LTN Discussion

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

keano77 Wrote:

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

> At the moment there is a presumption that if a

> cyclist and a car/vehicle are involved in an

> accident it it the fault of the driver of the

> vehicle.

This isn't true.

> With the revised Highway Code there ought to be

> the ability for drivers to claim off cyclists?

> insurance.

Drivers can already sue cyclists, pedestrians, wheelchair users, mobility carriage riders and anyone else they think has caused them damage.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It?s amazing how many people on this thread, who claim to be pro active travel, and fiercely concerned about pollution and congestion, also object to the ULEZ, to road pricing, to attempts to discourage the growth of massive SUVs, and oppose clarifying road rules which put responsibility on those in charge of fast moving heavy machinery to take special care around pedestrians and cyclists.

Yep, the Dulwich Onesies are so genuinely concerned about the negative impact of too many cars, that they campaign not for a further extension of the ULEZ, or the removal of on-street parking, or for any of a myriad of other potential interventions which would help, but focus solely on increasing through traffic on side streets.

[Rockets]

I noticed that the Lib Dem flyer through our door was imploring people to vote for them locally to have influence on the Southwark wide picture as they are saying they are the only party that can start to call Labour to account at the council level.

Interesting Legal that Cllr Leeming is feeling it from both camps....they created a new "third rail" for themselves. They may be in more trouble than I initially thought and I wonder if we might see the Lib Dems taking a more aggressive approach towards LTN review in the hope of hoovering up more votes. I think Labour are in big trouble locally but, let's be honest, they are reaping what they sowed.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just your regular reminder that despite many of the unsubstantiated claims on this thread, the LTNs have increased the number of people walking and cycling, reduced traffic both inside the LTN and on boundary roads and made our streets safer.

[Monkey]

Thank you, Rahrahrah.

[Rockets]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Ex- my point is very clear. The council are

> comparing two sets of numbers: traffic pre-scheme

> and traffic post-scheme. They are coming to the

> conclusion that the LTNs have been a success

> because of the reduction in post-scheme traffic

> numbers.

>

> But they also acknowledge in their "helpful

> background note" (your words and I love the

> wonderful underplaying of this ;-)) that the

> post-scheme numbers they have published will have

> been "positively impacted" (my words) by a 7.1%

> decrease in traffic across the whole of Southwark

> which has nothing to do with the LTNs.

>

> If there is 7.1% less traffic on the roads to

> start with (due to the pandemic) you can't sit and

> compare pre- and post-scheme without adjusting one

> set of figures to create a level playing field.

> Otherwise one set of numbers is positively or

> adversely impacted by the 7.1% reduction in

> traffic everywhere. Unless you are trying to claim

> that the Dulwich LTN area has been immune to the

> Southwark area reduction in overall traffic.

>

> At the moment the 7.1% reduction is positively

> benefitting the post-scheme numbers - and those

> are the numbers the council and the pro-LTN lobby

> are using to justify the LTNs. Even without the

> LTNs the post-scheme numbers would have been 7.1%

> lower to start with - do you not agree?

Rahx3 - speaking of which any comments on the above? Am I wrong or am I right? If I am right then you can clearly see how the council is manipulating the data they present to try to skew the narrative in their favour.

[first mate]

My problem with LDs is under James Barber (also LCC) they were instrumental in trying to push CPZ in early stages..just not sure I would trust them on LTNs etc.. They would need to be very clear about what they would do and why.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I noticed that the Lib Dem flyer through our door

> was imploring people to vote for them locally to

> have influence on the Southwark wide picture as

> they are saying they are the only party that can

> start to call Labour to account at the council

> level.

>

> Interesting Legal that Cllr Leeming is feeling it

> from both camps....they created a new "third rail"

> for themselves. They may be in more trouble than I

> initially thought and I wonder if we might see the

> Lib Dems taking a more aggressive approach towards

> LTN review in the hope of hoovering up more votes.

> I think Labour are in big trouble locally but,

> let's be honest, they are reaping what they sowed.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Waseley Wrote:

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

> Why are you on an anti-cyclist agenda. As someone

> who talks about how they used to cycle a lot it's

> a little confusing. Your case would be stronger

> if you stuck to the impact of LTNs rather than

> make cheap comments for the pro car community.

Isn?t it just. ?Used to? is probably doing a lot of heavy lifting. From previous comments I suspect in reality @Rockets drives an SUV, but stand to be corrected.

It?s interesting that many of the ?clean air for all? placards along Dulwich Village, East Dulwich Grove and Half Moon Lane, stand in driveways with several large vehicles. But I?m sure that outside their vocal support for more through traffic on side streets, they are committed environmentalists, as the signs suggest.

[first mate]

Rx3, have you finally sold your car?

Rockets raises some valid points about the council's manipulation of data. What is your response?

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Waseley Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Why are you on an anti-cyclist agenda. As

> someone

> > who talks about how they used to cycle a lot

> it's

> > a little confusing. Your case would be

> stronger

> > if you stuck to the impact of LTNs rather than

> > make cheap comments for the pro car community.

>

> Isn?t it just. ?Used to? is probably doing a lot

> of heavy lifting. From previous comments I suspect

> in reality @Rockets drives an SUV, but stand to be

> corrected.

>

> It?s interesting that many of the ?clean air for

> all? placards along Dulwich Village, East Dulwich

> Grove and Half Moon Lane, stand in driveways with

> several large vehicles. But I?m sure that outside

> their vocal support for more through traffic on

> side streets, they are committed

> environmentalists, as the signs suggest.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Waseley Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Why are you on an anti-cyclist agenda. As

> someone

> > who talks about how they used to cycle a lot

> it's

> > a little confusing. Your case would be

> stronger

> > if you stuck to the impact of LTNs rather than

> > make cheap comments for the pro car community.

>

> Isn?t it just. ?Used to? is probably doing a lot

> of heavy lifting. From previous comments I suspect

> in reality @Rockets drives an SUV, but stand to be

> corrected.

>

> It?s interesting that many of the ?clean air for

> all? placards along Dulwich Village, East Dulwich

> Grove and Half Moon Lane, stand in driveways with

> several large vehicles. But I?m sure that outside

> their vocal support for more through traffic on

> side streets, they are committed

> environmentalists, as the signs suggest.

Rahx3 I do not own an SUV and I cycle, in fact you will probably see me and my family on our bikes most weekends - so better luck next time on the character assassination?;-)!

Now, am I wrong in my assertation that the council's traffic reduction numbers are misleading as they have not factored in tbe 7.1% Southwark-wide reduction in traffic caused by the pandemic?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

>

> Yep, the Dulwich Onesies are so genuinely

> concerned about the negative impact of too many

> cars, that they campaign not for a further

> extension of the ULEZ, or the removal of on-street

> parking, or for any of a myriad of other potential

> interventions which would help, but focus solely

> on increasing through traffic on side streets.

OneDulwich claims to want to reduce traffic and air pollution but it opposed any and all traffic management in the consultation.

OneDulwich claims to be terribly concerned about disabled people's mobility and then its leader becomes a candidate for the Tory party responsible for a decade of austerity, fitness to work checks by Atos, an explosion of food banks? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

[first mate]

There does not appear to be anyone prepared to respond to Rockets assertions on council data? Rx3, DKHB?

Rockets Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Waseley Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Why are you on an anti-cyclist agenda. As

> > someone

> > > who talks about how they used to cycle a lot

> > it's

> > > a little confusing. Your case would be

> > stronger

> > > if you stuck to the impact of LTNs rather

> than

> > > make cheap comments for the pro car

> community.

> >

> > Isn?t it just. ?Used to? is probably doing a

> lot

> > of heavy lifting. From previous comments I

> suspect

> > in reality @Rockets drives an SUV, but stand to

> be

> > corrected.

> >

> > It?s interesting that many of the ?clean air

> for

> > all? placards along Dulwich Village, East

> Dulwich

> > Grove and Half Moon Lane, stand in driveways

> with

> > several large vehicles. But I?m sure that

> outside

> > their vocal support for more through traffic on

> > side streets, they are committed

> > environmentalists, as the signs suggest.

>

> Rahx3 I do not own an SUV and I cycle, in fact you

> will probably see me and my family on our bikes

> most weekends - so better luck next time on the

> character assassination?;-)!

>

>

>

> Now, am I wrong in my assertation that the

> council's traffic reduction numbers are misleading

> as they have not factored in tbe 7.1%

> Southwark-wide reduction in traffic caused by the

> pandemic?

>

> Please correct me if I am wrong.

[heartblock]

"It?s interesting that many of the ?clean air for all? placards along Dulwich Village, East Dulwich Grove and Half Moon Lane, stand in driveways with several large vehicles. But I?m sure that outside their vocal support for more through traffic on side streets, they are committed environmentalists, as the signs suggest."

Nope all the ones in Goose Green Ward (not talking about Village end) - all in a row near Harris School are all 2 and 3 flats in converted houses or at the LL end in flats and small terraces, with no garages and have to pay for street parking. The large houses near the crossing in Village Ward do get it much worse than us in our flats, because although we have more traffic idling outside our flats than before LTNs - it is very much during the private school terms

- which is why pre-LTNS it wasn't this bad because parents driving miles into this area to drop of Fantasia and Pericles in their 4X4 also used other roads, not just ED Grove, it's never been about local's and short journeys-

at the crossing, the traffic is much worse all day, so yes they are bigger houses, but people have lived there a long time, have children, or are elderly and have just as much right to less noise pollution and air pollution as anyone else.

Not sure why it's ok for someone on Gilkes to have 3 cars, no street parking restrictions and has been a lead vocal campaigner on LTNs and active travel, with the presumption to tell us that we need to give up cars, yet someone in ED Grove who happens to have a nice house and one car on the drive cannot comment on LTNs or be upset their road is now dirtier, noisier and more polluted?

Also - I'm getting really fed up with so called 'cycling campaigners' making ableist comments on twitter such as "it's amazing the disabilities/ physical limitations that 'disappear' whilst cycling. It's a matter of the right bike and then practice' - it has the same tone as Capita and Department for Work & Pensions' handling of disability benefits - inferring that some individuals wouldn't be disabled if they tried harder.

I say 'cycling-campaigners' as a lot of this s**t comes from people living on closed roads, that have cars - who haven't seen the working end of a bicycle in years. It's just about having a closed road for their own personal car-park and a nice exclusive road, it really isn't anything to do with real change to increase public transport and make cycling and walking more desirable - we all know that really - don't we.

[Metallic]

?1.472 million in fines paid from the Townley Road Camera since it was put in. Even more apparently from Dulwich Village camera looking north. What a sin to punish decent working people with these restrictions.

Figure sent to me by friends who received it on the grapevine.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Just your regular reminder that despite many of

> the unsubstantiated claims on this thread, the

> LTNs have increased the number of people walking

> and cycling, reduced traffic both inside the LTN

> and on boundary roads and made our streets safer.

Not sure what parallel universe you reside in, but boundary roads are choking under the weight of increased traffic. You don't even need the data to prove this; you can see the difference with your own eyes.

The only winner is Southwark Labours' coffers, which they'll spaff away with gross mismanagement. Just look at the debacle over this years xmas tree collection. Instead of just picking up the trees, they introduced pointless rules that took twice as much time, effort and administration to achieve the same ends.

[ab29]

"Not sure what parallel universe you reside in, but boundary roads are choking under the weight of increased traffic. You don't even need the data to prove this; you can see the difference with your own eyes."

Yes. Yes yes yes yes yes. Sadly, you can say it until you are blue in the face - the unfeeling pro LTN crowd - including Labour councilors - do not give a damn.

[Rockets]

And I would be prepared to put money on there having been zero reduction in car ownership within the LTN closed roads since they went in, one of the many objectives of the LTNs that have failed to materialise.

[march46]

If only there was some way to avoid these fines.

Metallic Wrote:

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

> ?1.472 million in fines paid from the Townley Road

> Camera since it was put in. Even more apparently

> from Dulwich Village camera looking north. What a

> sin to punish decent working people with these

> restrictions.

> Figure sent to me by friends who received it on

> the grapevine.

[KidKruger]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Just your regular reminder that despite many of

> the unsubstantiated claims on this thread, the

> LTNs have increased the number of people walking

> and cycling, reduced traffic both inside the LTN

> and on boundary roads and made our streets safer.

Where did you get your information form - Southwark Council ?! 🤣

I live on a boundary road. The traffic has increased in multiples. Not only that, because it?s being used as a way around (what I presume must be) previously usual routes now closed, there is increased tension in the driving behaviour, with speed and desperation causing near-accidents daily.

Just as there had been an intention to make some roads traffic-clear (LTNs), my road has become a main road in all but name.

I?m sure some bright spark with numbers can come up with some ?data? to indicate exactly the opposite of what I and my neighbours are experiencing, but the reality is a failure - unless causing congestion elsewhere was the intention.

?Reduced traffic and safer on boundary roads? my arse.

When people start coming out with this nonsense, which I can see clearly is unrepresentative of the reality I experience, it makes me feel gaslighted 😭😭😭

[Rockets]

But Kid?.the council?s numbers don?t lie do they??.;-)

Per first mate?s question earlier no-one is challenging my conclusion that the council?s numbers do not reflect the area-wide 7.1% reduction in traffic that Southwark claim to be due. If that is correct, then all of the reduction numbers are wrong and are creating a misleading picture of what is actually happening and explains why many, yourself included, aren?t seeing the supposed reduction with your own eyes. Why, because it doesn?t exist to the levels the council are claiming.

There are also big questions marks on when the council collected the data for the monitoring report because the methodology document they put together states that all of the pre-scheme data was collected out of school holidays yet does not make the same claim for the post-scheme data.

This report looks like a lot of smoke and mirrors designed to validated the council?s pursuance of the flawed LTN strategy.

[march46]

Do you support the Dulwich Alliance who are lobbying for a camera-controlled permit scheme @metallic?

Presumably this is what the Conservative candidates for Dulwich Village will be promising also, given their close ties with ?the alliance?.

Metallic Wrote:

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

> ?1.472 million in fines paid from the Townley Road

> Camera since it was put in. Even more apparently

> from Dulwich Village camera looking north. What a

> sin to punish decent working people with these

> restrictions.

> Figure sent to me by friends who received it on

> the grapevine.

[DulvilleRes]

"Not sure why it's ok for someone on Gilkes to have 3 cars, no street parking restrictions and has been a lead vocal campaigner on LTNs and active travel, with the presumption to tell us that we need to give up cars, yet someone in ED Grove who happens to have a nice house and one car on the drive cannot comment on LTNs or be upset their road is now dirtier, noisier and more polluted?"

Where is the evidence that anyone on Gilkes Crescent has 3 cars, least of all anyone campaigning for some kind of measures to reduce traffic overall in London? I'm not seeing any. Even if there was, how could you possibly know for sure who owns what? Hearsay? Access to DVLA records?

This post appears to call out an individual and a street they live in. A reminder that pro-LTN advocates have been singled out and individually targetted both online and physically near their homes by a person or persons of an anti LTN viewpoint, to the extent that the Police have had to be involved. Whatever the strength of feeling, there seems in general terms to be a catastrophic loss of perspective around this issue. Why not try and keep it to the issues and not the individuals, and keep it civil?

[heartblock]

Aaah how they love to bring up Dulwich Alliance and One Dulwich rather with questions about what we agree and don't agree with, as though everyone who is describing the increased traffic and pollution on their road - simply MUST be a member of one of these lobby groups.

KidKruger is correct - the constant upbeat messages are gaslighting - when is proper pollution monitoring for NOx and particulates going to be measured and data released for ED Grove?

[first mate]

Still waiting for a response to what Rockets said about data manipulation by council.

[heartblock]

I listened to the person speaking on a recorded Southwark Council meeting, so all in the public domain. Not ?outing? anyone.

They quoted the average car ownership in their area as 3-4 cars per household, they gave their road name.

They said that they represented the ?Dulwich Residents Supporters of LTN? and that LTNs discouraged ownership of polluting cars.

I was comparing Rahx3 commenting on private household drives that had a car and the green signs on their private property to LTN lobbyists on closed roads. I personally thought that there was some hypocrisy demonstrated if both were compared.

Yes harassment, gaslighting and any form of targeting individuals is abhorrent. It would be nice if private gardens on Croxted Rd were not trespassed and signs vandalised, shopkeepers not victimised and for people to have a reasonable debate. One of the reasons I dislike LTNs is the way community?s in Dulwich, Enfield and Lambeth have become divided and accusatory. All very sad.