DulvilleRes

The academic ripping down an anti LTN petition isn't a great look. But is it the LTN smoking gun that some of the posters on this thread claim it is? I'm not convinced. My understanding is the academic didn't do all the studies and she didn't do them alone. The article I read doesn't time date when the incident occurred. It looks recent to me, so that being the case, it would post dates the studies. She defends herself as a moment of madness, for which there could be all kinds of reasons. If there is an issue in her work, I'm sure it will be reviewed by her peers and employer, who will be closer to the facts than any of us will be. The thing I've found most revealing about this whole situation is the papers that chose to run it - the Daily Mail and The Telegraph. In recent years they have comprehensively aligned themselves to culture war issues. I notice that, as far as I am aware, they weren't running stories about how in leafy Dulwich, the Police had to be involved in the sheer and sustained level of nastiness of the direct intimidation some supporters of the LTN's experienced at the hands of those of an anti LTN persuasion, but they chose to run one on an expert falling down. So it is fair to say that the anti LTN cause is of considerable interest to the right wing press. I also note that a lot of the anti LTN campaigning locally has taken on an unnecessarily culture wars hue - some of the stuff I've read about the cabal of lycra clad cycling eco warriors in cahoots with the Council could, in my view, easily have fitted the rhetoric of the Daily Mail. The local Conservatives ran virtually their entire recent local election campaign on the LTN single issue and lost. It always struck me as an interesting choice by the local Conservatives, when there are so many other local issues. So, my questions remain - in whose interests is it to keep cranking up the LTN issue? Who funds One Dulwich and do their leading lights have strong political affiliations they aren't telling us about? One would hope that it is the apolitical community group it purports to be, but it really is a mystery to me, and If anyone has further information on this, please do share.

Thanks to all of you attempting to answer my questions on who are the shakers and movers of One Dulwich, and who funds them. I'm a bit surprised that no one seems to have any answers - threads on this forum sometimes kick off with the latest One Dulwich press release/ update, or those updates often feature within threads to the point where, as far as the LTNs are concerned, the EDF can feel like the One Dulwich public information channel. Yet when it comes to any information about One Dulwich, no one seems to know anything, or if they do, they are unwilling to share. This puzzles me, as this incuriosity sits in contrast to the huge attention to detail shown by anti- LTN posters of poring over Southwark Council data or the technical merits of measuring strips. Why would those opposed to LTN's not want to find out a bit more about the people, motives and finances of the organisation they seem to espouse and support? I'm never comfortable with an organisation that purports to be some kind of popular movement, but remains opaque. Rightly or wrongly, it makes me feel I'm not being levelled with. Is One Dulwich all that it seems? Only further information would tell.

One Dulwich clearly seeks to influence local politics - their website still contains analysis of how to vote opponents out. The public criticism from some of those in the anti-LTN lobby of local elected councilors has been unrelenting, and at times personalized and very unpleasant. Councilors and supporters of the LTN's have in the past been physically targeted in or near their homes by people with anti-LTN views, to the point that the Police had to get involved. There were months of vandalism and graffiti of LTN infrastructure, and at one point I actually stumbled across a bloke with a balaclava and dressed in black trying to pull a barrier down. I have found it all very unsettling, and given this broader context, I think One Dulwich, which purports to be a grassroots organization, owes the community a bit of transparency and accountability. So, who funds One Dulwich? It is a relatively expensive operation, with all those billboards and leaflets. Who are their principal shakers and movers? Are those shakers and movers aligned with a particular political party? Does one political party dominate? It is all very opaque. I've asked the question before, and no one seems to be able to provide an answer.

One Dulwich is an apolitical grassroots campaign Where is the evidence for this? What is clear is that prominent local Conservatives have been in the past heavily involved in the anti LTN lobby, and ran their last local election campaign on virtually that single issue - and lost. Who are the One Dulwich officers/ active members? Where does the funding come from and are the accounts visible to the local community? Are there One Dulwich meetings open to all? How are One Dulwich decisions arrived at - a democratic vote of supporters? Maybe I have missed something, but I have yet personally to see any answers; perhaps someone on this thread could illuminate. Until that happens the question could be asked - does One Dulwich have a lack of the kind of transparency and accountability that they constantly demand from the council?

The question can be asked - does it suits some people with a political agenda that isn't always apparent to keep banging on about LTN's? The issue got overtly politicised at the last local election with the local Conservatives ( one of the candidates co founded a local anti LTN group) running on virtually this one local issue, and they didn't win. That would indicate that locally this isn't quite the burning issue that some posters keep making it out to be.

I think the enhancements are great - it is a real pleasure to see families/ young people enjoying them today. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, it gives visitors and locals alike the option to meet, sit out and enjoy the lovely neighbourhood and unseasonably good weather without having to spend £3 on a coffee. The future plans look even better - I love the ambition of creating play areas and public art.

The anti-LTN lobby, as I recall, during the consultation gave the advice to anyone with negative feedback about the LTN's to go for the 'remove them completely' option, as they didn't like the framing of the questions. The Council went ahead anyway and put in a number of significant improvements. What has made this whole issue so difficult to make constructive progress on is it has always felt overtly politicized. The relentless targeting of the councilors - sometimes physical in the form of graffiti near their homes/ the stalker style pictures of them - the local Conservatives seemingly campaigning on the LTN's as a single issue and the opaque 'Vote Them Out' group has felt at times to me like it has come from another place than simply finding the best solution to a local issue.

Partygate is a deeply local issue - local people were adhering to the rules in sometimes desperately harrowing circumstances, while Johnson was breaking them and then lying about it. There are some things so grievous in public life that they can't simply be sidelined. I might have missed something, but I'm still waiting for the local council election Conservative candidates views on this local issue.

My view is Tristan and Clive from the Conservatives should resign their party memberships and not stand on a Tory ticket. What has happened at a national level in the Conservatives is disgusting. The law makers were partying while a local 19 year old young woman died at home, having to say her farewells to her friends and wider family on zoom. I cannot see how Tristan and Clive could credibly allow themselves to be part of such an organisation.

I certainly won't be voting Conservative Ruby Fuller was a local 19 year old, former head girl of the Charter School, who died at home obeying the lockdown rules, while Johnston and Sunak broke them, and then lied about it. See Remembering Ruby @KindlyLoudly on Twitter

It isn't a rich v poor argument - there is also social / rented housing within the LTN's, even on Calton Avenue - and I think its characterisation as such is a dubious bit of appropriation on the part of the anti LTN lobby. Try telling the people of large parts of Salford, Thamesmead or Lurgan that an average house price of ?808,000 represents a deprived street. There has clearly been much too and fro over the last few months as to whether LTNs work or not overall in reducing traffic, and to be clear, I respect the views and experiences of many who have posted on her, even though I might not agree with the conclusions they reach. I completely recognise the real strength of feeling many poster on here have. What concerns me most is the manner in which this debate has been conducted - there has been a good deal of misleading statements, factual inaccuracies, and at times physical intimidation. Characterising people who support LTN's / traffic reduction as multiple car owners, who love artisan shops, and just care about their house prices feels more like the latest caricature driven manifestation of 'war on woke' than anything relevant to a debate within a community. At times I've asked myself the question: is this a straight debate amongst neighbours about the best way to reduce traffic, or is it being used by some to push a wider but concealed political agenda? The appearance of the opaque Vote Them Out website supporting an anti LTN lobby position does not do much to allay my concerns.

Here we go again with the bogus class war narrative from the anti LTN lobby on the LTNs issue. The average house price last time I looked for all properties sold on East Dulwich Grove - one of the supposedly blighted boundary roads - is ?808,950. That is up from ?717,000 last June. A good swathe of the houses on East Dulwich Grove sporting anti LTN posters are in the ?2m + price category. This suggests to me that a good part of the social inequality argument that so much of the anti-LTN lobby arguments play on isn't moored in reality. The characterization of people who support LTN's, who according to Rockets apparently want high house prices and to live in some kind of bubble, feels equally untethered to actual people, motives and facts. I certainly don't recognize any of it from anyone I know. I do know a lot of people, however, who are looking to do something about the kind of world they will leave their kids. I recognise that any local issue will have a range of views, and I've respected the views of many of the people who have posted here, who ultimately I wouldn't agree with. But what is the purpose in generating such divisive and frankly in my view unpleasant content, especially when it doesn't stack up? Why not stick to the real issues of the best ways to reduce traffic and car use?

Given that much of the anti LTN campaigning has focused on the perceived lack of transparency and accountability on the part of Southwark Council, this website strikes me as somewhat lacking in that regard. This is important because the website/ campaign is a direct collective intervention into the electoral arena. In the spirit of transparency, the people behind this campaign/ site should name who they are and where the cash for the campaign comes from. The blanket statement of their funding being 'A whip round' doesn't cut it for me in terms of the detail needed. It could be entirely coincidental, but there is a strong correlation between much of the focus on the LTN issue I've seen from the Conservative party local campaigning to date, and the stated singular focus on LTN's of this 'vote them out' campaign. I think Dulwich voters like myself need more information on this campaign than is currently being provided to form their own view on this. Maybe the local Conservative Party, or indeed anyone else standing, could help by providing an assurance that there is no link, formal or informal, whatsoever to this campaign.

Interesting chat on here with some suggesting road charging as a potential alternative to LTN's - drivers should be means-tested charged for driving their cars as a way of reducing traffic as an alternative to LTN's. The issue here I think is that over half the people in the Borough don't actually own a car, so if everything 'goes back to how it was' which seems to be the endpoint of the anti-LTN lobby, that is over half the people in the Borough unable to enjoy a coffee outside the fronts of the cafes, or teach their kids to ride a bike on a quiet road. It doesn't feel very 'clean air for all' to me.

Legalalien - I should have been clearer. One Dulwich have released a statement saying they are apolitical, and are going to ask all the prospective councillors for their views on LTN's, and then report back to their supporters/ the community. My questions are ones I would hope they ask all councillors. The final question would be most relevant to the Conservatives. Whilst I don't know enough about, and can't speak for the respective parties, I would imagine Labour would have clear views on reducing traffic/ promoting active travel, and it would be interesting to hear the Lib Dems on this. I think both parties would have a clear and transparent view on accountability. This I think is important, as fundamentally I think politicians as an entity should, as far as possible, be demonstrably trustworthy, and accountability has formed a part of the campaigning so far of at least one of the prospective parties. What the Conservatives, given their current track record at a national level, would say is less clear to me on any of the questions. If One Dulwich is apolitical, as they say they are, I would hope they ask searching questions of all of the candidates without fear or favour.

Rockets wrote: 'But it is clear there are people who come on here to laud the benefits of the LTNs who live on the roads benefitting most from the closures. And that's before we even address the long-banned souls like LTNBooHoo and Manatee who came on here to troll anyone with a view that opposed theirs - and many suspected such posters were existing members setting up new accounts' You seem to have overlooked the poster from the anti LTN lobby, who the administrator in banning them hilariously told him/ her to stop having weird multiple conversations with themselves in different identities! But don't let the full facts get in the way of a good story. I await with interest One Dulwich's interrogation of the prospective local council elections candidates as to their stance on the LTNs. I do hope it is rigorous enough to include - Given that One Dulwich shares Southwark Council's objectives to reduce traffic, improve air quality and enable safe cycling and walking, how do you think you are realistically going to achieve this across the entire area? Can you set out some detailed and feasible plans? if you are campaigning on a platform of accountability, do those principles of accountability extend across the actions of your entire political party? - is your focus on the LTN's as a campaigning issue - if it is at the expense of other issues such as the profound impact rule breaking at the highest levels of government had at a local level - opportunistic?

'DulvilleRes - it doesn't take a genius to work out why some people take the stance they do on the LTNs. Maybe we should have a truth and reconciliation session where we all declare our hands.....let me go first...I used to live on a road that was experiencing the negative fallout from the LTNs and I was against them. I now live on a road that is experiencing the positive fallout from the LTNs and I am still against them. Your turn?' You don't have the evidence to back up your claim 'Let's be honest many of those most vocal on here in their unwavering support of the closures live on the closed roads and have benefitted the most'. Your view is just supposition. My experience is the truth of support or otherwise of the traffic reduction measures is much more complex - for instance, I've spoken to a young family on East Dulwich Grove boundary road who are genuinely concerned that the LTN's might be scrapped, and to people within the LTN's that don't support them. Why I think it is important is so much of this debate has been needlessly heated and divisive in tone, and to counter that, i think it is important to deal in facts. Again the question can be asked - does it suit some agendas that the issues seem to be permanently cranked up? Given the ugliness last summer of people getting personally targeted in the streets, and even in one instance I know of the actual home they live in by a person or persons from the anti LTN lobby, I'm in no hurry to discuss with you where I live, and I've seen that view expressed elsewhere in this thread.

'Let's be honest many of those most vocal on here in their unwavering support of the closures live on the closed roads and have benefitted the most.' Where is the evidence for this assertion? How do you know where people live? The difficulty with blanket and slightly pointed statements like this is whatever the merits of any argument you are putting forward in this debate, it does throw a question over them. I would agree with Dogkennelhillbilly, there seems to be very little that the hardcore is prepared to countenance apart from just opening the roads again, with no realistic other plan I've seen to try and reduce traffic. And now out of the ranks of the anti-LTN lobby materializes a Conservative candidate for the local elections, campaigning heavily on LTN issues. The question can be asked - who does it suit to keep the temperature of this local issue permanently cranked up?

'The reduction in the timed access is a clear demonstration that the measures have not worked as originally hyped' Isn't it more like a clear demonstration that the Council has listened to concerns from residents voiced during the consultation, and made some sensible adjustments?

I'm glad we agree that harassment/ targeting is abhorrent. it has been an extraordinarily unpleasant facet of this local issue. On the facts, I have a reasonable working knowledge of Gilkes Crescent - the bulk of the houses have small short driveways, generally with room for a single vehicle, and some have no driveways at all. There is generally a reasonable amount of space in the street to park, and that includes people who don't live on the street parking to use the shops/ bars/ dropping off at JAGs, and also ad hoc businesses who long-term store csrs/ vans in the street they buy and sell. There isn't a single household I have heard of who has 3 cars, let alone 4. It could be possible, but all the evidence I've seen is against it. So part of keeping the temperature down in this debate is to carefully consider whether what you hear might be true of not before repeating it.

"Not sure why it's ok for someone on Gilkes to have 3 cars, no street parking restrictions and has been a lead vocal campaigner on LTNs and active travel, with the presumption to tell us that we need to give up cars, yet someone in ED Grove who happens to have a nice house and one car on the drive cannot comment on LTNs or be upset their road is now dirtier, noisier and more polluted?" Where is the evidence that anyone on Gilkes Crescent has 3 cars, least of all anyone campaigning for some kind of measures to reduce traffic overall in London? I'm not seeing any. Even if there was, how could you possibly know for sure who owns what? Hearsay? Access to DVLA records? This post appears to call out an individual and a street they live in. A reminder that pro-LTN advocates have been singled out and individually targetted both online and physically near their homes by a person or persons of an anti LTN viewpoint, to the extent that the Police have had to be involved. Whatever the strength of feeling, there seems in general terms to be a catastrophic loss of perspective around this issue. Why not try and keep it to the issues and not the individuals, and keep it civil?

For those of you thinking that a Conservative vote at the local election somehow doesn't count as a Conservative vote at a national level, you are most likely wrong. Conservative MP and Johnson supporter Andrew Murrison in today's Guardian 'Law makers simply can?t be law breakers. The parliamentary Conservative party may hand Boris his P45 if the Met or Gray?s definitive report collar the PM. But I?m guessing the point of danger for Boris will be in May. Then we will probably have a perfect storm ? the widely predicted midterm council election hit'. How the Conservatives perform in May could directly impact in the minds of many Conservative backbenchers the national agenda. I would argue a vote for the Conservatives is actually a vote against accountability. As a local person I am directly impacted and outraged by the rule breaking, and voting Tory locally could well be seen to condone it.

The Conservatives are campaigning in the May local elections heavily around issues of accountability from Southwark in relation to the LTN's. I'm finding this a bit of a stretch, given the track record of their party at a national level. Given that some local people have been profoundly affected by the rule-breaking in Downing Street, and some have gone on a very public record to record their disgust and distress both in Parliament and in the media, I would have thought the most accountable thing the prospective Conservative councilors could do for their community would be to resign membership of their party.

The LTN's don't seem to be having any negative impact on house prices on East Dulwich Grove. Average price of a property sold in June last year was ?717,000. The average price is now ?808,950.( Source: Zoopla) Whatever the rights and wrongs of official Southwark data on traffic levels post LTN v those who dispute it in the anti LTN lobby, some people are betting heavy on it not being an overwhelming problem.

I'm pretty sure that wooden horse will have a V8 motor purring away hidden behind the casing.