Rockets

Floating barrage balloons to police Low Traffic Airways in the nicer parts of town whilst mile wide A road-flightpaths through the rest? 😉

Can you imagine school drop-off and pick-up times with a bunch of those buzzing around?! The fact this relies on the user to pilot it is the really scary thing. Seen plenty of drones adapted for carrying people but they are autonomous.

Quicker than a car…crikey how fast do they go? I have PTSD from a folding bike I had as a kid that snapped in half when I did a jump! I look at things like this and Bromptons and get the fear which is why I stick to sturdier bikes!

Earl…that isn’t misinformation it comes from the very report the 20% increase (in cycling stages) claim was taken from and regurgitated by many without actually checking the facts. Unless, of course, you are saying that TFL is spreading misinformation….;-) Here are all the reports: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/travel-in-london-reports Then scroll down to the Travel in London 2023 - Active Travel trends (pasted below to make it easy for you to find) and then you’ll find everything I have quoted from page 13…. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-2023-active-travel-trends-acc.pdf And I am actually shocked that, despite all the investment, that growth has been minimal…hardly the 10x growth Will Norman claimed was coming….. Cycling made up 4.5 per cent of trips in London on an average day in 2022, up from 3.6 per cent in 2019.

Earl, I think the 20% increase you refer to is cycling stages rather than trips and is explained in the TFL report here (which is fascinating when you look at the detail...and there is a lot of detail): The relatively higher growth in stages compared to trips suggests that the increase in cycling as part of multi-modal trips (for example, to access public transport or combined with other modes) has increased more than cycling for cycle-all-the-way trips. When looking at cycling trips the growth is more aligned to that of the national picture (a small % increase since pre-pandemic) and the report explains: Cycling made up 4.5 per cent of trips in London on an average day in 2022, up from 3.6 per cent in 2019. I wonder how food delivery cyclists are captured and also given the majority of hire bike journeys are less than one mile is that a stage or a trip? Another interesting chart is the analysis of cycling trips - I was surprised by the drops in many of these.

Someone leaked the report to an "activist" journalist knowing full well they they would "selectively pluck" items to fit their agenda.....and remember large parts of the report were based on data from "activist researcher" Dr Aldred... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/08/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-generally-popular-report-ordered-by-sunak-finds Very much a case of when the headline: Rishi Sunak’s report finds low-traffic neighbourhoods work and are popular ....doesn't get supported by your article: A copy of the report seen by the Guardian said that polling carried out inside four sample LTNs for the DfT found that overall, twice as many local people supported them as opposed them. A review of evidence of their effectiveness said that although formal studies were limited, they did not support the contention of opponents that LTNs simply displaced traffic to other streets rather than easing overall congestion. “The available evidence from the UK indicates that LTNs are effective in achieving outcomes of reducing traffic volumes within their zones while adverse impacts on boundary roads appear to be limited,” it read. The problem is these articles then get reposted by "activist lobby groups" like of Clean Air Dulwich as "proof".....

Ha ha...are you sure...if I remember rightly someone leaked it to Peter Walker at the Guardian and he "selectively plucked" some headlines for his article and as you read the article you realised he was absolutely Peter Walker'ing his coverage with some absolute, bleedingly obvious, pearls like: A copy of the report seen by the Guardian said that polling carried out inside four sample LTNs for the DfT found that overall, twice as many local people supported them as opposed them. The leak to him was about getting some pro-LTN spin on the story before the government put their anti-LTN spin on it! CleanAirDulwich is a bit misleading isn't it as they are actually an anti-car, pro-cycling lobby group who don't actually talk about clean air in Dulwich at all - unless, of course, you think cycling is the cure-all for all pollution problems!? All of their content seems to be weighed very heavily, ahem, to just one form of active travel....

The majority of PM2.5 comes from sources (much naturally occurring) outside of London - I think it is around 50%-60%. Of the PM2.5 created locally about 42% comes from industrial and commercial activities (construction, cooking), about 30% is from road transport and this share is reducing as efforts have been made to clean-up the TFL bus fleets, taxis, diesel vehicles etc and another 20%+ is domestic sources. You will see very little on the CleanAirDulwich timeline on anything other than car use which leads many to believe it is just an anti-car pro-cycle lobby group purporting to be interested in clean air. I must admit when I see them rallying against the school coaches on Townley Road I do wonder what their motivation is - they lobby for people not to use their cars and then lobby against the coaches the pupils turn to instead of cars...kind of beggar's belief really.....some people are, seemingly, never happy.....

....on the roads they live on... I must be missing the posts where they are talking about displacement on East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane etc.... The fact their twitter page carries a disclaimer that they are: "not funded by Southwark Council" speaks volumes...

But by the same measure you can see why some might think the anonymous online lobby group Clean Air Dulwich are a group of rich local residents happy to lobby the council to get their roads closed to traffic at the expense of other Dulwich residents. You sense an agenda on this thread - did your Spidey-senses get tweaked on the thread questioning who is behind One Dulwich and you just didn't bother mentioning it? 😉 What's good for the goose etc... And your statement that you can't get cleaner air without some restrictions on drivers is blinkered nonsense and just shows how some seem to think private car drivers are the sole root-cause of all air pollution - reducing car emissions helps but is not the silver bullet. And if the measures you put in just displace traffic rather than remove it then what's the point - and that's what Clean Air for all Dulwich are trying to make.

That's an incredibly (and somewhat predictably) myopic view Mal. CleanAirForAllDulwich are campaigning against is the injustice of some having to live with more air pollution from displacement caused by the very things the likes of you and CleanAirDulwich lobby for. Sue you are right - as in everyone deserves cleaner air. And Mal, your industrialist analogy is spot on, the council and their supporters (like CAD) are trying to live in areas with lower pollution whilst forcing more pollution onto their neighbours.

This is the chart that the DFT published last week that triggered the Cycling Weekly article. Clearly, nationally, something isn't working and I wonder if the approach taken needs a complete rethink and overhaul as if this is the result of a £2bn investment then clearly it is not delivering any ROI - but isn't a 2% or so increase what has been seen in the City of London (per Carlton Reid's "More bikes than cars in the city now" article) so maybe this is consistent in cities too and 2% increase is all that anywhere has seen?

Interesting editorial piece in Cycling Weekly: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/what-happened-to-the-golden-age-for-cycling-in-the-uk

Doesn't sound too dissimilar to my engagements with the council! Zero chance of a balanced summary in a single place I am afraid - read anything by Peter Walker in the Guardian on the matter, then read anything in the Daily Mail on the matter and plot a course for somewhere between the two and there you shall find the truth!

Well worth signing up to become a "supporter" as they send their updates and often shed light on things the council and their supporters would rather didn't get too much attention! https://www.onedulwich.uk/get-involved

Spot on...and they rant against "anonymous" groups like One Dulwich and then post missives from "anonymous" lobby groups like Clean Air Dulwich without any sense of hypocrisy or irony...

Ok here goes..... Since day 1 of the LTNs the emergency services have been very clear - blocked roads increase response times. Southwark councillors were more than aware of this from the beginning of the LTN debacle during Covid because, when the council were going LTN mad and were trying to carpet bomb them everywhere they had suggested one for Peckham Rye and had initiated a consultation. As usual they took glowing endorsements of their proposal to close parts of Peckham Rye from the cycle lobby but got negative feedback from TFL and the emergency services due to the disruption their physical closure barriers were going to have - the emergency services made their preference clear that they do not like physical barriers. Needless to say Southwark ignored that emergency service input and pushed ahead with their plans only to cancel them when the realised LTNs were turning residents against them. Now the video below (from March 2021) is interesting from a couple of perspectives: 1) Clearly LAS were making their feelings on permanent closures very clear to Southwark - please scroll to 1 hour 4 minutes to hear from them - 51 of the 170 delays caused by LTNs in London were in Southwark - yet it took over a year for emergency vehicles to be given access and, if I remember correctly FOIs showed that LAS had been writing to Dale Foden and the council alerting them to the delays. So why the delay and why is there a constant narrative from local lobby groups that the junction has to be closed to ALL traffic (including emergency vehicles) and why the new designs return to a partial full closure of the junction - most rational and pragmatic people can surely see that the compromise installed in 2022 to allow emergency vehicle access was the most sensible approach. The council put the desires of local lobby groups ahead of the emergency services...which is madness...and then that leads us to point 2).... 2) Notice the presence of Jeremy Leach on the call - not a councillor but the Co-Optee of the council's environmental scrutiny committee and he is constantly pushing the councillors to do more to deal with traffic issues and reduce traffic. I suspect he is deemed one of the "expert" voices the council was turning to for guidance at this period. But, much like the activist researchers the council turned to Jeremy is very much an "activist expert" and was chair of the London Living Streets, co-founder of Action Vision Zero and part of Southwark Cyclists - so you can see why if the council was taking guidance and direction from him how they may have not been making decisions in the public interest. Clearly someone has convinced the council that the junction needs to be closed to all vehicles as there cannot be any other explanation for why they held out for so long (that created increased response times) - remember they are wasting another £1.5m to close one arm of the roads permanently again - honestly if someone wants to enlighten me to a part of this story I am missing then feel free but to me it looks like something very odd has been going on at the DV junction and the council is ignoring the majority and listening to the few... https://lrscconference.org.uk/index.php/agenda-speakers/jeremy-leach-co-founder-action-vision-zero/ No it was 64% of the total who lived in the consultation area - 57% when the council looked at all the respondents to the consultation. 3,162 (64%) wanted it returned to its original state 823 (17%) wanted it retained as was 422 (8%) wanted a different measure installed 564 (11%) wanted the measure, but modify/ enhance it with other features So back then the 11% got their wish! In every consultation in relation to the DV junction there has been overwhelming rejection of the council's plans by local residents - yet they carry-on wasting our money on it regardless - just who are they trying to placate?

We are actually referred to as "Supporters"...2,100 of us across Dulwich...read and weep! 😉 https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters Got it, the one where 64% of respondents in the consultation area said they wanted the measures "returned to their original state". Is that the one you claim had a yes/no response question? Well I suggest you read up on it as it is an important part of the story of utter mismangement by the councils and this is why so many of us can't work out who is pulling the council's strings on this one because surely you can agree that if the emergency services were knocking on your door for months and months telling you the blocks in the roads were delayihg response times and putting lives at risk you'd do something about it? Pretty negligent not to do so don't you think - if I was a councillor it would not sit well with me? Careful it could be a Mrs, Miss or Mx One..... Of course you don't that's because you have strong opinions but hate being asked for detail to.back-up those opinions (especially when it doesn't serve their narrative) and exposes the flaws in your arguments! 😉 As so many of the pro-LTN lobby find to their cost the devil is always in the detail.....

No I don't disagree. I wasn't condoning drivers getting confused and the debate on whether refresher tests should be taken is a long one and is something probably for a Malumbu- thread! I take it you never entered your details as someone agreeing with their sentiment but lots of Dulwich residents did and as part of that you get their email updates. So no, I have nothing to do with tje group beyond one of those two thousand dots on their website as a "member" is me! Now, are you going to answer my questions or pretend you never saw them....p.s. we have seen this tactic before - happy to throw questions but not happy to answer some yourself...

Yes, but as I have said before I have nothing to do with their organisation (other than subscribing to their updates which I then post on here). Sorry to disappoint you. I await your answers....

No idea. Ask One Dulwich No. There are two seperate issues. I believe some cover their plates deliberately (delivery drivers etc) and a number are confused by signage. I spend a lot of time in that area and have only ever seen one car drive through and it was an elderly couple who were incredibly confused (and subsequently very apologetic to an angry cyclist who was calling them all the names under the sun). Some questions for you to answer now: 1) Which consultation are you referring to? 2) Did you agree with the council's insistence on keeping the junction closed to emergency vehicles despite the emergency services telling them it was delaying response times? 3) At a time of funding crisis do you think £1.5m is a good spend to redesign a junction and those redesigns: - potentially increase emergency vehicle response times - do nothing to stop persistent number plate covering offenders - do nothing to slow cyclists at a pedestrian area

Which original consultation? Err be careful with the expert opinion and data part.....if you think the cycle lobby and Aldred et al is the sole source of sound opinion on such issues! 😉 And this is where they fell foul of the law and had to re-run the consultation. It actually casts huge doubt on a lot of previous consultations (including the latest DV one) as they do not pass the legal watermark because they do not provide a yes/no response. The council are terrified of a judicial review because, I suspect under legal advice, they know they cheated the system in many previous consultations. Do you remember when the council claimed they had a mandate for the CPZs because of some seriously dodgy research conducted with a large tranche of students in the north of the borough in 2018.....

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?