Rockets

James, Anything you can do about the e-scooter problems (especially outside of Superdrug) - they are becoming a real problem?

Has anyone actually seen anyone using any of the e-scooters left outside Superdrug - they were encroaching onto the pedestrian crossing at the weekend.

He may find his budget of £3m doesn't go as far as he thinks....;-) I am with Spartacus - this could be the trigger for the house price crash locally! Although I do wonder if he might head to where Maggie was as security is probably the defining purchase criteria!

But Rahx3 - even if you think Southwark News are running a campaign against LTNs it's pretty compelling what the TFL report says isn't it? Again this is from the TFL report that Cllr Leeming wanted to not be sent to residents before he redacted it.... Herne Hill is the best logical alternate route for northbound drivers who are otherwise unable to travel through Dulwich Village This has caused increased flows through this section of network resulting in increased congestion That's not spin or part of a misleading campaign - that statement comes from TFL about the cause of the Croxted Road problems - laying the blame clearly at the Dulwich Village LTN and it is categoric proof that the LTNs in Dulwich are causing the issues, which is the polar opposite of what your fellow LTN supporter Cllr Richard Leeming has been telling/misleading people about the traffic on Croxted Road. This is why Leeming was so desperate to redact the TFL report and said "this must not be sent to the residents". Why? Because it exposes the lies the council and councillors have been telling people about the impact of LTNs and shows that LTNs do cause displacement, do delay buses and do increase pollution in other areas. From day 1 the council have been manipulating everything to do with LTNs to paint them in a positive light and confirms what many of us have feared - that the council and pro-LTN supporters have been lying to people to defend the LTNs that create quiet roads for them and increase congestion for everyone else and that is a disgrace and the council and the pro-LTN supporters should be ashamed of themselves. I don't know how Cllr Leeming has the power to redact a tfl report. The fact that we can read it online suggests that hasn't happened. The point I was making is that Southwark have responded to the issues raised by tfl and made changes accordingly. The tfl report suggests that the tweaks made in March have been broadly successful and that they continue to work with Lambeth and Southwark. The fact is that data show a broadly positive impact on traffic reduction across the area and an increase in walking and cycling. The 'shocking' news is that they have continued to monitor and adjust the scheme, in order to improve it over time. Rahx3 - it appears Cllrs Leeming and Newens sent a number of objections/changes to the report to the person who deals with the councils within TFL but these changes were not incorporated into the final report and that is when Cllr Leeming said it must not be sent to residents in the form it was. For transparency perhaps the Cllrs would like to share the changes they asked to be made to the report - but from what I read it looks like the councillors have all lost their appetite to vocalise the changes they wanted mad with the general public…one can only wonder why….might be a good time for an FOI to help them….

Unfortunately this is a problem every where e-scooters are promoted as a means of active travel. I was in Munich some years ago and the locals were complaining about the growing problem of dumped e-scooters. And remember the council is actively promoting, and making money from, these trials so they want to see more providers and hence more scooters blocking our pavements until they select the winner. When is the winner due to be selected? In the meantime the e-scooter providers will be carpet bombing more of their product onto the streets.

The big challenge is that so much money is being spent on cycle infrastructure on the basis of "build it and they will come". And that makes sense in many areas but the increase in cycling has not been anywhere close to what it needs to be to justify the negative impact on other forms of transport and the policy needs to shift to proper assessment of what happens to other modes of transport like walking, driving and buses when so much roadspace is dedicated to cyclists. Remember in the pandemic and Will Norman stating that there would be a 10x increase in cycling - it just hasn't happened and growth isn't happening at a rate that suggests 10x will ever be achieved - the recent figures of a 25% increase in cycling compared to pre-Covid levels draws that into the harsh realities of daylight given the amount of money that has been spent and the hundreds of new miles of roadspace given over exclusively to bikes? It does very much seem that the cycle lobby has hijacked the post Covid transport discussion and the Mayor's office and councils have been drawn into it and have prioritised cycling disproportionately over other modes of transport. As soon as equal weighting is given to all the better for everyone.

And Rahx3 in case you can't/won't click through to it here is that it says on Page 6 of TFL's report: Root Cause of Delays Herne Hill is the best logical alternate route for northbound drivers who are otherwise unable to travel through Dulwich Village This has caused increased flows through this section of network resulting in increased congestion. Pretty compelling huh? I wonder how the councillors and pro-LTN lobby are going to try and spin their way out of that one....... Thanks Rockets, that's helpful. I'm pretty dubious of Southwark News reports on LTNs, as they've run a campaign against them that's included very misleading, sometimes false reporting. It's a shame that they quote the report out of context, and don't link to it, but not that surprising perhaps. Reading the report, it sounds as though the issues with increased bus times referred to in the Southwark News headline were prior to the changes Southwark put in place in March. Although it does sound that Croxted road Northbound (whilst improving), may still be experiencing increased traffic. So perhaps the headline ought to be - a very successful traffic reduction scheme isn't 100% perfect and there continues to be monitoring and some adjustments being made. That is pretty shocking. But Rahx3 - even if you think Southwark News are running a campaign against LTNs it's pretty compelling what the TFL report says isn't it? Again this is from the TFL report that Cllr Leeming wanted to not be sent to residents before he redacted it.... Herne Hill is the best logical alternate route for northbound drivers who are otherwise unable to travel through Dulwich Village This has caused increased flows through this section of network resulting in increased congestion That's not spin or part of a misleading campaign - that statement comes from TFL about the cause of the Croxted Road problems - laying the blame clearly at the Dulwich Village LTN and it is categoric proof that the LTNs in Dulwich are causing the issues, which is the polar opposite of what your fellow LTN supporter Cllr Richard Leeming has been telling/misleading people about the traffic on Croxted Road. This is why Leeming was so desperate to redact the TFL report and said "this must not be sent to the residents". Why? Because it exposes the lies the council and councillors have been telling people about the impact of LTNs and shows that LTNs do cause displacement, do delay buses and do increase pollution in other areas. From day 1 the council have been manipulating everything to do with LTNs to paint them in a positive light and confirms what many of us have feared - that the council and pro-LTN supporters have been lying to people to defend the LTNs that create quiet roads for them and increase congestion for everyone else and that is a disgrace and the council and the pro-LTN supporters should be ashamed of themselves.

Wow…..and so the house of cards begins to fall…talk about a smoking gun…what a buffoon…sending it to the very people he didn’t want to see it. It makes you wonder how many other reports the council intercepted in an attempt to change the “current form” of information shared with the public. It might explain why so many reports were delayed during the whole process. I suspect Cllr Leeming has just shone a spotlight on the manipulation the council has been engaging in to try and suppress the truth about LTNs. Any of the pro-LTN lobby have anything to offer in Cllr Leeming’s defence or are you wondering whether you have been used as part of the council’s propaganda machine to manipulate reality?

So the council constantly rolling out the most Southwark residents don't own a car is somewhat misleading then when applied to areas like East Dulwich because most residents of Southwark in this area do own a car? It's a bit like saying most Southwark residents live within walking distance of a tube....when it is clearly not the case as it only applies to those living in the north of the borough (but where the population density is higher). And there is a direct correlation between PTAL scores and car ownership figures - the council cites it as part of there reasoning for higher car ownership in the Dulwich area due to the poor PTAL scores.

So the council constantly rolling out the most Southwark residents don't own a car is somewhat misleading then when applied to areas like East Dulwich because most residents of Southwark in this area do own a car? It's a bit like saying most Southwark residents live within walking distance of a tube....when it is clearly not the case as it only applies to those living in the north of the borough (but where the population density is higher).

I belive this is the report you require https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VhHc02WXeovZL02aXi0iLWssPdgcuSiy/view?s=09 And Rahx3 in case you can't/won't click through to it here is that it says on Page 6 of TFL's report: Root Cause of Delays Herne Hill is the best logical alternate route for northbound drivers who are otherwise unable to travel through Dulwich Village This has caused increased flows through this section of network resulting in increased congestion. Pretty compelling huh? I wonder how the councillors and pro-LTN lobby are going to try and spin their way out of that one.......

Rah x3 - what the, much manipulated and doctored council dashboard actually shows is that traffic has reduced on the roads benefitting most from the LTNs but has increased on the roads living with the displacement - the council and councillors promised us everyone would benefit and traffic would reduce on every road - this has clearly not happened. In fact what has happened is what many predicted would and that is that traffic is just routed in other directions and creates more congestion than before the measures. The council and councillors denied repeatedly that this was not happening - see Cllrs Leeming and Newens in relation to Croxted Road. Rachel Aldred et al told us this was not happening. The Guardian told us this was not happening because Rachel Aldred et al told them it wasn't happening. Meanwhile residents were telling us this was happening. Then the emergency services told us this was happening And now TFL is telling us it is happening. I know who I believe. So I think the only conspiracy is actually the one spun by the council, the pro-LTN lobbyists and the cycle lobby that LTNs don't impact traffic flows and lead to benefits for all. That is quite obviously utter bunkum and was from the outset.

Looks like a sensible suggestion - speed is a big issue on Sydenham Hill. You're right - the council really needs to stop using the "most Southwark residents don't own a car" nonsense as they know car ownership is very high in the south of the borough due to the poor PTAL scores (I think it is around 70%) and they keep trotting their stat out as if it applies across the whole borough. I agree it's more spin to help justify any measure they put in but has zero relevance to local traffic issues and very much falls into the "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" category of council misinformation. And remember, they originally said it is areas in the north of the borough that are more suited to LTNs etc because of the plethora of other transport options available to residents.....

The council, and councillors, have, from day one, known what the negative impact of the LTNs has been on surrounding areas yet have chosen to ignore it and actively try to demonise anyone who dared to challenge them on the realities. It is clear they have been fudging and trying to bury the truth in their LTN reports which amounted to no more than pro-LTN propoganda. We kept hearing, from the likes of Aldred and co that this wasn't happening/didn't happen with LTNs but now the truth is slowly emerging. It's time for some of the councillors to come clean and acknowledge the damage their LTNs are doing. It's time for them to stop lying.

Unfortunately it is very much the society we live in nowadays - and we see examples of it daily be that twitter trolls and actively trying to get Cllr McAsh sacked from his job, cyclists gleefully filming driver indiscretions and reporting them to get them fined or this instance. If everyone could just live and let live the world would be a much nicer place.

Interesting to read that TFL have admitted that the LTNs in Dulwich are the reason for the increased congestion on Croxted Road, this despite the repeated claims by local Village councillors that it had nothing to do with the LTNs.....displacement and increased congestion is an irrefutable fact associated with all LTNs despite what their fans would like to claim...

On the DV junction the cause of the problem is that the council designed the junction with only cyclists in mind and didn't give equal weighting to other users - it's clear zero consideration was given as to how pedestrians would use the space. Now they have had to try to retrofit it to allow emergency services access it has become even more of a mess and they need to tear it all up and start again giving equal weighting to all users of the space and create a junction that is safe for all. Isn't there supposed to be some sort of local community-led group helping design the new junction - does anyone know who that is or how people can become involved or is it a closed-shop for pro-LTN lobbyists only?

Paul Lomax hits the nail on the head here about much of the "evidence" of success touted by activist research groups ...a wonderful circle of self-validation by self-interest groups....

Goldilocks - a quick search will tell you that I have posted on a broad variety of subjects on this forum across the 12 years or so so to try and insinuate I only post on this subject is completely false. Yes, I, like a lot of other concerned local residents, have posted a lot on this subject - I don't think you can accuse us of being like our dear departed friends LTN Manatee and BooHoo et al who only became members to attack those who didn't agree with their view of the LTN world. I am also not sure you can suggest that I am using this to lobby - I am not sure anyone thinks the forum influences local decisions. I think many of us come on here to educate and enlighten people to what is actually going on beyond the "Everything is awesome" narrative we hear from the likes of Clean Air Dulwich. And of course the beauty of the forum is that allows debate and discussion - if you disagree with something I say you can challenge it (but of course this doesn't often happen as the pro-LTN supporters often don't have a rational argument and default to...well, yeah, but, no, but yeah well, you must be a petrol head....P.S. yes I am looking at you SE22_2020ER...;-)). And of course the likes of Clean Air Dulwich don't want a discussion either as they block comments from anyone they don't already follow thus limiting any form of debate - it's echo chamber activism. But what they do do is use their social media accounts to lobby local councillors and try to paint a picture to suit their own personal, and often selfish, agenda. Which brings me back to my earlier point which is that CAD are lobbying the council to bring back a permanent barrier at the Calton/DV junction - which to me seems like a ludicrous and blinkered position to take given the over-whelming evidence from emergency services that such barriers were causing delays to response times and really does highlight the selfishness of some of the pro-LTN lobbyists. The fact they are using old footage to make this point suggests this is a co-ordinated approach to try and influence the council's decision-making process. Don't you agree that the bottom line is that what they are lobbying for will delay emergency vehicle response times and put lives at risk? And, for the record, I am neither a taxi driver nor do I work for the car industry - I am, like you, a local resident who lives on a road benefitting from the LTNs but the difference is I just don't believe they are fair or equitable to everyone across the Dulwich area and for me to benefit someone has to suffer. And that's not at all right.

Jennijenjen - the first post that went up yesterday was much more explicit in the call for a physical barrier - I didn't copy it but it did call on the council for the physical barrier to be replaced - it used a video of a car turning left from Calton to Court but then they edited it this morning to replace the original post and video.... It is clear what their agenda is and it is utterly blinkered and self-centred. Edited to add: This is the post I saw yesterday - I thought they had edited it but it is still up they are just bombarding the council with "evidence" of an issue. One must question when these videos were recorded as the one on July 11th was clearly not recently given the heavy jackets some are wearing. This looks like a concerted effort to lobby. It's clear CAD wants the physical barriers to be replaced. I am afraid that is not acceptable - whose interests do they purport to represent exactly? The emergency services have been very clear in their objection to any physical barriers as it hinders response times and CAD are lobbying for something that puts response times at risk again - it's utterly tone deaf and I hope the council reject it immediately.

There is a growing campaign by Clean Air Dulwich to remove the emergency access at Calton - very interesting this tweet was edited this morning and the original video was replaced by a new one. It seems ludicrous to me, and utterly tone-deaf, that a lobby group is taking this position after all of the proof that the closures delayed response times - how blinkered and selfish are these groups? The biggest danger at that junction now is not the occasional car that either, wilfully or accidentally, passes through the closures but fast moving bicycles coming down Calton at speed - everyday you see pedestrians taking evasive action to get out of their way.

Congrats on the launch - looks very nice!

PeterW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To reiterate my earlier point: if you think > anything I've written is inaccurate seek a > correction from the readers' editor. But two very > quick, general points: > ? It's pretty rude, not to mention legally dodgy, > to argue on a public forum that academics must be > biased because you don't like their research. > ? "does the Guardian pay contributors for the > number of clicks a story gets?" - no, of course > not. Writing about cycling/active travel isn't > even part of my day job. I do it because I'm > interested. Not everyone is as cynical or jaded as > you appear. > > That's it from me. Peter, That rests my case for the prosecution....;-) It's clear there was evidence that LTNs were causing delays and these were being communicated to the councils - the fact that the reports you cite failed to find them is probably not a surprise given the authors of said reports. And to that point I am not arguing that academics must be biased because I don't like their research I am suggesting their research may not be as impartial as you would like us to believe given some of their clear, and glaringly obvious, conflicts of interest - I don't think that is unreasonable do you? Anyway that subject has been flogged to death on this forum and one no-one wants to revisit. My question on how the Guardian pays for contributions is not born out of me being jaded or cynicism (not sure why you decided to take that tone) but out of my personal thoughts that the media is being divided on the basis of click-culture and that the growing number of publications adopting/integrating the click model is creating these divides and polarising articles - that journalists are being forced to follow the ? - it's certainly a concern my friend at Forbes (who has done very well from that model I hasten to add) holds as well,

Peter, Firstly thanks for your response. Interestingly, you link to an article you wrote based on research by Anna Goodman and ex-London Cycling Campaign trustee and pro-LTN lobbyist Rachel Aldred - so I think you know my thoughts on the impartiality of that ;-) The fact you link to that really does illustrate my point - that you take what is sent to you as the gospel and seem to be reluctant to dig a little deeper beyond the headlines in the reports you read/ are sent. In fact in that article you say that opponents to LTNs "have failed to prove there is an issue [in relation to delays]" and you surmise by saying: There is no credible evidence of a systematic, routine problem. That is perhaps the one certainty in a debate which is considerably more complex and nuanced than the headlines would have you believe. But when you dig a little deeper it is amazing what you find to completely contradict your statement. Firstly, emergency services have been very consistent in their feedback to councils that physical barriers slow down response times. Right at the outset of the LTN installation programme in this part of Southwark, in the consultation documents for the ill-fated LTN expansion to Peckham Rye (was it Phase 3 or 4?), the emergency services are quoted (in the council's own document) as saying that they do not want physical barriers as they delay response times. In an FOI from December 2020 it is clear that all the emergency services were imploring Southwark to remove the physical barriers due to the delays they were causing: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/las_foi_request_streetspace_road And then LAS joined a Southwark Council Scrutiny Committee in 2021, watch and hear what the LAS rep has to say around 1.05 into the programme about the fact those areas with camera controlled rather than physical barriers in terms of delays and response times. And finally, take a look here where documents from both LAS and the police say there have been delays due to the LTNs: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101521/Appendix%20F3%20-%20Emergency%20Service%20response.pdf The LAS email states: The proposed scheme to create a cycle and emergency access lane would improve the emergency vehicle access/egress into the area and will be an improvement on the current hard physical closures that the ambulance service have been unable to access since the implementation of the scheme last summer, that has resulted in a number of incidents of delayed ambulances being reported to Southwark Council. Documentation obtained via FOI from the same person at the LAS who wrote stated that in September 2020 alone there were 10 incidents where LAS crews specifically called out the planters in Dulwich as causing delays to their responses times (the same document also listed similar delays at other LTN points across the borough but I want to keep this local to keep it relevant). https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101521/Appendix%20F3%20-%20Emergency%20Service%20response.pdf So clearly there was an issue and it was an endemic problem - that many pro-LTN councils, researchers and media choose to ignore/gloss over. BTW on a related note does the Guardian pay contributors for the number of clicks a story gets? A friend of mine writes for Forbes and they pay them on the basis of how well the article performs online and I just wondered whether the Guardian has integrated that into their salary/payment model?

When I look at the Tyre Extinguishers website it appears this is more an attack on wealth - they conclude that someone only owns an SUV out of vanity and use it as status symbol - which is clearly nonsense - I agree that many SUVs are unnecessary but I am sure there are a variety of reasons why people buy them and to try and pin this on just vanity is very blinkered and shows how their narrative is being prejudiced by a war on wealth. Tyre Extinguishers conclude that if they don?t use their SUV the people whose cars they have damaged can walk, cycle or use public transport - amplifying the ludicrous narrative that every car journey can be replaced by the aforementioned other travel modes. I agree that those who can afford SUVs are only ever likely to be inconvenienced and I doubt SUV ownership will decline. The fact they lump electric vehicles into their attacks and justify it by saying they still pollute, are status symbols and are dangerous really shows this has very little to do with climate change and more about class war. I also feel very uncomfortable that Tyre Extinguishers mantra is to make owning an SUV impossible - I don?t think anyone should be dictating to people what they can or cannot do - the very same people who are coming on here supporting them probably wouldn?t want to be forcibly dictated to by other groups on how to live their lives. And this brings me onto the rank hypocrisy shown by some. Many of those saying they support this vandalism were the same people who had a lot to say about the wording on posters in windows, protests in the square by old people causing a danger for their families on bikes, vandalism of the planters, the placing of an anti-LTN sign in Cllr Newens? garden etc etc?but now they say ?well this vandalism is ok because I support the cause?? Let?s call it middle-class activist hypocrisy?..;-) It?s a very slippery slope when you start accepting, validating and justifying these actions and the phrase ?do unto others as you would have them do unto you? comes to mind.