Rockets

I also see Helen Hayes is due to be attending a ?Speak up for climate change? event on Saturday 9th October at Herne Hill Baptist church. Might be worth attending to help draw her attention to the nonsense policy her councillors are pursuing in regard to LTNs. She has been unwilling to be drawn into it but this might be the chance to show the weight of local opinion.

Looks like Southwark are getting some attention from the Torygraph...Cllr Rose's comments are beyond parody....

Malumbu - I am a functional cyclist not a fanatical cyclist and the problem is cycling has been infiltrated by fanatics and fantasists who believe that cycling is the only solution to London's problems and pedal, no pun intended, misinformation to force their agenda. The recent "2020 saw the biggest rise in cycling" narrative is a prime example - when other data is showing those increases have evaporated.

But DC is an electric metal box better than a petrol or diesel one?

DC - but surely if that electric metal box isn't polluting as much as the old petrol/diesel metal box then that is a good thing is it not? No-one wants to sit in traffic so there is a reason they do and a million more reasons why they can't, don't or won't walk, cycle or get public transport. What you seem to be saying is the metal box is the issue not what the metal box emits in terms of pollution? Have a great evening - isn't it nice to be able to go out again?

Ok DC, now put pragmatsim over idealism. Firstly congestion, CO2 emissions, climate change and social equity are all wrapped up in my definition/effect of pollution - so I am not separating those out. They are all about limiting the impact of emissions from cars and are all intertwined. A line of congested electric vehicles is doing far less damage to the environment than a line of petrol and diesel vehicles - would you not agree? Likewise, surely an electric car has far fewer CO2 emissions than a petrol or diesel vehicle? And one would presume that electric vehicles would do far less overall damage in terms of climate change? Social equity - it depends whether you mean living with the impacts of cars or accessibility. If it is living with the impacts then given lower emissions the impact would be lower, especially along roads where population density is highest. At this point there isn't a huge amount in terms of accessibility but new business models are being developed (like Car Clubs) where more people can get access to cars without having to own one. Road saftey - yes, that is always going to be an issue but according to the European Road Safety Observatory we have one of the most densely populated countries in the world but have one of the world's best safety records. And there are new technologies like ADAS and CV2-X that will make the roads even safer for everyone who uses them as your car will always know where it is in relation to people, bikes, cars and other things on or at the side of a road and will be able to anticipate potential incidents and take evasive action before the driver does. These technologies are easier to implement in electric vehicles. The car is one of the most popular forms of transportation for a reason and just saying we have to stop using them is not the answer. They are always be going to be cars and whilst you take a position of the car is bad you don't ever actually deal with the issues created by cars. A lot of people are saying bikes are the solution - but clearly that isn't going to cut it and during the last 18 months, since the pandemic began, bikes saw a huge increase and then equally huge decrease in usage. It seems people are voting with their feet and whilst bikes were good for pottering to the park with the kids during lockdown they aren't the solution in a big city when life starts returning to normal. Even pre-lockdown this trend is prevalent in places like the Netherlands - whilst the Dutch love their bikes they love their cars in equal measure and own more cars per capita than us in the UK - I suspect they own more bikes per capita too. So, putting my pragmatic hat on electric vehicles seem to be a major part of the solution for the most pressing need which is climate change - yet many on the other side of the fence disagree but I can't find a rational explanation why except people living by the mantra of two wheels good/four wheels bad. Perhaps can you enlighten me as to why you are so averse to electric vehcile?

DKHB - why are electric cars not the panacea? Surely they massively reduce pollution which is the key issue we are trying to address, is it not?

So there was one fossil fuel car launched at the show.....my hasn't Dacia's launch massively slowed the rate of progress to the electrification of cars? I wholeheartedly apologise for daring to suggest that all the launches were electric. So let me rephrase what I said....all, bar one car launched by Dacia, were electric and the world's leading car brands that account for the large majority of sales went fully electric with their launches. Happy now - I suspect not! ;-) Redpost - before piling on I would suggest you pay more attention to the thread...DKHB linked to the article - I just quoted something from that article that DKHB used as proof that not all cars launched were electric.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought Rockets qualified his statement by > saying not a single petrol or diesel car > "launched". > > Is it the case petrol and diesel cars were > launched? You've just referred to cars "at" the > show...not the same thing. > > Anyhow, I guess the point is it may be more > accurate to say the majority of cars were > electric. I don't know, I wasn't there and do not > follow car events, but to incorrectly quote > Rockets and then on that basis accuse him of > talking cobblers is a bit much. DKHB is so keen to throw in an aggressive "gotcha" that they failed to actually read what was written in either my post or the article they link to. I love the fact that the article they link to talks about all the electric cars that VW, BMW and Mercedes launched at the show - and all the concept cars being electric. Not a single mention of any launches of anything other than electric, in fact I am struggling to find any references to a single petrol or diesel car in the article - thereby highlighting my point even more strongly. The article does talk about hybrids (in relation to there being a worrying lack of infrastructure to accelerate the total transition to electric as quickly as people would like and that manufacturers are putting pressure on govts to improve electric infrastrucutre) but that's about it for anything beyond electric. In fact the article says: In many ways, it feels like the sheen of ?newness? around the concept of electric cars as a whole has well and truly worn off; now they?re the unquestioned stars of events such as this and there?s a whole raft of other novel concepts and ideas to get used to. The car industry has gone electric - that is most definitely not "cobblers".

But this is the point isn't it - people need to get around in vehicles. Electric cars reduce pollution and measures like LTNs are, ostensibly, designed to reduce pollution - for every electric car that replaces a petrol or diesel car there is a reduction in pollution. Surely that and the fact that all manufacturers are switching exclusively to electric is a good thing, is it not? Buses, taxis and delivery vehicles are all turning electric - electric seems to be the clear way forward. The car industry is slow to change but it is changing. They design cars 3-5 years ahead of going on sale so the pace of change is slower than people would like. But, it is changing, but it seems for some it is not enough. You mention nuclear power stations - it wasn't that long ago that people were protesting about having nuclear power and you can guarantee that some of those people are now protesting about the impacts of climate change. Sometimes you just have to put pragmatism ahead of idealism. Speaking of which... When I watched this piece of performance art from the spokesperson for Insulate Britain I saw so many parallels with the unwavering fanaticism displayed by many around LTNs - we're right, you're wrong, we don't care about what you think or the negative consequences of our actions, this is our righteous path and we will not deviate from it (let me also be clear that the GMB presenters don't cover themselves in glory here either) but this spokesperson, who laughably hasn't insulated his own home, does his cause not good but will no doubt be idolised by his supporters:

I saw that the same tactics were used in Munich a few weeks ago around what used to be the Frankfurt Motor Show (which is now in Munich). Protestors blockaded all of the motorways and roads around Munich to protest at the motor show coming to the city and they caused utter chaos but someone pointed out to them that there was not a single petrol or diesel car launched at the show - everything was electric. I didn't realise Insulate Britain are campaigning for better insulation of homes - a worthy cause as that is it is all a bit fringe and to do what they have been doing is all a bit lunatic fringe - is this a splinter group from XR? ;-) Were they not happy that XR weren't focussed enough on homes leaking energy.....my goodness me...

Interesting to see a plethora of "cycling increased massively in 2020" noise at the moment from the cycle lobby's usual suspects - interesting timing given lots of councils are reviewing their LTN strategies. Those lobbyists seem less keen to discuss what has happened to cycling in 2021 which is now well below the 5 year rolling average. It seems the cycling uplift and the modal shift that so many harped on about was an uptick built solely on the period of the first major lockdown and has now completely evaporated.

And a bit like the M25 protestors the councillors have created more congestion and pollution in their quest to highlight congestion and pollution and supposedly try to solve the problem. Both groups display a blinkered, narcissistic attitude without any empathy for anything other than their own cause.

I think that is very much the point. The communication on this, and other issues, is woefully, and deliberately, misleading - very much a case of "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". The council present things as fact yet omit the facts they don't want to have to acknowledge. They prioritise their ideology over pragmatism. They are doing it with the in-fill of the greenspace in Peckham. They did it with Cllr Leo Pollack after he was found to have been aggressively trolling his own constituents under a false Twitter handle. The council is out of control and doing exactly the things most of them have spent their political lives proudly campaigning against and berating other parties for doing.

Oh my....Richard Leeming....very undignified responses on this thread.

I recently held on the phone to DMC for an hour and 15 minutes to be told that all the appointments had gone and I either needed to call back at 8am the next morning or I could book an appointment via their website. I was not able to book an appointment any other way. I went to their website to book an appointment, answered a load of questions only to be told by an automated response that I had to call the practice to book an appointment.......it really is ridiculous. Can you walk-in at DMC to get an appointment - I may try that? Is this just a DMC issue - are others having similar issues at other practices?

People were given a choice to register their support for option a, b or c. They voted (as in the verb), whether it was a vote (as in the noun) is a subject of continued conjecture. If people were not registering their vote for which option they support then it begs the question what was the point of the consultation/review and does it now make any future consultations completely meaningless and worthless - the consultation was touted by the council as a way for people to "have their say"? Also you need to remember that the council has, seemingly, made a decision to continue with the DV closures on the basis of the votes of those on Court Lane and Calton. So they can't have it both ways - but as we saw from the CPZ consultation they do like to have their cake and eat (regardless of what the majority being impacted think).

It is shocking (perhaps it is not) that the council only referenced the fact that people are supportive of the strategic aims of Healthier Streets on the leaflet that dropped through our doors and completely omitted any reference to the fact that the significant majority want the LTNs removed. A number of people I have spoken to had received the document and had assumed (on the basis of the stats the council published below) that people had voted for the measures not against them - when you tell them the truth their responses are usually unrepeatable on a forum such as this! It is a shocking, deceitful and an utterly manipulative, omission. The majority of respondents (55%) were supportive of the overall aims of Streets for People as set out as priorities in the survey. In particular, a majority of respondents (77%) agreed that improving air quality and road safety on the street where they lived was an important priority. The largest level of support in the survey (82%) was for improving air quality and road safety for local schools. Was the omission deliberate or another unfortunate "oversight"?

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmm. Feel free to continue to think you were > voting for or against LTNs but you weren't. You > were being consulted. > You've been consulted. They've spun the results. > You don't like the outcome and by all means > protest. But just like the *whispers* CPZ, this > wasn't a vote with a binary outcome. So where we are now then is council's ask us "tell us what you think and what you want us to do" (which at the end of the day is what a consultation is) and when they offer residents the option to say they would like the measures removed and when 65% respond saying that's what they want, they then say, nah...we, the elected officials, don't want that so we will continue on the path we want to follow. There are elections going on in Russia at the moment that are following a similar path....be careful what you wish for. If you think what is happening now with the LTNs is some sort of balanced and fair democratic process you are wrong. It is funny how people are coming on now and questioning the results of the consultation and putting a load of ifs, buts and maybes. The facts speak for themselves - 65% of residents who live within the consultation area replied saying they want the LTNs removed. Immediately. No ifs, buts or maybes. I think what is actually happening here is that many who wouldn't listen to people saying "most people don't want/like this" and refused to acknowledge the weight of public opinion now realise the small vocal minority are, in fact, those supporting the LTNs.

DKHB - I am not sure it is as some charges have been over-turned on review due to the lack of proper or obscured signage - this sets a precedent. The council admitting that they will improve signage also sets a precedent. Some of the signs are clear - others aren't. For example if you approach along Gallery Road you can't see the timing signs on the corner of Burbage - that has nothing to do with a lack of driver awareness of the Highway Code. The fact that a resident of Burbage used to stand on the corner to alert people they were about to get a sign speaks volumes for how poorly the signage has been implemented.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by > two out of three people living and working in the > three Dulwich LTNs, who opted for ?return it to > the original state?. > > Look I'm no apologist for the council who I know > have heavily spun their presentation of the data > but surely this is factually incorrect. > > Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by > two out of three people, who responded to a > survey, living and working in the three Dulwich > LTNs, who opted for ?return it to the original > state?. > > We don't know how many people are classified as > living and working in the three Dulwich LTNs but > we do know that the consultation newsletter was > posted to 19,729 addresses and of the survey > respondents 5,538 classified themselves as living > and working in the three Dulwich LTNs. > > Source: > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1015 > 17/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultat > ion%20Report.pdf You're right but isn't that a bit like saying the result of a general election is not the will of the people but the will of the people who bothered to vote? The review was the bar the council set to determine local resident sentiment to the closures. Two-thirds of people said they don't want it and they should be removed - that's pretty compelling and certainly bucks the council-led narrative that it was just a "small local minority" who were opposing the measures. And that resounding vote against the council and their measures came despite all the efforts the council and councillors went to to try and rally support for them. In fact, the "turnout" was higher than the turnout for council elections - which if I was one of the councillors would worry me no-end given their tiny majorities. To Heartblock's point I very much suspect that the council would have listened if 65% had voted to keep them and they would be telling us what a resounding vote of confidence there was from residents for the measures. And Heartblock - we all need to take that 10% reduction with a very large pinch of salt as no monitoring data has been shared or included for Underhill Road, which has become a major displacement route for traffic trying to avoid the chaos at the Lordship Lane/A205 junction.

Just to clarify - my wife was wearing her bag across her body (she spent many years living in cities around Europe where bag snatching is rife so is always on her guard and never carries a bag on one shoulder or just in the hand). This didn't stop the thief from trying to rip it from her (she had a mark on her neck for a few day where he tried to pull it to rip the bag strap). People get their phones out to do a plethora of things nowadays. I had one snatched a few years ago outside an event as I went to book an Uber as I left. The security guard I spoke to after it happened said every time an event is on the thieves descend as they know the moment people get outside they reach to book an Uber etc. These thieves are not opportunists and are, unfortunately, very good at what they do - they also know that knocking into someone when they are not expecting it causes a momentary distraction where they can pretty much take what they want. And they revel in what they do - apparently as a few of the Kwik Fit team gave chase the thief rode off waving my wife's phone in the air as he was safe in the knowledge no-one would catch him. Just be careful everyone.

Latest update from One Dulwich: Two-thirds reject the Dulwich LTNs | 20 Sep On Friday evening, Southwark published its report on the Dulwich Streetspace measures with 19 supporting documents. You may also have received an 8-page newsletter through your door. The results of the consultation are hidden, but they are very clear. Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by two out of three people living and working in the three Dulwich LTNs, who opted for ?return it to the original state?. (This doesn?t mean, incidentally, that a third of respondents agreed with them. Only one in five ? around 20% ? of those who answered were in favour. The rest wanted different measures or modifications.) Despite this huge opposition from those who took part in the consultation, Southwark is going ahead with the scheme, with a few minor changes. The closures still displace traffic and pollution on to residential streets with schools and health centres. They still discriminate against those who are more vulnerable, including older people and people with disabilities, and they still damage the viability of our local shops and businesses. With our colleagues in the Dulwich Alliance, we have drafted an initial statement, which you can read here. Now the work begins. We have all been given ten days to respond (via [email protected], deadline Monday 27 September). Our initial assessment is that the standard of reporting in the documents is extremely poor and that we have strong and valid criticisms. We will update you next weekend with our findings so that you can draw on our analysis for your own objections. The final decision will be in November, according to Southwark?s newsletter. So the next few weeks are crucial. Our legal team is assessing our options. We are also planning more immediate action. In the meantime, please contribute to our fighting fund. It is time for our elected councillors ? and our local MP Helen Hayes ? to listen to the majority. In other constituencies, local MPs have spoken out when councils tried to ride roughshod over the results of public consultations. Two-thirds of local people have rejected the Dulwich Streetspace scheme. We deserve a better and fairer solution. Thank you for your support.

I think it is telling that the council are saying they will improve signage - is this an admission that the current signage is not sufficient - could someone challenge the ?3m worth of fines to date on that basis?

Cllr McAsh, I hope you had a good summer. I am just wondering if you had any thoughts on the LTN review data that was published by the council last week? The constituents within the review area have, overwhelmingly (64%), voted for the measures to be removed yet the council is suggesting amendments to the current closures that will do nothing to alleviate the problems the measures have created. It is clear, from the council's data published in the review, that there has not been the "significant reduction in traffic across the Dulwich area" as you claimed in your recent newsletter. The council is claiming a 10% reduction in traffic across the area but the monitoring data from roads like Underhill (which is a key displacement route) has not been published or included which means that the 10% figure is likely to reduce to closer to 0% once that data is included. Could you summarise what you believe the benefits of the scheme to date have been as it is unclear to me, from reading the report, what they are? The measures have had more than enough time to bed in, yet: - Pollution has not decreased (in fact it is likely to have increased) - Modal shift has not happened (the report admits that cycling numbers are now decreasing to pre-Covid levels) - Displacement roads are more congested - Bus journey times have increased in many parts of the area - Local businesses are being impacted negatively as is the attractiveness of the area as a shopping destination - Emergency service response times have been impacted by the closures and lives have been put at risk It is clear the council has failed to deliver against the stated objectives for these measures so why are you continuing to pursue them and for whose benefit exactly? It seems the majority of your constituents are being impacted negatively by them and don't want them.