Rockets

And your point is what exactly because it's pretty clear who commissioned the data isn't it - in fact they are quoted as the source of the information in the second paragraph of that article so they aren't exactly trying to hide it? Can you find any information on who paid for the Redfield & Wilton report.......? Because they didn't do it for free....I suspect if you ever manage to find who funded it it would be quite enlightening as to why they came to the conclusions they did.....

Actually here is what really happened. The council had tried, for years, to convince people that the junctions needed closing but they could not get local support for it (it was the OHS programme) The DV junction was an awful junction not because it was a "rat run" as you claim but because it was one of the only East/West routes across the Dulwich area The council did, however, spend lots of money on making changes to the junction that actually (according to their own data) increased congestion and pollution. Covid came The council then used emergency Covid powers given to them to close the junction to "aid social distancing" The council did this because they didn't need to consult and get local support for their closures (which they had failed to do previously) - they used Covid as the Trojan Horse to get their changes through A lot of local people were very angry about this and One Dulwich was born to represent those voices as the council were trying to convince people that only a "small vocal minority" objected to them and were trying to actively drown out any people who dared question their actions. One Dulwich asked people to register their email on their site if they supported their cause - that total currently stands at 2,100 people and they shared the locations of where those people were located to drown out accusations that they were not representing local people https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters The closure made the junction wonderful because no traffic could use it but it displaced the traffic to other routes across the area increasing congestion and pollution for those not lucky enough to live in the closed area. The council then went chasing the displacement by rolling out timed closures and new traffic measures around the new routes people were taking because the shift to cycling they dreamed of never materialised because closures never have the % modal change needed for them to be effective The council had to put a red light filter on the turn from Dulwich Village onto East Dulwich Grove because the traffic was worse than it had ever been through Dulwich Village. The council put in timed closures along many of the displacement routes to try and mitigate the impact of their closure The closures caused huge issues with response times for emergency services but the council, for some reason, ignored the input from the emergency services for over a year - and actively tried to convince people there was no issue. The council prioritised cycle traffic over everything else at the junctions which is causing issues for pedestrians The council already spent huge amounts of tax payers money on that junction at a time when it was pleading poverty and when other parts of the Dulwich transport infrastructure was crying out for investment. They submitted a plan for around £8m that was laughed out of the room They were then forced to consult on the junction and they did not have a mandate from the responses to roll out anymore changes yet they are going ahead anyway The council are doing more than landscaping at a huge cost to the tax payer - attached is the copy of the letter sent to local residents to warn about the disruption which is due to last at least 5 months. Local residents are continuing to question why the council is hell-bent on wasting huge amounts of tax-payers money on that junction - but they are pleased that the council is putting cycle speed calming measures in place (despite the council and their supporters claiming there is no issue with this) Councillettertoresidents.pdf

There isn't any because the anti-LTN lobby didn't pay a company to find the results it wanted......the pro-LTN lobby on the other hand have used this tactic from the get-go and then they get pro-LTN journalists like Carlton Reid or Peter Walker (often giving them "exclusives") to amplify the results because they know they won't ever look at the detail and will just parrot supportive headlines. Activist researchers feeding activist journalists to amplify an activist agenda.

Please don't then post an article by a cycle protagonist using research from a pay to play research house who don't tell you who commissioned the research.....ah.... P.S. Interesting that in said research it also says that Londoners think that cycling should have the lowest priority..one presumes you validate that too? Funny how Carlton Reid didn't pick up on that finding.... When asked which mode of transport should be given the highest priority on London’s streets, 37% say buses should be given the highest priority. 21% believe pedestrians should be given the highest priority, followed by private cars (13%) and cyclists (12%).

...with people who live WITHIN the LTNs....a vital part of the story that you have, perhaps deliberately, left out......

The council ought to get some officers down there like the City of London police did at bank - there are rich pickings there and they're leaving a lot of money on the table! 😉 They could do with some cash as the works that are about to start at that junction, which are going to take 4 months and cause a lot of disruption according to the leaflet that the council dropped through our door warning residents about the disruption, is costing a fortune ion tax-payers money!

Greyhound Cars are very good.

I am surprised he got that many votes!

Well it seems the offer of a duel at dawn from Hen123 (are they any relation of Mr Chicken per chance) was the catalyst for Clean Air for all Dulwich to go stand at the DV junction...and just look what they saw...and filmed....scenes very familiar to anyone who uses that junction...but, you know, anyone who dares suggest there might be a big problem with cyclist behaviour is just a bigot.

Mal, you're back! The self imposed exile didn't last long! Welcome back - we missed you.

Whomever he is/they are - they are doing a fantastic job holding the council to account and shining a bright light on some of the lies the council, councillors and pro-LTN lobby are trying to spin to the wider public. Thank goodness someone is doing it.

The link on the FOI trail and whether emergency services were consulted is very interesting...are the council being economical with the truth..again...or are these a series of unfortunate oversights.....again? https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/blocking-calton-avenue-to-emergency-vehicles-who-knew-what-and-when?ss_source=sscampaigns&ss_campaign_id=6681ad2971bd226a85c91e53&ss_email_id=6681bf7971bd226a85ca451a&ss_campaign_name=Campaign+Update+|+30+June&ss_campaign_sent_date=2024-06-30T20%3A27%3A02Z Blocking Calton Avenue to Emergency Vehicles: who knew what and when 30 Jun One Dulwich has been accused of spreading lies about Southwark’s decision to block Calton Avenue to Emergency Vehicles – who was consulted, how many ES vehicles access the junction, and whether the £1.5m designs are fit for purpose. We stand by our reporting, and reproduce the evidence in the timeline below. 1. When does Southwark decide to block Calton Avenue? 17 January 2024: Southwark Council closes the public consultation on proposed designs for the Dulwich Village junction. At this point, there has been no mention of a plan to close Calton Avenue Southbound to Emergency Services (ES) Vehicles. 7 March 2024: Southwark Council announces it intends to approve the new £1.5m designs for the junction, including plans to introduce a bollard on Calton Avenue to prevent ES vehicles from accessing Calton Avenue “in view of the safety concerns caused by the level of non-compliance at this arm”. There is no mention of this being a trial. There is no public consultation on this new feature. The decision is formally taken on 12 March 2024. 2. Is the London Fire Brigade consulted? 28 March 2024: An FOI response (Ref: FOIA 8524.1) from the London Fire Brigade (LFB) to an FOI submitted to them on 8 March (“Please can you provide any correspondence between the London Fire Brigade and Southwark council asking LFB to participate in the consultation”) says that the LFB “can confirm we have had no confirmation of this proposal or communications regarding this and hold no correspondence”. A further FOI response (Ref: 8524.2) from the LFB on 14 May includes an email dated 9 March from the Borough Commander of the LFB to Southwark saying the LFB has been contacted by concerned residents about the closure of Calton Avenue to Emergency Vehicles and asking if the Council can confirm this is the case. After chasing up this email on 20 March, the Borough Commander receives a reply from a Southwark Officer saying “Apologies, the project manager was supposed to get in touch”, and adding that this was an informal consultation and not the statutory consultation which has yet to start. An FOI response (Ref: 24996313) from Southwark Council on 3 May – broken down into four separate parts, and providing copies of correspondence and meetings between the Council and the Emergency Services – sheds a little more light on this confused picture. It appears that Southwark had invited all three emergency services to a Teams meeting (see Part 4) on 1 February 2024 – that is, after the public consultation had ended – but that the LFB didn’t attend (see Part 1). Afterwards, on 5 February, a Southwark Officer emails all three emergency services (see Part 3) to say that Calton Avenue Southbound will be closed to ES vehicles on a trial basis. After claims are made on X (formerly Twitter) that the LFB had not been consulted about blocking Calton Avenue, Southwark Council asks the LFB to correct their FOI response (see the long thread in Part 2). On 5 April, Cllr Richard Leeming comments on X (formerly Twitter) that he has been “assured by officers that the LFB were consulted, their response to the FOI was inaccurate & will be corrected”. On 9 April, a Southwark Officer advises local councillors that the LFB has indicated it does not intend to comment further. As of today’s date, the London Fire Brigade’s FOI response of 28 March has not been corrected. 3. Is the London Ambulance Service consulted? 9 April 2024: An FOI response (Ref: FOI 6164) from the London Ambulance Service (LAS) to an FOI submitted on 8 March reveals that the LAS attended the Teams meeting with Southwark Council on 1 February (see above), where they raise concerns about the re-introduction of physical closures on Calton Avenue “due to the potential that they could cause delays to emergency vehicles”. The LAS goes on to say that following discussions at the meeting, “it was decided that…the re-introduction of the physical closures would be accepted”. However, the LAS adds that the impact of the closure will be closely monitored and “where necessary the requirement for the road closure would need to be reviewed and if needed would be removed”. It is clear from the concerns expressed and the words used that – having fought so hard for the junction to be reopened to ES vehicles in 2021 – the LAS have reservations about the plan and have agreed to it on a trial basis only. 4. How many Emergency Vehicles use the Dulwich Village junction? 17 April 2024: An FOI response (Ref: 24050749) from Southwark Council to an FOI submitted on 12 April contains a spreadsheet showing how many Emergency Vehicles have used the junction in 2022, 2023 and the first three months of 2024. In 2023, 179 ES vehicles used the junction – an average of 15 a month, and a 39% increase on the number using the junction in 2022. In January 2024, a total of 24 ES vehicles used the junction – the highest number for one month recorded so far. The spreadsheet does not make clear which route ES vehicles most commonly take when exiting the junction but, either way, the numbers do not support Cllr Richard Leeming’s claim on X (formerly Twitter) on 14 March 2024 that “the ES have only exited onto Calton Avenue a handful of times in the last few years”. 5. Are the new designs for the junction fit for purpose? 22 April 2024: An FOI response (Ref: 25058345) from Southwark Council on 22 April gives details of a Swept Path Analysis for the new junction designs. This reveals that ES vehicles will not be able to travel through the junction to and from Court Lane without overhanging or overrunning the footway (i.e. mounting the pavement), which is clearly a hazard for pedestrians. The accompanying set of designs (dated 17 April) highlights the problems. We are waiting to hear Southwark’s response to what appears to be a design fault. 6. Are the Metropolitan Police consulted? 5 June 2024: An FOI response (Ref: 01/FOI/24/036507) from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to an FOI submitted to them on 8 March (“Please can you provide any correspondence between the Met police and Southwark council asking the Met to participate in the consultation”) reveals that this information was not held by the MPS at the time the request was received on 8 March. This confirms that the Police were not consulted before Southwark Council announced their intention on 7 March to install a bollard on Calton Avenue.

I think the council deliberately put them up to confuse as they are not at all accurate - it's almost as if they were trying to dissuade people from turning into the LTN area at all - or I did wonder if it was done to improve their monitoring figures when they had the strips down.

Malumbu, admin has warned you about these diversionary tactics before which led to you being restricted from some threads that were related to East Dulwich and they warned you that if you tried to derail threads you would be banned from more. You can thank me later for drawing your attention to the fact that admin is watching your posts as you may have just saved yourself from a ban with your post-derail put it back on the rails post! 😉 One thing that was interesting was that in the full Inrix report it showed that they estimate the average car commute in London was 7 miles - as someone who regularly cycled 10 miles to work and then 10 miles back I can tell you it is not easy - and maybe those distances shed some light on why the nudge tactics of restricting roadspace for cars are clearly not working as many London commuters cannot switch to other modes to make their journeys. This might also explain why cycling is struggling to break out of low single figure percentages for daily journeys in London compared to other modes.

And you don't know that they weren't. Given the way a lot of cyclists are ignoring the rules of the road it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that some of them were caused by inconsiderate cycling. I grimace on a daily basis when I see some of the stupidity displayed by some cyclists. It's funny isn't it that we hear constantly from pro-cycle lobby about injuries caused by cars there is never any scrutiny of where the fault lies - that ludicrous Dulwich Roads twitter feed constantly tries to apportion blame on drivers without any consideration for what actually caused an accident - it seems they default to the car must be to blame. What we do know is that 26 accidents last year in Southwark were caused by bikes hitting pedestrians - some of whom were seriously injured and the issue I took was with those so blinkered that they do not think we need to address it and those who came on here to desperately try to distract attention away from the issue by throwing in the "yeah, but what about cars". We will never be able to make progress until such time as people acknowledge there is an issue. The Royal Parks were forced to address the problem and I suspect many more will have to follow suit.

Malumbu - your blatant and deliberate diversionary tactics to try and stop discussion on things you don't agree with is getting beyond a joke. Admin - I thought people were being told not to do this? P.S. Malumbu - are you suggesting that Adam Tranter stepping down is a good thing - had he upset you somehow? Returning to the subject in hand the fact that some "laugh" at the story (one can only presume they think it is funny that London is the most congested city in Europe as if it is something to aspire to) and the fact others say it is not interesting very aptly demonstrates the head-in-the-sand and blinkered attitude some have. More congestion means more pollution - and that is bad news for all of us, surely something not to "laugh" at.

Interesting article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz447jl05yno

Just go and stand outside Dulwich Library for 10 minutes tomorrow around school drop or pick up and watch the flying cargo bikes as they cut corners, ignore red lights and fly along the pavements. Then go and walk around Dulwich Square on Sunday for the full kit wally flying down Calton Road stopping for no-one experience....because every ounce of weight is vital and aerodynamics are essential to Sunday hobbyists cyclists it's not only the leg hair that is gone but also the bell so the only warning you get is the sound of a load gear train as they chicane in front of the cheese shop. Let me know how you get on and if you see any bad cycling. And then when you have finished there, get on the train at North Dulwich to London Bridge then walk to Bank. Stand and marvel about how bad the cycling is there (no coincidence that this is where the City of London Police target cyclists with their fines and warnings). In fact go to any road junction in central London and just watch how many cyclists ignore red lights, use pavements to shortcut light phases. For your final treat go and walk around Regents Park and play chicken with the full kit wally peletons hellbent on shaving a nanosecond off their Strava lap time (oh sorry they can't anymore after Strava was encouraged to remove the Regent's Park lap) Or.maybe just watch Barbyonabike's latest video of bad cycling in our area posted just 4 days ago (some great ones of the DV junction around 3.25)....some classics in this installment...the camera never lies... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-VpL34TSY4c&pp=ygUMQmFyYnlvbmFiaWtl

But none of us are having to battle horses using the pavement, being close passed by horses whilst we walk along the pavement or see horses ignoring traffic signals are we? And given 26 people were injured by bikes in Southwark last year alone I can't imagine more people are injured by horses or cows....I think you're clutching a bit with that one.... As someone who spends a lot of time in and around Dulwich (on foot) and in London (on my bike and on foot) I can tell you that my perspective is that there is a growing proportion of cyclists who cycle in a manner that puts themselves and other road users at risk. Cycling does have benefits but it has an increasingly bad reputation because of the behaviour of many cyclists who seem to have a selfishness normally levelled at car drivers. On the day that London rose to the world's third most congested city and other research confirmed that cycling is still under 5% of all daily journeys in London (whilst walking is around 40%) you have to question whether the cycling only focus of so many in TFL and Labour has been misguided.

It is a big section of works with a lot of what looks like fencing being stored (I had wondered if it had something to do with Gala but couldn't work out why it was so far away from the Gala area).

Hen123 you're at it again... You have an incredibly myopic agenda (not quite a one-topic poster but close) and then hurl childish playground abuse when your argument runs aground and flounders. It is an oh so familiar path taken by so many on the pro-cycle/pro-LTN lobby - taking us back to some dearly departed friends like LTNManatee and BooHoo. It's why cyclists have such an awful reputation at the moment and are widely disliked - and some cyclists are tarring the good ones (like me ;-)) with their brush. Some of us do think and care about other road users and don't believe that cycling is the be all and end all and are capable of respecting the rules of the road. Perhaps a few more needs to take leaves out of our books. Clearly injuries to pedestrians caused by cycles is a problem yet you try and have a sensible discussion with people and all they can parrott is: well cars kill and injure more than bikes and then call you a bigot because you dare to take a position that they don't agree with. That is an approach that will not help us get to Vision Zero will it and Vision Zero apllies to all road users - unless cyclists get an exemption and I am sure there are some on here who would lobby for that.

I don't think they do as they are acutely aware of the measures taken against them to police them from doing so. I am laughing at the way some on your side of the argument manipulate the narrative to try and suit their own myopic agenda and then demonise and name call anyone who dares challenge your way of thinking. Which you just did perfectly. Thank you. Keep it up, you're doing your side of the argument the world of good and are showing what a rational, thoughtful and considered bunch of folks you are! 😉 There is a growing problem with inconsiderate and dangerous cycling that is putting pedestrians at risk and those stats on cycle injuries caused by bikes in Southwark is truly shocking and something needs to be done urgently.

So you must agree then that the action taken by the Royal Parks to restrict Strava use as part of attempts to limit the amount of cycle time trialing through the parks is a good thing then? Yes the injury to the pedestrian was caused by the cyclist. Ha ha, are you applying the same "involving" to accidents caused by cars...you can't pick and choose how you categorise things you know.... So are these not cyclists then, perhaps they come under the powered two-wheeler category? Or are you suggesting we should have cyclist subsets to help your narrative to defend your position?

This is actually a lot higher than I would have expected and I think shows there is a serious problem that needs addressing. Given of the 26 that 14 were classed as serious should be a big concern to everyone. You also wonder how many go unreported due to the lack of need for insurance for cyclists. Shocking stats for the head in the sane brigade....extrapolate that across London and it probably shows the extent of the problem.

Malumbu, even for you this is stretching interpretive skills to the absolute limit...how you came to that conclusion is really a complete mystery.