Rockets

It is telling that in Aldred's latest LTN report she acknowledges the fact Enfield admitted that their counters were not recording accurately under 10kph but she stated that it was presumed other councils has not situated counters close to junctions and therefore the data supplied by the council's for her report was correct. Perhaps she should spend some of the £1.5m she was given to prove LTNs are a rip roaring success checking where the monitoring strips are located and whether, as result, council data is accurate. Anyone can take a brisk walk around Dulwich and see for themselves......

The mother of Ella has said she's against LTNs because they drive traffic onto main roads such as the South Circular which was the cause of her daughter's death. Dulwich Common (and Lordship Lane at the junction of it) have seen increased traffic since the Dulwich Village LTN was introduced as cars which used to filter down Court Lane now get stuck in queues reaching to/from the Village. And forcing yet more traffic down main roads (which I remind you some of our local councillors have suggested is the rightful place for displaced traffic) is going to mean there are many more children suffering from the effects of increased pollution who happen to live on them - this is a point often overlooked/ignored by the pro-LTN lobby - we can't use some roads, and the people who live on them, as collateral damage in the fight for a reduction in pollution - how on earth is that fair?

Malumbu - leaving your old post here with no/little comment.....;-) It's amazing how quickly this post has come back to haunt you and the position you are taking on said subject today...normally you get tripped up/exposed by much older posts ;-)

Armand - the council's intentions were absolutely right - reduce traffic, congestion and pollution are the right thing to do and critical but they put all their eggs in the LTN basket (LTNs are proven to be a very blunt instrument to solve the problem at hand) and when it was clear they were not delivering as advertised (they only reduce traffic for those inside the LTNs and increase traffic for those outside) they doubled-down and began digging themselves an even bigger hole and manipulating the data (if you walk around Dulwich take look at how close the monitoring strips are located to junctions or traffic lights - an absolute no-no unless you want to record fewer cars than are actually using that road). Far/hard left politicians find it very difficult to admit they got something wrong and it has been interesting how more considered and moderate Southwark councillors like Radha Burgess, who acknowledged and opposed much of the LTNs negative impacts, have since left their seats. Statements I see on here from pro-LTN supporters about "the vast majority of people" being able to walk or cycle just demonstrates how blinkered they are. It's the classic "well, if I can then why can't you" mantra and often seasoned with a huge dose of hypocrisy. The discussion normally goes a little something like this: "If I can live my live pottering around Dulwich buying my artisan groceries on my £5,000 cargo bike that I store in my back-garden which I access via my side-return then why can't everyone else do the same....?" "But you still own a car don't you" "Err yes, well I do because I need it to visit relatives in the country/visit my 2nd home in the country/transport furniture to my 2nd home in the country/transport my bikes/emergencies/get my kids to school when it's raining/get to the nearest railway station/drive my kids to their sports games"...and so the list goes on. Dulwich has always had some of the highest levels of active travel for local journeys in Southwark with the large majority of such journeys being walked yet the council decided to target the area with LTNs - only they seem to know the reason why as they had said previously that areas like Dulwich don't make sense for LTNs due to the poor PTAL scores in the area. Granted the intention was probably to target the non-local residents who drive through Dulwich but by putting the LTNs in the council made things infinitely worse for many of the local residents by forcing more traffic down fewer roads - and it is being allowed to continue.

Yes and my use of quote marks was because they would say they are posting in a personal capacity on social media and not in their capacity as a journalist - although those lines are very blurred nowadays anyway as their output in a journalistic capacity on the subject is far from impartial! Of course, there were clearly undesirables who were part of the protest but by tarring everyone with the same brush creates more problems and I do wonder how much the Oxford counter-demo balaclava-wearing folks were in direct response to previous articles and comments made suggesting these demos were infiltrated by far-right extremists. No doubt Walker and Vine's comments (and their were plenty of others from the usual pro-LTN commentators) will have stoked the fire even more for the next protest.

I'm not saying anything DuncanW, but if they were it doesn't mean that they represent the views of everyone who was there so saying that all anti LTN supporters are anti everything is a real leap in your conclusion. Its akin to someone saying that because Jezzer didn't act on antisemitism then all Labour supporters must agree with him... which of course the don't.🤔 It's clear there are unsavoury types who will grasp onto any protest to try and get some publicity and Lozza Fox, David Kurten and Piers Corbyn are very unusual bed-fellows (and who have views that 99.9% of people do not agree with) but there is a concerted effort to paint anyone and everyone who is associated with anti-LTNs as some sort of fascist, Covid-denier, lunatic - a tactic even seen by some pro-LTN supporters on here over the last couple of years - especially around the Dulwich Square protest. The likes of Peter Walker and Jeremy Vine know, all too well, that protests can attract a weird bunch but are more than happy to amplify the narrative that demonises anyone with an anti-LTN agenda - they make "observations" from their keyboards, in their guise as "journalists", without actually being on the ground themselves and determining what the make-up of the group actually was - happily demonising people and fanning the flames because it suits their personal agenda and then, glibly, suggesting if they were an anti-LTN protestor they would be worried that the cause was being taken over by extremists etc..... Meanwhile, there was a counter-protest in Oxford at the same time and look, those pro-LTN supporters seem to have swapped cargo bikes for balaclavas...;-) We see the same demonising tactics with the likes of the Dulwich Roads twitter account locally where every accident is blamed on bad driving before the owner of the twitter account has even tried to ascertain what has happened - demonising all drivers involved in accidents as "bad drivers".

In addition to Spartacus' comments I would say: The LTNs were rejected by locals when they were first presented during the OHS consultations which happened before the pandemic The council then used the cover, and guise, of COVID and the need for "social distancing" to roll-out the OHS plan without the need for a further consultation due to emergency powers There isn't an LTN anywhere that hasn't caused significant displacement of traffic and many of us were concerned, from the outset, that for some of us to have nice quiet roads some of us would have to have even busier roads Not enough "evaporation" of traffic occurs to prevent other roads from experiencing significant increases in traffic, congestion and pollution Since the LTNs went in the council has done everything in its power to suppress any negative sentiment towards the LTNs and has failed to engage with local constituents Local Labour councillors stated, very clearly, that if the LTNs did not lead to a reduction in traffic for every street in the Dulwich area then it would not have been a success - this is clearly what has happened Since the LTNs went in the council has manipulated the monitoring process, reports and and output to create a rosier picture than actually exists The council has divided our community (physically and metaphorically) with these measures and has driven a serious wedge between the council, the Mayor's office and TFL and has been accused of bullying members of TFL - something I would never had expected from a Labour run council At the end of the day LTNs don't ever solve a problem, they make it worse and we should not live in a society where we are happy to move cars and pollution from one person's street to another in the name of "progress" in the fight against climate change

Full court press on the demonisation of anyone daring to protest in Oxford LTNs coming out from the usual suspects.......it almost feels co-ordinated.

Malumbu - please do take time to read and digest my post properly next time before jumping on your keyboard.......my ire is with Will Norman's post not the article..... And no my post doesn't paint me as anything....it is, in fact, your post that tries to paint me as something - which is merely illustrating the point I am trying to make. So many thanks for that - you're always such a reliable bait-taker!!! ;-) As I was saying...there are many on the pro-LTN side who would rather demonise rather than debate.....

And then Will Norman posts this: https://twitter.com/willnorman/status/1626168482302664704?t=RfMjVyNrUV_ATge0R0u4Fg&s=19 which again goes to show how there are those who are happy to demonise anyone who dares question their plans.....Will Norman categorising people who challenge the premise of the viability of a 15-minute city (which interestingly the author of the piece does cover) as #absolutenutters is not at all helpful and kind of surprising he choses to use that language. If anyone who questions his plan is a "nutter" then maybe it's a case of the lunatics running the asylum!

!Abhorrent! And to validate my point on the demonising of anyone who dares to question the LTNs......perfect timing March46!!!

Since day one of the LTN debacle both the council, councillors, elected officials and the pro-LTN supporters have been more inclined to demonise rather than debate with anyone who doesn't agree with the path they have taken. There are plenty of examples of this happening in relation to the Dulwich LTNs and this looks like another attempt to avoid any debate with constituents - a worrying trend and not what elected officials should be doing.

But Northern if you read the One Dulwich update it seems clear that this goes far further than an auto-reply from an MP.; that dialogue has been taking place but now there has been a request to see the details of all the One Dulwich "activists". If Helen Hayes chose to use the word activist in any missive about One Dulwich members then that is incredibly worrying. Granted there are those in One Dulwich who, I am sure, are not Labour supporters but there is a very worrying trend happening here. Take the council meeting where Clrr Rose had her "man-splaining" outburst,, both her and Cllr Williams seemed far more concerned that the two representatives had dared to run against them as Tory councillors than the point they were trying to raise with both sitting councillors putting party politics over constituency matters.

I am presuming "activists" is the term Helen Hayes is using to the describe the members of One Dulwich when she is asking for the list of names - which is clear One Dulwich are suggesting is the case? If so is it yet another example of the contempt with which local elected officials are treating constituents who dare have a differing view to theirs....it's a trend we have seen plenty of from our local councillors over this matter since it's inception. They seemingly welcome groups of actual activists who cause harm to London life (XR on Peckham Rye) yet challenge groups of local residents who dare to be concerned about the measures the council's have implemented. Some very dangerous precedents, in terms of conscious bias, are being set if these allegations are true.

Wow,,,,one wonders whether the same intense scrutiny is provided to everyone who asks for MPs support and whether the council reviews everyone involved in any submission to the council for funding for local area projects (for example). This is incredibly worrying if true: Campaign Update | 14 Feb Dulwich Village junction and MP Helen Hayes In November last year, when Southwark was sending out mixed messages about who would be allowed access through the Dulwich Village junction, we wrote to our MP Helen Hayes asking if she would champion the needs of the most vulnerable. We explained that the longer journeys caused by the closed junction are causing pain and distress for those who are car-dependent (including Blue Badge holders and the parents of children with SEND), and great difficulty for those who care for them (not just emergency vehicles but GPs, community midwives and nurses, emergency responders, and carers). We have yet to receive a response from Helen confirming that she will do this. Instead, we have had a series of emails from her to say that before responding to this she wants a full list of One Dulwich “activists”. This has surprised us, as Helen has been meeting with, and corresponding with, a core team of One Dulwich representatives since 2020, and has never raised this question before. So her motive in asking for this now is not at all clear. We have reminded Helen of the names she already knows. Obviously, because of data protection law, we can’t pass on information about our 2,100+ supporters without first asking permission from each individual. Identifying “activists” would be a huge task because hundreds of you have provided, and continue to provide, active help in so many different ways. While we continue to press Helen about why she wants the names of all those exercising their legal and democratic right to protest, our original request in November 2022 still stands. We believe that Helen has a duty as our local MP to represent and champion the needs of all her constituents, especially the most vulnerable, and we will continue to request that she does this with the Council. While we wait for a response from Helen, if you would like her to speak to the Council on behalf of those who need direct access through the junction (for themselves and for those who care for them) because of specific health and disability issues, please email her on [email protected]. Southwark will shortly open its public consultation on the final design of the junction. We will be writing to you about that in due course. Thank you for your support.

Anyone noticing new monitoring strips going in around Dulwich which are, ahem, close to junctions and traffic congestion points? There are some on Lordship Lane and some in Dulwich Village placed close to junctions and are subject to slow moving/crawling traffic for many parts of the day...of course Rachel Aldred said in the last report on LTNs that "parked or very slow moving vehicles may affect the results.....but that.....in most cases count sites are placed away from junctions". Perhaps she should spend some of the £1.5m they are being paid for these reports to determine whether councils are placing the strips in places that will give accurate readings or not.....

Yes this is a big u-turn by the council and organisers and very late in the day for an event of this size later this year so maybe, just maybe, the council is starting to listen to residents.

Cllr Browning will, of course, also need to be careful to not be accused of "man-splaining" as she makes her case to Cllr Rose.....

Two weekends in a row is a bit much, got to feel for anyone who lives nearby - clearly Southwark putting money before residents. And I don't buy for one minute the line of "inviting local traders etc". Has the size of the event got bigger as well in these proposals - does their licence allow them to sell more tickets this year - is that the 1,750 tickets Cllr Rose refers to? Interesting that GALA and the council claim benefits for the park but FoPRP don't seem convinced the park sees much, if any, of it. Cllr Rose doesn't seem sure what the benefits are either (not sure how a broader range of free and subsidised tickets can be claimed to be a benefit to the park): But Southwark Council has said the event’s profits would be used to improve the park and support FoPRP. The council’s parks and leisure chief, Cllr Catherine Rose, said: “A number of benefits are proposed, including a broader range of free and subsidised tickets, as well as 1,750 more tickets for local people. “They [GALA] are also suggesting: opportunities for local businesses to provide services, for local traders to trade, local artists and creatives to showcase and local people to be employed, at the event, subject to planning and licensing approvals.”

There was one of their bikes chained up on Woodwarde Road for months as well - are their cargo bikes breeding?

If there is a petition I bet it was started by Poundland's PR team!

Yes they look like eco-warriors yet don't act like them! ;-)

A politician's worst nightmare....when your invited guest speaker throws you under the bus over your ULEZ plans.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64499710

It was certainly giving off confusing messages..... It must have been a slow news day but the fact you're annoyed that they have written about it probably shows their decision was justified such is the quest for news to generate attention and clicks nowadays (throughout all forms of media - local, regional, national - and not just Southwark News).

Southwark Council says it's 'fairly sure that what you describe isn’t possible' but then: on Tuesday evening clarified that Transport for London (TfL) had fixed the problem. Ha ha.......