ArmandHelpen1

Thanks Admin for clarifying - I’ve now found the post they used to scrape my telephone number from. So it wasn’t a data breach from EDF, rather my foolishness posting it online 15 years ago… Still leaving this thread here if that’s ok so that people are aware of this scam and don’t fall foul of it (also to think twice before posting phone numbers here as it can be used by any one as I’ve found out!)

Anyone else received a cold call from this company pretending to be calling on behalf of EE? When I asked how they’d got my data they said ‘from East Dulwich forum’. I have contacted the Admin to find out whether EDF are selling our data to marketing companies or if they’ve been hacked. Alternatively the website is being scraped somehow. Just warning others in case anyone else receives a call- it’s a scam, do not engage with them 🙂

That’s so great - yes I’d love if more of London followed suit so I could more confidently cycle. It has definitely boosted how much I use local businesses too - the ability to pop in to the local shops as I walk past makes it much more likely, and more pleasant to do so.

I have lived on a road where displaced traffic is said to be an issue, but Interestingly I actually see the most anger towards LTNs coming from those living in them as they dislike the limits it places on driving through them and the increased time to their journey. I had read that recent study from Uni of Westminster that said the traffic displacement argument did not actually bear out in reality. I wonder if this research has been discussed here already ? Do people disagree with the findings ? I’m Not for one second suggesting it’s only parents that are pro LTN, it’s more that there’s a large number of people who cannot attend the meetings (for various reasons) and who also may wish to voice their support but feel nervous to do so in public because it’s such an emotive topic I wouldn’t want the councillors to read forums like this with so much vitriol circulating and not think that there is also plenty of quiet support that may be being drowned out through some of the noise.

I find the vitriol around the LTNs so confusing. Aren’t the closures aimed at making roads safer, reducing car journeys overall across the borough, which benefits all, but most of all our children and future generations? Why does mild inconvenience trump our children’s health and future? And why does the topic cause such fury? Why aren’t people furious about climate change? Or at the very least, at those who still insist on unnecessary car travel which causes the traffic rather than the attempts to limit it? Or am I missing something? Genuinely not trying to be inflammatory (so please keep replies respectful) but no matter how much I try to follow the arguments I can’t seem to join the dots. Please no nasty responses as I am only curious about why the issue causes the extent of anger that it does - When so many like me are the totally opposite picture and enjoy the reduced traffic that the LTNs have brought. I want the councillors to know there are many more like me who only see the benefits and are immensely grateful we can walk our children to school without the snarling traffic and beeping horns and screaming and fumes that used to exist before. I would personally be devastated if that returned. The problem with the vitriol is that people who share this opinion (many are parents) do not want to antagonise our community by putting our head above the parapet - especially as we are too busy working or looking after children to make the council meetings to show support. It makes it then seem that this is a scheme that has been ‘done’ to the people without support- but many people do support LTNs and can’t be seen to agree with it for fear of upsetting those who are so emotionally invested. Really not intending to cause anger or upset, just to ask questions and provide some balance and a reminder it’s not just the loudest voices that should be heard.

Cars go so fast that they don’t have time to react to the zebra crossing outside the nursery on Barry road - I’ve had cars continue across when my children and I have been waiting to use/are actually already using it. It’s an accident waiting to happen.

They’ve been there at least 15 years

The clay soil means that in this area it’s not a case of if a period property had subsidence but when; as long as you can continue the existing insurance (and they’re obliged to keep insuring it) then it’s fine! Or at least, if this is a concern for you then probably best not to consider the area at all…

Thanks for taking the time to explain the objections. I can see how it would feel unfair if the result is to push traffic to other areas rather than reduce it. I thought the idea was to reduce traffic overall which I would find (personally) hard to argue against. How hard would it be to secure data re: pollution and traffic levels that people would trust? I can see why public transport or walking may be difficult for people with mobility issues. For those mentioned who can’t walk/but can drive, does that just mean a longer journey time for them now or inability to use their car at all? One last question; what is the purported reason the council is so keen to push this through/would be manipulating evidence? What does the LA gain from the LTN agenda? Thanks for humouring my questions so late in the day; I have always been curious at the strong feeling this generates and as a result felt too nervous to ask for fear of offending. I assumed I probably just didn’t have the full picture because I’ve never quite understood the Vitriol.

Can I politely ask in a nutshell what the objection to the LTNs is? Not intending to be at all inflammatory as I am conscious it appears to be an issue that generates huge upset locally. I have never really understood why….and I’m keen to. Isn’t reducing traffic and pollution by encouraging walking/cycling/public transport hugely beneficial to all? Not looking for any hostility, but genuinely keen to understand what it is am I missing?