Driving restrictions Dulwich Village

[DulvilleRes]

There has still not been a shred of evidence presented that there is some kind of deliberate Southwark policy to 'bend the rules' to generate income from fines. It defies logic - to pull off some deliberate policy in this regard, as suggested, would involve a systemic conspiracy at many layers of the council - a public and accountable organisation - that just isn't plausible. Until you can present some proper evidence, instead of chucking out supposition based on a camera position, the impression is you are just creating a smear. 

 

[Rockets]

5 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

There has still not been a shred of evidence presented that there is some kind of deliberate Southwark policy to 'bend the rules' to generate income from fines. It defies logic - to pull off some deliberate policy in this regard, as suggested, would involve a systemic conspiracy at many layers of the council - a public and accountable organisation - that just isn't plausible. Until you can present some proper evidence, instead of chucking out supposition based on a camera position, the impression is you are just creating a smear. 

Ha ha...given you repeated defence of the Dulwich Society Active Travel Branch, a group that has been lobbying for the DV LTN (which has benefited from revenue generated from these fines) such a response was to be expected...;-)

Perfect timing Dulville! 😉

[first mate]

I must say, the mere thought that a seriously cash-strapped council might try to find ways to 'stretch' the rules so that it can utilise a massive multi million pound parking revenue reserve fund, just sitting in its bank account, does seem like the most far fetched conspiracy you could ever, ever dream up. And, as Dulville says, absolutely defies all logic😂

As we know, this council is always utterly straightforward and transparent in all its dealings. 

 

Edited Friday at 16:47 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

Why not make a complaint to the Ombudsman so that they can investigate your allegations?

[first mate]

Ah, I think Malumbu is also trying this line out. So desperate to close it all down Earl. As I have said before, if it is such a non issue, why are you still here?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm mainly here to stop attempts at spreading misinformation from a monomaniac.

Recent examples include:

• Misrepresentations of research into the Railton Road LTN 
• False claims that Southwark Council's own guidance sates LTNs should only be established in the North of the Borough
• Irresponsible suggestions that TFL guidance is that individuals may drive in a bus lane when turning left.
• Unevidenced claims that Southwark Council are breaking the law by introducing controlled parking schemes for the purpose of income generation.

etc...

I feel it's important that this stuff shouldn't go unchallenged, as I would like this forum to be a place for good faith debate.

Edited Friday at 17:18 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

That all sounds incredibly noble, but sadly just not convincing. Your own extensive track record of twisting and misrepresentation of what others have said, even suggesting other posters are making things up (lying)  does you no favours. Plus, in the list of points above you are again making multiple misrepresentations about what others have said. These are not the actions of someone interested only in 'good faith debate'.

Edited Friday at 17:43 by first mate

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

• Misrepresentations of research into the Railton Road LTN 
• False claims that Southwark Council's own guidance sates LTNs should only be established in the North of the Borough
• Irresponsible suggestions that TFL guidance is that individuals may drive in a bus lane when turning left.
• Unevidenced claims that Southwark Council are breaking the law by introducing controlled parking schemes for the purpose of income generation.

The irony is of course that each and every one of these have been proven to be true...it's just some steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it! The fact these even get cited as misrepresentations after everything presented shows how laughable this has become. Some people do their side no favours at all....

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 03/01/2025 at 21:53, Rockets said:

The irony is of course that each and every one of these have been proven to be true...it's just some steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it! The fact these even get cited as misrepresentations after everything presented shows how laughable this has become. Some people do their side no favours at all....

With links included:

On Railton Road - Residents started driving less once their area became an LTN: 

On Southwark Council Guidance - "Recommendation 14: Introduce a borough wide programme of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods"

On Tfl and using bus lanes when turning left - "If you want to turn left across a bus lane, an arrow or a dotted white line on the carriageway will indicate if this is permitted." Highway code on bus lanes "you should not drive in a bus lane during its period of operation"

...and your 'evidence' that Southwark use bus lanes as "traps" and "generate funds" for "vanity projects"... the same claim that Tfl allow you to use any bus lane when turning left (they don't, see above). 

Edited 17 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl, firstly I think the only thing I have said about Railton Road LTN is that Aldred's own research confirmed an increase in the number of cars within the LTN between the LTN going in and the conclusion of the research - which it very much does.

On everything else I have supplied lots of evidence to prove my assertions were correct and hardevidence from the council and TFL's own publicly available documentation and you dismiss them as "confirmation bias". That's fine but it doesn't mean they are wrong or not accurate or that you aren't just in "confirmation denial". 😉 

Just because you chose not to accept it does not mean I, or the evidence I present, are wrong and let's be honest Cllr McAsh could be on here confirming what I presented to be true and you would still be arguing about it! 

Edited 14 hours ago by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Earl, firstly I think the only thing I have said about Railton Road LTN is that Aldred's own research confirmed an increase in the number of cars within the LTN between the LTN going in and the conclusion of the research - which it very much does.

This is such a ridiculously cynical misrepresentation of a piece of research which is positive about the impact on car use by residents inside the Railton LTN. The researchers used postcode plus number plate data from controlled parking zones, matched to annual MOT records, to see what happened to car use of those living inside the Railton LTN. Between 2020 and 2023, the total number of active parking permits increased by 9.0% inside the LTNs and by 10.1% in the control areas.

Driving decreased among residents living inside the new LTNs and increased by among residents in control areas. This represented a 6.4% relative decrease in distance driven by those inside the LTN. The findings suggest that growth in car ownership was slower inside the LTN than outside of it, and more significantly, that residents started driving less once their area became an LTN.

Their conclusion was:

Quote

Notably, our outcome measure captures total past-year driving, including trips that the Lambeth LTNs are less likely to impact (e.g., inter-city trips, or travel outside London). It is plausible that for shorter and more local trips the relative decrease in LTN residents’ driving would be greater than the estimated 6% decrease in total past-year driving. This suggests that, in Lambeth and other similar inner-city areas, widespread roll-out of LTNs could make an important contribution towards reducing how much residents drive, and towards reducing local volumes of motor traffic.

What you have taken from this is that ‘car ownership increased inside LTNs’. Whilst not strictly untrue, it is a such a mischaracterisation of the research and it's findings that I don't know how you're not embarrassed; Another, tedious example of cherry picking. 

Edited 13 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

55 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What you have taken from this is that ‘car ownership increased inside LTNs’. Whilst not strictly untrue, it is a such a mischaracterisation of the research and it's findings that I don't know how you're not embarrassed; Another, tedious example of cherry picking. 

But is not one of the stated strategic aims of LTNs to reduce car ownership/use because it is in that context that I have been presenting that information?

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

[deleted as it's tedious and people can read the research for themselves if they're actually interested] 

Edited 10 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

But one of the stated strategic aims of LTNs is to reduce car ownership is it not - surely even you can agree with that?

Because what Aldred's report shows is that car ownership increased as the number of parking permits increased by 9% within the LTN in the period after it was installed. Not sure how that is an "outrageous mischaracterisation" as it is in black and white in Aldred's report......

[Sue]

Why don't you all get together over a few pints and then have a fight afterwards?

It's getting incredibly tedious on here with people trying to distort  things to suit their agendas.

I know I shouldn't read it if I find it tedious, before someone tells me that 🤣 

[SE22_2020er]

@Sue - thank you very much, well said.  I used to enjoy the East Dulwich Forum but now give it a wide berth most of the time because as you say it's just so tedious and the few, as ever, spoil it for the majority.

 

I assume it's grown-ups behind the posts, but it's worse than my primary school aged children!  

Edited 11 hours ago by SE22_2020er

[malumbu]

In the old days social meetings were arranged.  Never ended in fisty  cuffs.  Perhaps people could come to the Goose sing around on Sunday and put their views to a nice tune. 

[Sue]

42 minutes ago, malumbu said:

In the old days social meetings were arranged.  Never ended in fisty  cuffs.  Perhaps people could come to the Goose sing around on Sunday and put their views to a nice tune. 

😮 Please, no songs about bus lanes or Dulwich Village or LTNs on Sunday (OR  buses, in case  somebody would  find it amusing to come and sing the wheels on the expletive deleted  bus go round and round 🤣 ) 

Edited 10 hours ago by Sue

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, Sue said:

Why don't you all get together over a few pints and then have a fight afterwards?

It's getting incredibly tedious on here with people trying to distort  things to suit their agendas.

I know I shouldn't read it if I find it tedious, before someone tells me that 🤣 

The first rule of LTN Fight club is ... everyone talks about LTN fight club on the EDF. 

I hope it's a "dance fight" but agree no singing.

We could all meet in the Crown and Greyhound back room, away from prying eyes, except it's not so easy to drive to these days 😅

[first mate]

Like the idea of a dance fight. What would be the names of the respective dance off teams, what attire and what music? This should be good!

[malumbu]

Has to be the Castle, we need an old school boozer and we can order pizzas for half time. Perhaps get Lynn Miranda what's his face to do a rap/hip hop musical score.  It will be the next big musical. Or some scenes from West Side Story 

[Rockets]

I will bring some lino and we can have a good old fashioned break dance competition - I will bring my Street Sounds cassette collection....;-)

[exdulwicher]

3 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I will bring some lino and we can have a good old fashioned break dance competition - I will bring my Street Sounds cassette collection....;-)

I've got visions of this...
Which one is Rockets?

 

[Sue]

10 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

I've got visions of this...
Which one is Rockets?

 

Laughing out loud here.

Please do it! There's an upstairs room at The Castle, I'm sure they could take out the tables and chairs for you 😄 

[exdulwicher]

I was going to suggest line dancing but Rockets might cross the line when turning left so that's out...