first mate

Oh, so now you are saying that CPZ only cost drivers money when they do something wrong? Are you being serious? CPZ are meant to relieve parking pressure; there has never been great parking pressure on the streets of Dulwich Village. May I remind you, only part of one street wanted it- that is out of the whole area. So what is the true reason for forcing an unwanted and unnecessary CPZ onto the area? £££££.

Thought I put a very fair point that you as a travel activist deciding to report back on your 'special' visit to the site to prove to us that this left turn across a bus lane is not a problem, is hardly the best debating point.

Isn't the title of this thread Dulwich Village Square?

First para, largely irrelevent to this specific and unusual junction. Second part, well you knew exactly what to look for didn't you? Forewarned and all that. A travel activist visiting a site to prove a point is not really saying anything persuasive. Many will be caught out, because the bus lane demarcation lines run on for longer than is usual. In heavy traffic or low light I can easily see how visibility and judgement might be affected.

What about community and housing?

That all sounds incredibly noble, but sadly just not convincing. Your own extensive track record of twisting and misrepresentation of what others have said, even suggesting other posters are making things up (lying) does you no favours. Plus, in the list of points above you are again making multiple misrepresentations about what others have said. These are not the actions of someone interested only in 'good faith debate'.

Ah, I think Malumbu is also trying this line out. So desperate to close it all down Earl. As I have said before, if it is such a non issue, why are you still here?

Let's see. Once that DV CPZ gets underway and the knock-on effects of multiple unwanted and unnecessary road tinkering starts to truly bed in.

Ah bless, Earl. It seems Rockets is just republishing some of what you have already published on this very forum. Thought you might be a bit flattered that he has taken your lead and copied your MO - Earl's sentence slice, dice and quote elsewhere recipe for forum debate. What is that saying about geese and ganders? Malumbu, it has been noted that you and Earl are now suggesting this sort of thing with increasing frequency. What number in the pro LTN lobbyist handbook is this BTW?

I must say, the mere thought that a seriously cash-strapped council might try to find ways to 'stretch' the rules so that it can utilise a massive multi million pound parking revenue reserve fund, just sitting in its bank account, does seem like the most far fetched conspiracy you could ever, ever dream up. And, as Dulville says, absolutely defies all logic😂 As we know, this council is always utterly straightforward and transparent in all its dealings.

Misrepresentation. Rockets never said he had a fine from Southwark for a violation involving the specific bus lane and left turn under discussion. But you already know that, don't you.

No, that is your misrepresentation. Do answer my question as to how DV LTN has improved safety?

There you go again. Blatant misrepresentation. Rockets did not say drive 'into', he said 'across' and for the very specific example under discussion, I think this means across the top of where the white demarcation line ends, so tyres clip the white line. Altogether different from driving into the bus lane.

And again, CPZ, and LTNs are interlinked. Maybe bus lane violations also help fund LTNs? The DV LTN has improved safety how and for who?

Loving your attempts to rewrite your take on all this Earl.

I visited the newly finished Vanity Square yesterday. There is a bit of an issue with the landscaping pebbles in the rain gardens and around the planting, it is getting scattered over the paving. Perhaps done by animals or humans? Not great though and needs sorting or it will soon be a mess.

Or to put it another way, CPZ revenue is used to fund LTNs as well as other things. The two are interlinked, something that up until very recently you denied. Why? It is you that keeps mentioning a conspiracy, I haven't. Another attempt to deflect and misrepresent?

@Earl Aelfheah Another standard copy and paste pro LTN/CPZ lobbyist handbook response. This is almost word for word what Malumbu writes when he is stuck for an answer. No need to ask the council, Rockets has published clear evidence from the council that CPZ are a council revenue raising tool. What is very clear is that the very recently completed LTN changes in Dulwich Village, including the million pound, unwanted, Vanity Square are closely linked to the brand new, soon to be activated, Dulwich Village CPZ, also unwanted by the majority of consultation respondents, but necessary for Southwark Council to glean revenue and fund its fanatical follies.

It is a personal attack. You have accused him of doing something and have asserted that is his motivation for the thread. Where did Rockets say Southwark had fined him? In making your personal attack you have also attempted to twist and misrepresent. Clipping a bus lane demarcation line as you turn across the end of the bus lane is not the same as driving in a bus lane. You have form on accusing others of making things up, but here is an example of you doing just that. Where exactly has Rockets said he was fined at this bus lane?

But Southwark's own documents show that CPZ revenue is spent on funding LTNs. Are you now saying those documents are inaccurate or that you know better? It is all a bit playing with words. LTNs may help create conditions that make the case for a CPZ and that then generates revenue that is currently placed under some rather vague surplus headings, like environmental and housing and community. It is all very interlinked. So, CPZ revenue has been used to fund unwanted and unnecessary projects like Vanity Square, even though, and this is something that requires greater scrutiny, the DV LTN is said by Southwark Council not to be a 'true' LTN.

Hilarious. You have to resort to personal attacks; nowhere else to go. We have seen this before with the pro LTN lobby if you cannot debate with facts and evidence, then go low, seems part of the playbook.

Oh yes, but it seems many of these things are interlinked, doesn't it. Now we know CPZ and parking fines fund LTNs, maybe revenue from driving in bus lanes also goes into this pot? No, of course you are not part of an LTN lobby😉

Ah yes, the school crossing patrols- does this include lollipop handlers?

Oh, so you now agree CPZ revenue is used to fund LTNs, they are not unrelated? Since you have the inside track on all this can you explain in terms of use of parking revenue, what does Environmental cover exactly? What about housing and community?

It is so telling that you'd much rather focus on this, another opportunity to charge others with "confirmation bias" and "cherry picking" but you and the rest of the LTN lobby are silent on the relationship between parking revenue and funding of LTNs. I wonder if you can get something about the laws of physics into this also- another of your standard responses. You are very quick to accuse others of playing fast and loose with the truth but, again, you have twisted what Rockets has said. He is not advocating driving in bus lanes and you know it; he is saying that the chosen use of bus lane demarcation lines by the council seems to deliberately increase the risk of cars clipping the white line as they turn left, because this bus lane is longer than usual and in certain traffic conditions it may be harder to judge where the line ends. He also points out that this is the turning Southwark Council have chosen to monitor with a camera. No doubt you and your fellows in the council might argue that the camera is warranted but, if you/they genuinely want to reduce violations why not give a bit more length on the turn? Why make it unusually short?