LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

That video, whilst obviously great because people are cycling and walking to school along the closed road, is pretty reflective of the pro-closure lobby's blinkered approach to all of this. If that camera was to pan 90 degrees to the left the picture would be oh so different....but I presume it's a case of what they don't see can't hurt them! ;-)

Also, it's pretty blinkered of whomever captured that to film children (I presume from their house) as they walk to school....not sure the parents or school would be too happy to know that not only did they film it but they posted it on the internet. You cannot do that and I am surprised Clean Air for Dulwich don't know that.

[exdulwicher]

That video, whilst obviously great because people are cycling and walking to school along the closed road, is pretty reflective of the pro-closure lobby's blinkered approach to all of this. If that camera was to pan 90 degrees to the left the picture would be oh so different....but I presume it's a case of what they don't see can't hurt them!

I said a few pages ago that still pics and even short videos were near useless from either "side" of the debate. I can go out and film a massive line of traffic or an empty road, loads of cyclists or none at all and use them for whatever purpose I want in order to "show" a particular outcome.

Also, it's pretty blinkered of whomever captured that to film children (I presume from their house) as they walk to school....not sure the parents or school would be too happy to know that not only did they film it but they posted it on the internet. You cannot do that and I am surprised Clean Air for Dulwich don't know that.

Rubbish - it's a public place and no-one is directly identifiable. There is no law against photographing or filming children (or indeed adults) in a public place, provided the images are decent in nature. Different rules apply in private places such as schools. Shopping centres are also very strict about that although more from a security point of view than any privacy concerns.

[Nigello]

I don't ever see LL packed, never mind even as busy as it used to be. I have no skin in the game apart from wanting fewer emissions as soon as possible. Busy times are, yes, busy but they last only as long as the people are taking kids to school or themselves to work between 8 and 9 and then again 5 and 7 or so. LL is not packed, honestly it isn't. I view it at least once a day between GG and The Plough and it's just not as apocalyptic as some state.

[Rockets]

Ex- sorry, you're wrong....it is deeply inappropriate to film children and post it on the internet. If someone was doing it in a public park people would intervene. It's not on and I am sure the parents of those children would not be at all happy to know someone was videoing them as they walk or cycle to school and posting it (whatever their intent in terms of usage).

[exdulwicher]

There's a moral maze there around what's legal and what any one person would consider "appropriate".

I'm not wrong - it's entirely legal to film a junction and post the footage on the internet be it cars, pedestrians, cyclists. You can dial up countless hundreds of traffic cameras yourself on the internet right now if you want and most are no different to that footage on Twitter.

If you are standing on a public street and filming people as they pass by - no problem. However, if you begin to follow one of those people and film everything they did, this could easily be viewed as harassment and stalking. There are lines in the sand and obviously some people will place those differently.

If you're sitting in a pub or park and decide to get a selfie and post it online, you're not committing any sort of offence if there are people (including children) in the background. Same if you drive along with a dashcam or ride along with a helmetcam. You can post that footage online and anyone else in the footage, identifiable or not, has no right of complaint providing it's filmed in a public place.

[Rockets]

It's not appropriate.

The issue is of course the person is filming children walking to school without their permission and then posting it to Twitter (it then becomes Twitter's responsibility) - they haven't accidentally captured people in the background as they take a selfie they have deliberately filmed children walking to school for the sole purpose of posting it to the internet. Some of those children can be easily identified and as such they would need permission to post. I am not sure any of the parents or the school would be pleased to know someone had been filming their children.

[alice]

Rockets- You have a point, if you know the school perhaps you could contact the headteacher. They may chose to alert parents.

[exdulwicher]

Correction. In your view it is not appropriate. Although quite why you'd say that is questionable since no-one is (easily) identifiable and even if they are it shows fully dressed people behaving normally and decently crossing a road.

In the view of the law though, there is no offence whatsoever that has been committed by filming that and posting it to any social media site.

[legalalien]

To change the subject slightly. As noted on the ?info? thread,boroughs are asked to discuss all Streetspace (including LTN) proposals with TfL. In addition, there is a statutory requirement to make Traffic Management Act 2004 Notifications (TMAN): ?Pursuant to the Traffic Management Act 2004, any activity carried out by the Boroughs using Highways Act 1980 (HA) or Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA) powers which will or are likely to affect the Strategic Road Network (SRN) or the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is notifiable by the Borough to TfL through TfL?s TMAN process.? Section 121B of the RTRA requires TfL to be notified and either consent, or ?not object? within one month.

I thought it would be interesting to know whether Southwark had gone through the TMAN process for the village junction closure and/ or the Turney, Burbage, DV times closures, and the Melbourne/ Elsie etc closures given the potential knock on effect on Lordship Lane,

so I put in an FOI request to TfL. Just received their response. It says nothing about those closures (not sure that means there was no TMAN notification or not), but here are some new ones that Southwark have apparently asked them to consider:

?TfL received a Traffic Management Act 2004 Notification (TMAN ) from Southwark Borough Council reference number N2004545, on the 10 November 2020. This TMAN was relating to Dulwich Village London Streetspace Programme (LSP) timed access restrictions. The scheme notification relates to timed access restrictions on multiple roads around Dulwich village from 8am ? 10am and 3pm ? 6pm. The proposed changes are: restricted access to Turney Road from Croxted Road, to Gallery Road from A205 Thurlow Park Road, and to College Road from A205 Dulwich Common. The information currently provided includes a General Arrangement drawing with proposed signage locations / wording and scheme impact monitoring document highlighting ATC camera positioning on East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. Please see attached.

At present we are still reviewing the detail of the LSP and what implications the restrictions may have on the Transport for London Road Network and the Strategic Road Network (TLRN / SRN) corridors, especially the potential for traffic reassignment on the SRN corridor Lordship Lane and the potential for impact to bus services along this corridor. TfL will need to agree a monitoring strategy with Southwark.?

May explain why only a temporary sign has gone in on Turney Road going towards the Village? Tell me I?m reading this wrong....

[Nigello]

It?s not appropriate - a mealy mouthed, mean little phrase. It sneaked in via US corporate/pop psychology and users seem to think its utterance is a salve-all for anything their tender eyes, ears and psyches can?t or won?t stand.

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Correction. In your view it is not appropriate.

> Although quite why you'd say that is questionable

> since no-one is (easily) identifiable and even if

> they are it shows fully dressed people behaving

> normally and decently crossing a road.

>

> In the view of the law though, there is no offence

> whatsoever that has been committed by filming that

> and posting it to any social media site.

Indeed, my view - thank you for correcting me. But I am pretty sure it is a view shared by most other parents of school-age children. Schools are very hot on this sort of thing and you can't go to school play, sports day or other event for being reminded that you shouldn't be posting pictures and videos on social media - it's sad but that's the reality nowadays. It seems though that if you are using school children to make a point about the effectiveness of road closures that all common-sense goes out the window and some people will defend it regardless!

Legal - that FOI response does suggest that the Phase 1 DV closures may not have had the TMAN. I wholly suspect that the initial round of closures were put in at such haste that no-one actually read the rule book properly. It's plain for all to see that the emergency services were not properly consulted and I suspect there is someone in the legal department at the council advising our gung-ho councillors that there might be some problems with those Phase 1 closures and they are making sure they follow the guidelines to the letter on the Phase 2 and beyond.

Would be interesting to see whether they did them for the Melbourne Grove closures as well.

[legalalien]

Yes but do note the expanded scope of the closures they are now speaking to TfL about. I failed to notice this non the first read through, but it does look as though they are planning to expand Fortress Dulwich a little further (or at least shore up the defences...)

[exdulwicher]

Rockets- You have a point, if you know the school perhaps you could contact the headteacher. They may chose to alert parents.

And neither the school nor the police could do anything about it because, and I cannot stress this enough, no offence is being committed.

Rockets mentioned school plays, sports day etc which I noted in my first post on the subject - schools (and places of worship, shopping centres etc) are private grounds and can set their own rules.

In public though, so long as it's reasonable and decent, it's entirely legal to stand in a public place and take photos or video. Whether you know it or not you're on CCTV, traffic cameras, dashcam, helmetcam, maybe a mobile phone cam or even a drone cam - go to Dulwich Park and there's often someone harmlessly flying a drone around the place (no matter how annoying it might be!). We're all probably in the background of God only knows how many videos and photos from tourist places, on beaches etc that have been uploaded to social media.

And ever since people have been complaining about traffic, they've been taking photos of school buses stuck on corners, traffic jams and so on, posting them online and using those pictures to prove whatever point they're making.

On which point - if a similar video clip had been taken by an anti-LTN group showing a line of stationary traffic and kids walking to school through a cloud of diesel fumes and using the video to say how awful traffic was, would you be similarly outraged?

[eastdulwichhenry]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That response is really quite disappointing. Flies

> in the face of what Mcash said they would do to

> listen to people.

They don't only listen to people who are against the road closures. A large number of us are pleased with the new arrangements. The new clear roads are fantastic to walk along, and the anticipated extra traffic on Lordship Lane and other roads hasn't really materialised. They've always been busy, and remain so, but no more than usual.

I have a fear that the pro-car lobby are going to win out when the trial comes to an end, as they did in Camberwell Grove, but let's wait and see. I'm enjoying it while it lasts.

[malumbu]

Wow. Didn't think I'd unleashed that one. As someone who is DBS cleared for vulnerable adults and children the twitter vid, which has now been taken down, didn't alarm me. As someone who had school age children not so long ago there were no alarm bells ringing. When I saw that Chris Boardman had shared it, I didn't think 'what that dirty old perv'. I'm not aware of anything bad about St Chris.

I was doing some work with the forces and some invited secondary school kids a few years ago and we invited the South London Press. I checked with the schools that they had parental agreement for photos. The one school, a good one near the Elephant and Castle just said they didn't need it. I expect that there was an agreement when the kids started school, but they were obviously not paranoid that the event was a cover for some satanic acts. Alternatively they just took a pragmatic decision.

[Bicknell]

eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have a fear that the pro-car lobby are going to

> win out when the trial comes to an end, as they

> did in Camberwell Grove, but let's wait and see.

> I'm enjoying it while it lasts.

Really sad that people still frame the argument like this. Pro-car? Anti-cyclist? No - just want a solution taht's fair to all.

[dulwichfolk]

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To change the subject slightly. As noted on the

> ?info? thread,boroughs are asked to discuss all

> Streetspace (including LTN) proposals with TfL. In

> addition, there is a statutory requirement to make

> Traffic Management Act 2004 Notifications (TMAN):

> ?Pursuant to the Traffic Management Act 2004, any

> activity carried out by the Boroughs using

> Highways Act 1980 (HA) or Road Traffic Regulation

> Act 1984 (RTRA) powers which will or are likely to

> affect the Strategic Road Network (SRN) or the

> Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is

> notifiable by the Borough to TfL through TfL?s

> TMAN process.? Section 121B of the RTRA requires

> TfL to be notified and either consent, or ?not

> object? within one month.

>

> I thought it would be interesting to know whether

> Southwark had gone through the TMAN process for

> the village junction closure and/ or the Turney,

> Burbage, DV times closures, and the Melbourne/

> Elsie etc closures given the potential knock on

> effect on Lordship Lane,

> so I put in an FOI request to TfL. Just received

> their response. It says nothing about those

> closures (not sure that means there was no TMAN

> notification or not), but here are some new ones

> that Southwark have apparently asked them to

> consider:

>

> ?TfL received a Traffic Management Act 2004

> Notification (TMAN ) from Southwark Borough

> Council reference number N2004545, on the 10

> November 2020. This TMAN was relating to Dulwich

> Village London Streetspace Programme (LSP) timed

> access restrictions. The scheme notification

> relates to timed access restrictions on multiple

> roads around Dulwich village from 8am ? 10am and

> 3pm ? 6pm. The proposed changes are: restricted

> access to Turney Road from Croxted Road, to

> Gallery Road from A205 Thurlow Park Road, and to

> College Road from A205 Dulwich Common. The

> information currently provided includes a General

> Arrangement drawing with proposed signage

> locations / wording and scheme impact monitoring

> document highlighting ATC camera positioning on

> East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. Please see

> attached.

>

> At present we are still reviewing the detail of

> the LSP and what implications the restrictions may

> have on the Transport for London Road Network and

> the Strategic Road Network (TLRN / SRN) corridors,

> especially the potential for traffic reassignment

> on the SRN corridor Lordship Lane and the

> potential for impact to bus services along this

> corridor. TfL will need to agree a monitoring

> strategy with Southwark.?

>

> May explain why only a temporary sign has gone in

> on Turney Road going towards the Village? Tell me

> I?m reading this wrong....

Really appreciate the work you are doing on this.

So basically looking to close turney road at the open croxted road end and college/gallery road. Doesn?t this then make the two week old bus gates/signage added to the DV roundabout redundant. It?s like they are making it up as they go along and seem to have found a magic money tree with bus gates/cameras for dulwich only.

In addition the monitoring seems to be limited to Southwark so I assume any Lambeth side displacement will evaporate....

[eastdulwichhenry]

Bicknell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > I have a fear that the pro-car lobby are going

> to

> > win out when the trial comes to an end, as they

> > did in Camberwell Grove, but let's wait and

> see.

> > I'm enjoying it while it lasts.

>

> Really sad that people still frame the argument

> like this. Pro-car? Anti-cyclist? No - just want a

> solution taht's fair to all.

From what I can gather on this thread, most of the people complaining aren't willing to explore any solutions whatsoever, they just want to reopen all the closed roads and go back to how it was last year. And this despite the proven levels of pollution across the area, and the obvious lack of sensible and safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists to travel between the Dog Kennel Hill area and the southern end of Lordship Lane.

To be honest, I can see how the present arrangements may cause problems for disabled residents who have to use cars, as well as tradespeople and emergency services. So yes, finding some way to allow those people to use the routes while keeping others off would be a sensible compromise.

So you can tell yourself you're not "pro-car" all you like, but unless you can come up with alternatives which actually address the above issues, then I'm we'll have to agree to disagree.

[FairTgirl]

I think what you have uncovered here is quite alarming for Croxted and Lordship Lane and EDG.

For 2 hours a day in the am and 3 hours in the pm, all traffic trying to get into DV from Croxted or South Circular will need to do a big circuit around DV and come in via these routes.

The pressure on LL and EDG will be immense - and EDG has so many schools on it that traffic will be funnelled past. All deliveries, trucks, through traffic all going past the same high streets, houses and schools.

The draw bridges are going up and nowt shall pass.

DV shops trade to anyone other residents will die.

Surely this flies against everything these Labour councillors say they stand for and climate change by sending cars on longer routes and creating yet more congestion.

Commend you for uncovering this Legalalien.

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes but do note the expanded scope of the closures

> they are now speaking to TfL about. I failed to

> notice this non the first read through, but it

> does look as though they are planning to expand

> Fortress Dulwich a little further (or at least

> shore up the defences...)

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rockets- You have a point, if you know the school

> perhaps you could contact the headteacher. They

> may chose to alert parents.

>

> And neither the school nor the police could do

> anything about it because, and I cannot stress

> this enough, no offence is being committed.

>

> Rockets mentioned school plays, sports day etc

> which I noted in my first post on the subject -

> schools (and places of worship, shopping centres

> etc) are private grounds and can set their own

> rules.

>

> In public though, so long as it's reasonable and

> decent, it's entirely legal to stand in a public

> place and take photos or video. Whether you know

> it or not you're on CCTV, traffic cameras,

> dashcam, helmetcam, maybe a mobile phone cam or

> even a drone cam - go to Dulwich Park and there's

> often someone harmlessly flying a drone around the

> place (no matter how annoying it might be!). We're

> all probably in the background of God only knows

> how many videos and photos from tourist places, on

> beaches etc that have been uploaded to social

> media.

>

> And ever since people have been complaining about

> traffic, they've been taking photos of school

> buses stuck on corners, traffic jams and so on,

> posting them online and using those pictures to

> prove whatever point they're making.

>

> On which point - if a similar video clip had been

> taken by an anti-LTN group showing a line of

> stationary traffic and kids walking to school

> through a cloud of diesel fumes and using the

> video to say how awful traffic was, would you be

> similarly outraged?

Yes I would but the anti-closure lobby don?t tend to post videos of identifiable school children going to school. And whilst you are right schools can set their own rules they are quite clear why they say you cannot post images of children on social media: safeguarding. Anyone who has children at school will be aware of this as it is front and centre of every school event.

[Rockets]

FairTgirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think what you have uncovered here is quite

> alarming for Croxted and Lordship Lane and EDG.

>

> For 2 hours a day in the am and 3 hours in the pm,

> all traffic trying to get into DV from Croxted or

> South Circular will need to do a big circuit

> around DV and come in via these routes.

>

> The pressure on LL and EDG will be immense - and

> EDG has so many schools on it that traffic will be

> funnelled past. All deliveries, trucks, through

> traffic all going past the same high streets,

> houses and schools.

>

> The draw bridges are going up and nowt shall pass.

>

> DV shops trade to anyone other residents will die.

>

> Surely this flies against everything these Labour

> councillors say they stand for and climate change

> by sending cars on longer routes and creating yet

> more congestion.

>

> Commend you for uncovering this Legalalien.

>

>

> legalalien Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Yes but do note the expanded scope of the

> closures

> > they are now speaking to TfL about. I failed to

> > notice this non the first read through, but it

> > does look as though they are planning to expand

> > Fortress Dulwich a little further (or at least

> > shore up the defences...)

Wow - what a find. Does this mean that no-one could drive to Dulwich Park during these times from the A205 or the picture gallery or tennis club? How can they be wasting our money like this....they don?t seem to have the first clue what they are doing and are throwing things and seeing what sticks. Classic local councillor vanity projects gone wrong to the expense of the public purse.

If only we could ask our councillors tomorrow during the meeting did someone get this in to the pre-approved list of questions before that drawbridge was raised too.....;-)

[legalalien]

I think that?s what it is saying - and also access to Belair Park, the drop off for the DPL nursery in Gallery Road, and the DPL sports ground in Gallery Road - and also means the only vehicular access to the major sports facilities in Burbage and Turney Road (including the part of the sports ground accessed from Gallery Road) would be via The Half Moon Lane end of Burbage Road, as far as I can tell. Given that people come to use those facilities from well outside the area (for school sports, for after school training, and for fixtures attended by opposition teams) - this is going to make things very difficult if not impossible for them. All in all the effect would be to close off the green resources of Dulwich to those outside the area.

I completely get the aim of encouraging people to do things locally and the 15 minute city type thinking - but we have to be careful that we?re not denying people access to key community facilities and green space just because they live more than 15 minutes away, where there are no similar facilities in the area where they live...

I?ll email Cllr Rose and the ward councillors to see

If I can find out anything...

[FairTgirl]

You should. All that you point out is very valid especially related to the green spaces and sports grounds.

I don't know whose idea all of this is, but it so shockingly myopic.

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think that?s what it is saying - and also access

> to Belair Park, the drop off for the DPL nursery

> in Gallery Road, and the DPL sports ground in

> Gallery Road - and also means the only vehicular

> access to the major sports facilities in Burbage

> and Turney Road (including the part of the sports

> ground accessed from Gallery Road) would be via

> The Half Moon Lane end of Burbage Road, as far as

> I can tell. Given that people come to use those

> facilities from well outside the area (for school

> sports, for after school training, and for

> fixtures attended by opposition teams) - this is

> going to make things very difficult if not

> impossible for them. All in all the effect would

> be to close off the green resources of Dulwich to

> those outside the area.

>

> I completely get the aim of encouraging people to

> do things locally and the 15 minute city type

> thinking - but we have to be careful that we?re

> not denying people access to key community

> facilities and green space just because they live

> more than 15 minutes away, where there are no

> similar facilities in the area where they live...

>

> I?ll email Cllr Rose and the ward councillors to

> see

> If I can find out anything...

[Rockets]

Who is actually in leading this process within the council - is it the local councillors, Cllr Rose or someone else? Do we know?

[KidKruger]

I think that's unfair and inaccurate.

It appears everyone is pro reducing cars and pollution.

The way it is currently being imposed was disingenuous and is causing problems now, traffic congestion now, pollution now, apart from a couple of cherry-picked streets.

So some people are suggesting undo the recent changes and approach the problem properly, inclusively and genuinely.

Unless I missed something obvious which you're able to point-out, this doesn't sound like people pretending to want progress but actually fighting it.

Big difference, no ?

eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bicknell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > > I have a fear that the pro-car lobby are

> going

> > to

> > > win out when the trial comes to an end, as

> they

> > > did in Camberwell Grove, but let's wait and

> > see.

> > > I'm enjoying it while it lasts.

> >

> > Really sad that people still frame the argument

> > like this. Pro-car? Anti-cyclist? No - just want

> a

> > solution taht's fair to all.

>

> From what I can gather on this thread, most of the

> people complaining aren't willing to explore any

> solutions whatsoever, they just want to reopen all

> the closed roads and go back to how it was last

> year. And this despite the proven levels of

> pollution across the area, and the obvious lack of

> sensible and safe routes for pedestrians and

> cyclists to travel between the Dog Kennel Hill

> area and the southern end of Lordship Lane.

>

> To be honest, I can see how the present

> arrangements may cause problems for disabled

> residents who have to use cars, as well as

> tradespeople and emergency services. So yes,

> finding some way to allow those people to use the

> routes while keeping others off would be a

> sensible compromise.

>

> So you can tell yourself you're not "pro-car" all

> you like, but unless you can come up with

> alternatives which actually address the above

> issues, then I'm we'll have to agree to disagree.