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.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ha ha....that's the only piece of segregated cycle > infrastructure they have put in across the whole > area and it does impede the traffic Anything that makes space for non cars will always have less space for cars. It seems you have lots of high minded ideas but as soon as there's less space for massive SUVs to trundle aronud we'll hear about how whichever scheme can't possibly work (despite the numbers) or is wildly unpopular (again despite the numbers). And if they put segregated cycle lanes all along all the roads around that junction, I'm sure there's be gales of whinging about how there's EVEN LESS room for car. Come to think of it, that's not far off what we have for Calton Ave and Court Lane. Was there whinging? [checks thread] hmmm... ;-)

> Whilst on the huge mantle has been banned in the past, Have I? I suppose I have, though no reason was ever given and they decided to let me be on this account after a while. > they do make an interesting point that those who voted to give the tories a kicking Haha nice try but no. The libdems didn't to well either. People it turns out on the whole like the LTNs. Don't confuse the enforced echo chamber here with broader consensus. > In a few years when a Borough wide CPZ is introduced, Would that be bad? Sounds like a good thing to me. Rather than people clogging up streets driving places, then clogging them up when they arrive, people will have more incentive to walk, scoot or bike. Plus with less car traffic, the buses would work better. Perhaps we'd get more local shops within walking distance if people are walking more. > council estate green spaces are concrete jungles And that's why it's striking how many people piled on Labour. They don't have a great record, but they do support LTNs, so weighing everything up... > and its impossible to drive out of your own road. Already is: Like the majority of southwarkers, I don't own a car.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Admin, the above is obviously a fake account. Well, it looks like the anti-LTN crowd are getting ever more brazen about trying to get those who disagree with them banned. How, precisely, is the account fake other than you not liking what I say? I can assure you that the account is very real and there is a very real person behind it. Bringing it back on topic, I did vote, and I placed my vote definitively for the LTNs. I am looking with interest what the more detailed breakdown of the voting share was, beyond just the winning candidate votes. Some astonishingly dedicated soul has already created the wikipedia page, but sadly it has not been populated yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Southwark_London_Borough_Council_election#Dulwich_Village

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Admin, the above is obviously a fake account. Well, it looks like the anti-LTN crowd are getting ever more brazen about trying to get those who disagree with them banned. How, precisely, is the account fake other than you not liking what I say? I can assure you that the account is very real and there is a very real person behind it. Bringing it back on topic, I did vote, and I placed my vote definitively for the LTNs. I am looking with interest what the more detailed breakdown of the voting share was, beyond just the winning candidate votes. Some astonishingly dedicated soul has already created the wikipedia page, but sadly it has not been populated yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Southwark_London_Borough_Council_election#Dulwich_Village

Big turnout in Dulwich Village! https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-elections-2022-labour-tightens-its-grip-on-the-council-with-convincing-win/ Loos like the pro-LTN party collected quite a lot more votes.

Dulwich had a very high turn out for the local election. https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-elections-2022-labour-tightens-its-grip-on-the-council-with-convincing-win/ The silent majority have spoken: we like the LTNs. For the first time ever in my entire life I voted Labour. For me it was a single issue vote, without the LTN, I'm sure I would have voted otherwise. Turns out the local council IS listening to its residents. It's just that "listening" is not the same as "doing what the most noisy people on a small forum which bans dissenters want". Who knew?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Manatee - if you've come on here to debate things > then debate things but keep it civil - you are now > becoming rude. You seem to confuse arguments you are unable to successfully counter with rudeness. On the other hand you don't seem to consider yourself dog piling on other's unfounded accusations as rudeness, so it seems you are an exceptionally poor judge of things. Personally I consider many of the things you have said to be rude. Would you like to lounge the thread by discussing that at length? > Perhaps you're aiming to get banned > for a third time - you might want to rethink your > approach to ensure forum longevity?! Well, I do keep arguing for LTNs and that is the height of rudness. Have you been reporting my posts? We both know the ban was reversed. The admins clearly know I'm the same person and have decided to let me stay after all. > This has all been debated and plenty of > alternative solutions have been proposed - just > because you arrived late to the debate doesn't > mean we have to rehash it for your benefit. First, remind me which option One Dulwich asked people to vote for? Second, I claim that you have not proposed any practical alternative. > LTNs > are not the solution to the challenges we all > face, never have been never will be - as I showed > you to rebuff your claim that Waltham Forest has > been a success - it has been a success inside the > LTNs not outside. You claim as such. Your claims are not facts. Traffic has increased throughout London since then. You're also talking about 3 miles away, which is tough to tie back precisely. Here's the problem you are completely uncritical of any data that supports your cause and the opposite for any data that says something you don't like. > The same pattern is repeated at > every LTN - reductions inside, increases outside > (even the interim council data shows this trend > and it is missing data from the roads most likely > to be soaking up the displacement). So unless > you're planning on making the whole of London a > massive LTN Sounds good to me! The population is growing, the roads aren't and London is grinding to a fume filled standstill. Drastic action is needed. > then there will always be winners and > losers and that is not at all equitable. There were winners and losers before the LTN. There will be winners and losers for every choice. Doing nothing won't prevent there being winners and losers. Undoing the LTN will cause winners and losers. Your practical solution which you won't tell me about will cause winners and losers. You seem to think there's a magical option for which there will be no winners and losers. Such an option does not exist. > And therein lies the problems with LTNs they are a > very blunt and ineffective instrument to try and > tackle pollution and actually create more problems > than they solve. So you claim, but you state opinion as fact. I claim they are one of the few practical options and they solve more problems than they create. > Private car ownership has > declined in London It's gone up in Southwark. Don't confuse ownership proportion with total ownership which is affected by population size. https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/licensed-vehicles-type-0 > and whilst you claim it's about > getting cars off the roads it actually isn't - it > is more about getting vans and PHVs In what way are PHVs not cars? > off the roads > as they are the problem and throwing roadblocks in > doesn't deter those vehicles. You appear to be claiming that people who find driving takes too long will happily sit in a taxi for the same amount of time as opposed to finding a quicker method of travel or an alternative destination. That's a strong claim, I'm sure you have some evidence to back that up. The closed junctions apply just as much to ubers. It's not like they can teleport over the concrete blocks. And I believe the bus gates allow black cabs only. Delivery vans are more of a problem, but more action is needed not less. > Not sure if you read > the Guardian article I linked to but it is worth a > read to help understand what the problem is and > where it is coming from. I read the article.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The "Do Nothing" narrative seems to be doing the > rounds at the moment. That's because One Dulwich, with the support of many here ultimately suggested that course of action. And you refuse to suggest an alternative which is in any way practical. > Bottom line is the LTNs in Dulwich deliver cleaner > air for some and dirtier air for others - I just > can't get my head around why normally rational > people think this is acceptable. I'm going to drop my side for now and engage with your argument on its own terms. What you're saying is that the choices are: 1. Keep the LTN and some people get cleaner air and some people get dirtier air 2. Drop the LTN and some people get cleaner air and some people get dirtier air Ultimately you're describing a variant of the trolley problem, except that the council already pulled the lever and now you claim it's obvious that we have a moral obligation to pull it back. I'm glad that this area of philosophy has been solved, by you, on a local interest forum. Do you have any other pearls of wisdom to share with us? Do you have an opinion on the ship of Theseus or the nature of consciousness? Now I don't even think this is what we actually have. Traffic is growing and the roads are becoming ever more choked out. Even if (after evaporation occurs and the effects of the pandemic end) there is a rise, we'd have got there anyway in a few years just be default. Even if you're right, you're talking about buying a few years and of time. LTNs are just the beginning of a raft of measures ultimately aimed at getting cars off the roads. Nothing else will work. Make no mistake: your proposals will have people choking with fumes worse than the alternative.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh Manatee...really...you went there...wow.... Lol Rockets you're so beautifully transparent! We both know PeckhamRose went there. Are you actively trying to give the anti-LTN crowd a reputation for dishonesty or does it just come naturally to you? > she > died from pollution..her mother is campaigning > because she sees what LTNs do and she wants to > stop what happened to her daughter happening to > anyone else. And yet traffic has increased substantially across London since 2013. Just because something tragic happened doesn't make her correct. And we can't make public policy based cherrypicking the stories that make the news. Lots of people have died of pollution and have no voice. It seems you are uninterested in them and simply want to score points. Hmm,seems we can both engage in hyperbole and emotional reasoning. > And you're wrong on Waltham Forest... No I'm not. so I say again: traffic has increased substantially since 2013. What do you propose that's actually practical to reduce pollution? Again, I expect no real answer.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who died of an asthma > attack who had lived on South Circular Road: this > terrible story is ignored when setting up Low > Traffic NEighbourhoods. She died in 2013,long long before the LTNs. Walthamstow LTN set up in 2015 has shown that over an extended period, the fears about increased traffic do not pan out. What's worse is that traffic has increased substantially in London since 2013: https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/regions/6 And yet people here keep proposing basically doing nothing. Yes I know people are proposing wild grand schemes that are unimplementable. Proposing something that cannot or will not happen is no different from proposing nothing.