LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[northernmonkey]

Ok - an emergency service (as yet undisclosed) rang you as an individual person living on a street that isn't on the closure to ask for details? Just making sure I've fully understood how what is clearly a serious issue (if true) is being dealt with!

Alternatively as you use the word 'we' throughout then maybe you're part of a wider group or organisation?

[EDAus]

You win, you ?outed me? I am an undercover government agent living in ED???

I did not say they 'called me'.

Seriously as much fun as this is, there is no mystery in a previous post I recommended people approach the emergency services with any concerns or issues they had. We did that and they responded.

[northernmonkey]

We have also been contacted by one of the emergency services as they have not been contacted / consulted on in relation to the closure, they requested additional information. I am concerned the road closure will lead to poorer outcomes for emergencies.

Just popping your original wording there so you can see how it reads

EDAus Wrote:

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

> You win, you ?outed me? I am an undercover

> government agent living in ED???

>

> I did not say they 'called me'.

>

> Seriously as much fun as this is, there is no

> mystery in a previous post I recommended people

> approach the emergency services with any concerns

> or issues they had. We did that and they

> responded.

[EDAus]

Your point?

You made several unsubstantiated statements and assumptions, I corrected them.

What really is the point here?

Or is the real point of all these sudden posts to drown out alternative viewpoints, to shut down debate and to wear down any form of objection until the loudest voices are heard yet again.

[tiddles]

The fact remains that dulwich village is at a standstill and should an ambulance want to get from turney up caltob Avenue it would face a massive delay being unable to take the direct route and probably be stuck in the gridlock that is the turn left.

[first mate]

I find it worrying that the greater concern is to dissect the phrasing of a poster to try to discredit them rather than focus on a potentially very serious issue.

These measures have been implemented off the back of a health crisis but it seems emergency services have not been fully briefed. That is scary and wrong.

EDAus Wrote:

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

> Your point?

>

> You made several unsubstantiated statements and

> assumptions, I corrected them.

>

> What really is the point here?

>

> Or is the real point of all these sudden posts to

> drown out alternative viewpoints, to shut down

> debate and to wear down any form of objection

> until the loudest voices are heard yet again.

[northernmonkey]

If its true - it is a concern, but 'we have been contacted by one of the emergency services' followed by 'I'm not naming names' has some issues as an approach.

Before hysteria sets in then its good to understand what the issue is and whether it can be addressed. Funnily enough I'd also like to be reassured that emergency services were notified of the changes and consulted as to any issues. If this hasn't taken the case, then I too want to raise this with the local council as, if true, its a concerning position- but as its directly at odds with the comments James has made re emergency services consultation then I was keen to understand this further.

[first mate]

Disagreement with your stance does not equal ?hysteria?. Stop polarising. The majority on here are not anti cycling and do want reductions in pollution and traffic but we want sensible, properly considered interventions, based on data that is solid and that we can trust.

If emergency services have been left out of the loop that is further evidence that these latest measures are opportunistic and politically driven and do not have the best interests of residents at their core.

Our Councillor seems to be a very political type indeed...enough said.

[northernmonkey]

It wasn't the original poster I was commenting on hysteria for - more that by saying 'the emergency services have been in contact and told 'us' that they weren't consulted', then it allows lots of other people to become understandably very concerned about the lack of consultation. This concern may or may not be valid depending on a) whether the statement is true and b) how it was made.

Trying to understand facts and then act on them is not 'polarising'. Believing what an anonymous poster says at face value when it directly contradicts other statements on a subject and without any further clarification is one of the biggest issues with social media. Requesting clarification is not an affront!

Also - yes, James is very 'political' - but I don't generally think that an affinity for Marxist politics, means that he would necessarily push through changes without the correct consultation. We don't know though, so again it would be helpful to have facts to ask the right questions!

[Abe_froeman]

The roads are absolute chaos again already this morning.

[first mate]

This is what our councillor posted on the subject

?not sure of details re emergency services, but as I said before these things do have to be agreed with them.?

I think you will agree that is hardly conclusive. In my view, the right questions are being asked and not one of them is indicative of hysteria.

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> It wasn't the original poster I was commenting on

> hysteria for - more that by saying 'the emergency

> services have been in contact and told 'us' that

> they weren't consulted', then it allows lots of

> other people to become understandably very

> concerned about the lack of consultation. This

> concern may or may not be valid depending on a)

> whether the statement is true and b) how it was

> made.

>

> Trying to understand facts and then act on them is

> not 'polarising'. Believing what an anonymous

> poster says at face value when it directly

> contradicts other statements on a subject and

> without any further clarification is one of the

> biggest issues with social media. Requesting

> clarification is not an affront!

>

> Also - yes, James is very 'political' - but I

> don't generally think that an affinity for Marxist

> politics, means that he would necessarily push

> through changes without the correct consultation.

> We don't know though, so again it would be helpful

> to have facts to ask the right questions!

[intexasatthe moment]

I've copied this response from Southwark's "Have your say " site .It articulates exactly what I felt when completing the questions .

I hope the author doesn't mind .

"I'm sorry, people, but this consultation tool is ridiculously biased.

It seeks to encourage feedback on this road closure that is positive (rather than balanced feedback, positive and negative) and, at least in my opinion, strongly implies the baseline for feedback is that the closure stays in place, possibly with a few minor amendments (rather than the status quo that existed for decades before Southwark decided to implement the closure as an experiment yesterday).

The 1st question (?What can we do to improve the experimental measures??) has 12 pre-set answers, none of which include anything along the lines of ?Remove the new restrictions?, ?Have the restrictions only during peak times? or ?Provide residents with access through the restrictions? etc.

The 2nd question (?Following the experimental road closures, what is working well at this location?) is followed by 13 pre-set positive, feel-good answers?but the obvious partner question (e.g. ?What issues are there with this experimental road closure at this location??) is completely absent

The final sliding scale question (?To what extent do you support the principle of re-purposing streetspace to prioritise public health, road safety, local business and active travel?) is a ridiculously loaded question that suggests it is a universal truth that those worthy objectives, that no one could object to, are achieved by re-purposing streetspace and, by implication, this specific road closure (not least since this answer appears to be used to colour-code our feedback pins on the map!)

And that final sliding scale question is so generic as to be meaningless if it?s not followed by a specific sliding scale question along the lines of ?To what extent do you support this experimental road closure being made permanent in this location??. Plus maybe a follow-up, open dialogue question ?If you do not support this closure becoming permanent, what amendments or alternative measures would you support??

As a result of the above, if this online forum is going to be a major tool for feedback collation and decision-making (i.e. whether the closure becomes permanent, gets modified or needs to revert back to the status quo) it is completely flawed. Statistics generated (e.g. ?x% of survey respondents agreed with re-purposing streetspace??) will be meaningless.

All of which begs the question...what on earth are Southwark playing at?"

[thebestnameshavegone]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> The roads are absolute chaos again already this

> morning.

Have you walked through Dulwich at this time of day any time in the past 5+ years? that's normal.

Where on earth are people actually driving, anyway?

[EDAus]

Since we are asking questions.

northernmonkey do you live on Melbourne Grove? A search of your posts on the EDF suggests this could be a possibility.

Are you one of the local residents who pushed for this proposal with local councillors?

People could have:

1) Emailed the same organisations to check the details there are only three and they all have on-line easy to use systems.

2) Contacted Southwark to confirm or deny the position, or

3) Got on EDF and seeking to shut down anyone who raises concerns with the current approach.

Who benefits the most from approach 3?

We have the evidence, it has been submitted with our complaints, the appropriate bodies will deal with the issues.

Hysteria is a word which has been thrown at people largely women over the course of history whenever they seek to challenge the status quo.

[snowy]

Footage of Carlton Road / Dulwich village seems to show traffic behaving normally:

https://mobile.twitter.com/graeme_raeburn/status/1278074469937033217

[slarti b]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

>

> Have you walked through Dulwich at this time of day any time in the past 5+ years? that's normal.

> Where on earth are people actually driving, anyway?

I have cycled through the junction most days for the last 20 years. I have never seen such chaos since Autumn 2017 when Southwark carried out the previous, failed re-modelling. And if it is bad now, think about what will happen as schools start returning properly in September!

Remember that the Council used the traffic figures for Oct 2017 to claim that overall traffic volumes had increased by 47% when they had actually decreased. Any statistics used by the council in connection with the current, temporary, measures need to be treated with great caution.

[northernmonkey]

Again with the 'we'

And - no!

Also - didn't accuse you of being hysterical - I accused you of stoking hysteria with something that may or may not be 100% accurate!

EDAus Wrote:

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

> Since we are asking questions.

>

> northernmonkey do you live on Melbourne Grove? A

> search of your posts on the EDF suggests this

> could be a possibility.

>

> Are you one of the local residents who pushed for

> this proposal with local councillors?

>

> People could have:

> 1) Emailed the same organisations to check the

> details there are only three and they all have

> on-line easy to use systems.

> 2) Contacted Southwark to confirm or deny the

> position, or

> 3) Got on EDF and seeking to shut down anyone who

> raises concerns with the current approach.

>

> Who benefits the most from approach 3?

>

> We have the evidence, it has been submitted with

> our complaints, the appropriate bodies will deal

> with the issues.

>

> Hysteria is a word which has been thrown at people

> largely women over the course of history whenever

> they seek to challenge the status quo.

[tiddles]

yes I thought the questions were incredibly biased leading towards a favourable repsonse in some way - I clicked other most times and put a short answer.

I think alot of people are driving to and from work? There are also alot of businesses in West Dulwich that will be affected by people not making the journey (if you are visiting the garden centre, a good chance you need the car)

[EDAus]

More noise, distraction and unsubstantiated allegations.

The real issues here are:

1) Emergency services should have been consulted on the changes, we have evidence they have not been and we have provided it to the proper authorities.

2) Real concerns have been raised about the ability of emergency services to respond to incidents, in a timely manner to protect the wider local community.

More than one person can be involved in correspondence it is not rocket science.

I concentrated my time and ability on raising concerns rather than ?picking apart? posts on the EDF.

I know which will be of more benefit to me personally and the community others can form their own judgements.

[thebestnameshavegone]

@EDAus I think the real issue here is more that there's too many people driving cars which is causing all the traffic.

[Spartacus]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> @EDAus I think the real issue here is more that

> there's too many people driving cars which is

> causing all the traffic.

Or there are far too many people in London which overwhelmes the infrastructure and ability for all to share the space efficiently regardless if they are car, bike or waking supporters.

The argument can be cut many ways depending on the point of view you want to promote.

[womanofdulwich]

There are a lot of people who are naturally quite lazy and selfish. I can be one of them. If I can drive somewhere and do the chore , cutting down travel time I may choose to drive. On the other hand if I'm not working, like now, I will walk or cycle. I'm not so time poor right now and its getting my exercise in, in the absence of a gym etc. If I was working and time was precious with school drop offs etc I might revert. Im sure this applies to many others.

[womanofdulwich]

So maybe I should be paid not to work???😉

[rachel.dgc]

Can someone please clarify for me if the road closures in Dulwich Village are temporary or permanent? If temporary how long will they be in place?

[Mrs D]

Closure is 18 months. Could be made permanent post that following review.

rachel.dgc Wrote:

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

> Can someone please clarify for me if the road

> closures in Dulwich Village are temporary or

> permanent? If temporary how long will they be in

> place?