ohthehugemanateeLTN3

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "if you block a stream in one place, it will find > the next easiest way" - precisely: you close a > road and the traffic will go through the next > available one. Tell me ab29 what information do you have that proves the entire field of traffic engineering wrong? heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you support a Tory-Boris initiative You see my approach to LTNs is to be rational about them, not emotional. Therefore I evaluate arguments on their merits and support from the data. Turns out in this one instance, Johnson appears to not be wrong. Stopped clock and all. But I'm not going to reflexively do something harmful just because a prime minister that I dislike wants me to not. > that makes > private wealthy quiet roads Do at least try to keep your story straight. I thought you were all complaining about Croxted road getting more traffic. Maybe you're one of the ultra rich who considers the ?1.5 million pound houses to be high density affordable housing? > while decimating public transport NGL, the Tories are about as good on public transport as one might expect. That still doesn't make them wrong about traffic. > nice quiet street that your car is parked in and > tell us that we are the ones that believe in > ?dirty air for all? I own no car, but until you can suggest a practical solution that's precisely what you are advocating for.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > From the PM?s foreword: ?I know many people think > that cycling and walking schemes simply increase > car traffc on other roads. But there is now > increasing evidence that they > do not. We sometimes think of traffc as like > water: if you block a stream in one place, it will > fnd the next easiest way. Of course some journeys > by car are essential, but traffc is not a force of > nature. It is a product of people?s choices. If > you make it easier and safer to walk and cycle, > more people choose to walk and cycle instead of > driving, and the traffc falls overall.? This is absolutely right. In traffic engineering circles it is called "induced demand": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand if you build more roads, you get more car journeys and rather obviously (and backed up by solid research) the inverse is observed too.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Manatee, your claim that One Dulwich wanted to do > nothing is incorrect Remind me again what they asked people to select? > and probably suggests you > haven't been following this particularly closely > over the last year or so. Maybe scroll back over > this thread and get up to speed on what actually > happened No amount of "explanation" changes their actions to something else. They could have suggested an alternative. They did not. Ultimately the only thing they have stood behind is doing nothing. Vast volumes of verbiage don't change that. Yes, you've given lots of excuses as to why they suggested doing nothing. Goodness knows why but I read them, maybe even all of them. Hard to know if I missed the odd page. But do you know what it amounts to? Doing nothing. Nothing nothing nothing. Nothing. > P.S. still waiting for this data you have seen > that shows the LTNs in Dulwich are working. Feel > free to share when you're ready..... Already did. You didn't like the answer so you keep repeating the question. It's a debating tactic to be sure, in as much as you are at least attempting to debate and it is a tactic you are using. alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe M3 is best ignored. This is the anti-LTN way: ignore anyone who is pro LTN. And then you can claim everyone is anti LTN. Foolproof!

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Manatee says, "don't know which one Charlie Smith > is" > > That's a bit odd. He is a very well known Labour > Councillor. Perhaps you do not live locally at > all? [...] > I think I see what is happening here, it is to > keep attacking people on a personal level but > accuse them of doing the same in the hope others > believe this is what is actually happening. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Dude, your two messages are on the same page? Do you really think everyone here is so dim they won't notice? Alice Wrote: -------------------------------------------------------- > Your argument is invalid. No one wants to do nothing. No one apart from One Dulwich, who given the choice between doing nothing and suggesting an alternative went for the former. And you. Until you come up with an actual practical solution which is even vaguely possible to implement given UK politics and power structures, you are advocating doing nothing.

Rockets, it seems that you not only live in an echo chamber, but you also don't seem to believe that anyone who lives differently from you is due a voice. I don't live in Goose Green, and I'm uninterested in local party politics. I've also never had cause to directly engage with councillors. You don't seem to believe that anyone who doesn't experience Dulwich in precisely the same way as you can possibly disagree with you. I live at the other end of Dulwich, have done for 10 years and own no car. If you read my posts it's every bit as clear that I'm a local as your friends are. First mate accused me of being not local because of this, something you seem happy with but you seem very upset with the idea that he also might not be. I suggest you stop acting as an attack dog supporting other people's personal attacks such behaviour reflects very poorly on the anti-LTN cause. On second thoughts, do continue... As for the data, we've both seen it and my interpretation of it yet again will not convince you otherwise, given that you seem to consider any data that doesn't support your arguments as biased. But I will leave you with this question: Traffic has been growing steadily in London for decades. Congestion charging knocked it back temporarily but it soon climbed past the pre charge levels. Where do you think we will be in 10 years if we do nothing?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, many well informed posters, with a seemingly > good handle on the data, beg to differ. Not that I've seen. The data to me is pretty clearly in favour of LTNs. BTW on a long, active thread with many people posting asynchronously, it helps to quote a little bit of relevant context.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Manatee says, "don't know which one Charlie Smith > is" Yep. > That's a bit odd. Nope. > He is a very well known Labour > Councillor. I'll add it to the list of things I don't know about Labour, local or otherwise. > Perhaps you do not live locally at > all? Or, you know, perhaps I do (the admins I'm sure could confirm my banned IP address is in London, but geolocation sadly won't put it much more precisely than that). Maybe you've just read about the local councillors (not hard, the info is online) merely to troll some distant internet forum from your home elsewhere. I've never had much to do with local politics. I read the manifestos, and about my choice of councillors specifically at election time, place my vote and then provided everything seems to be going OK, I forget about it for the next few years and worry about other things in my life instead. Now here's the really important thing: I came on this thread to discuss the LTN. The point is whether the arguments are rational and backed with data, not figuring out which to dismiss because I don't like the person. Going based on what is said, not who said it the case for LTNs is very clear.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Still curious about the winking, guess I'll never know... > Ok, more evidence...here you go.... > > July 9th... > > https://twitter.com/SouthwarkLabour/status/1413589 > 180828037122?s=19 "We've also been reminding residents to complete the Dulwich Consultation. The deadline has been extended to the 18th July and you can respond here" Not really seeing the problem with that. > July 11 - look what Charlie Smith is holding... > > https://twitter.com/SuecharlieSmith/status/1414271 > 581300445191?s=19 I don't know which one Charlie Smith is. The only definitive thing I can see is people holding leaflets inviting people "have your say on Dulwich road closures". What am I meant to be outraged about? There's certainly evidence of the council canvassing and getting people to state their views. This hardly seems like some Q level conspiracy.

Rockets Wrote: > Manatee?.. > > July 9th Council publishes interim monitoring > data > July 9th Council announces review extended to July > 18th Well, we wouldn't want too many people to have their say would we? > July 10th?? > > https://twitter.com/SuecharlieSmith/status/1413842 > 640269885441?s=19 > > https://twitter.com/Jasmine_Ali/status/14138346382 > 80249346?s=19 two pictures of people with some Labour paraphernalia? > On July 11th another group of > councillors/activists also mustered outside Saucy > to canvass?.they were carrying printouts of the > interim report flyer?.how do I know this, because > I walked passed them and saw them They had a report? With evidence in? That's awful. > and have spoken > to a number of friends whose doors the councillors > knocked on? All of them lifelong Labour supporters > who told the councillors exactly what they think > of the LTNs??must be the small vocal minority > again?. You do realise that your friends don't represent an unbiased sample, right? People tend to be friends with those with similar views. I assume your lazier friends may now be inspired to put in their views against the LTN? If so, what's wrong? Surely having as many people put in their views as possible is better. > Any other evidence you need?.. Yep. > ;-) Seriously what's with the weird winking? > I am not sure where in Dulwich you live but did > they knock on your door per chance? I can't prove they didn't knock while I was out, but no.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Healthy streets as dictated by LCC and a few key > stakeholders.. but not residents of Croxted Well the LTN can't be both anti-poor and anti-rich. So, which is it? Those ?1.5 million pound houses on Croxted aren't cheap you know.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In fact, this is one of the most disturbing > aspects of it all - that some people are perfectly > happy to sacrifice others' health and wellbeing in > the name of some sort of idee fixe. And others want to sacrifice the health and well being of an entire city to make unnecessary car journeys a few minutes shorter. Do those people *not* *care* about poisoning children? Do YOU? Do you think such hyperbole is useful to the discussion?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do chuckle when I continually read the continued > de-positioning narrative on this small vocal > minority of people against LTNs... You've been spending far too much time on the forum, where pro LTN people seem to vanish from the threads (I've been banned twice already!). Out in the real world, the majority is in favour. > they are such a > small vocal minority in Dulwich that the council > had to extend the review by a week and engage in > an urgent panic-led door-to-door canvassing Do you have anything approaching evidence, or is they another anti-LTN conspiracy theory? Actually, I say "another", it's more like one of the 3 or four that you keep warming over and rehashing. > programme to try and counter said small vocal > minority......;-) Is there something wrong with your eye? You keep winking weirdly all the time. Either get some eye drops or see your doctor.

sally buying Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With regard to the Dulwich LTN, could someone > answer this question. I do not want to make a > costly mistake. > > With regard to passing thru the Village. If I were > to turn right out of Dulwich Park heading north > after 10.00 could I head straight through to EDG > and Red Post Hill. > > I spotted while walking yesterday the signs that > said no entry 8-10 a.m, so took it as being ok to > turn right but I cannot remember the afternoon > times. Yes it is OK. I think they end at 6. Either start at 3 or 4. I think 3. > I have not been using the park because not being > able to turn right adds a great deal of time to my > home journey. Where are you getting to the park from, more or less?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes I do wonder how many people who wage war on > cars sit in houses with gas fueled boilers > churning out all sorts of nasties... Your arguments seem to centre a lot on personal attacks on pro LTN people. Even better you're just sort of inventing a pro LTN persona and attacking that instead. The thing is road transport is still responsible for more nasties than domestic heating: https://trustforlondon.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/media/documents/up-in-the-air_USKOnej.pdf So if you want to campaign for cleaner heating, be my guest, not only will I not stop you, I will cheer you on. However if you cared about pollution, you'd also acknowledge the even bigger source. It seems like you simply want to be able to drive places and are using pollution based red herrings to distract from the core of your arguments. > It would be refreshing to see people put as much > energy into tackling all climate change > contributors not just focussing on one of them. This is classic whataboutism. Oh! Woe! Why is someone concentrating on making the world a better place when I think there's a more deserving cause (which I don't care about) just over there?

fottos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What do you expect when the council act like a > totalitarian state? They don't. They are not, however obligated to do precisely what you wish. Many people such as myself like the LTNs a great deal. I like the one in Dulwich and I like the one in Brixton which makes travel via Herne Hill much better for me. I will continue to support them and also vote for representatives who continue to support such measures. > Plus there's always two sides in situations like > this. Well until now I didn't think there were. Most people here seem against vandalism, though you appear to be trying to justify it if it's for a cause you like. > Your comments are unfounded speculation In what way are pictures of the damage "unfounded speculation"?

What's with making it personal, ab29? I've been accused of being boohooLTN (because I took inspiration from their handle) and now am I being accused of being hpsaucey. Or they've been accused of being me. I don't find it insulting because they seem like nice, reasonable people, but it you do seem to attempting to discredit people you disagree with by engaging in personal attacks. If you can't attack the argument, attack the messenger and all that. I can't claim to have only ever had one account (that would be absurd since we all know Manatee and Manatee2 were me), but I have never had multiple active accounts (to avoid excessive pedantry, we can all agree that a blocked account isn't active, right?).

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Each device that accesses the internet is > allocated a seperate and unique IP address (not > just the router that is acting as the gateway) so > unless the flatmates are sharing the same device > then each device that logs-in is uniquely > identifiable. You are mistaken. My home network is IPv4 because I used the router my ISP provided, and the router does NAT. All internal addresses are in the 192.168 subnet, and all present externally as the address of my router. This is how private-to-public NAT works. Each device on the *publicly routable internet* has a unique IP, NAT is the mechanism that allows machines on private subnets (10. and 192.168) to access the internet by altering the IP packets so it appears they all come from the single public device that does the NAT. Various services will tell you your IP address and you can verify this if your network is similar to mine. I don't want to get into the guts of RFCs and whatnot, because that would be getting rather off topic, but you can get a primer here in this section of the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation#One-to-many_NAT > Anyway, there are plenty of people on here who > have expressed pro-LTN views and haven't been > banned Maybe my kung fu was too powerful. > if they have barred your IP address then you > have clearly breached the rules of usage for the > forum. And yet no reason presents. > Getting banned in little under a day is very > impressive! - that must be some kind of record! Thankyou! I take it to be the strongest of compliments to the strength of my pro-LTN debating skills.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah, so a deletion of ALL accounts.... Well technically 1 of 1 is all. So I guess from a terribly pedantic point of view you are correct. The first huge manatee account was just that, the first and it (singular) was deleted along with all posts. I think you're massively stretching to find reasons why I was banned that don't involve my pro LTN views. The trouble is, those reasons don't exist. So sorry mate it was one account, and everything I wrote you have seen. Why do you think I was banned and had my posts along with the posts of a number of regulars that referenced mine (though not yours I see, which is nice for you) deleted? > there you > go....if you you were posting under multiple > handles from a single IP address then that's > probably why you have been banned. Big if though isn't it! > And rightly > so.... So no one on the forum is allowed to have a different account from their flatmates or SO? Because they'll all be posting from the same IP if they are on the same home router. I guess that's one way to skew the results. One view per household. Less if you share with neighbours in the building.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Manatee - do you have more than one account > registered from your ip address? I'm on the internet via my phone, and I believe the phone company hands out IP addresses at random. Either way, even if someone else had the same IP address at some point (perfectly possible), why delete the account and all posts? > Admin maintains a very balanced and fair approach > to policing the forum so the removal of your posts > will not be for a trivial matter. Interesting that they refuse to let anyone know what the reason is. No message, nothing, just an aoutright ban of the hardest sort they can muster. You have most likely seen every one of Manatee's posts (possibly except the one in the Gail's thread where I said I would no longer be shopping there after hearing the owner funds a Tory anti-lockdown group). It would seem that bringing up points raised on this thread is "unpalatable" according to some. Though none of the original points seem to be considered sufficiently unpalatable it would seem.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Was it not for the multiple in line responses? A complete ban, deletion of all accounts and banning of IP address seems a little overboard for inadequate removal of context especially as it's hard to go point by point through someone's message without inline responses.

luvLTNrichguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My post is gone too - but my account is active. > Not had any messages as to why the post was > removed?. > > Doubt it was admins Manatee. More likely members > reporting the posts. And, frankly, given the > unpalatable nature of your content it?s no > surprise really 😉 Unpalatable how? More so than "jokingly" referring to the residents of a road as horror film murders because a traffic gate was installed ages ago? More so that saying cyclists are to be despised? More so than comparing the plight of drivers to Jews in 1930s Germany? Everything I've said is in direct reference to something brought up on this thread by the anti-LTN group. It seems that pointing such things out is far more unpalatable than saying them in the first place. But then I am beginning to suspect admin bias against LTNs now. Thing is even if you are right about the anti-LTN people mass reporting inconvenient posts, they have no capacity to get posts or whole user accounts deleted. If you want an honest debate, you better reply fast before I'm caught again!