Rockets

Because when the argument is so biased, blinkered, sensationally engorged and so ludicrously skewed to help justify the council's agenda as those infographics are they deserve ridicule and calling out for what they are.....

Ha ha...the clip art vibe is so strong in this one! I can't wait for the too many bike lanes can cause problems for all road users version too! Or the one on floating bus stops causing problems for all road users too. Or shared cycle and pedestrian space.. And so the list goes on....

The reference I can find says: We will encourage people to switch to less polluting cars with lower parking fees for zero emissions and smaller vehicles across the whole borough. The phrasing of that suggests lowering existing parking fees and If that is supposed to be where we are supposed to have deciphered that CPZs are coming then wow......the deception intent is very real and it is laughable that people are defending that. When challenged it is interesting the council has not pointed to the manifesto but some research they did years ago to claim they have a mandate for CPZs - they know they are on dodgy groumd. That should speak volumes and this is exactly the lack of robustness that the judge in the ULEZ case was very critical of. Whilst they try to hide their intent the Tories have been dropping leaflets through Dulwich doors trying to focus people's attention onto it and create an Achilles Heal for Labour under the title "Our council needs to respect residents" and I very much expect to see something similar from the Lib Dems.

Ha ha...your pictures are brilliant! Honestly, the fact someone actually spent time to do that...hilarious....be careful because by your own measure what should the council charge if you use a cycle lane.....? Also, how much should I be charged every time I walk to Lordship Lane? Not a bicycle in sight but a couple of horse-drawn vehicles using the road...;-)

Mr Chicken you're starting to make yourself look a bit like a male chicken with all this nonsensical diatribe comparing imposing CPZs on people with mentioning bin collections.

I am not sure Mr Chicken knows the point they are trying to make on rubbish collection - unless he knows that the council plan to start charging people more for that now too....perhaps he has inside knowledge of "all the council's plans for charging for things not mentioned/accidentally omitted in their manifesto"...maybe because Dulwich residents eat more over-priced artisan products from local organic suppliers than other Southwark residents then they need to put a "justice tax" on that now too!

Well that's a bit of a challenge isn't it because their manifesto (as you have shown) is so loosely worded and lacking any specific detail it's difficult to determine what they are actually trying to achieve and how. The lack of any reference to CPZs means in their manifesto probably suggests that that idea must have suddenly come to them after the election so, like an untethered main sail, they seem flap around in the breeze and are a bit rudderless when it comes to specific ideas!! 😉

Are you advocating we rewind to Roman times or the end of the 19th century? Motorised vehicles, along with the steam train, revolutionised the way we lived our lives and the development (and spread) of our cities and towns - are you suggesting we undo all of that? In fact, if it were not for the train (primarily) and the car there wouldn't be a Dulwich as we know it today.

Mr Chicken - are you expecting CPZs to mean thousands of Dulwich resident jettison cars, thereby reducing congestion? If you are you really need to stop drinking the council Kool-Aid...;-) Can you also enlighten us as to how CPZs reduce through-traffic? Still waiting to find out if you found the reference of the borough-wide CPZ in the Labour manifesto.....

Thank you for acknowledging my legendary status.....;-) I must have missed your response on where the council mentions borough-wide CPZs in their manifesto - have you found it yet? The closest that manifesto gets to improvement in public transport is a promise to work with TFL to upgrade local stations....that'll help the local PTAL scores no-end....

Which brings us back to the whole point of this part of the discussion which is you'll always find people who will attack data that doesn't suit their narrative but when the authors of said research are 1) a person who was responsible for developing the LTN lobbying efforts for the LCC and 2) a person who pulls down posters that don't agree with their view of the world in relation to the very thing they are "independently assessing" then it puts the whole research on a very weak footing from the beginning and gives those against it huge amounts of ammunition. Those commissioning the research probably should have considered point 1 before engaging with UoW, they either didn't do their due-diligence or thought no-one would ever care - both of which are foolhardy to say the least.

Thanks for posting that Mr Chicken - I have shared it with everyone so they can see for themselves. Firstly, can you tell me where it mentions borough wide CPZs - maybe you were able to decipher that from the manifesto - perhaps as well as your skills as an engineer you have mastered mind-reading too!? 😉 Maybe omitting CPZs was an oversight on the part of the council - to be fair to them there have been quite a lot of oversights in relation to active travel proposals and execution over the last few years? Also, notice point 35 - two things to note: Firstly it says "work with communities". How quickly that turned into "we will tell you what we are doing and you will have no say in whether we do it or not". The current CPZ consultation is not working with communities it's telling the communities what the council is going to do whether they like it or not. Secondly, note the "Prioritising areas with high health inequalities and low car ownership first". That changed quickly as well didn't it as they are actually targeting the areas with the highest car ownership and are very vocal in why they are doing that because of "justice" apparently......?

I don't know but you're taking a very cynical position and jumping to an assumption from my post that is, clearly, very wrong.

Earl - you are right but can you show me where any local councillor/Southwark Labour mentioned the CPZs/LTNs in their manifesto - they seemed to go out of their way to not mention them? How robust is your representative democracy argument when councillors are not clear on what people are voting for? Or is that just politics? Is it not surprising that so soon after winning the local elections the council are imposing something that impacts every single person in the affected wards yet this was not mentioned at all? Do you not think something so impactful should have been declared? Why do you think they did not mention it - the answer to this question is the reason you should be concerned.

Errmmmm Mr Chicken.......does the tweet I linked before not address one of those points on past-week cycling.....take a look....

Hmmmmmm......Mr Chicken that one seems firmly back in your court now...we are waiting to see whether you have a return.... (No doubt some distraction technique incoming) And look how Waltham Forest is being spun by a Councillor there in the New Statesman in response to the focus on then right now.

...says the person who does nothing but ask questions but never ever provides any answers....sigh....are you sure you aren't LTN Manatee or Boohoo under a different name? 😉 I like to draw conclusions when I have heard from the person who presented it to us (and someone I respect because they work in the industry). I am not asking you because you are an engineer and clearly can't answer the question so maybe instead of throwing pointless responses into the thread to try and derail the conversation let the person I asked the question to answer it and we can go from there....of course, when we ask an engineering question feel free to jump in.

Ex- is this table from one of the links you shared saying that when they took those 12 interventions and put them to experts in the field this is how they assessed the potential to reduce car use in Lund? Do I take it the experts were applying local conditions and factors into the equation when making their assessment?

Mr Chicken - your responses make me think you don't actually ever want to discuss the topic in hand - you seem to be here just to distract and prevaricate. It seems now the Lounge Police can no longer patrol the area they have moved to a new tactic.....try to distract and derail discussions by throwing in nonsense. Heartblock is right - it's a load of greenwashing that does very little to make a positive change, propagated and propped-up by a nepotistic system of lobbyists, researchers and media all of whom have strong ties to the cycle lobby. Bikes are clearly one part of the solution but not the only solution - a mistake those aforementioned groups need to realise.

Ha ha...more distraction tactics Mr Chicken....;-) I have no interest in how much money she earns but the unit she heads on active travel at the University of Westminster was awarded £1.5m for the independent LTN review project and of course the co-author of that report was slated to be Dr. Anna Goodman. https://www.westminster.ac.uk/news/university-of-westminster-to-lead-major-ps15m-new-study-on-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london

And it remains absurd to have someone being paid huge amounts of money to research the effectiveness of measures that they helped define the strategy for and lobby for whilst at London Cycling Campaign.....you don't get more of a conflict of interest than that...well maybe you do and that award is taken by Sustrans for their role...;-) It will be interesting to see if Anna Goodman has been allowed to continue in her role in the research - if she has then any new research will be massively tainted by her actions.

You've got a admit they have a much better handle on the way the meeting went than you ....probably because they were there whilst you, clearly, were not and were just taking a wild (biased) stab in the dark about what actually happened......;-)

I don't want them to fail but I think they will fail because they are ill-thought out, badly planned and, in many cases, nothing about climate change but everything about revenue generation. I don't want the councillors to quit I want them to do their job per the pledge they made when they took office and I want them to be accountable for their actions and to listen to everyone not just the active travel lobby groups and try to properly determine what the problem is before they embark on rushed implementations spending huge amounts of taxpayers money. To answer your question you need to define most polluting - do you mean diesel cars, petrol cars, taxis, lorries, vans or buses? And do you mean most polluting in terms of NOx, PM10 or PM2.5?

Did you happen to live near the farmer who wrote P**s Off RAF on his barn roof to signal his annoyance at being buzzed by jets which then became a new landmark for the pilots who made sure they buzzed him more frequently!? I must admit I do feel sorry for those who live in the Mach Loop in Wales - lovely for plane spotters less so for anyone who lives there!

Yup SW London is awful - could never understand why people thought some of the areas right under the approach were great places to live - once the flaps and gear get down fully the noise generated is increased massively. And you're right, nowadays they would never allow an airport in an area of a city that required approaches over densely populated areas 70% of the time