LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

The worse thing is...I have lived here for 30 years and loved the area, the people and the cohesive attitude of we are all in this together.

With LTNs it is now .. neighbours spying on neighbours, taking photos, being unpleasant on Twitter and polluted noisy streets versus quiet streets ... haves and have-nots.

At a time when we should all come together in shared empathy for those that have lost loved ones, lost jobs, businesses and for all my NHS colleagues who have had the worst year and with many cases of PTSD ..this has ruined the area for me, as soon as I can I'm moving out..Dulwich is now a horrible place to live.

I'm leaving this forum, I'm so fed up with people living in LTNs with their holier than thou attitudes, while driving their diesel cars around....

[ab29]

I agree with you heartblock. I work in a hospital. It's been a horrendous year (+). When the LTNs came around I had to blink twice, in disbelieve - is it really what people whish on their neighbours?

[northernmonkey]

Not what I said at all - or even close. Comment was in relation to the visibility or otherwise of One Dulwich.

ab29 Wrote:

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

> "Also - one group is supporting overall concepts -

> cleaner air / active travel, the other is trying

> to set council policy and was set up specifically

> to be against the road changes." - so you are

> happy with the fact that thousands of people (I am

> one of them) are being treated as second class

> citizens and have the extra traffic (= more

> pollution and noise) dumped on their roads?

>

> Never owned a car, walk where I can and I am being

> punished for that.

>

> Why?

>

>

> northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Without wishing this to get insanely tedious,

> they

> > do have a twitter feed but they don't use it

> for

> > any of their comments/ suggestions on policy etc

> -

> > they use their website for that.

> >

> > Also - one group is supporting overall concepts

> -

> > cleaner air / active travel, the other is

> trying

> > to set council policy and was set up

> specifically

> > to be against the road changes.

> >

> > No idea about the twitter message function -

> not

> > sure exactly how that works anyway, but pretty

> > sure that when I've received flyers from Clean

> Air

> > Dulwich that there has been an email address on

> > them.

> >

> >

> > Rockets Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Northern - you're wrong I am afraid.

> OneDulwich

> > > has a twitter feed but unlike Clean Air

> Dulwich

> > > it's not locked/restricted to only those that

> > they

> > > follow. Anyone can go on @realonedulwich and

> > > comment freely - whether they agree or

> disagree

> > > with what is being said.

> > >

> > > Unfortunately you can't contact CAD via their

> > > twitter page and they have this habit that if

> > you

> > > challenge them on something they block you -

> > they

> > > were doing this routinely until they made the

> > > comment feature only open to people they

> > follow.

> > > Also their main website only has a sign-up

> page

> > > and no contact info.

> > >

> > > Clean Air Dulwich are pretty elusive and much

> > less

> > > open to public questioning than OneDulwich -

> so

> > > maybe your super sleuth skills would be

> better

> > > deployed on trying to determine who is behind

> > > Clean Air Dulwich! ;-)

[JohnL]

heartblock Wrote:

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

being unpleasant on Twitter

Shock Horror ;)

[Earl Aelfheah]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> Rahrahrah.

>

> I did not 'resorted to name calling' - would've

> been kicked out or reprimanded (at least) by the

> Admin if I did.

>

> Name calling: "the use of offensive names

> especially to win an argument or to induce

> rejection or condemnation (as of a person or

> project) without objective consideration of the

> facts" (Merriam-Webster dictionary).

>

> I did not use offensive names - if you think I

> did, when and what was it?.

@ab29 - Just off the bat - you have called me ?arrogant and selfish? a ?know-it-all, arrogant cyclist? suggested that I ?don?t care about anyone else? (using ALL CAPS) and accused me of suffering from a ?complete lack of empathy? (again using ALL CAPS). It?s possible to have different, but still honestly held, views. Most people on this forum express their views passionately, but keep to discussing the substance (e.g. @Rockets and others) rather than resorting to ad hominen attacks. I mean, it's up to you how you express yourself of course - but it's a bit rich to then moan about people not being respectful.

[Earl Aelfheah]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> being unpleasant on Twitter

>

> Shock Horror ;)

Twitter is an absolute swamp.

[ab29]

@NorthernMonkey: "Not what I said at all - or even close. Comment was in relation to the visibility or otherwise of One Dulwich" - ok, please tell us what happens when you contact 'Clean Air Dulwich' (by email, twitter etc). What names are available? Who to contact if you re not the group member?

How is the 'Clean Air Dulwich' visibility/transparency presents itself?

[Earl Aelfheah]

@heartblock - I'm sorry to hear you feel that way for what it's worth.

[Earl Aelfheah]

re. Clean Air Dulwich - I'm not that surprised they've limited comments on their Twitter feed. If you've even remotely dipped a toe in anti-LTN Twitter, you'll see some pretty vicious stuff from a significant minority on the lunatic fringes of the debate.

[alice]

I was blocked for counting the number of cyclists in one of their pro photos.

[Rockets]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> Without wishing this to get insanely tedious, they

> do have a twitter feed but they don't use it for

> any of their comments/ suggestions on policy etc -

> they use their website for that.

>

> Also - one group is supporting overall concepts -

> cleaner air / active travel, the other is trying

> to set council policy and was set up specifically

> to be against the road changes.

>

> No idea about the twitter message function - not

> sure exactly how that works anyway, but pretty

> sure that when I've received flyers from Clean Air

> Dulwich that there has been an email address on

> them.

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Northern - you're wrong I am afraid. OneDulwich

> > has a twitter feed but unlike Clean Air Dulwich

> > it's not locked/restricted to only those that

> they

> > follow. Anyone can go on @realonedulwich and

> > comment freely - whether they agree or disagree

> > with what is being said.

> >

> > Unfortunately you can't contact CAD via their

> > twitter page and they have this habit that if

> you

> > challenge them on something they block you -

> they

> > were doing this routinely until they made the

> > comment feature only open to people they

> follow.

> > Also their main website only has a sign-up page

> > and no contact info.

> >

> > Clean Air Dulwich are pretty elusive and much

> less

> > open to public questioning than OneDulwich - so

> > maybe your super sleuth skills would be better

> > deployed on trying to determine who is behind

> > Clean Air Dulwich! ;-)

Northern - OneDulwich and DA also support cleaner air and active travel - to suggest they don't is disingenuous - they just don't agree with the approach the council is taking to get there as they believe it doesn't solve the problem.

And remember CAD and many of the other pro- groups were set-up as a lobbying tool for those who want more road closures.

And to Heartblock's comment (and Heartblock please stay) the council has succeeded in one thing and one thing only and that is to divide a community. We have seen people cutting monitoring strips, we have seen people vandalising planters, we have seen people verbally abusing people who dare to voice anything other than unquestioned support for the closures, we have seen the council lock residents out of buildings whilst meetings take place to discuss the measures, we have seen people have signs in their garden torn down because they oppose the closures and now we have seen people taking photos of houses with anti-LTN posters in their windows and posting them on the internet.

All of this could have been avoided if the council had done a half-decent job and engaged with everyone from the community from the outset. It could have been avoided if just one of our local councillors had stood up and been counted and went against the party line.

But they chose not to.

The responsibility for this mess has to lie with them but they are still missing in action and reluctant to try to address any of the mess they have created. The chickens will come home to roost for them eventually.

[Rockets]

alice Wrote:

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

> I was blocked for counting the number of cyclists

> in one of their pro photos.

They do seem a little quick with the block button if someone demonstrates anything other than glowing support for the closures! ;-)

But the problem is they actually harm their ability to engage with a broader audience because the "only allow comments from people you follow" is very much becoming the de rigueur way to determine whether someone has anything good to say or whether they are just a propaganda machine and it ultimately starts limiting your reach - you just end-up engaging with the same people all the time.

[richard tudor]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> The worse thing is...I have lived here for 30

> years and loved the area, the people and the

> cohesive attitude of we are all in this together.

>

> With LTNs it is now .. neighbours spying on

> neighbours, taking photos, being unpleasant on

> Twitter and polluted noisy streets versus quiet

> streets ... haves and have-nots.

>

> At a time when we should all come together in

> shared empathy for those that have lost loved

> ones, lost jobs, businesses and for all my NHS

> colleagues who have had the worst year and with

> many cases of PTSD ..this has ruined the area for

> me, as soon as I can I'm moving out..Dulwich is

> now a horrible place to live.

>

> I'm leaving this forum, I'm so fed up with people

> living in LTNs with their holier than thou

> attitudes, while driving their diesel cars

> around....

I have lived in the area for almost 75 years, my grandparents lived in the area since the early 1900 as did my parents, unfortunately the area has lost its soul and now seems to have been taken over by the young who know it all, no experience in life, just moved in and if you do not agree with their views you are wrong.

Woe be tide you if of the same generation you will suffer banishment from twitter or what ever social media they all communicate through, never to be heard of or spoke to again for not agreeing.

Do not let them drive you out. When they get older they will realise what pratts they really are or were.

Still when we are gone our history will wiped from the history books.

[ab29]

rahrahrah.

I have called you "arrogant and selfish? (which implies lack of empathy) and ?know-it-all, arrogant cyclist" (in capital letters) and I stand by it - it is based on your comments about LTNs on this forum.

It is not, however a 'name calling' as you claim (refer to any decent dictionary definition if in doubts).

Rockets, Legal and a few others are not directly affected by the road closures and yet they have shown understanding towards those who are.

I do not always agree with them but I value their opinion and would be willing to reconsider mine (however reluctantly).

You however, have shown a complete inflexibility, repeating the same over and over again, regardless what the others response has been.

All of this has nothing to do with a climate change - if you push traffic from one road to another how is that better for the overall air pollution?

It seems as the cyclists want the roads closed just because it suits them. No one else matter.

PS. I do not "moan" about people being disrespectful - I said it once (about the pro-LTN supporters)

[legalalien]

Haven?t been on this thread recently as life (and the wet weather) have got in the way, just popped in to say heartblock, please don?t leave the debate. Ab29, heartened that you agree with me on some things and not others, that?s as it should be. Less tribalism and entrenched positions, more getting to yes.

Perhaps we should have a school-like experiment where we all spend a day arguing the other side?s position? In theory a good thing but I imagine it would descend into sarcasm and weak spoof-Twitter-account type humour within 5 mins. A pity.

[malumbu]

In deed. I did used to post alternative arguments in the recent past, but tend not to get involved anymore. You can speculate why.

So - affordable motoring changed the UK in the 50s and 60s and led to a revolution in personal mobility. The average family no longer were limited to where the trains went for their holidays - Southend, the South Coast etc. The convenience of having a motor outside to use when you wish. Motoring has got progressively cheaper. Cars now go on for ever, so much more reliable than a few decades ago. The genie is out of the bottle and you cannot turn back the clock.

It's great that the UK has ambitious targets on emissions, but without the developing world, China, India, Brazil and the US joining in what's the point?

The ULEZ, Clean Air Zones, LTNs, and other schemes such as differential parking costs, are blunt instruments. This is government passing the buck to local authorities when there should be national measures to reduce car use, and encourage sustainable and clean transport through behaviour change, being tougher on the motor manufacturers (banning ads that sell a lifestyle?) and national road user charging. At least put fuel duty back up.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@ab29 - you have complained about people being disrespectful and you have repeatedly resorted to personal attacks.

This: "I have called you "arrogant and selfish? ... a ?know-it-all, arrogant cyclist" (in capital letters) and I stand by it... It is not, however a 'name calling' as you claim". I mean really?

I don?t agree with aspects of the changes and their implementation. I agreed with @legalalien that I would support a roll back of phase 2 whilst more analysis was done on phase 1. I?ve said that I might be persuaded to support an alternative plan.

I am disappointed that One Dulwich is encouraging people to back a return to the previous state, following the pattern of every other ?One? campaign across London. I am critical of this organisation.

I have a different view regarding the need to reduce car usage. You cannot reduce the number of journeys whilst increasing road capacity and making it easier to drive in my opinion. You also cannot encourage active travel without creating at least some quieter routes, with less motor traffic (in my opinion). That doesn?t mean that this particular scheme doesn?t have flaws, trade offs, or compromises like any other. This is why I would dearly like people to work to improve it rather than completely scrap it and return to how thing were.

I have not at any point resorted to personal attacks, except perhaps now, because I think it's reasonable to call out your behaviour. Especially when you admonish others for not being respectful.

[Earl Aelfheah]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Ab29, heartened that you agree with me on

> some things and not others, that?s as it should

> be. Less tribalism and entrenched positions, more

> getting to yes.

>

> Perhaps we should have a school-like experiment

> where we all spend a day arguing the other side?s

> position? In theory a good thing but I imagine it

> would descend into sarcasm and weak

> spoof-Twitter-account type humour within 5 mins. A

> pity.

It would be a good start if we could agree that personal attacks and name calling are a bad thing, instead of patting those responsible for it on the back.

[Earl Aelfheah]

To post the other side of the argument as Legalalien suggests:

The changes have been rushed in, with no baseline data and no proper analysis of the effects. If you close some side roads, even allowing for some 'evaporation' there will inevitably be displacement. The main roads already have illegally high levels of pollution and so this will only make things worse. Local, public transport options are inadequate, so the alternatives are limited. Most people will not cycle or walk alongside / amongst heavy fast moving vehicles and even the filtered streets still have large vehicles travelling along them, some at speed.

It is politically unrealistic to think that you can get people to alter their behaviour in ways that will significantly inconvenience them and so the LTNs are a waste of money which will only cause division.

[Metallic]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> The photographing of people?s homes calling

> neighbours hypocrites and worse by CAD followers

> was highly unpleasant by the way. I see a CAD

> follower then went around Dulwich Village

> photographing private family houses and posting it

> on Twitter with equally unpleasant text.

> Please stop!

And of course no condemnation in public from any of the pro LTNers or councillors who are the first to bandwagon when they perceive the anti LTNers do something they disapprove of.

Hoping the police get involved because of this intimidation.

[KidKruger]

Meanwhile, the council makes ?3million in a couple of months.

Spot the winner.

And the losers.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> To post the other side of the argument as

> Legalalien suggests:

>

> The changes have been rushed in, with no baseline

> data and no proper analysis of the effects. If you

> close some side roads, even allowing for some

> 'evaporation' there will inevitably be

> displacement. The main roads already have

> illegally high levels of pollution and so this

> will only make things worse. Local, public

> transport options are inadequate, so the

> alternatives are limited. Most people will not

> cycle or walk alongside / amongst heavy fast

> moving vehicles and even the filtered streets

> still have large vehicles travelling along them,

> some at speed.

> It is politically unrealistic to think that you

> can get people to alter their behaviour in ways

> that will significantly inconvenience them and so

> the LTNs are a waste of money which will only

> cause division.

[Earl Aelfheah]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> Meanwhile, the council makes ?3million in a couple

> of months.

> Spot the winner.

> And the losers.

>

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > To post the other side of the argument as

> > Legalalien suggests:

> >

> > The changes have been rushed in, with no

> baseline

> > data and no proper analysis of the effects. If

> you

> > close some side roads, even allowing for some

> > 'evaporation' there will inevitably be

> > displacement. The main roads already have

> > illegally high levels of pollution and so this

> > will only make things worse. Local, public

> > transport options are inadequate, so the

> > alternatives are limited. Most people will not

> > cycle or walk alongside / amongst heavy fast

> > moving vehicles and even the filtered streets

> > still have large vehicles travelling along

> them,

> > some at speed.

> > It is politically unrealistic to think that you

> > can get people to alter their behaviour in ways

> > that will significantly inconvenience them and

> so

> > the LTNs are a waste of money which will only

> > cause division.

I don't' actually hold this view. I'm making the counter argument as Legalalien suggested (but only malumbu an I (I think both broadly in favor of LTNs?) have taken them up on).

That said, I am starting to come round to believing the last bit - that it might be unrealistic to think that you can get people to alter their behaviour in ways that will significantly inconvenience them. Whilst people say they want fewer cars, they generally aren't willing to forgo their own, or wrestle with the difficult trade offs and compromises that achieving this inevitably entails. Ultimately, I suspect we're kind of screwed.

[Penguin68]

That whilst people say they want fewer cars

I think people are saying they want fewer (local) car journeys - but that doesn't actually necessarily mean fewer cars. Many people have cars to drive a few, necessary (to them) trips - may be happy to cut down local use (if there are sufficient effective alternatives which they can use - some are too old or frail to cycle the local hills for instance and may not be able to walk far) but still need a car.

It is wrong to assume that less car use (until and only if it's vastly less) will necessary translate into fewer cars owned in areas where public transport is more limited and you can't readily walk anywhere you need to (or the environs other than round Tooley St, to be exact).

[Earl Aelfheah]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> That whilst people say they want fewer cars

>

> I think people are saying they want fewer (local)

> car journeys - but that doesn't actually

> necessarily mean fewer cars. Many people have cars

> to drive a few, necessary (to them) trips - may be

> happy to cut down local use (if there are

> sufficient effective alternatives which they can

> use - some are too old or frail to cycle the local

> hills for instance and may not be able to walk

> far) but still need a car.

>

> It is wrong to assume that less car use (until and

> only if it's vastly less) will necessary translate

> into fewer cars owned in areas where public

> transport is more limited and you can't readily

> walk anywhere you need to (or the environs other

> than round Tooley St, to be exact).

Yes, that's what I meant. Fewer cars driving around, not necessarily a reduction in car ownership. Although personally, I would like to see the latter too. The thing is, you won't reduce the number of cars driving around without reducing road capacity / restricting their use in some way.

Most people could (most people do) manage without a car in London. Not all of course. But it's more difficult / less convenient at key times.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Cycling is in the reach of most people (especially with electric bikes). But it's scary cycling on busy roads. If you're a 'normal' (non-lycra) person, it's not appealing. We need to make it a safe easy, every day activity and that means reallocating some space away from cars and towards walking and cycling. It's a small part of the whole picture, but an important part. But again, you can only do that if the minority of car drivers give something up. I'm not sure they will. Not really. Not to the extent required.