ohthehugemanateeLTN3

I think you need to look harder, firstmate! All the spamming (and it looks like you've joined the salty pork flavoured party) has pushed it several pages back now, so you have quite a lot of searching to do! Good luck!

Looks like our dear Rockets is so busy spamming the same question over and over again that he doesn't have time to read or even acknowledge the replies. It's not that we're not brave it's just that our fingers only move so fast, and most of us I suspect are disinclined to repeatedly post the same answer to the spam question because that gets boring and annoying for everyone reading.

please delete, Admin, I somehow managed to create a new thread rather than reply. Apologies

Huh my ears are burning, sounds like Rockets and heartblock want me to answer their question for a second time before even responding to the first answer. Very curious. I'm definitely motivated by accusations and insults fired in my direction, so just a few more of those totally-not-treating-me-as-the-enemy-dont-gaslight-me-by-claiming-otherwise might just speed me up a little.

Rahrahrah: come on my good fellow, priorities! Rockets needs a reply. Do you want speculations about bans to be incoming? Accusations of a galloping case of sheelpification? Anyway what Rockets is failing to account for is that public transport journeys by train (so on trying to blame it on the roads!) are down, so people are clearly eschewing public transport almost like there's still an infectious disease going around! https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/public-transport-journeys-type-transport But what you really need to understand is that firstly there's a traffic increase. AND a decrease. The former is 100% the fault of the LTN and the latter is unrelated and nothing to do with it. Clear now?

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Majority of people in Dulwich want LTN removed > according to the council's own consultation Given how I'm a vocally pro LTN sheeple (according to Rockets, though I feel compelled to note that while both bovidae, cows are not sheep and anyway a seasheep is a type of seaslug), don't you think it's a little disingenuous to count me among those who want LTNs removed?

rahrahrah, traffic isn't down! But if it is, it's not due to the LTNs. But if it is due to the LTNs, it's still bad. But if it's actually an improvement we should still scrap it in the interests of fairness because no one wants it. But it turns out most people do want it, there's nothing we can do to fix it. But if we can fix it we still want to drive 3 minutes to the shops. And that's the important thing, so really 1D was right all along. Right rockets? ;-)

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What habit of mine would you wish me to change oh > Large Mammal of the Sea? I'm sure that whatever I pick I'd soon discover that either you don't do it or couldn't possibly change, almost as if you're holding committing on anything until you know where it's going. A fun game, to be sure, oh speaking of which: Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And I am wondering where Manatee went from August > of last year (their last post) to a few days ago. ... I got bored of playing the game. But recent events seem to have improved the discourse on the thread, so I'm back. I still invite you to you and our esteemed Heartblock answer the questions or comment on the suggestions I posed above.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No. The public consultation was not a vote. It also wasn't overwhelmingly against LTNs. The claimed 2/3 were not people who didn't want them at all, but people who didn't want them in precisely their current form. That includes people like myself who advocated for the closures to be modified to add emergency vehicle gates. It's absurd to see people claiming my response was anti-LTN.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ahh Sea-Cow Huge Sea-Cow if you don't mind, though it is technically inaccurate as Sea-Cow includes dugongs which are not manatees. > the originator of the poooooooo > analogy. Seems I've finally found something you can grasp. Well not literally. Unless you want to of course. You do you: I won't judge. Well OK I will, but not much. > So are we supporting pollution monitoring > and WHO levels of air quality for all roads in ED > or not? This is one of the most biazarre "checkmate!"s I think I've ever encountered. I thought I was pretty clear: who would be against that? I'm not. It's surreal that you think that I'd be against measurement and lowering pollution. I'm not a 1D'er after all! > Well 8am yesterday I posted "Then some actions - the money made by Southwark to be invested > in ways to encourage less car use by parents taking children to school, Well, timed and permanent closures seem to do a pretty good job of discouraging parents from driving as much. I presume you mean something less effective. I'd love to know what. > pressure on the private schools to make it an admission rule, Is that within their power to enforce? > more EV charging points and a local network of green buses." EV charging points won't discourage car use, so those green buses will be just as stuck in traffic as they always were. More bus gates like the one on DV, however will give nice traffic free areas that buses can breeze through during rush hour. > But I can give more if you like? Please do! So far there's nothing you have given that would make the tradeoff between driving and walking or cycling tip in favour of not driving. And it all sounds like the sorts of wish-washy things that might apply to "other people". I'm starting, just starting I say, to think you might not be in favour of having your habits changed.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The amount of poo > is the same You know, my dear heartblock, this is I think the first time I've heard you concede that the levels haven't gone up! You're half way now to accepting the facts and I applaud you for it. Who knew it would take a dog poo analogy to spark your neurons. Takes all sorts I suppose, but there's room for all sorts in this world so no harm. Soon perhaps we will be able to have a sensible discussion and can jointly advocate how to remove pollution from where you care about in particular without bringing the totals way up to pre LTN levels because it seems that locally there is insufficient appetite for increasing pollution just to be "fair". So: given the Labour win, the LTN is here to stay. Out of the options I put forth are there any you agree with? I think if you do you might suddenly find yourself in the other side of the debate from out esteemed Rockets who I believe just wants to be free to drive. Though quite how, in the increasingly clogged roads (pre LTN), escapes me for now. I'm sure he'll explain!

We should get One Dulwich to tackle the scourge of dog poo as well: clearly the solution is to fairly spread it on everyone's front path in equal amounts, because attempting to tackle the underlying cause would be unfair... heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Constructive progress - Southwark should make it > their aim to monitor pollution on the most > polluted roads and make all effort now to reduce > it to be below WHO health guidelines. Anyone > unhappy with that? Why on earth would you think that? > Is that "using air quality as a > weapon to justify (my) belief' Yes, because you clearly want to use air pollution data to justify the metaphorical spreading of dog poo equally on everyone's front path. The fix for car based pollution is not to make more car traffic but spread around a bit, it's to reduce car traffic. > Where is the pollution data for EDG? > > Ot are those on closed roads satisfied with the > current status? Nope, not even slightly. I want more bus only restrictions and other disincentives to drive like CPZ and road width restrictions to add incentives for active travel such as increases in segregated cycle lanes. And planning rules to encourage local shops. Other things too, but it's pointless to discuss things beyond the scope of what the council can do here. LTNs are only the beginning...

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Interesting, so when the consultation occurred > last year and the overwhelming view was removed > the LTN from those that responded, you still want > to claim that the council did a pretty excellent > job listening to feedback ? 67% of people not liking the LTN in its current form isn't quiiiite the same as 67% want it removed, but I can see why you might strongly feel that it is. I was in fact one of those 67%, and I too thought it could use some changes. Ambulance gates, for example, which the council did put in. Excellent listening on the part of the council, I'd say, you see, because they actually listened to the respondents not easily digested but rather optimistically phrased One Dunwich posters. > Didn't feel like it at the time 😕 I don't especially like being counted as being against the LTNs, so I shall just say: Oh, the humanity!

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But so nice to see the tide has changed and > Manatee has floated back again - we missed them so > much. :waves: @ Rockets > In all seriousness I do really hope the > councillors make real efforts to re-unite the > community - LTNs drove a wedge between people and > the council has to make it a priority to help mend > the damage they did with the way they handled the > whole process. Well I think the best way is to push it ever further with CPZs, more restrictions etc. They've already done a pretty excellent job listening to feedback (and not just EDF noise): they decided to keep the LTNs.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Ex- but the tailbacks are worse since the LTNs > went in - every day (after the closure times) the > traffic crawls to that junction. I remember taking 20 minutes to get through DV on the P4 before the LTNs. I do find the alt-history Southwark fanfic about free flowing traffic right up until the LTN (at which point demons flew out of the planters) to be entertaining for sure, but it's not actually especially useful when it comes to discussing the LTN and its effects.