Rockets

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.

But the suggestion that a fully deflated tyre with the weight of an SUV bearing down on it risks having its structural integrity compromised is most definitely not cobblers. Nor is the fact that there is a risk to the valve being damaged by the weight of the car. Never mind the risk of damage to the valve by the lentil, mungbean, kumquat or whatever they are wedging in it to deflate it as they make their cowardly escape. But, you know, keeping telling yourself it?s all good, all very harmless and for the greater good by all means??. Apparently it all started in Sweden in 2007 with the emergence of the Indians of the Concrete Jungle who started doing it. Some time after a vigilante group calling themselves the Cowboys of the Concrete Jungle was set-up roaming the streets trying to find members of Indians group??.probably just the natural cycle of irresponsible choices leading to irresponsible actions?.

Inflammatory language accusation from someone defending inflammatory actions....go figure... You didn't answer the question did you so are we to presume that any irresponsible action to fight an irresponsible action is ok in your world? I am more than willing to engage but these groups don't deserve any engagement as it is very difficult to reason with idiots, especially idiots who seemingly don't know the difference between an electric SUV and a diesel one! But per your earlier message on fuel consumption it seems their supporters have difficulty in determining what their message is too! ;-)

AnotherPaul Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We?re in a climate emergency, taking action > against people who choose to drive the most fuel > consuming cars is perfectly justified. > > One may not like the manner of the protest but I?d > wager you?ll be far more annoyed if your > grandchildren live on an uninhabitable planet. > > Many thought trade union movement was annoying, > the suffragettes too and the idea that there > should be one person one vote. Those who promoted > those ideas were vilified, but they were right. > > Keep deflating tyres. Do everything we can to > change out current collision course with disaster. > And try not to complain too much in the face of > environmental apocalypse. It?s a bad look. Is this about fuel consumption, I thought it was about emissions output? Do you know? Do the climate vandals even know - given they have done this to Q3 cars and an electric car it seems they are a little confused as to what the issue really is. But let's be honest this has been an over-riding trait of some of their actions - gluing themselves to electric trains, blocking cooking oil distributors etc etc. It is exactly this type of attitude and confused approach to the objectives of their campaign that is setting these groups on the lunatic fringes of the climate debate but doing massive damage to the more sensible groups by turning a lot of people off the broader discussion and doing a lot more harm than good. Maybe if these climate vandals stopped acting like hypocritical spoilt children and grew up a bit then we could actually try to solve the problems facing the planet.

So Joom by your own justification for these actions you would be happy if someone is caught in the act of doing this then an irresponsible action upon them would be acceptable - say they attacked them? Or you would be ok if people started pushing people who cycle on pavements or jump red lights off their bikes? Or those that vandalised the planters were ok to do it? These are all actions that no-one should be supporting or condoning but somehow because this is dangerous vandalism in relation to climate change that it's ok... When people you don't agree with start taking direct action I suspect your mood and attitude would change. The climate change debate is being derailed by the action of a few groups who are nothing more than anarchists who have just leeched onto the cause.

JessEloise Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My brother's tyre was deflated last night, he > found a lentil in the valve. This was done to an > electric car!!! I really do question the intelligence of some of these climate activists - they did it to an electric car....my goodness it just shows what we are dealing with?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And I?ve said I don?t think it?s reasonable to let > air out of tyres. So really all you?re asking me > to change my mind on is the ?reasonableness? of > driving an SUV in London.if you want to explain > why I should do that, I?m all ears. Not asking you to change your mind on SUV use (and I agree many of them are ludicrous and unnecessary) just wondering if you had come off your fence about the dangerous vandalism of car tyres for "climate violations" or are you still ambivalent?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m pretty sure it?s ok to reinflate a tyre that?s > lost air Rockets. That?s why they sell air > compressors and why they have them on petrol > station forecourts. Err no, they are for topping up tyres that are still under pressure. Again, the point remains that if people actually engaged their brains they would realise the potential danger they are creating but no, they are blinded by their own cultishness that they believe their actions are just and for the greater good. Climate vandals seem not to care for anyone or anything other than their own particular branch of the climate crisis agenda they are following. It is unbelievably cultish.

Rahx3 - the issue is not driving off with a flat tyre. It's a lot more dangerous than that I am afraid. Let.me explain When a tyre deflates the weight of the car is no longer being supported by the air in the tyre but the wheel itself. That, in turn, puts pressure on the outer rim of the deflated tyre damaging it's structural integrity. It's one of the theories behind why so much Russian hardware got stuck in the early part of the conflict as much of it had been in storage for years with no one keeping the tyre pressure up so once they had inflated them again and headed off to Ukraine they all started going pop. So the issue is people will reinflate their tyres and then they could burst whilst driving. It's why the police have said you should replace any tyre that has been deflated by these idiots. And the idiots were deflating the front tyres on some cars as well which is the most dangerous ones to mess around with. Given that information are you changing your position?

So you think putting a car at risk of a blowout and all the devastation that can cause is reasonable and proportionate....one suspects that if they careered into your family on their bikes you might take a different viewpoint...? The problem is a lot of people don't engage their brains on this stuff and allow their own bias to cloud their judgements. It's a very sad state of affairs.

Rahx3 - would you be sitting on the fence if it was groups of people taking direct action against cyclists riding on pavements? Ambivalence is what let's these idiots get away with it and the problem with the type of people who do this sort of thing is that they don't know where to stop and somehow their illegal actions are for some greater good.

Well they have done a Q5 and Q3 which are hardly massive cars, what next estate cars and then every car? Looks like they have done a lot as saw some on Druce and Woodwarde that had been targeted too. The group responsible have been warned by police that it is incredibly dangerous as the weight of a car on a deflated tyre can cause damage to the integrity of the tyre and if re-inflated could cause a blow out. It seems the vandals don?t care, again climate activists actually doing more harm to their cause.

Just a word of warning, the idiots who go around letting people?s tyres down are back at it again. They have done quite a few cars on Eynella and left their ?climate violation? flyers on the windscreens of the cars. I do hope they get caught in the act and charged with criminal damage as it is utterly irresponsible and very dangerous. I suppose it is only to be expected given the warm reception XR were given on Peckham Rye by some. BTW are some of the XR folks still camping out somewhere as I keep seeing a couple riding on a cargo bike with a big XR flag flying on the back of it or are they Dulwich residents showing their support?

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-labour-petition-against-bus-cuts-put-forward-by-labour-mayor-khan/ SOUTHWARK LABOUR PETITION AGAINST BUS CUTS PUT FORWARD BY LABOUR MAYOR KHAN - who did he put it forward to himself? It seems the petition linked at the top of this thread got considerably more signatures than Southwark Labour's one.

I hope James is ok - the publicity on him and his girlfriend in the Daily Mail has led to hideous attacks on social media with some seemingly concerted and co-ordinated attempts to try to get him sacked from his job.

PeterW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "And lo and behold looking at the original report > makes you realise why they took it to Peter Walker > as an exclusive?.because they knew he wouldn?t > give it any proper scrutiny and basically write > what the authors wanted him to write?? " > > Hello, Peter Walker here, on my > once-every-few-months scan of this forum to see if > I've been borderline-defamed. I get some people > have very strong views on modal filtering, but, > your occasional reminder that it's not really on > to publicly accuse a journalist of being biased or > corrupt. As much as anything else, it's a bit > juvenile and pretty rude. You don?t need to stoop to name calling Peter. Come on, you know the game, you get the exclusive because you will give the authors or PR agency that sent it to you a sympathetic article - you are after all a pro-cyclin, pro-LTN campaigner. I very much suspect it is why you got the exclusive despite moving to a political beat on the Guardian. Maybe you can explain my comment on your claim that the authors found no evidence of slowing emergency response times yet the report clearly says otherwise and I quote: The London Fire Brigade reports that ?traffic calming measures? have been identified as the main reason for vehicle delay 3,035 times in 2021, up from 2,145 times in 2020. The evidence is there in the report, the authors just chose to ignore it and you reported that they found no evidence. That is not correct is it, and actually very misleading? Is it not your job to challenge the authors should you find such inconsistencies?

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Olivia Colman moved to this area in 2011 and has > now left us for Norfolk. > > ETA and Jason Statham and Rosie > Huntington-Whiteley live in Chelsea Angelina - it was a joke, playing on the fact that we have had everyone from comedians through Oscar winners and one of Hollywood's leading earners. Jason Statham and Rosie H-W do live in Dulwich (maybe their place in Dulwich is their second house in the country!! ;-)). Probably the most famous/infamous was The Iron Lady herself but I doubt any of us would have welcomed her, or seen her, in Sainsbury's during her time as a Dulwich resident - I did, whilst working a Saturday job as a teenager deliver some pine furniture to Maggie's neighbours house - the security to get onto the gated houses was, understandably, ludicrous!

You can probably track the gentrification of the area via the Famous People Spotted in Sainsbrys thread. Started with the likes of Jo Brand, Micky Flanagan and Timothy Spall, moved to some of the McGann brothers, James Nesbitt and Iain Glenn, then Kate Thornton and now Olivia Coleman, Jason Statham and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley!

Dulwich is definitely going through another change with an influx of folks who can afford the ludicrous house prices. To be honest definitely losing the bohemian vibe of 15 years ago as the creatives, media types and artists are gradually being replaced by bankers and other loaded types. And I fear Lordship Lane is starting to reflect this.

It will be interesting to see whether Cllr McAsh accepts Sky News' request to use his footage of the people of Peckham blocking an immigration raid. He might be about to get some national exposure.

Waseley - you're sounding more and more like Malumbu with your I tried not to post..... How on earth am I manipulating anything...please feel free to point out the manipulation.....are you accusing me of being Peter Walker? Or are you saying that my suggestion that London transport links were built to get people in and out of London was somehow manipulated? Or do you think there is a direct route from Bromley to Lordship Lane? Or that 68% of Dulwich residents didn't respond to the consultation saying they didn't want a CPZ? Or that the council ignored that and went ahead anyway? Or that some people think they live in Camberwick Green or Trumpton - ok you got me on that one, those were children's TV programmes involving puppets so I did manipulate that one but only for the purposes of creating a visual metaphor.....

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep, train from Bromley South to Denmark Hill or > Peckham (about 20 minutes) then walk or bus And there you highlight the problem....hardly direct is it, and that presumes they live close to Bromley South, what if they have to get bus to Bromley South? Your route presumes a 25 minute train journey and then a change to walk or wait for a bus...London was built to get in and out of the city...it is awful trying to get around the city. The sooner people stop presuming everyone lives their lives in London like they live in Trumpton or Camberwick Green the better! So maybe you can understand why people who work on Lordship Lane are so against CPZs. But let's not limit the dislike to CPZs to just those working on Lordship Lane....68% of people said they didn't want it during the last consultation but that, if the council's previous form with the CPZs in Dulwich and now the Old Kent Road CPZs stands for nothing....

But getting in and out of London is easy from everywhere isn't it - linear lines of transport grow out from a city - it's why the Elizabeth Line is such a revelation and why it took so long to build because it doesn't go in an out it goes across. Getting from, say Bromley where I know a few of the shop owners and workers live, to Lordship Lane is not as straight-forward is it?

Is can hardly be any surprise they are against it - many of them require their cars to get to the Lane to run the shops that we frequent - should we punish them for that? You do realise don't you that many, if not most, of the people working in the shops on Lordship Lane don't live locally? There is absolutely no need for CPZs in Dulwich, never has been - even with the meddling the council did to try to create parking pressure when they extended the double-yellow lines across the area ahead of the first CPZ "consultation". It's a stealth tax and completely unnecessary especially in light of the poor PTAL scores in Dulwich and the ever-reducing levels of public transport frequency and options in the area.