LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Earl Aelfheah]

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> And one of those minor roads @rahrahrah was

> studied by dr goodman, and here is what the

> dulwich alliance have to say about it

> https://dulwichalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/202

> 1/02/Wheres-the-evidence.pdf

Are you suggesting that there hasn't been a reduction in traffic then? Or that there has been huge displacement of traffic? I'm confused.

[malumbu]

Interesting that the word cloud from dulwich alliance does not say in big words "climate change deniers" "melting the glaciers" "extreme weather events" "species extinction" "the earth dies screaming". We are in a climate emergency yet so many of you just focus on your own little worlds.

Overall UK greenhouse gas emissions down, transport emissions have gone up, in the last twenty years. It's not all about moving to zero emission vehicles, but reducing use as a whole. In particular unnecessary journeys or ones that can be done by other means. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/roadtransportandairemissions/2019-09-16

You could also have "obesity" "25% of Brits overweight" "fifth fattest country in Europe" "increased pressures on the NHS" "Type 2 diabetes/CHD"

I'm being as subtle as a sledgehammer but maybe more of you will get the point about discouraging car use, even if it will hurt.

[Bicknell]

@ rahrahrah just saying that dr goodmans study makes great big claims about one of your timid attempts at reducing traffic, but duwlich alliance doesnt agree

https://dulwichalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Wheres-the-evidence.pdf

[heartblock]

Simon is a pro-LTN activist, his tweets are insulting and problematic in the way Alice describes. He is employed by a lobby group that informs and engages with Southwark. I would describe this person as a truth-twister. Yet again the voices of people living in the reality of polluted ?main? residential roads such as Rosamund Kissi-Debra are drowned by mainly white-Lycra-clad men. I am a pedestrian. I demand clean air for all.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> @ rahrahrah just saying that dr goodmans study

> makes great big claims about one of your timid

> attempts at reducing traffic, but duwlich alliance

> doesnt agree

> https://dulwichalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/202

> 1/02/Wheres-the-evidence.pdf

Who is dr Goodman and why are the LTNs *my* attempts to reduced traffic?

There seems to be a view on this thread that if you have ever used a bike, or expressed a view that LTNs may not be the end of the world, then you're responsible for anything, anyone who is remotely in favour of LTNs has ever said.

What are you saying...Do you think that traffic has decreased or increased? I

[Penguin68]

You could also have "obesity" "25% of Brits overweight" "fifth fattest country in Europe" "increased pressures on the NHS" "Type 2 diabetes/CHD"

As the most recent studies suggest that exercise has minimal impact on weight loss (the body is good at compensating, apparently) I'm assuming that you are hoping that the road closures will be restricting people's ability to get out to shops at all, or encourage the shops to close through lack of transient business, or to block deliveries of food, such that people will lose weight through starvation. Cycling sure as hell won't be doing it.

[exdulwicher]

Still, unlike ExDulwicher at least you are not suggesting we are all UKIP supporting SUV drivers who won't walk 500 metres.

I've never said that.

[Bicknell]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> If you go out early, when the roads are relatively

> quiet, the speeds generally, are incredible.

> Speeding is endemic and there is very little

> enforcement. See also, driving whilst on the

> phone. It?s all part of a culture of entitlement

> amongst car owners illustrated by the completely

> OTT reaction to fairly timid attempts at reducing

> traffic on a handful of minor roads.

I meant What you said about timid attempts at reducing traffic on a hndful of minor roads. Thats all. I dont thnk they're timid -i think they have a major effect on traffic over a big area. so i dont think reaction is OTT.

And pro LTN people say, but you have to close roads to increase cycling. And there was a report that said just that - how cycling had almost doubled because of blocking a road, and the dulwich alliance looked at this and there is no evidence that backs this up.

not saying this is all your fault rahrahrah and sorry if it soundedlike that. Thought youd be interested.

[alice]

Is there a dulwich group which campaigns for the removal of LTNs?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I wish just one person who wants the LTNs removed would say ?I?m against them because they cause me inconvenience. I want to cut down side streets because it?s quicker.?. There must be at least one?

Objections can?t all be, as we?re told, out of concern for: the obese, the BAME community, the poor, pollution (which is definitely not caused by casual car use btw), the disabled, the children. Apparently all these causes are well served by making it as easy as possible to drive locally using minor roads.

Yep, unrestricted car use is a remarkable win win, with the interests of a minority of motorists aligning perfectly with the most marginalised - despite the latter being much less likely to own a car.

[malumbu]

Penguin. For heaven's sake - 'the latest reports .... exercise minimal impact on weight loss" - I put up good general points about the benefits of less cars/driving and there is always an automatic response dismissing this. Just say "we don't care about the environment, encouraging sedentary lifestyles, impact on the NHS" as we "don't want to be inconvenienced"

This is what the NHS says about exercise: It can reduce your risk of major illnesses, such as heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and cancer by up to 50% and lower your risk of early death by up to 30%. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/exercise-health-benefits/ I expect not everyone in the NHS is a car hating militant cyclist.

[Penguin68]

Clearly supporting these things leads to a sense of humour bypass. Your list of exercise positives is indisputable, and yet it was weight issues which you put first "obesity" "25% of Brits overweight" "fifth fattest country in Europe" in your initial listing. - And it is weight reduction through exercise which is most disputable. Whereas 'eating less' is what most authorities place as the most likely way to lose weight. And the only way that road closures lead to people eating less is if they can't get access to food because of them. Hence my, I thought humorous, hyperbole.

But this is clearly, for you, no laughing matter. Sorry. I should have realised that jihad and humour are not happy bedfellows.

[ab29]

Hear hear :)

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Clearly supporting these things leads to a sense

> of humour bypass. Your list of exercise positives

> is indisputable, and yet it was weight issues

> which you put first "obesity" "25% of Brits

> overweight" "fifth fattest country in Europe" in

> your initial listing. - And it is weight reduction

> through exercise which is most disputable. Whereas

> 'eating less' is what most authorities place as

> the most likely way to lose weight. And the only

> way that road closures lead to people eating less

> is if they can't get access to food because of

> them. Hence my, I thought humorous, hyperbole.

>

> But this is clearly, for you, no laughing matter.

> Sorry. I should have realised that jihad and

> humour are not happy bedfellows.

[Abe_froeman]

I?m against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods because they cause me inconvenience.

They cause me inconvenience because it takes much longer to cross the road on Lordship Lane and wait for the bus into town which is delayed, and makes me late, and the pollution the LTNs cause where I live is annoying and inconvenient.

They encourage people to drive down my side street because it?s quicker than waiting in the now endless queues on Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove.

[DulwichCentral]

Things could get a lot more inconvenient than that

https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/see-your-street-underwater-2050-17212413

[Spartacus]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Things could get a lot more inconvenient than

> that

>

> https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/see-you

> r-street-underwater-2050-17212413

We will all be driving electric cars by then so it will be down to other environmental issues.. not UK / European car drivers...

But failing that I'm going to buy one of the disused DUKW vehicles that the tour company in London isn't using any more (they look like this : https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23595/lot/143/)

DC you need to get your DUKWs in a row if you are linking installing LTNs to stopping global warming as the UK and European car industry is being moved away from fossil fuels ...

[malumbu]

Good heavens, did you ever see any of those DUKWs? Belching out black smoke, I think they burned old engine oil. Hands up who hasn't tried that in their diesel car *Don't seriously try that unless your diesel is an agricultural one pre 2000, probably driven on used cooking oil and rendered cattle.

[malumbu]

Good heavens, did you ever see any of those DUKWs? Belching out black smoke, I think they burned old engine oil. Hands up who hasn't tried that in their diesel car *Don't seriously try that unless your diesel is an agricultural one pre 2000, probably driven on used cooking oil and rendered cattle.

[slarti b]

@exdulwicher

So, you deny suggesting that anyone who points out flaws in the Council's botched schemes are "UKIP supporting SUV drivers who won't walk 500 metres." ?

Can I remind you of your post of 1 Feb describing people behind the "One" campaigns as

"A very opaque mix of LDTA, UKIP, various twitter bots and pro-driving campaigns like FairFuel UK and The ABD."

And your post of 15 Feb "Meanwhile, the outraged people within the LTN who can no longer drive their SUV the 500yds to the primary school can't really complain too publicly about that because they come across as very entitled"

Do you deny those posts? I can attach a screen print if you have forgotten ...

[malumbu]

As Soon as you use emotive terms like "botched schemes" you lose the moral high ground and make it difficult to have any sort of debate. I do my best to avoid inflammatory language, although do struggle at times as many when I try to point out on the need to reduce traffic and emissions post often just gets shot down. A starting point would be to agree that there needs to be measures to encourage people to drive less, and an increase in active transport. I expect that most posting on here do not drive 600 metres to the local shop to pick up a pint of milk, but there will be some on our roads who do. Or drive from Zone 6 to zone 2 or 3 just to cheaper public transport (eg parking on the roads near Honor Oak Park)

As many drivers will not reduce car use voluntarily then you need carrots and sticks. The 'botched' approach of closing roads does not seem to be favoured by those most vocal on these threads so what are your alternatives? Please don't repeat yourselves about public transport, it's not perfect but pretty good. The ULEZ is another drastic measure, but it's coming anyway.

[first mate]

You and many others, I suspect.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> I?m against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods because

> they cause me inconvenience.

>

> They cause me inconvenience because it takes much

> longer to cross the road on Lordship Lane and wait

> for the bus into town which is delayed, and makes

> me late, and the pollution the LTNs cause where I

> live is annoying and inconvenient.

>

> They encourage people to drive down my side

> street because it?s quicker than waiting in the

> now endless queues on Lordship Lane and East

> Dulwich Grove.

[devs]

The trouble is...as soon people start going back to work and using public transport again they will find main roads all around London are choked with traffic at a standstill, including buses.I cant see the LTN schemes as anything other than 'botched' partly because there doesn't seem to be a London wide policy. Journeys often cross borough boundaries, by their very nature. It seems badly thought out even before the issue of who does and doesn't benefit is considered. (I'm a non driver who lives on Lordship Lane)

[slarti b]

@Malumbu.

Pure whataboutery from you to avoid acknowledging that:

a) ExDulwicher has a history of smearing people and groups who raise any issues as UKIP supporting petrol heads

and

b) that he has been caught red handed denying it.

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> As Soon as you use emotive terms like "botched

> schemes" you lose the moral high ground and make

> it difficult to have any sort of debate. I do my

> best to avoid inflammatory language, although do

> struggle at times as many when I try to point out

> on the need to reduce traffic and emissions post

> often just gets shot down. A starting point would

> be to agree that there needs to be measures to

> encourage people to drive less, and an increase in

> active transport. I expect that most posting on

> here do not drive 600 metres to the local shop to

> pick up a pint of milk, but there will be some on

> our roads who do. Or drive from Zone 6 to zone 2

> or 3 just to cheaper public transport (eg parking

> on the roads near Honor Oak Park)

>

> As many drivers will not reduce car use

> voluntarily then you need carrots and sticks. The

> 'botched' approach of closing roads does not seem

> to be favoured by those most vocal on these

> threads so what are your alternatives? Please

> don't repeat yourselves about public transport,

> it's not perfect but pretty good. The ULEZ is

> another drastic measure, but it's coming anyway.

Malumbu - your comment that public transport is "pretty good" is completely wrong. Southwark's own Transport Report, published in 2018, said that Dulwich had some of the lowest PTAL scores for the whole borough and that public transport was poor. It was one of the reasons they cited for the high car ownership in the area (one of the highest in the borough).

This is the same council that recommended that LTNs should only go into areas with high PTAL scores and low car ownership. So it begs the question whose bright idea it was to go against their own recommendations and put measures in place with poor transport links and high car ownership. It was obvious what was going to happen when the mneasures went in.

I think the council has botched this because the measures aren't resolving the big issue - it's making it worse and creating more pollution and having a negative impact of the lives of many people outside the LTN.

To Devs' point traffic is already starting to creep up and it won't be long before we start seeing the long lines of queuing traffic at both ends of Lordship Lane and the displacement routes bearing the brunt. And Malumbu these are not people driving 600 yards to get a pint of milk - they are trying to get through and across the borough and unless you tackle the route cause of through traffic it doesn't go away by throwing in some roadblocks - it just goes another way and for all the heralding modal shift based on a few cyclists along Calton Avenue it doesn't get away from the fact that the scheme appears to be failing miserably, dividing the community and creating an increased risk to health for more than it is benefitting. I could understand the Tories doing it but to see this being propagated by a Labour council is beyond shocking.

[exdulwicher]

I haven't forgotten what I posted at all @slarti b.

However you've rather selectively quoted me. The One... campaigns have behind them (as I said) A very opaque mix of LDTA, UKIP, various twitter bots and pro-driving campaigns like FairFuel UK and The ABD. Back on page 96 there's a discussion and a couple of links to where Farage was getting in on the action sensing some nice political opportunism and there's been a couple of Daily Mail articles in a similar vein.

However, I also added, in the same post:

Plus a genuine mix of local residents, many of whom will think it's purely a local group started by local residents with concerns.

There's a lot of similarities to Vote Leave and Leave.EU. Most of the people signing up to them were regular people who, for their own reasons, wanted to leave the EU. They didn't really care about who founded, funded or managed the groups in the background. Same here - most people are genuine local residents with concerns and at no point did I say anything like "all anti-LTN people are UKIP voting SUV drivers". Please don't paint me as though I did.

The second one - yeah perhaps a bit stereotypical / inflammatory. Not really much different to the people going on about "the pro-closure lobby", "entitled cyclists" and comparing Southwark Council to a communist dictatorship.