Earl Aelfheah

Then why do you think that directing this small amount of traffic up the west side would cause tailbacks all the way to where the road splits and beyond? If heading south along the west side of the rye there is a very small diversion turning right and going round, instead of left and straight on. If travelling north it makes no difference. If travelling east you’d go via Nunhead lane as now. It’s a tiny difference, to a small number of private journeys, in order to speed up buses carrying a far greater number of people How is this altered by these changes? You don’t say and I don’t see it.

I don't think anyone is claiming that ULEZ is the only reason that air quality is improving. But it's clear that it's contributing. It has removed a lot of the highest polluting vehicles off our streets. Which I think is something everyone should welcome personally.

We've already established that is not a simple solution, because bicycles don't have speedometers, don't have number plates, and generally aren't registered. To make this change would require primary legislation and without the aforementioned mechanisms to effectively enforce the new law, it would be very unlikely to pass even the early stages of parliamentary scrutiny; Neither would it with them, as they would be disproportionate and counter productive. In short, it is definitely isn't going to happen. Despite the perception of some that push bikes travelling over 20mph is a significant issue, in reality it is not and our law-making processes assess evidence, and consider the unintended consequences, costs vs benefits and proportionality of imposing new regulations. ....and just a reminder that (according to the DfT) 85% of car drivers drive faster than the speed limit in 20mph zones. A much, much bigger problem. Tackling this would be a far better use of resources.

It's pretty clear that the ULEZ has improved air quality in London. Like you say, the idea that it's about revenue generation doesn't stack up (it's cost a lot to implement and the revenues will recede with time). The usual suspects, who vehemently oppose anything that seeks to limit or mitigate the negative impacts of motor vehicles, will not be happy whatever the data shows, or how you present it. But it's pretty clear that the ULEZ has been a success.

Looking at the link @hfoster posted above I think it is a matter of law, but obviously most people wouldn't see as any kind of issue for kids under 12 months. Once some busybody makes a complaint though, the cinema probably have little choice but to apply the strict letter of the law.

I suspect the cinema management had little choice once a complaint is made. But why someone would feel the need to complain to the council is beyond me.

XL Bully's are meant to be muzzled and kept on a lead at all times in public places I believe.

I have not seen any stats showing air quality getting worse in London. Data show the exact opposite, air quality improving, both across the capital, and in SE22 specifically. Could you perhaps provide the sources you're referring to? Here is the official air quality monitoring data (NO2) for the local area: SDT Location 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 139 Lamppost (2139 - L29) Grove Lane 33.2 24.1 27.5 18.6 136 Lamppost (2160 - L12) adjacent to Dog Kennel Hill School 33.8 20.2 23.9 22.3 20.1 138 Lamppost (2127 - L11) Pytchley Road 31.1 24.7 27.4 25.9 23.4 114 Lamppost No 1 Goose Green / East Dulwich Road 37.4 31.6 33 22.6 25.2 25 21.8 161 Lamppost 2120-02 adjacent to 8 East Dulwich Grove 29.2 25.3 162 On the southern downpipe at Harris East Dulwich Primary School, Lordship Lane 23 22.1 151 Junction of Townley Road & Lordship Lane Lamppost ( 2300 - 01) 28.6 18.6 22 20.1 17 97 Barry Road 37.5 37.3 32.5 24.3 26.8 24.4 23

Yes, I agree. But I don't think this is an argument for needing bigger, heavier, higher fronted 4 wheel drive vehicles across London (which seems to be what you're implying?). It's more than a little ironic to suggest the answer to climate change is more SUVs and cross over vehicles.

A 4WD is clearly essential in inner London due to … rain? You can drive what you like, but come on. Let’s be serious.

An example of an exceptional occasion where you got stuck in an unforecasted snow storm (really?) is not evidence that a 4WD vehicle is important for ‘safety’ in London. SUVs and cross over vehicles are 8 times more likely to kill a child in a collision than a standard saloon car. You can make any choice you like, but don’t pretend it’s a safety issue in London. Look at what happened in Wimbledon. We don’t need off road vehicles in built up areas.

To claim that 4WD is a necessary safety feature in London is laughable. Larger, heavier, higher fronted vehicles which easily mount verbs and pole through barriers are not safer in a built up area. The fact that 4WD once allowed you to drive in snow and ice (when advice was not to), is not evidence that it’s the responsible choice

Here we go.... Look, if you think that bigger, heavier, higher fronted vehicles are no more dangerous than smaller ones, fill your boots. It's clearly not the case though. And there is plenty of research to prove it's not. And putting safety to one side, it can't be sensible that half of new cars sold in the UK are too big to fit into the average parking space.

Most of the research I've seen broadly defines SUVs as including cross over vehicles. There is no doubt that vehicles have got bigger, higher, and heavier, year on year in the UK. The semantics of what you call this trend for bigger vehicles is irrelevant; It is not a good one for road safety. And in built up areas it really is undesirable imo.

The high bonnet, 4 wheel drive vehicle has absolutely no place in London imo. They’re unnecessarily heavy, capable of easily mounting curbs / plowing through barriers, and are much more likely to cause upper body injuries, posing a ridiculous danger to pedestrians, particularly children.

Nope. There is multi-year data across a number of local sites. All showing pollution falling. You have dug out two examples of data for a six- month average covering the first half of 2023 (clearly marked as unratified values without bias adjustment / subject to change in 2024), which have subsequently been updated to provide the full year figure. On the other hand we have a claim that pollution has trebled. With no source, and completely at odds with official data. So is that just made up? Is that fine? If we're playing that game, I'd like to point out that every Dulwich resident has got 3 inches taller and seen their income double as a result of the changes on Calton avenue. Now show me data on height or income and I'll try to pick it apart. That's how it works right?

Run by some lovely people. Really nice place.

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/air-quality-london-2016-2024

Do you think the meeting will achieve anything? Exactly. We agree

Before we start getting into a debate about the detail of the data we do have (which I’m very willing to do.. the second document gives a six- month average for the first half of 2023 and is marked as unratified values without bias adjustment / subject to change in 2024), can we first clarify where the figure of a ‘trebling in pollution’ comes from? Because it feels like there are some fairly obvious double standards when it comes to scrutiny of different statements in relation to evidence around the impact of the Dulwich LTN. …as in there is zero scrutiny of regular, unevidenced claims made in opposition of the LTN.

No they haven’t stated that. But then I’m sure they would dispute that it is their policy to ‘monetise car ownership’. They have stated however, that their strategy is to move away from favouring cars and instead, free up space for walking, public transport and cycling. Obviously the details of each individual scheme and whether / how it contributes to their ‘streets for people’ strategy need to be consulted on. But whether these open meetings, made up as they are of a small, self selecting and unrepresentative sample of people, mainly opposing change, actually achieve much is highly questionable.

These consultations are an expensive and divisive waste of time imo (and by the sounds of it, in most others too). The council have stated their intended direction for roads and transport and stood for election on it. When it comes to the details of specific schemes, they should undertake targeted consultation- speaking to experts, looking at data etc. They should bring together groups of people that consist of a representative sample of the local population, as well as using professional polling to understand local views. They have experimented with the use of 'citizens juries' in relation to climate change and it seems to be a much more constructive and useful way to form policy informed by input from the public. These types of events just entrench opposition amongst those that turn up. They are unlikely to change the councils position, because it is such a small, self-selecting sample, of those typically opposed to whatever change is being proposed. Ultimately, I think they'd be better off doing more targeted consultation, and then taking action and standing on their record when elections come back round.

Wow, is that real? Smart dress code policy? Get to 🤬

I’ve provided the site IDs (the SDT numbers) and given the location of the monitoring equipment. It's all publicly available data. Southwark publish an annual report with all the NO2 readings. You can easily Google it. But may I ask why you’ve not even questioned what data there is to back up the claim that pollution has ‘trebled’ (where, over which time period etc)? I think the Data dashboard you're referring to related to vehicle counts, not pollution levels.

I mean it is objectively a minority who respond to consultations 🤷‍♂️ …and it will definitely be a minority who turn up to this event If a majority of local residents do turn up to the meeting, then I'll happily stand corrected.