LTN Discussion

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

16 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

I often post stories from the BBC news website, I have no idea who is in charge of the website 

At a guess, I'd say the BBC runs the BBC website. It's a formally-incorporated organisation that publishes extensive and exhaustive detail about how many employees it has, who its officers are, how it is governed, how it's funded, how it intends to ensure fairness and neutrality in reporting, and how it fixes things when it doesn't.

In every respect, completely different from "OneDulwich", and a terrible comparison.

[Spartacus]

The point is Billy, that people don't have to know who is behind an organisation to repost their stories, and reposting them doesn't make them fake 🤫

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

In this age of fake news and relentless bullshit, reposting claims from non-transparent sources is actually a bad thing.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

I always throught there was something fake about the anti-LTN posters on this thread who would post One Dulwich press releases and endlessly about traffic issues, but would then claim they had no idea who was behind One Dulwich and who funded them. 

Ha ha, why does this not come as a surprise to anyone.....

Far more likely is what really upsets you is that someone is providing some opposition to the measures you support, you'd be far happier if your agenda could be activated without anyone able to say a word against it. 

Thank goodness for One Dulwich.

[Spartacus]

4 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

In this age of fake news and relentless bullshit, reposting claims from non-transparent sources is actually a bad thing.

Agreed Billy, however a grass roots campaign organisation like one dulwich is only on your list of "fake news" because you can't identify the owner and you don't like what they say despite it being legit with a slight spin on it. Much in the same way that LCC says legit things with a spin on it!

What do you want, Mr one dulwich to come out so you can attack the man or woman behind it and not their views ? 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

a grass roots campaign organisation like one dulwich ... Mr one dulwich to come out so you can attack the man or woman behind it

Oh - is it a grass roots organisation or just someone's alter ego? 

[first mate]

Given the significant local support, more likely the first.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

You seem a bit unsure.

How many members does "OneDulwich" have?

[Rockets]

Clearly a lot more than makes you and others who attack them feel comfortable with....the relentless attacks on OneDulwich show just what a thorn in the side they have become for the pro-lobby (most of whom, if the rants on here are anything to go by, seem not to like any balance in the debate or any opposition to their grand plans).

[Penguin68]

If 'One Dulwich' is really just one person, and not a group of people, then I would suggest that those who spend their time attacking him (or her) should watch out - if just one person can achieve this 'against' the might of Southwark Council do you really want him, or her, going up against lonesome you (although of course the 'antis' are just as anonymous and 'non-representative' as they point out One Dulwich is). 

[first mate]

54 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

You seem a bit unsure.

How many members does "OneDulwich" have?

You seem equally, if not more, unsure.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

 ' the 'antis' are just as anonymous and 'non-representative' as they point out One Dulwich is). 

Agreed that I am anonymous and unrepresentative of anyone else, just like OneDulwich is. 

3 hours ago, first mate said:

You seem equally, if not more, unsure.

Agreed there is a lot of uncertainty about what OneDulwich really is.

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

 if just one person can achieve this 'against' the might of Southwark Council 

What objective has OneDulwich achieved in the last 4 years of complaining? The LTN remains in place and apart from a few pro- and anti-hobbyists bickering on the EDF, the rest of the world has moved on.

[Penguin68]

30 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

What objective has OneDulwich achieved in the last 4 years of complaining? The LTN remains in place and apart from a few pro- and anti-hobbyists bickering on the EDF, the rest of the world has moved on.

The original LTNs were introduced under emergency legislation and without any means for anyone to object - they were acts of dictatorship, effectively. Since then the council has tried to extend the LTNs and has tried to introduce a universal CPZ across Southwark. Through local actions much of these attempts, which were not 'authorised' by emergency legislation have been effectively resisted, and One Dulwich, amongst others, can take the credit for this. Protesters have at least forced the council to act legally, something they had been resisting. For many (including all those cheerleading attacks on anti-LTN groups) the rest of the world evidently hasn't moved on, or you would not be so desperate to shout down your opposition.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

50 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

they were acts of dictatorship, effectively.

lol!

[alice]

I’ve just noticed the new traffic counter on Underhill Road. Wonder if there’s any more new ones elsewhere.

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

What objective has OneDulwich achieved in the last 4 years of complaining? The LTN remains in place and apart from a few pro- and anti-hobbyists bickering on the EDF, the rest of the world has moved on.

Accountability. The council was acting with impunity, forcing it's plans on residents without following the correct procedures - it's clear they used Covid rules as the trojan horse to ram home plans they had no overall local consensus for.

And remember, the council was forced to re-run it's CPZ consultation because they were not fulfilling their legal obligations (as none of their previous consultations did either) and we can than groups like One Dulwich for that. Whilst the council continues to ignore local public views towards their measures and rolls them out anyway a line has been drawn in the sand and if there is ever an investigation into whether the consultations were legally binding then a lot of the councillors will be called in to discuss their role in it.

By far the best thing One Dulwich has done though is really annoy some of the pro-LTN campaigners on here - the amount of hours some on here spend whining about who is behind it etc is brilliant and again shows what a great job One Dulwich are doing - the fact they really make some irate is brilliant to see!

[DulvilleRes]

21 hours ago, Rockets said:

By far the best thing One Dulwich has done though is really annoy some of the pro-LTN campaigners on here - the amount of hours some on here spend whining about who is behind it etc is brilliant and again shows what a great job One Dulwich are doing - the fact they really make some irate is brilliant to see!

This is missing the point. The main problem with One Dulwich is the one you begin your post with... accountability. The anti- LTN lobby demand it of the council, but when it comes to themselves, not so much. 

In the absence of any clear information as to who One Dulwich are and who funds them, they feel having more than the taint of a wider unstated and undeclared political project. Funnily enough, the majority of names that pop up formally questioning the council on issues championed by One Dulwich are local Conservatives. Are they one and the same, or merely aligned interests? Who knows. 

My view is politics generally in recent years have been poisoned by opaque and unaccountable groups with undeclared agendas and murky sources of funding, and until One Dulwich and their cheerleaders come clean as to who they are, that suspicion will remain that they are just another one of those. This perception is reinforced by the fact that the punchline to so many of the One Dulwich cheerleader posts is an attack on the council or councillors. It is actually disturbing how personal these attacks can be. It is barely credible in my view that those who post so vociferously on these local issues don’t have more information on who is behind One Dulwich than they are letting on. 
 

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

This is missing the point. The main problem with One Dulwich is the one you begin your post with... accountability. The anti- LTN lobby demand it of the council, but when it comes to themselves, not so much. 

That's one way to spin it.....until you rationalise it with the fact that OneDulwich only came into being because of the lack of transparency and accountability from the council and councillors over a lot of these measures - they lied from day one and those who felt they were being taken for a ride by the council engaged with One Dulwich because it gave them a voice.

People were annoyed because the council would tell anyone that would listen (catalyzed by the pro-LTN lobbyists and cheerleaders) that is was a small vocal minority of residents who opposed the way the council were handling themselves - it was anything but a small vocal minority and that's why so many local residents signed up on the One Dulwich website.

3 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

My view is politics generally in recent years have been poisoned by opaque and unaccountable groups with undeclared agendas and murky sources of funding, and until One Dulwich and their cheerleaders come clean as to who they are, that suspicion will remain that they are just another one of those.

But you're happy with the council to have an incredibly cozy relationship with pro-active travel lobby groups and to manipulate engagement processes, ignore constituents to get the result the lobbyists want?

[Earl Aelfheah]

My biggest problem with One Dulwich is that they are consistently spreading pretty outrageous misinformation on their website with zero accountability. Much of it is then amplified by a handful of monomaniacs via this forum.

The fact is more than four years on, the scheme has broadly proved itself successful (reducing traffic, increasing active travel and creating a well used, low traffic route connecting ED to the Village and a number of schools).

Edited October 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Which mis-information in particular?

If you respond with any examples, I would suggest it's not on the scale of the misinformation programme run by the council and their supportive cheerleaders around the "success" of said LTNs.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I can't be bothered going down that rabbit hole / don't have time right now. But for example, the headline 'Data confirms failure of Dulwich LTNs' and all that follows in it, is absolutely false. There are numerous other examples. It's very tedious and of course, they're completely unaccountable. 

[Rockets]

So, in other words, you don't have any examples.

The one you cite is interesting in itself because I am not sure you can claim that as mis-information as they are presenting their conclusions and backing the rational for that conclusion with the council's own data. Interesting to note that they also flag how the council may have (deliberately?) used erroneous data in their monitoring figures to help massage them.

Given Cllr McAsh said that the measures could not be considered a success if all roads did not see a reduction then, by his own bar, the council dashboard reveals that is has failed - those East Dulwich Grove increases over pre-Covid/pre-LTN monitoring are shocking .

https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/data-confirms-failure-of-dulwich-ltns

Edited October 9 by Rockets

[Penguin68]

Why should One Dulwich be accountable to anyone? If it's just one person then his or her 'accountability' is no different from any private poster on these boards, that is, nil. If it is a group of people (as I believe it is, even if fronted by one individual) then it is accountable only to its members.

It's not like a Council, which is accountable to the residents of the borough and its electorate, who are its paymasters via Council tax.

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

So, in other words, you don't have any examples.

The one you cite is interesting in itself because I am not sure you can claim that as mis-information as they are presenting their conclusions and backing the rational for that conclusion with the council's own data. Interesting to note that they also flag how the council may have (deliberately?) used erroneous data in their monitoring figures to help massage them.

Given Cllr McAsh said that the measures could not be considered a success if all roads did not see a reduction then, by his own bar, the council dashboard reveals that is has failed - those East Dulwich Grove increases over pre-Covid/pre-LTN monitoring are shocking .

https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/data-confirms-failure-of-dulwich-ltns

I gave a specific example. They claim in that 'news' article that the data collected by Southwark Council shows that "...the Dulwich LTNs have not reduced traffic but simply displaced it." This is not what the data shows.

They also say in another post of the same data, that it is unreliable.

It's all the same inconsistent, incoherent, or down right untrue nonsense, that's regurgitated across the multiple 'anti-LTN' threads on this forum. 

Little point in going down this rabbit hole though frankly, as you've already repeated every talking point One Dulwich has ever published on their website ad nauseum. And it is very clear (from your own admittance) that you will only ever give credence to information you believe aligns to the view you already hold.

Edited October 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

49 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is not what the data shows.

What does it show then? You would acknowledge, surely, that if there was displacement the roads that have shown significant increases in traffic since pre-Covid would be the ones expected to show an increase?