first mate

Well maybe not the best way to make your point Earl, it just looks a bit silly. I think largely threads have been recreated when they were locked. Aside from that, I think you have issue with interlinked topics being mentioned on multiple threads. You object because you feel LTNs, CPZ and Dulwich Square are all completely discrete entities that are completely unrelated. Whereas, we have shown they are all interlinked.

Just noticed that Earl, one of the posters who has complained long and hard about there being multiple threads discussing LTN, as well as repeatedly stating that related changes are 5 years old and to desist, has just now started another thread about LTNs?! Bizarre.

Yes and by some accounts in quite recently, which makes inclusion of that information all the more relevant.

People are free to subscribe to any groups, whether One Dulwich or those with influence/ contributing to the agenda of the Dulwich Society Transport sub-committee. Posters are also free to contribute to threads, however hard you try to censor those views. The above is relevant to this thread because One Dulwich gives voice to those locals who object to/question imposition of an agenda by a council seemingly overly influenced by cycling lobby groups like LCC.

Because, as just explained, they are all interlinked and One Dulwich addresses those links.

Thing is, as we now know, CPZ, LTN (and Dulwich Sq) all interlinked, so showing how LCC in cahoots with Labour has successfully managed to get both measures installed locally, against the will of the majority of residents consulted, can be placed in threads on local CPZ, LTN or Dulwich Square.

Clearly the pro-LTN branch of The Dulwich Society. Are you a member of the Travel and Evironment sub-committee per chance? Are you a member of the Labour Party as well? This is fascinating and the plot thickens….read on…. Now remember back in June there was a thread on the shenanigans taking place at the Dulwich Society which you started Dulville Res? Now we know the chair of the Dulwich Society Transport sub committee was also awarded London Cycling Campaign campaigner of the year- presumably for helping ensure Dulwich Sq, the 'LTN' and CPZ impositions happened. Wondering how many other pro LTN/CPZ/Dulwich Sq posters on here are members/ involved of the Dulwich Society transport sub committee?

No, the truly shocking campaign/harnessing of social media, has been through an LCC campaigner of the year who also happens to be Chair of the Dulwich Society Transport Sub Committee. That committee seems to have been hijacked by LCC supporters with local Labour Councillors in attendance, to get things, like Dulwich Square 'done'. I would not be surprised if at least one of that sub committee has been posting here on these threads.

What a waste of paper and plastic too.

I'm thinking about how to spend that gigantic Council parking surplus- 20 mph can be done borough by borough. Sometimes you do sound awfully similar in your messaging to cycle lobby groups like LCC, plus you work in transport and you do not live in the borough.

The value of One Dulwich is that it is managing to articulate concerns of many local residents. As the council override consultation results it is quite useful to have a voice with a different perspective and which challenges the council and cycling lobby agenda. I think One Dulwich reflects what locals think, rather than telling them what to think. At the end of the day, we all make our own minds up. I would add that sometimes LCC might as well post on here as messaging from certain posters is very similar.

Are you a member of affiliated to LCC, Earl? It seems a number of posters on here closely reflect the LCC agenda and advisories, so in a way, maybe LCC stuff is already being posted;

Interesting. The cycle lobby on here are desperate ( for reasons I do not understand) to avoid having 20mph speed limits apply to all road users.

I'd love to know how many are LCC members. As we know, LCC asks members from all over London to get involved in local traffic consultations and influence others via social media. My guess is some may also be very close to the council;

That is the born again cyclist for you.

Given all the concerns raised here about motorists, I 'd guess young children are not going to be cycling alone, so the majority will have an adult with them. Older children will almost certainly have a mobile phone and the ability to download a GPS app. I thought 20mph could be set and controlled by local bye laws? Snowy, not sure what the relevance of batteries running out or unicycles is? I'm also waiting for you to dig out that information you say you have, but don't have time to find, on the case discussed by Rockets?

Hang on, we are talking about Southwark, yes? Do you have evidence this alleged IP address fiddle in another borough also applies to the majority consultation result against the Dulwich Village CPZ, and historically, the majority against CPZ in East Dulwich? As we know, many LTNs have been imposed, with zero consultation. I'd also add that many of these consultations are also open to skewing by LCC, who positively encourage members all over London to get actively involved in consultations for areas they live miles away from.

It's okay, Earl has stopped masquerading as One Dulwich now. In fairness to him, the disguise was not very sophisticated- deliberately, of course.

Earl said: "Out of interest, what do you think would improve road safety more - prioritising slowing down cyclists, or motorcars? Because of course, outside of the silly footballification stuff, we all know the answer to that." Let's do both, however to do that we just need to apply the same speed to all road users. I am not a champion of dangerous driving or cycling, I want it all to be addressed and a universal speed limit is a sensible first point of action. As I have said before, I think that on the cycling front there are too many grey areas and that leads to careless behaviour and the more people see others getting away with it, the more people will follow suit. Surely you do not want this to increase; if not addressed it will. What is the point of increasing risks all round, adding to those already presented by cars, by turning blind eye? As a seasoned cyclist I am amazed you are not aware of speedometer apps;

But they cannot be fined for exceeding 20mph in 20mph zone if the speed limit does not apply to cyclists? Again, no licensing required, just apply the same speed limit to all road users. Can we also conclude from what you say that cyclists going through a red light is cycling dangerously? This is what City Police were fining cyclists for?

So why not have 20mph for all road users? As discussed, licensing not necessary?

Apples and pears. A voice like One Dulwich does not have the power to impose an agenda on the electorate in the way the council has. All it is doing is reflecting concerns about what the council has done in imposing an agenda, often against the wishes of those it has consulted. But clearly, you and other cycle lobbyists find this incredibly threatening and, for some reason, want to shut down that voice. Hardly democratic.

That is a swerve,Earl. City Police have managed to fine cyclists for breaking the law, without licensing, so it is certainly possible.

It is such a simple question, all the cycle lobbyists on here are swerving around like crazy. I still don't understand why 20mph for all road users is not acceptable and such a problem?

A number of us feel the council has been less than transparent in the way it has handled street changes etc and they have the power to impose an agenda, not just criticise someone elses. Nonetheless, One Dulwich voices views that many recognise and agree with. I know this seems to drive you and other cycle lobbyists crazy, because it means you cannot control the messaging as you would wish, but that is democracy.