LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Jenijenjen Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > dougiefreeman Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > @rahx3

> > > > You?re really not in any position to demand

> > > > apologies when you yourself refused point

> > blank

> > > to

> > > > apologise for publicly insulting a group of

> > > > predominantly elderly and disabled folk?

> > > > #idiotsgate

> > >

> > > Can you point us in the direction of the post

> > > where he did this. Or did he just disagree

> with

> > > them.

> >

> >

> > Sure. Page 221.

> >

> > Legalalian wrote: "Seems to be an anti LTN

> protest

> > at he closed junction this morning."

> >

> > To which rahx3 responded: "Yep, a small number

> of

> > idiots blocking the right turn for cyclists

> with

> > their bags and placards."

> >

> >

> > The protest was comprised of predominantly

> elderly

> > and disabled people who were peacefully

> protesting

> > following major disruption to their lives as a

> > result of the LTNS and other measures. This was

> > following unsuccessful attempts to have their

> > concerns heard (let alone valued) by Southwark

> > Council.

> >

> > You can read on from there to see how Rahx3

> > responded to the varying comments made on this

> > reaction.

>

> Seriously?

>

> I said there were a 'few idiots blocking people

> turning off the main road' I explained the context

> of this.

>

> There were a few people who decided to block my

> daughter's exit from the main road (leaving her

> stuck out in the middle of two lanes of traffic on

> her bike). This was a few thoughtless people.

> You've decided to say they were elderly and

> disabled, although they weren't, to try and

> reframe criticism of their inconsiderate and

> dangerous behaviour as 'attacking vulnerable

> people'. It's about as cynical as one can be.

>

> To say that I 'insulted the elderly and disabled'

> is completely disingenuous, and completely untrue.

But Rahx3 no-one was actually blocking your route up Calton Avenue were they - you embellished your story solely for the purpose of taking a dig at the protestors as the right hand-side of the junction was completely free of any blockage wasn't it?

[andrewc]

I'm not sure if there's a weblink for this info but I have a piece of paper that says:

354 objections were made to opening up Melbourne Grove South with 16 proponents.

Does anyone have a link for this?

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> But Ex- as someone who works in the industry would

> you be happy to put your name and reputation

> against the data, methodology and manner in which

> the council has handled this LTN process?

>

> The data seems to broadly stack up against most

> other LTN stuff. I don't doubt that there's a few

> inaccuracies in it, especially early on when

> monitoring has only just gone in but do note that

> it's also offset against the radical shift in

> travel patterns over the last 18 months. To a

> certain extent it's also dependent on what (if

> any) monitoring has been done before that to form

> the baseline.

>

> Methodology - well it's all fairly standard stuff.

> Traffic counters, pollution monitoring, trendlines

> from TfL. I mean there's nothing in there that's

> massively radical, it's not like they sent the

> Hamlet kids out into the road and asked them to

> keep track of things.

>

> Engagement - most councils are crap at this.

> That's partly because most stuff they do, very few

> people give a toss. You might get a few complaints

> if you move bin day or bump up the charge to

> remove garden waste or there's significant change

> to the social care but the critical thing is that

> all of those are limited to a small % of the

> population and it's relatively easy to deal with

> on a case by case basis.

>

> Traffic (and especially parking) - well if you

> want to cause a riot, just say you're going to

> remove a parking space. Everyone will pile on.

> Councils rarely know how best to respond to this

> and a lot of the response is on an emotional level

> which is far more challenging to deal with.

> Again, factor in stuff like working-from-home,

> staff absenteeism from Covid isolation and the

> responses can be delayed which is assumed to be

> because they're wondering how to cover things up.

>

> It isn't because as a general rule cover-ups,

> while they sound impressive, require far too much

> effort and competence for any level of Government

> (including councils) to pull off successfully.

>

> None of this is unique to Southwark by the way.

So you would be happy to stake your reputation on it and would be happy to swap with Cllr Rose? ;-)

The council have create one mighty mess with this - divided a community and create lots of local tensions and, at the end of the day, I think a few councillors will, deservedly, lose their seats in May as it has become the only way a lot of people feel they can actually have their say.

Maybe it is deliberate by the council, maybe they are a bit incompetent or not equipped to deal with this sufficiently but their reputation has been tarnished by this whole sorry saga.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets - I commented on the fact that there were (quote):

??a small number of idiots blocking the right turn for cyclists with their bags and placards?.

I have apologised for saying ?idiots?. I was irritated by it at the time because I was cycling with my kids.

You and a few others decided to attack me over this at the time. Saying variously that:

I made it up - that there were only protesters on the pavement (not true, someone else produced photos).

Accused me of not living in the area (I've been on this forum since '07)

Of putting my own children in danger by cycling through the village

Suggested that it was fine to block the entrance to the square from the main road anyway (even though apparently this also didn't happen).

Called me a troll

...and yes, ridiculously tried to pretend that the quote above is me abusing the elderly.

Apparently the accusation has now expanded to suggest that I have also insulted the disabled.

People can see this thread and they can see that I have done nothing of the sort. It?s completely untrue.

You have now gone back to again calling me a liar.

There is a clear, demonstrable lie that has been repeatedly made in this thread. You have stoked it. And both times I have pointed it out, you?ve encouraged a personal attack on me. Your behaviour is pretty transparent and pretty cynical.

[first mate]

I think one of the questions in regard to Rah was why he/she chose to cycle, with children, right into and through the area where protestors were gathered. Don't go on about dangers to children when you have made a choice to take them through a group of protestors. That route cannot have been the only route?

However, thought we had done this and gone into it all in detail ages ago?

To get back on thread, having seen the way the council have, wittingly or unwittingly, eroded the democratic process, both with LTNs and with CPZ, I have honestly lost all respect for them. I also feel councillors have been partial and fixated on their own agendas and have not listened as they promised they would. I am also tired of the council and its supporters trying, by whatever means, to persuade us black is white. The whole LTN fiasco is a case of the 'Emperor's New Clothes'.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The council haven't 'eroded the democratic process'. They've shown a degree of ineptitude, especially in their communications. But they have consulted and then they have taken a decision. They have explained that position. Ultimately, people can vote them out if they disagree.

[first mate]

Well Rah I believe they have eroded the democratic process and so do many others. As I said, LTNs are a case of the 'Emperor's New Clothes'.

We'll just have to agree to disagree as neither will seemingly convince the other. I suspect many will now focus on getting the current incumbents voted out in May...not so far off.

[Rockets]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Well Rah I believe they have eroded the democratic

> process and so do many others. As I said, LTNs are

> a case of the 'Emperor's New Clothes'.

>

> We'll just have to agree to disagree as neither

> will seemingly convince the other. I suspect many

> will now focus on getting the current incumbents

> voted out in May...not so far off.

They consulted, got a response they didn't want to hear and then made the decision they wanted from the beginning by ignoring the majority. That's why so many people are upset with them - that's not the democratic process they claimed they would follow at the outset of this.

Time and time again they have manipulated the process to their own ends but come May there is nothing they can do to manipulate the result and people will finally have their chance to have their say.

[ed_pete]

Rockets Wrote:

>

> They consulted, got a response they didn't want to

> hear and then made the decision they wanted from

> the beginning by ignoring the majority. That's why

> so many people are upset with them - that's not

> the democratic process they claimed they would

> follow at the outset of this.

>

Which democratic process was that ?

I don't ever recall the council saying here is a vote for or against the LTN's and we will abide by the result ?

[Jenijenjen]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

> >

> > They consulted, got a response they didn't want

> to

> > hear and then made the decision they wanted

> from

> > the beginning by ignoring the majority. That's

> why

> > so many people are upset with them - that's not

> > the democratic process they claimed they would

> > follow at the outset of this.

> >

> Which democratic process was that ?

> I don't ever recall the council saying here is a

> vote for or against the LTN's and we will abide by

> the result ?

Exactly, to repeat, a consultation is not a referendum. And it?s posters who know that full well who keep bleating on about ?the democratic process? for political purposes.

Anyway, I think Admin should give us all a Christmas present and send this thread to the Lounge.

[Rockets]

Per the Local Government Associations' guidelines on consultations:

Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set.

It would be that democratic process..........

[Jenijenjen]

That is exactly what?s happened.

[first mate]

You are not forced to read this thread, not even at Christmas, but understand you may want it lounged and out of the way for political reasons.

Council consultations are meant to inform decision making otherwise they become pointless window dressing, as is evident with LTNs. If, as seems to be the case, the council does not listen to all residents in an equitable fashion and simultaneously relies on dodgy data to prop up the decision it does take, that is an assault on democracy.

[Rockets]

I suppose that depends on which side of the fence you stand on doesn't it? ;-)

On one side you have a small group of people lobbying for closures who got listened to and on the other side a larger group who didn't want the closures who didn't get listened to.

If smaller groups of people are able to sway and influence the democratic process is that a good thing or a bad thing? Look at what happened in Melbourne Grove, the council suggested changes and did a U-turn following lobbying by people from Melbourne Grove.

Is that fair, especially when so many local residents have had their views and input roundly ignored by the council and have been treated as some sort of annoyance?

[first mate]

Gaming consultations is a council specialty. At the CPZ Cllr McAsh repeated over and over how vital it was each street was consulted separately. However, when MG did not deliver the necessary majority in favour of CPZ, loand behold, the council decided to divide the street in two! That's the way they roll.

[CPR Dave]

I'm going to lobby the council to increase council tax rates on the gated roads now that they are more valuable. The money raised can be spent on de-pollution equipment for everyone else.

[Jenijenjen]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I suppose that depends on which side of the fence

> you stand on doesn't it? ;-)

>

> On one side you have a small group of people

> lobbying for closures who got listened to and on

> the other side a larger group who didn't want the

> closures who didn't get listened to.

>

> If smaller groups of people are able to sway and

> influence the democratic process is that a good

> thing or a bad thing? Look at what happened in

> Melbourne Grove, the council suggested changes and

> did a U-turn following lobbying by people from

> Melbourne Grove.

>

> Is that fair, especially when so many local

> residents have had their views and input roundly

> ignored by the council and have been treated as

> some sort of annoyance?

Here we go again, in a bit of a tight spot so pose an emotive question to divert attention. Fairness has nothing to do with yours and others? claims that Southwark have ignored the democratic process.

[first mate]

Pots and kettles.

[Jenijenjen]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Pots and kettles.

Not at all, I don?t use emotive, diversionary rhetoric

[Rockets]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I suppose that depends on which side of the

> fence

> > you stand on doesn't it? ;-)

> >

> > On one side you have a small group of people

> > lobbying for closures who got listened to and

> on

> > the other side a larger group who didn't want

> the

> > closures who didn't get listened to.

> >

> > If smaller groups of people are able to sway

> and

> > influence the democratic process is that a good

> > thing or a bad thing? Look at what happened in

> > Melbourne Grove, the council suggested changes

> and

> > did a U-turn following lobbying by people from

> > Melbourne Grove.

> >

> > Is that fair, especially when so many local

> > residents have had their views and input

> roundly

> > ignored by the council and have been treated as

> > some sort of annoyance?

>

>

> Here we go again, in a bit of a tight spot so pose

> an emotive question to divert attention. Fairness

> has nothing to do with yours and others? claims

> that Southwark have ignored the democratic

> process.

Not sure I was in a tight spot - I was just trying to show you a different take on your view. How did the majority who responded against the closures have their views actioned?

You obviously think it is fair (I suspect because you are probably getting what you want) others don't think it is fair. That's not emotive that's fact.

Another fact is the way Southwark treats ALL residents is absolutely about fairness. Is it For The Many, Not the Few or For The Few, Not The Many?

At this point the overwhelming evidence is that if you have the ear of the council and are part of their inner clique you get what you want - regardless of what the majority of residents think (and I refer you to the OHS, CPZ and LTN consultations for overwhelming proof).

[first mate]

I think I may detect a very deliberate attempt to get this thread lounged. So to get back on track perhaps we can return to one of Heartblock's informed posts and who I hope soon returns:

Heartblock wrote "The September 2021 figures have been set against 2019 figures from ?a comparable location? (it?s not stated where this is), and seem to have had an enormous influence on Southwark?s thinking" and "apparently this shows that traffic in the middle of the road went down between 2019 and 2021, even though traffic at either end (the Dulwich Village end and the Goose Green end) went up"

How does traffic in the middle of a road with closed roads all around go down 20% when it is up 26% at both ends with nowhere to go - this 20% also being calculated by dubious pre-lockdown figure.

It would be good if this could be explained.

[jamesmcash]

Hi all,

The council's data show that after the LTN was introduced, the traffic count dropped on EDG central but increased on EDG east. I can see how this sounds counter-intuitive but it does make sense if you look at where vehicles can travel.

The counter on 'EDG central' is by the Health Centre, just west of the intersection with Melbourne Grove. Pre-pandemic, vehicles travelling on 'EDG central' must have been going to or from one of three locations to the east: Melbourne Grove north, Melbourne Grove south or EDG east. With the LTN in place, the number of vehicles travelling between MG south and EDG central has dropped to almost zero, and the number of vehicles travelling between EDG central and MG north has plummeted too. This explains the figures on EDG central and EDG east: the drop in vehicles travelling between EDG central and MG (north or south) is greater than the increase in vehicles travelling between EDG central and EDG east.

This was a key reason for why the council changed its position on Melbourne Grove south. Before EDG central data were available we assumed that traffic on this stretch had risen, as with EDG east. Now we know that it has dropped, despite the rise in traffic on EDG east, it's clear that encouraging more traffic on MG would only lead to it rising again. EDG central is the section with Charter and the Health Centre so reducing traffic here is a high priority.

The changes to the timed restrictions will hopefully help to reduce traffic across the entire stretch of EDG too.

Best wishes

James

[ed_pete]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Per the Local Government Associations' guidelines

> on consultations:

>

> Consultation is technically any activity that

> gives local people a voice and an opportunity to

> influence important decisions. It involves

> listening to and learning from local people before

> decisions are made or priorities are set.

>

> It would be that democratic process..........

Righto, and where did Southwark "claim they would follow this at the outset" ?

Rockets - you have invested a huge amount of time to this thread and so it must be something that you're really passionate about. Can I ask what else you are doing to convince the council to remove the LTN's, or whatever your objective is because keeping this thread going seems to be achieving absolutely zilch in a practical sense ?

[Otto2]

Thanks for that James.

[Rockets]

Well this is what they wrote in some of the materials they sent out....

Aims of this engagement

We want to get the clearest possible picture of what people living in the wider

Dulwich area and those further afield who travel through Dulwich think about the

Streetspace measures that were implemented in 2020. We also want to find out what

measures they would like to see in the future. This feedback, combined with other

information such as road monitoring and data analysis, will help the council decide

what to keep, what to change, and what to remove.

Consultation process

We have to pause some of our

communications during the pre-election

period from 22 March to 6 May, in the run up

to the Mayor of London and Greater London

Assembly elections, but will be in touch

directly after that with more information so

everyone knows how they can have their say.

An eight-week full public consultation process

will commence in May to understand local

views on the measures detailed above. We

will write to every household in the LTN areas

plus all addresses on both sides of boundary

roads.

You will be able to take part in the

consultation online or if you don?t use a

computer you will be able to receive paper

copies of the consultation documents so you

can respond by post.

People living outside or adjacent to this area

can also register their interest in the

consultation.

And the art of protest is not to give up despite how the odds are being stacked against you....don't expect change if you don't fight for it...........;-)