LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[first mate]

Legal, thanks for the link. At 1:40:26 Catherine Rose asserts that 52% of disabled people cite walking and bus use as their dominant form of transport. It would have been more helpful to indicate the percentage of physically disabled (as in serious mobility issues) who cite walking and buses as their dominant form of transport. As we know disability is an umbrella term for a whole variety of issues that affect individuals but do not necessarily impact mobility. It is a small point but just one example of how this council operates.

[Nigello]

I agree. If you want to acknowledge that disabled people are very diverse in all manner of ways, including the types of their conditions, etc. then you have to break down the behemoth that is "disability" if you want to accommodate as many needs as possible. Phsycial disabilities, such as spina bifida blindness, have to be more of a concern to those providing public transport than, say, panic disorder.

[redpost]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Haven?t read it yet but at least looks like an

> incremental approach of building an in house

> skills base and focusing first on reducing

> consultancy, maintenance etc rather than setting

> up a full bells and whistles company to compete

> with the private sector. Deserves its own thread,

> but link here

> https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1033

> 74/Report%20Southwark%20Construction%20Company%20r

> eport.pdf

What could possibly go wrong?

https://www.lgcplus.com/finance/brick-by-brick-failures-account-for-over-half-of-croydons-overspend-s114-notice-reveals-12-11-2020/

[Bic Basher]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I agree. If you want to acknowledge that disabled

> people are very diverse in all manner of ways,

> including the types of their conditions, etc. then

> you have to break down the behemoth that is

> "disability" if you want to accommodate as many

> needs as possible. Phsycial disabilities, such as

> spina bifida blindness, have to be more of a

> concern to those providing public transport than,

> say, panic disorder.

Ableism isn't going to help here. There are people with mental health issues who need to use a car as much as someone with a physical disability. Disability isn't as clear cut as most people think it is and we shouldn't discriminate based on if they have mobility issues or not when it comes to transport planning.

[heartblock]

If LCC is involved in any policy, then expect ableism and middle-class male white privilege to be central to many of the 'facts' utilised to support the policy.

Let's face it, Simon Still, a Lambeth-based London Cycling Campaign adviser was integral to the introduction of LTNs. He eventually resigned after posting racist tweets, but he wasn't sacked by the LCC.

And LCC like to repeat the ableist slogan that there is a bike for everyone.

[Nigello]

It is hardly ableism to talk about and highlight the importance of knowing and accommodating (as much as is possible and fair) many different kinds of disability, and therefore not seeing "the disabled" as one big "community". So, if a public transport provider has a limited amount of money with which to provide the most amount of access across the widest area with the lowest cost, etc., certain types of disability may well be more relevant to such constraints. Is it more valid to think about (but not discount or ignore) physical disabilities than, say, a psychological one in the context of such provision? I think so, which does not mean that provision for people with other needs isn't warranted at all.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Brave politicians would try to find a resolution

> that appeases everyone

There is no compromise that will ever appease the rejectionist lobby that wants the status quo ante at any cost. They do not see the problem and are not willing to accept any restraint on their desire to drive anywhere at any time. https://thumb.spokesman.com/D1ims2fi_wtetprNKQ2ZPakBmMU=/2500x1405/smart/media.spokesman.com/photos/2021/05/20/60a6741a3616b.hires.jpg

If the Southwark Labour Party is being Marxist on LTNs (something that would come as some surprise both to Labour's dwindling cohort of actual Marxists and the Tories that sponsored LTNs), then OneDulwich is definitely playing the Rev Ian Paisley rejectionist role: "Dulwich Village says NO!"

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/2/8/1328661492265/The-Rev-Ian-Paisley-007.jpg

[ab29]

Lordship Lane says 'no' too! LTN is a lie, a fraud and put lives of thousands of people at risk - predominantly those less off.

[slarti b]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

> There is no compromise that will ever appease the rejectionist lobby that wants the status quo ante.

Utter rubbish. plenty of compromises have been suggested, inclusing a very well presented one by DVRA. All have been rejected out of hand. Our councillors have hidden from their constituents and have used Covid to avoid public meetings and scrutiny. Totally shameful.

[Rockets]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Brave politicians would try to find a

> resolution

> > that appeases everyone

>

> There is no compromise that will ever appease the

> rejectionist lobby that wants the status quo ante

> at any cost. They do not see the problem and are

> not willing to accept any restraint on their

> desire to drive anywhere at any time.

> https://thumb.spokesman.com/D1ims2fi_wtetprNKQ2ZPa

> kBmMU=/2500x1405/smart/media.spokesman.com/photos/

> 2021/05/20/60a6741a3616b.hires.jpg

>

> If the Southwark Labour Party is being Marxist on

> LTNs (something that would come as some surprise

> both to Labour's dwindling cohort of actual

> Marxists and the Tories that sponsored LTNs), then

> OneDulwich is definitely playing the Rev Ian

> Paisley rejectionist role: "Dulwich Village says

> NO!"

> https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardia

> n/Pix/pictures/2012/2/8/1328661492265/The-Rev-Ian-

> Paisley-007.jpg

Perhaps more importantly there is no sign of any compromise from the council and councillors who thrust this ludicrous and harmful scheme on the residents of Dulwich.

The longer it goes on the more maddeningly and foolishly entrenched the councillors become, somehow deludong themselves that there is some good coming from this yet the overwhelming evidence shows the complete opposite.

I read with interest that Cllr Newens (predictably) has begun the blame game by pointing the finger on the failure of the measures she helped introduce at Lambeth and TFL. Weak politicians who are backed into a corner always look for someone else to blame and alsmost inevitably end up incriminating themselves even more when they do so.

I am sure, come May when the inevitable happens we will see a raft of "solidarity comrade" type messages from those councillors who survive the council elections to those who do not.

Pretty soon Cllr Williams will start to worry that there might be a cull of councillors across the borough happening under his watch and that might get attention of Labour HQ - and the type of attention that could hinder his polticial aspirations. That's when he will start showing any sort of leadership on tbe issue.

[Metallic]

"Pretty soon Cllr Williams will start to worry that there might be a cull of councillors across the borough happening under his watch and that might get attention of Labour HQ - and the type of attention that could hinder his political aspirations. That's when he will start showing any sort of leadership on the issue."

He hadn't better leave it too late, many people are angry.

[Bic Basher]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> It is hardly ableism to talk about and highlight

> the importance of knowing and accommodating (as

> much as is possible and fair) many different kinds

> of disability, and therefore not seeing "the

> disabled" as one big "community". So, if a public

> transport provider has a limited amount of money

> with which to provide the most amount of access

> across the widest area with the lowest cost, etc.,

> certain types of disability may well be more

> relevant to such constraints. Is it more valid to

> think about (but not discount or ignore) physical

> disabilities than, say, a psychological one in the

> context of such provision? I think so, which does

> not mean that provision for people with other

> needs isn't warranted at all.

Both are equal. A mental health disability is as much important when it comes to planning as for someone with a physical disability. Retail is finally recognising that by adding quiet hours in addition to physical disability access to premises.

As I said, the points some are making are pure ableism where hidden disabilities aren't considered to be serious enough to warrant review compared to someone who has a physical disability which a neurotypical can understand but not comprehend those who are different to them.

[first mate]

I guess I am as interested in the 46% percent who do not cite walking and buses as their dominant form of transport and knowing more about why they don't, and what impact the current measures have on them, and whether those impacts are positive or not? Of course you are correct, access to transport is not just about physical disability.

[tiddles]

I cannot wait for our councillors to start knocking on doors when the elections are due :)

[Nigello]

Elections are in May. Some councillors are already out and about, pressing the flesh. (I saw some on Saturday.)

[Spartacus]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Elections are in May. Some councillors are already

> out and about, pressing the flesh. (I saw some on

> Saturday.)

Are they after their Christmas boxes already 🤔

[Spartacus]

Just to throw into the arena

BBC News - London congestion: Cycle lanes blamed as city named most congested

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559863

[ed_pete]

Whilst not forgetting of course that a consultation is not a yes-or-no vote, Hackney are making an LTN permanent against the views of the majority of the local population.

https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/homerton-ltn-to-be-made-permanent-2021-8537300

[legalalien]

Speaking of consultations, the deputation from the Southwark residents and tenants association is giving a speech fairly critical of Southwark's consultation processes at the Cabinet meeting this morning (streaming on youtube, can be watched back later). "Residents should not be treated as obstacles to be overcome."

[Hitmyhat]

Also at the Cabinet meeting was a deputation from Age Speaks, older and disabled people trying to get their voice heard and a demo outside Tooley Street too.

[goldilocks]

'around 30 people'...

One can only assume that the other 16 people were camera shy or queuing for the loo at the time the photo was taken. Either that or the usual 'report double the number of attendees' approach is doing some heavy lifting there.

[Hitmyhat]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> 'around 30 people'...

>

>

> One can only assume that the other 16 people were

> camera shy or queuing for the loo at the time the

> photo was taken. Either that or the usual 'report

> double the number of attendees' approach is doing

> some heavy lifting there.

That is the only comment you have? This was older and disabled people telling Southwark Council how difficult their lives have become because of the LTNs and your only comment is to quibble about numbers??

[malumbu]

skimming recent posts (life is too short to read all of them), much is being made about the impact on the elderly and those with disabilities. Obviously a valid concern.

But I expect that many vehemently against LTNs are principally concerned about the inconvenience to themselves. I expect that this does not apply to many posting here I hasten to add before I precipitate ED outrage.

And me? I can sleep soundly at night as I work to help some with disabilities, have supported accessible transport whilst reducing my own carbon footprint.

Anyway, a personal view.

[Rockets]

Or maybe Malumbu, those vehemently against the LTNs are principally concerned that they create more congestion and pollution and don't actually deliver against the goals that are stated for their deployment.

This whole "inconvenience to themselves" narrative doesn't hold any weight I am afraid.

We are, however, very glad to hear that you sleep well at night - that is very reassuring! ;-)

[goldilocks]

Yes - every time this group meets up or some other variation on this group (essentially the same people at everything) the numbers are hugely inflated. At least doubled. Because there was such a low turnout at this event it was genuinely possible to count that there were 14 people there, so shows just what has been going on.

Hitmyhat Wrote:

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

> goldilocks Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 'around 30 people'...

> >

> >

> > One can only assume that the other 16 people

> were

> > camera shy or queuing for the loo at the time

> the

> > photo was taken. Either that or the usual

> 'report

> > double the number of attendees' approach is

> doing

> > some heavy lifting there.

>

> That is the only comment you have? This was older

> and disabled people telling Southwark Council how

> difficult their lives have become because of the

> LTNs and your only comment is to quibble about

> numbers??