in London since 2017....22 million miles in fact: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpde37700jjo#:~:text=The data%2C from the DfT's,a reduction of almost 14%. It seems that TFL took Covid as a strategic opportunity to cut things further and they have not returned despite passenger numbers returning. Meanwhile motorists are seen as a revenue raising opportunity by TFL and local councils at a time when public transport is declining...drivers are caught between a rock and a hard place and seem to be the go-to solution if you have a funding gap! One has to wonder where all this revenue is actually going - when I look at the £1.5m Southwark are spending on further updates to the Dulwich Village junction (and I know this is not TFL) I do wonder whether a lot of money is being wasted on ludicrous and utterly unnecessary ideological vanity projects that are championed by a few who have the ear of their local decision-makers. Although I do often wonder whether London doesn't ban them because it would hit champagne-socialist voters the hardest and that may not be a vote winner!! 😉

One Dulwich Campaign Update | 13 Apr Southwark to close Calton Avenue to emergency vehicles…again Emergency vehicles arriving from all over London need access through the Dulwich Village junction, which is the quickest connecting route in the Dulwich area. This was recognised in 2022, when the junction was reopened to the emergency services. Indeed, the design that went out for public consultation in December last year showed Calton Avenue as a ‘cycles and emergency services route’. Now, however, Southwark Council has decided once again to block off this arm of the junction, leaving just Court Lane open to emergency vehicles. This is clearly unworkable. The LAS has previously highlighted the dangers of closing a road at this junction saying that “emergency vehicles will be forced to take long detours around congested and narrow side streets… that could further delay an emergency response” for a “critically ill or injured patient”. The Council says it wants to block off Calton Avenue because a small number of non-emergency vehicles drive through the junction. In our view, this is down to poor signage – a straightforward traffic management issue. The London Ambulance Service (LAS) was pressured into accepting the blockage at a meeting with the Council in February. However, according to a recent FOI, the London Fire Brigade confirmed “we have had no confirmation of this proposal or communications regarding this”. Why is the safety of local residents being put at risk in this way? Please email us at [email protected] if you experience delays from the emergency services, and please continue to send us photos of emergency vehicles doing three-point turns or reversing out of side streets because of 24/7 road closures anywhere in the Dulwich area.

So I guess the £224m raised in 2022 was just a fringe-benefit to the mayor.....who then decided, during the worst cost of living crisis in living memory, to expand it to the outer boroughs as well...how wonderfully socialist! 😉 It's amazing how quickly socialist principles are forgotten when it comes to money and revenue generation..... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65778065

The climate crisis is being used by authorities to generate revenue - it's a convenient excuse/catch-all to help them justify revenue generation plans and, unfortunately, many lap it up and parrot it verbatim - CPZs were probably the last straw for many as they saw through the ludicrous narrative put out by the council that there were brought in to help the climate emergency which is clearly, utterly misleading greenwashing nonsense - but of course some drank the Kool-Aid. ULEZ is a revenue generation tool that may have a minimal (probably unmeasurable) impact on climate change and that is why so many challenged Sadiq on his claims that ULEZ had improved air quality in London after Sadiq and his team clearly tried to mislead Londoners: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68533703