Clean Air Dulwich - who are they?

[ab29]

Can someone please explain who "Clean Air Dulwich" are? 

[ab29]

@malumbu @Earl Aelfheah @outoffocus - @Admin@quickmove perhaps outoffocus is not a real person - @march46 can you help identifying the culprits?

How do I contact @cleanairdulwich? What is / are the email address / es? Can  I please have the names of people involved in @cleanairdulwich? 

Is it a private organisation? If so,  who is behind it?

Is it an organisation connected to @Southwark Council - if so, can we please have more information?

Edited May 8 by ab29

[malumbu]

Rather presumptuous of you saying culprits

You can befriend them on Facebook, get updates from their website or email them at [email protected]

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.CleanAirDulwich.co.uk%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR01aih80tPEKaU9kXypIITY-v0ZIhYEUXvwE3PImJzgnyGFUuJVE-i5DWk_aem_AXLC6W7mwtwkeKWZS9PplAlis6PKyTssL7WRhyNp4F7txEfLFqFOs1pW5oPQEGf1Xg8MIFLEtVo7LOYDc5-Syhe6&h=AT0NTPvL3xl2XWsIWMII3GauR5mmr8mpMZWaj9w55rKGvALOi3n_atkvPyBGcVBhV9t2Kb8vD1s4BzMcqLmUsoujGSsMGgWdn-duhVcofBi_RDqoM2eFT_wMsK_RW_2VYvWQDuozP7tommVcEoI

maybe better link

https://cleanairdulwich.eo.page/signup?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR01aih80tPEKaU9kXypIITY-v0ZIhYEUXvwE3PImJzgnyGFUuJVE-i5DWk_aem_AXLC6W7mwtwkeKWZS9PplAlis6PKyTssL7WRhyNp4F7txEfLFqFOs1pW5oPQEGf1Xg8MIFLEtVo7LOYDc5-Syhe6

[Sue]

Is this the same group?

A quick Google found it on X aka Twitter 🙄 

Or are their aims completely opposite and they are just trying to sound like the other group to confuse people?

Edited May 3 by Sue

[alice]

I think the above was formed as a response to the original group which has a very tight definition of Dulwich

[Sue]

1 hour ago, alice said:

I think the above was formed as a response to the original group which has a very tight definition of Dulwich

??? When they refer to "all Dulwich", I took that to mean including the residents of the streets where the traffic has been directed into due to the LTNs, which are presumably experiencing greater pollution/stress,  whereas the "privileged few" in the LTN areas are experiencing lower pollution due to less traffic.

Hence the reference to inequality.

Sorry if I've got the terminology wrong.

[malumbu]

It feels like a group who don't believe that private motoring should be discouraged and have no answers to the air quality problem, whereas the original Cleanairdulwich are campaigning to reduce pollution.

Sadly we live in a world where if you are rich, you will generally live in nicer houses, have nicer environments and cleaner air.  That is capitalism for you, but I doubt whether there would be greater health equality in the former Soviet Union either.  Dulwich village was once full of industrialists and the like who didn't want to live in polluted central London where most would have made their money. 

I will contact Cleanairdulwich and hopefully provide a better perspective.  Whether it is one individual or a whole community I support agree with what they are doing.

 

Edited May 3 by malumbu

[alice]

6 hours ago, Sue said:

??? When they refer to "all Dulwich", I took that to mean including the residents of the streets where the traffic has been directed into due to the LTNs, which are presumably experiencing greater pollution/stress,  whereas the "privileged few" in the LTN areas are experiencing lower pollution due to less traffic.

Hence the reference to inequality.

Sorry if I've got the terminology wrong.

Yes, I think that’s exactly it. I’m sorry my post was unclear. 

[Rockets]

7 hours ago, malumbu said:

It feels like a group who don't believe that private motoring should be discouraged and have no answers to the air quality problem, whereas the original Cleanairdulwich are campaigning to reduce pollution.

That's an incredibly (and somewhat predictably)  myopic view Mal.

CleanAirForAllDulwich are campaigning against is the injustice of some having to live with more air pollution from displacement caused by the very things the likes of you and CleanAirDulwich lobby for.

 

Sue you are right - as in everyone deserves cleaner air.

And Mal, your industrialist analogy is spot on, the council and their supporters (like CAD) are trying to live in areas with lower pollution whilst forcing more pollution onto their neighbours.

[malumbu]

The point I am making is that rich people will always be able to afford better things in life.  The industrialists who took over from gentleman farmers, particularly on the arrival of the railways, hardly made Dulwich into Welwyn Garden City, Saltaire or Bourneville.  Although you could argue the Dulwich Estate did something like this in parts of the village and West Dulwich in the 60s and 70s.

Clean air is a relative term, cleaner air would be better.  From my understanding Clean Air Dulwich are promoting active travel and less car journeys.  Clean air for all, and One Dulwich, are principally against restrictions on drivers.  You cannot get cleaner air without some restrictions on drivers.

It's fair to ask who is behind all the groups, although I sense and agenda on this thread. 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

From my understanding Clean Air Dulwich are promoting active travel and less car journeys.  Clean air for all, and One Dulwich, are principally against restrictions on drivers.  You cannot get cleaner air without some restrictions on drivers.

It's fair to ask who is behind all the groups, although I sense and agenda on this thread. 

But by the same measure you can see why some might think the anonymous online lobby group Clean Air Dulwich are a group of rich local residents happy to lobby the council to get their roads closed to traffic at the expense of other Dulwich residents.

You sense an agenda on this thread - did your Spidey-senses get tweaked on the thread questioning who is behind One Dulwich and you just didn't bother mentioning it? 😉 What's good for the goose etc...

 

And your statement that you can't get cleaner air without some restrictions on drivers is blinkered nonsense and just shows how some seem to think private car drivers are the sole root-cause of all air pollution - reducing car emissions helps but is not the silver bullet.

And if the measures you put in just displace traffic rather than remove it then what's the point - and that's what Clean Air for all Dulwich are trying to make.

 

 

Edited May 4 by Rockets

[malumbu]

Emissions from motor vehicles, in particular diesels and even more so pre-2016 for cars, are the main source of roadside nitrogen dioxide.  Therefore you have two choices, cleaner motor vehicles or less motor vehicle journeys.  Drivers and owners are the main cause.  Clean Air Dulwich are championing less car use.

[alice]

M.  you keep saying the same thing. Yes, they want fewer cars on their roads unfortunately, that results in more traffic on our roads.  It’s very simple.

[Rockets]

36 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Clean Air Dulwich are championing less car use.

....on the roads they live on...

I must be missing the posts where they are talking about displacement on East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane etc....

The fact their twitter page carries a disclaimer that they are: "not funded by Southwark Council" speaks volumes...

Edited May 4 by Rockets

[the_hermit]

60%+ of PM2.5 matter from cars is from brake dust, tyres and road debris so fewer cars and better public transport is the best solution.

[Rockets]

The majority of PM2.5 comes from sources (much naturally occurring) outside of London - I think it is around 50%-60%. Of the PM2.5 created locally about 42% comes from industrial and commercial activities (construction, cooking), about 30% is from road transport and this share is reducing as efforts have been made to clean-up the TFL bus fleets, taxis, diesel vehicles etc and another 20%+ is domestic sources.

 

You will see very little on the CleanAirDulwich timeline on anything other than car use which leads many to believe it is just an anti-car pro-cycle lobby group purporting to be interested in clean air. I must admit when I see them rallying against the school coaches on Townley Road I do wonder what their motivation is - they lobby for people not to use their cars and then lobby against the coaches the pupils turn to instead of cars...kind of beggar's belief really.....some people are, seemingly, never happy.....

[malumbu]

PM has reduced from road traffic primarily due to effective emission standards, started off following the bad Los Angeles smogs of the 60s and 70s that led to petrol vehicles moving from carburetors to fuel injection, and the three way catalyst. As diesel cars became more popular, leading to more soot, as well as that already emitted from heavy vehicles new vehicle emission standards effectively brought down particulate emissions.  You always have to look at street level emissions rather than total emissions, as these have the greatest impact on human health. Car exhausts are closer to people's lungs than industrial stacks.  London all but met legal standards by the tens and Johnson, funded by DfT had a push to meet these on all roads.  Whether legal limits could be tighter is a question, as there is no such thing as a safe level.   Renewal of bus fleets and retrofitting older vehicles was important.  London as far as I am aware has the most modern/cleanest of all in the country, Livingstone wrongly supported the bendy bus, not a bad vehicle but made for wide straight boulevards.  Johnson and the new routemaster was just stupid, it vibrates, rarely running in electric mode, wasted space with the extra door and stairs, and I've seen some spewing out soot, so obviously the filter has failed.  There was a loophole that encouraged some drivers to get rid of their diesel filters after they became blocked rather than cleaning them out, but the MOT was toughened.   You still see the odd vehicle spewing out smoke, police do have powers to stop and get the owner to test, but this is not a priority.  There is a smoky vehicle government hotline but not sure if this is effective.  https://www.gov.uk/report-smoky-vehicle

I've worked in and around this area for years so have some broad knowledge. I'm more active in promoting active travel nowadays.  I'd push government on driving standards which should be a quick win on safety, carbon, air quality and congestion but they are not bothered as this would mean accepting that most of us are not good drivers (subjective term but if you had a random driving retest programme most would fail).

I think too much is made of ClearAirDulwich, I doubt whether they are a major lobby group but provide some good stories for people like me.  I've called Alleynes a couple of times and got them to instruct drivers to turn their engines off, it's pretty good in recent months.  There is a downside to every intervention (well apart from flouride in water but that is another story). We moved to unleaded, and some were disadvantaged, even though there were phenomenal public health benefits.  E10, reducing carbon emissions but a small number of older cars have problems.  Close a road, make it one way or introduce parking fees, as we have done for decades across London, will always upset some people. Paris in desperation during 40 degree summer temperatures with no wind introduced alternate days for vehicle access, odd and even number plates.  When this was done in Lagos the wealthy owners simply had two vehicles one with odd, one with even.  So whatever you do this will in all likelihood have a lower impact on the rich.

[Spartacus]

Whilst I am finding this thread amusing as it is parodying the who are one dulwich discussion, at the end of the day both the pro LTN and Anti LTN groups are using social media to portray their points and arguments and it doesn't matter who is behind them as they both use simular tactics. 

Edited May 7 by Spartacus

[ab29]

2 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Whilst I am finding this thread amusing as it is parodying the who are one dulwich discussion, at the end of the day both the pro LTN and Anti LTN groups are using social media to portray their points and arguments and it doesn't matter who is behind them as they both use simular tactics. 

Parodying was exactly what I was going for, being tired of all the attacks on OneDulwich, left, right and centre. 

I don't agree with the statement that both groups use the same tactics.

And certainly the overall goal is different.

OneDulwich never said the LTN is bad overall, only that it is not a suitable solution for Dulwich.

Clean Air Dulwich never mentioned anyone living on a main or boundary road affected by LTN.

I live on a busy road which has become very busy after LTN introduction. I have lost a lot.

People on Calton Av were living on a quiet road which became very quiet after LTN introduction. They have lost nothing.

Shifting dirt, pollution and noise from A to B is damaging to those living on the busy roads and does nothing for environment as the amount of dirt and pollution remains the same. 

There is no reliable data which would confirm LTN does what it claims – essays produced by Anna Goodman & Co do not count since she is a cyclist and belongs to LCC. It is like asking vegetarians if they like fruit and vegetables.

If the LTN did what it claims want to do / has done, then every council in London and all cities and towns in UK would implement it. In a meantime, Southwark Council refused to participate in the government review of LTN – why, if they are so proud of it and so confident it does work?

Why don’t they produce the data and try to encourage others to take it also?

Edited May 7 by ab29

[malumbu]

I don't think attacking an academic is particularly helpful.  The work was commissioned through a proper process.  Findings similarly would have been rigorously examined.  Government weren't particularly happy with the outcome and tried to bury it, but somebody in government thought this wrong and leaked it.  Government put their spin on it, which governments do, but the data gave some positive outcomes.

My issue is with those who continue to drive whatever barriers (physical and others) are put in their place.  Hopefully with time more will use cars less, share journeys, decide that the journey is not essential eg working from home instead etc.  CleanAirDulwich, from my take, are mainly pushing active transport; one more journey walked is one less car on the road.

[Rockets]

43 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Government weren't particularly happy with the outcome and tried to bury it, but somebody in government thought this wrong and leaked it. 

Ha ha...are you sure...if I remember rightly someone leaked it to Peter Walker at the Guardian and he "selectively plucked" some headlines for his article and as you read the article you realised he was absolutely Peter Walker'ing his coverage with some absolute, bleedingly obvious, pearls like:

A copy of the report seen by the Guardian said that polling carried out inside four sample LTNs for the DfT found that overall, twice as many local people supported them as opposed them.

The leak to him was about getting some pro-LTN spin on the story before the government put their anti-LTN spin on it!

 

CleanAirDulwich is a bit misleading isn't it as they are actually an anti-car, pro-cycling lobby group who don't actually talk about clean air in Dulwich at all - unless, of course, you think cycling is the cure-all for all pollution problems!? All of their content seems to be weighed very heavily, ahem, to just one form of active travel....

[malumbu]

Special Advisors aka SPADs didn't want the report published, I know as I have the contacts.  And that isn't Peter Walker.  It was published because it was leaked.  Look through the executive summary line by line and there are some positive views and some negative ones.  This therefore comes across as balanced; as all academic studies should be.  Sunak want to appeal to the motorists vote, and therefore Harper picks on the negatives.  The Guardian, LCC and the like pick on the positives.  That's the way the world works.  But as said government wanted it to be a hatchet job, and it wasn't.  I expect the LTNs to be still there in years to come.  Let's see how Starmer reacts now the ULEZ has got the thumbs up in the Mayoral elections.

Edited - I've said everything I need to say on this and similar subjects, so will try to refrain from posting unless there is anything particularly ludicrous.

Edited May 8 by malumbu

[Rockets]

Someone leaked the report to an "activist" journalist knowing full well they they would "selectively pluck" items to fit their agenda.....and remember large parts of the report were based on data from "activist researcher" Dr Aldred...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/08/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-generally-popular-report-ordered-by-sunak-finds

 

Very much a case of when the headline:

 

Rishi Sunak’s report finds low-traffic neighbourhoods work and are popular

 

....doesn't get supported by your article:

 

A copy of the report seen by the Guardian said that polling carried out inside four sample LTNs for the DfT found that overall, twice as many local people supported them as opposed them.

 

A review of evidence of their effectiveness said that although formal studies were limited, they did not support the contention of opponents that LTNs simply displaced traffic to other streets rather than easing overall congestion.

“The available evidence from the UK indicates that LTNs are effective in achieving outcomes of reducing traffic volumes within their zones while adverse impacts on boundary roads appear to be limited,” it read.

 

The problem is these articles then get reposted by "activist lobby groups" like of Clean Air Dulwich as "proof".....