Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Having a family member with asthma, I agree that we need to cut down on pollution made by vehicles and would also support the banning of log fires in an urban area. When I was working, I used the car daily  as I was classed as an essential user by my employer and had to respond to anywhere in south Southwark within a set time. Since I have retired, my car usage is greatly reduced. I would not consider using a car to go down Lordship Lane or Rye Lane, same with attending hospital  appointments. I have a petrol car 16 years old and do not have to pay ULEZ charges. (I did register with TFL expecting to be charged but they informed me that car was compliant)

Being controversial - I would suggest that city dwellers, unless they have large family/equipment/ etc to carry do not need to have petrol/diesel 4 wheel drives/ range rovers etc - This could cut down on some pollution. I am in the fortunate position that due to my low usage half a tank of petrol lasts me several weeks.

What's this got to do with One Dulwich meeting Southwark.  Unless One Dulwich are opposing all measures that are encouraging less car use.  Perhaps they are.

Let's talk SUVs then.  Fiat produced the perfect city car, the 500.  Even Top Gear/ future PM Clarkson agreed.  But the motor industry don't want urban dwellers to by sensible cars.  No you need a sexy SUV.  Even Fiat felt that they had to stretch the 500.  What's this got to do with One Dulwich?  Perhaps they are covertly supporting the unnecessary move to over powered, over sized, over weight vehicles

Edited by malumbu
21 minutes ago, Pugwash said:

Having a family member with asthma, I agree that we need to cut down on pollution made by vehicles and would also support the banning of log fires in an urban area. When I was working, I used the car daily  as I was classed as an essential user by my employer and had to respond to anywhere in south Southwark within a set time. Since I have retired, my car usage is greatly reduced. I would not consider using a car to go down Lordship Lane or Rye Lane, same with attending hospital  appointments. I have a petrol car 16 years old and do not have to pay ULEZ charges. (I did register with TFL expecting to be charged but they informed me that car was compliant)

Being controversial - I would suggest that city dwellers, unless they have large family/equipment/ etc to carry do not need to have petrol/diesel 4 wheel drives/ range rovers etc - This could cut down on some pollution. I am in the fortunate position that due to my low usage half a tank of petrol lasts me several weeks.

I agree, we need to look at other sources of pollution too rather than the narrow focus being adopted by some. Whether this is something OD have asked about I cannot say but I get the impression issues like pollution from wood burners and BBQs are already on the council radar.

If Cllr McAsh gets this right, it could make a difference in finding more pragmatic and even-handed ways to improve air quality and pollution.

3 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Oh dear 

Repeating Mr Khans lie, sorry misspoken statement. You really must keep up with the truth. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66060758.amp

Well, if true, that makes the ULEZ even more important: if substantially more than 10% of cars are spewing huge amounts of noxious fumes, it's even more pressing to get them off the road ASAP. I'm sure @heartblock can fill you in on the deadly toll of air pollution.

But let's look at a bit more realistically. The RAC which is a notably pro car organization has of course disputed TfL's claim. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65057890 And their estimate is that it's... er... 85% not 90%.

Which means for the purposes of this particular discussion the difference is essentially irrelevant. If every ULEZ non compliant driver reduced their journeys to 0 overnight then it would have a temporary 15% dent in the number of journeys. That's if the RAC's most more pessimistic figures (and they have as much incentive to overestimate as you reckon TFL does to underestimate), and of course every ULEZ non compliant car never moved again. We both know the latter won't happen.

Well actually I figure this means you do in fact agree with me. Instead of disputing the point you're just grandstanding about "Mr Khans lie".

 

23 hours ago, first mate said:

I felt the way things were going early when an LCC type objected to mobility scooters in cycle lanes because this would slow down cyclists like him. He felt mobility scooters should be in bus lanes or on the pavement...now of course, cyclists are increasingly on the pavements. 
 

 

Going back to your irrelevant post FM, government rules are mobility scooters are not allowed in cycle lanes.  www.gov.uk/mobility-scooters-and-powered-wheelchairs-rules/driving-on-the-road  So one person purporting to be the 'cycle lobby' agreed with current government rules that mobility scooters should not be in cycle lanes.

 

Unless of course One Dulwich are campaigning for mobility scooters to use cycle lanes.  Perhaps they are.

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Going back to your irrelevant post FM, government rules are mobility scooters are not allowed in cycle lanes.  www.gov.uk/mobility-scooters-and-powered-wheelchairs-rules/driving-on-the-road  So one person purporting to be the 'cycle lobby' agreed with current government rules that mobility scooters should not be in cycle lanes.

 

Unless of course One Dulwich are campaigning for mobility scooters to use cycle lanes.  Perhaps they are.

'Anecdotal'and 'irrelevant', yet you are going to such efforts to refute it.

The law was not the reason given or even alluded to, it was all about the individual and his need to cycle fast, really fast and pesky mobility scooters would just get in his way. The aim here was not to show his grasp of law but his attitude. That said, he was clearly not acquainted with the legal situation as he thought mobility scooters should be in bus lanes! The govt advice is mobility scooters should be on the pavements as this is safer, apparently. Problem there of course is hire bikes left lying around and increasing use of pavements by a range of cyclists.

Back to One Dulwich and their request for missing data. It will be really interesting to see what James McAsh comes up with. I am also looking forward to the next Council Environment scrutiny session, which should be up on YouTube soon. 

Heartblock, you may be interested to know that the brief for air pollution is now to be split between the Environment and Health Committees. 

Heartblock, I think 2 months was mentioned re his response to OD on data etc..

Legal alien has helpfully posted a link to last night's scrutiny session. I haven't watched it yet but would think there might be something of interest in there.

I also suspect the social justice line is a great get out of jail tactic. There may be admissions of reneging on former promises, lack of data etc.. but all permitted as this is now about social justice and the moral high ground.

My own view is there is also a strong relationship between the democratic process and social justice and it is paternalistic to have your elected representative suddenly change message and tack on the basis they have decided it is for your/the greater good.

Edited by first mate

Another OneDulwich update:

 

Campaign Update | 16 July

Southwark commits to equality and fairness

Southwark Council has published a 34-page “transport strategy”, setting out how it intends to make the borough cleaner, greener and safer by 2030. In this strategy, the Council makes a commitment to:

  • reducing and eliminating discrimination against people with protected characteristics, as set out in the Equality Act 2010 (page 5);

     

  • ensuring that our road networks are managed effectively, as set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 (page 5); and

     

  • providing solutions that are safe, accessible, affordable and fair to all (page 12).

If this commitment is genuine, the Council should modify the LTNs across Dulwich (including the 24/7 closure of the Dulwich Village junction), because the LTNs are currently causing discrimination, displacement of traffic, damage to local shops and businesses, and disruption of the road network.

Yet again, consultation on a decision already taken

The Council is holding “informal consultations” on introducing CPZs (Controlled Parking Zones) across Dulwich. Whatever your views on this, the online surveys only allow positive feedback. (Bizarre options that you can tick include “I would like to get out and use a local bench once a week.”)

Perhaps the strange questions in the survey don’t matter very much, as Southwark councillors have made it clear that the Council intends to introduce CPZs throughout Southwark regardless of residents’ views.

There are three “informal consultations”:

  • Dulwich Village, closing on 10 September (respond to the online survey here, and reserve a place for the second drop-in session at Dulwich Library on 2 August, 2pm to 4pm, here);

  • Dulwich Hill, also closing on 10 September (respond to the online survey here, or reserve a place for either of the drop-in sessions – 17 July, 6pm to 8pm, at Christ Church on Barry Road, or 16 August, 2pm to 4pm, at Dulwich Library – here); and

  • Dulwich Wood, closing on 17 September (respond to the online survey here, or reserve a place for the drop-in session on 19 July, 6pm to 7.30pm, at Dulwich Library here).

Department of Transport chief calls for “unpopular” LTNs to be scrapped

Meanwhile the Secretary of State for Transport, Mark Harper, has joined the Mayor of London in calling for councils that implemented LTNs in the pandemic without public support to consider scrapping them. He said earlier this month that if local authorities have introduced schemes that are controversial and not well supported, they would be wise to look at them again. “Setting up different groups of people against each other is a very unhelpful thing to do,” he said. We completely agree.

One Dulwich leaflet

Finally our grateful thanks to the many volunteers who have been delivering our new leaflet. If your road hasn’t yet been leafleted, and you can help, please email [email protected].

Thank you for your support.

The One Dulwich Team

  • 3 weeks later...

LTNs are popular. Councils in London that introduced them have mostly been re-elected since, with larger share of the vote. Surveys also show majority support. The noise around them is driven by a vocal, angry minority, amplified by the usual suspects in the right wing media who oppose any measure to improve the environment.

  • Like 1

No, local LTNs and borough wide CPZ were left out of the Southwark Labour manifesto, which is odd if it was a central reason for them being voted back in.

On the contrary, given feelings at the time about any Tory and since LTNs and CPZ were missing from Labour manifesto plans there was no way to know a vote for Labour was a vote for LTNs. We are told there were chats on doorsteps, but no record of that, just spin.

What was emphasised in the manifesto was how hard they would work to improve train services, as well as buses. Precisely what has been achieved thus far? Remember, that was a manifesto promise.

46 minutes ago, first mate said:

No, local LTNs and borough wide CPZ were left out of the Southwark Labour manifesto,

They put them in in the first place. Did you expect them to say "we're not intending on massively reversing an incredibly well known policy" in the manifesto? What other non-changes would you also want them to have?

47 minutes ago, first mate said:

On the contrary, given feelings at the time about any Tory

Yep keep pretending the lib dems don't exist. If you pretend hard enough maybe we'll forget that they campaigned as anti-LTN and also lost votes.

People didn't want to get rid of the LTNs that's why they voted for the party that (a) put them in and (b) didn't say they'd remove them.

  • Like 1

I don't agree. If it was such a big vote winner it would have been centre and front in the manifesto, along with borough wide CPZ. I think lots of people did want improvements in trains and buses, which they flagged. You cannot argue people voted for something that was not even mentioned.

10 minutes ago, first mate said:

 You cannot argue people voted for something that was not even mentioned.

I voted for Labour precisely because of the LTN. They put it in, and gave no indication they'd remove it.

I can argue that people voted for it because I am a person and I voted for it. I was able to use basic deductive reasoning to deduce that Labour would not in fact unexpectedly rip it out when their main competition had that as a flagship policy.

I voted for something that was "not even mentioned". I. Me. I am a real live actual person.

You are trying to tell me I don't exist.

Does that not strike you as absurd? Of course not because it's an axiom that everybody hates LTNs therefore anything pro LTN must have an alternative explanation such as people being morons and not being able to employ basic reasoning about the party in power and its actions versus one promising to rip it all up, grand conspiracies, the cycling mafia etc etc etc.

Looks like I can add "only nonpersons like the LTN anyway" to the list of reasons why every person hates the LTN.

YouGov poll found positive views on LTNs are three times higher than negative ones:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2020/oct/22/despite-a-loud-opposing-minority-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-are-increasingly-popular

In the local elections, several opposition party's stood against LTNs, making it clear that they considered it a referendum on the 'unpopular schemes'. Had any of them won, Rockets, First Mate etc. would have said it was a clear message about LTNs. Yet, they lost. And so, of course, it's nothing to do with LTNs, which people feel so strongly against, that they re-elected the council who introduced them.

  • Like 1
8 minutes ago, first mate said:

The notion that a vote for Southwark Labour was a massive all round thumbs up for LTNs and borough wide CPZ is pure spin.

And yet for months before the council elections, it was being spun by anti-LTN folk as exactly that. The final word on all things LTN, the big local issue, we won't stand for these undemocratic impositions on our freedom, vote to tell the Labour Communists the truth, the silent majority will be heard, the majority want LTNs ripped out, this will be a referendum on the hated LTNs.

And then 5 minutes after the election results, it was suddenly nothing to do with LTNs. 

There's 40 pages of it if you look back at the earlier LTN threads.

Edited by exdulwicher
spelling
  • Like 1
16 minutes ago, first mate said:

It is stretching things to suggest you win an election on an issue that you never mention. 
 

The notion that a vote for Southwark Labour was a massive all round thumbs up for LTNs and borough wide CPZ is pure spin.

Perhaps some of the posters on this forum don't live in Dulwich/Southwark and didn't get the "A vote for Labour is a vote against the Tories" leaflets which made it anything but local issues....

 

They never mentioned LTNs in any of their materials. Why? Because they are politicians and they knew they could not raise the issue...it was swept quietly under the carpet. Anyone who thinks otherwise is politically niave. Why on earth would any politician raise any issue that might be a local hot potato, they aren't stupid.

 

 

16 minutes ago, first mate said:

The fact remains, you cannot claim a massive mandate for something that was not mentioned in the manifesto.

So they don't have a mandate to not do something they didn't promise to do?

You may have not noticed, but as of the election the LTN was already there.

 

 

Edited by mr.chicken

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I have been using Andy for many years for decorating and general handyman duties. He always does a great job, is very friendly and his prices are competitive. Highly recommend.
    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block. We will at some point have to review tax on transport more radically (as we see greater up take of electric vehicles). The most economically rational system would be one of dynamic road pricing. But politically, very difficult to do
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...