LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[flippit]

DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

>

> I've seen no mention on this thread of a couple of

> troubling incidents at the end of the week before

> last. In the first one, a deeply unpleasant and

> personal notice was posted on the front and side

> doors of an elderly lady with a pro LTN point of

> view.

The "elderly lady" you refer to is a sprightly and determined urban activist who has been repeatedly ripping down down posters that were attached to local residents perimeter fences. She also utilizes a telescopic aluminum pole to pull down posters that are higher up. Even though she may not agree with the anti-LTN campaign she has no God-given right to interfere. She has been caught on CCTV and we have resisted the suggestion to expose her.

Spare us the "dear old lady" bit; she is a street-wise urban guerilla.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Stay classy, flippit.

[flippit]

Will do. This reminds me of the comedy called "She stoops to conquer"

[heartblock]

I?m a little ole? lady, hopefully more Peggy Seeger than Peggy! Down the pub, but anyways...little ole? ladies are not fragile creatures that need protecting.

Some of the anti-Southwark LTNers are not anti LTNs as a concept, but are anti the badly planned LTNs in Southwark that benefit little ?ole ladies living in LTNs but are bad news for residents on roads with illegal levels of pollution.

Sooooooo maybe the little ?ole lady who has been seen going on private property to remove posters campaigning for less traffic and clean air for residents that do not own a 2 million plus house on a certain road should cease and desist....

[flippit]

10. BENEFIT THOSE WHO HAVE MOST AND HARM THOSE WHO HAVE LEAST

This is very much the case when one looks at East Dulwich Grove. Many of the houses there have been sub-divided into flats so occupation density is high. I realized this when doing leaf-letting rounds. Hence the number of separate households and occupants in EDG far exceeds the numbers in Court Lane, Calton Avenue, Gilkes Crescent etc etc that have closed off.

Yes, the wealthy toffs in the so-called "Dulwich Square" have benefited big time. Meanwhile the school kids and the chattering classes, of which I am a member, are suffering big time.

[intexasatthe moment]

Telescopic poles (what sorcery is this?) aside ,surely people have as much of a right to remove posters as people have to put them up ?

Or is there a god given right for posters to remain once afixed ?

[Earl Aelfheah]

You could apply nearly all of those 10 items listed as reasons not to increase road capacity. The one I find most questionable however, is the idea that making it as easy as possible for people to drive short distances somehow benefits the least affluent, when in reality it?s the least affluent who tend not to own or drive a car.

[heartblock]

Don?t worry flippit, Southwark are going to ask class 2 at Little Village Primary to all draw a sad picture of an open square of shame and an open Derwent and Melbourne Grove, with slogans such as ?don?t take away our play area? and ?don?t take our clean air away? as part of their ?consultation? to prove we all think the current LTNs are great.

Meanwhile real school roads like ED Grove will continue to have polluting idling traffic during the school run, and Southwark will carry on building on green spaces, children?s play areas and cutting down trees on estates such as Brenchley and Bells. It is either incompetence, stupidity or a fundamentalist belief that a decision they made and supported cannot be flawed.

At this point their own propaganda of tweeting delightful pictures of parties and people enjoying sitting in gated roads, needs to be juxtaposed with them cutting down trees and concreting over green spaces on Southwark estates.

[intexasatthe moment]

Very well said Heartblock.

[flippit]

It's us the less affluent in the chattering classes who do not own a car who have to rely on buses. And the fact is that the bus journeys are now taking much longer because all the displaced traffic has come over to the main roads where the buses operate.

Can't remember when I last saw a bus on Calton Avenue, Court Lane or Gilkes Cres.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> You could apply nearly all of those 10 items

> listed as reasons not to increase road capacity.

> The one I find most questionable however, is the

> idea that making it as easy as possible for people

> to drive short distances somehow benefits the

> least affluent, when in reality it?s the least

> affluent who tend not to own or drive a car.

[Bicknell]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> You could apply nearly all of those 10 items

> listed as reasons not to increase road capacity.

> The one I find most questionable however, is the

> idea that making it as easy as possible for people

> to drive short distances somehow benefits the

> least affluent, when in reality it?s the least

> affluent who tend not to own or drive a car.

you forget that most people living in duwlich were already walking or cycling for short jounrneys before Ltns went in. 2 out of every 3 jounreys alreayd done on foot.

[DulvilleRes]

Clearly, someone more expert than me should decide, but putting up distressing personal notices on individual's homes or the street in which they live looks like potentially intimidation or harassment to me, both of which are criminal offences. Even if they aren't, it really is deeply personalized and unpleasant.

I heard of a third incident - someone spotted trying to remove the barriers on one of the local streets. Again, I'm not the expert, but I would imagine that is an offence as well. It also strikes me as dangerous - had the barriers remained down, someone who was used to them being up might not have been so on the lookout for traffic when crossing the road, especially when that road is close to a local school. Whether that person's actions were connected or not to the LTN debate, short of them ending up in court, there is no way of knowing.

Any debate around the LTNs should be directed through the proper channels - starting a constructive and civil local discussion, engaging with the council, lobbying and demonstrating. However, for some people this doesn't appear to be enough. There is an unsettling level of antagonism, personalization of the issues and potentially breaking the law that seems to be OK - it is not OK.

[heartblock]

I agree DulvilleRes, the people that have been going into private property on East Dulwich Grove destroying and defacing items is not progressing the issue in a civilised manner.

The people posting pictures of individuals on Twitter accounts with no right of reply, who are legally using their rights to peacefully protest is individualising and personalising the issues.

The individuals trolling Rosamund Kissi Debrah on Twitter, forcing her to protect her account is disgusting

An account from an LCC member taking a screenshot of a Twitter account and posting it with an invitation to troll them and a supposedly clean air campaign account that blocks the right to reply, calling a resident living on a busy road out as a liar. I agree all of the above are very problematic.

These LTNs cause division. Why? Because they were introduced with no consultation of the residents on roads adversely impacted. Who was consulted. Outside interest groups and local campaigners that wanted their roads to be gated communities. Unfortunately this was never about reducing car use, never about active travel and certainly was not about reducing pollution on roads with already legal levels of particulates and emissions.

Southwark are completely to blame, if they did allow all voices and did allow proper and ordered argument and discussion, then these frustrations would not boil over to behaviour I am sure we all condemn. The trouble is they are hiding issues raised by the LAS, promoting their pro-LTN stance publicly, while privately panicking that they have made mistakes.

So yes, let?s have an open and civilised discussion, let Southwark take a neutral stance. How about all LTNs are removed, the air quality and traffic, car ownership and inequality of communities be properly measured for a year, then a planned and fully consultative process occur, with the focus on overall drop in car use, pollution and an increase in public transport and active travel. I?m sure we can all get on board with that.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Meanwhile real school roads like ED Grove...

So the two schools on Dulwich Village aren't real schools? And the kids there aren't breathing in the air from the roads with "illegal levels of pollution"?

Is this like the gun nuts in the US that just deny school shootings happen and there aren't any victims, just crisis actors?

When the people with multimillion houses on Dulwich Village want rid of LTNs so they can drive their cars whenever they want, where does that score on the class warfare scale?

[alice]

Dkhb your logic is faulty.

[legalalien]

I don?t think the closures cause that much of an inconvenience for drivers living on Dulwich Village tbh. The couple of people I know who live on DV are more concerned about the increased traffic congestion that the overall scheme has caused on DV, including outside the two schools on DV. There?s an early morning build up of idling cars as well as a post 10am rush that sees plenty of traffic idling outside both schools. With the segregated bike lane before the Village Way / EDG junction and the changed lights phasing there, there?s also now more of a build up of northbound traffic on DV over the weekend.

[DulvilleRes]

@heartblock - you are to right to highlight any instances, if true, where you think this debate has strayed over respectful and acceptable lines. You are also right to highlight that things are boiling over, and I think there comes a point, that whatever one's point of view, a bit of perspective is needed by some people as to whether the ends justify the means. I also think we all have a responsibility as neighbours to try and reduce the temperature around the LTN debate.

As I know from experience, engaging with councils can be a frustrating and at times opaque business, but that is the way forward. It could be a very long game, but that is how things are done democratically.

[alice]

It?s already been a long game with winners and losers. It needs to stop. The barriers need to come down. Other councils have taken this decision. Southwark should too.

[heartblock]

And there you have it.... described as a ?gun nut?, so much for your very good idea of intelligent and non-personal, non-aggressive discussion DullvilleRes.

The tatic of picking out one phrase and gaslighting someone concerned about an increase of pollution on ALL residential roads in Dulwich and the consequent health impacts on children and young adults, rather than discussing the pros and cons.

I?m probably one of very few people on this forum who has witnessed the after effects of a gunshot wound on a young adult, so for many reasons a poor analogy to use on me.

[eastdulwichlocal99]

I wonder if the underlying motivation for being anti LTN on East Dulwich Grove etc has something more to do with the likely downward pressure on houses prices..

[DulvilleRes]

@heartblock - You've made a mistake, I never used the phrase you picked out. it was another poster. Have a look back through the thread.

[heartblock]

I know DullvilleRes, I didn?t actually say you, just pointing out the behaviour you so rightly condemned.

Interesting that eastdulwichlocal99 says the house prices on ED Grove are reducing because of LTNs...and yet I?m told daily that LTNs are good for my road and that there is no increase in pollution or traffic, do you see....the argument changes every time, the gaslighting continues.

It doesn?t matter how much people like me or Rosamund point out that our concern is the impact on health, we are told by others what we think. This is gaslighting.

[Rockets]

The defacer and remover of anti-LTN signage is likely to be very busy...plenty of them popping up all around the DV/EDG area. Rich pickings for them as a lot of people are making their views felt with the big green signs!

[mr.chicken]

Oh dear things aren't looking good for us. With people here like Rockets trying to stir up animosity against certain residents with false claims, heartblock trying to paint all cyclists in a bad light and anti-LTN people intimidating people with pro-LTN viewpoints and even attempts to go all vigilante and remove the barriers, our side is not looking like we have the moral high ground.

What can we do to drag the pro-LTNers down to our level? Any ideas?

I mean if I supported LTNs I'd be afraid to say so in public now for fear of blowback.

[tiddles]

Lots of green signs on south circular- don?t blame them!!