Rockets

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't have any issue with banning cars - if > > there is a decent public service and no closed > > roads - the problem is that LTNs DO NOT reduce > car > > use...or pollution. > > You keep saying that LTNs don't reduce car use, > but all the available evidence suggests that they > do. We have very good public transport compared to > 90% of the country - several train stations, lot's > of buses, electric hire bikes, and thanks to the > introduction of a small number of LTNS, even a > few, relatively quiet walking and cycling routes. They reduce car journeys (not use - that is an important qualification as there is no proof that people living within them use their cars any less) WITHIN the closed area but increase car journeys OUTSIDE of them. That, in a nutshell, is the Achilles heel of every LTN. And Rahx3 - have you been smoking something strong with your suggestion we have good public transport links - even the council admits the transport links in Dulwich are "poor" - their words not mine?

P3girl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kiera Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > According to last night's zoom meeting, the > > reopening of Rye Lane to buses will be on 18th > > October. I only watched about half of it > because > > of problem with wi-fi and then zoom using up > too > > much of my mobile data. > > Most of the audience's contributions seemed > to > > me to be from supporters of closure. I switched > > off at the point where one such supporter was > > emphasising how much better it is at the moment > > for the disabled, as it's much easier for a > > wheelchair user to use the road than the > > pavement. > > I've attended several of Southwark's Zoom events > in relation to road closures and they all follow a > similar pattern which appears structured to (a) > propagandise the "benefits" (b) limit the number > of adverse questions:- > > 1. They started 14 minutes late. > > 2. Cllr Rose then spent 22 minutes giving a PP > presentation about the Council's ambitions with > closures. It was unnecessary propaganda. > > 3. The chair selected those who were allowed to > ask questions. The very first question was from a > campaigner from a cycling club. He rabbitted on > and on about the virtues of closures. He came > across as a deliberate plant. > > 4. Many of the other early public contributions > were similar - not really questions but rather a > rehash of Rose's monologue. They appeared to be > pre-selected. > > 5. Rather than focus on questions from the public, > the Chair regularly asked the other Councillors to > make contributions and of course they responded by > amplifying the pro-closure position > > It smacked of manipulation - similar to the biased > questions in the LTN consultations where > answering "Yes" to the question "Do you want fresh > air and safe streets" was taken by them to mean > support for LTN road closures. > > Blatant and unforgivable. To be fair to the council at least they are being consistent as your summary of the meeting is so reflective of every other meeting they have ever organised in relation to LTNs - filibusters punctuated by the occasional input from a vested-interest group that lauds how wonderful the measures/council are!

Malumbu - you light bonfires with petrol.....my goodness me...that is an absolute recipe for disaster and so dangerous so please be careful.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do not excuse the councillors for ignoring the > majority view, but the fact that so few of us > (yes, that could include YOU), really CBA with > local elections. It is widely acknowledged and > shown by statistics that a minority vote in most > local elections. If we all were to take more of an > interest those we vote in will know that they have > a wider and more invested electorate and may shape > up a bit! I very much suspect that quite a lot more people will be taking an interest in the councillor elections in May - perhaps that will be the only "consultation" that the council pays any attention to! The campaigning for those elections will be interesting - the councillors might actually have to face their constituents again. I very much suspect that a few of our councillors won't stand for re-election and try and save some face.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 300 respondents to a consultation on the cash > machine in DV and our councillors mobilise into > action...... > > https://twitter.com/SouthwarkLabour/status/1442434 > 104444653568?s=19 > > 3612 of their constituents say remove the LTNs in > another consultation and they...........ignore > them.... One day is a long time in politics. The cash machine that our councillors were claiming to have saved has gone one day after their grandstanding tweet (I took this pic this morning).....that's a bit embarrassing......perhaps those 300 responses counted for nothing either after all - at least they can claim they are being consistent! Anyway. per Heartblock's question on solutions to the traffic problems that are not LTNs I am more and more convinced means-tested road pricing is the only way forward. What has been interesting during this fuel crisis debacle is the roads seem quieter during the last two days. I suspect people are questioning whether they really need to make a journey and I do think that that is the only thing that will force people to make long-term changes.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mounting a pavement is not a 'good temporary' > solution...honestly, no idea. I can hear my > paramedic students laughing right now...partly in > horror and partly in disbelief. I really hope this > is not a comment from a Councillor or a Council > Official. Heartblock - but surely if a bike can bump the kerb then surely an ambulance, water-laden fire engine or police car could do the same......;-) Raeburn, no-one is trying to discredit it we're just asking why it took the council so long to do it (14 months) when all of the emergency services were telling them to do it immediately. Surely that is of concern to you too?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even LTN cycling poster boy for Southwark - > Guardian's Peter Walker admits that "Motor traffic > on the roads in many places has returned to > pre-pandemic levels, and there are concerns that > in some areas it could rise further as people shun > public transport because of concerns about > coronavirus" > Which means traffic fell due to the pandemic -lock > down and NOT LTNs > > and > > "This is seen as particularly an issue for > cycling: the number of bike trips rose notably > during lockdown, but there is concern that many > new or returning cyclists could stop now" > Which means cycling increased when people were off > school and working from home during the lockdown - > NOT due to LTNs. Interesting on this - do people think public transport is being shunned? I know the train and tube aren't indicative of all public transport journeys but I have travelled on both on weekdays and weekends and they have been incredibly busy - weekends particularly. P.S. I think Peter Walker knows falling bike journeys are not a "concern" but a reality - I suspect he has seen the DfT figures on cycling in 2021 and is trying to put his usual pro-cycling pro-LTN spin on things!

Raeburn - I really don't know what point you are trying to make - other than repeatedly blindly defending the council. Just because the council is promising to do something now doesn't make it ok that they did nothing for 14 months. That is endangering lives. The police, ambulance and fire services all made their feelings abundantly clear about non-permeable barriers to Southwark council in July 2020 after the measures went it. They did not support them and wanted permeable (for emergency vehicles) barriers. They have continued to lobby Southwark to make those changes. Southwark did make some changes to Melbourne Grove (for example) but have done nothing at the DV junction. Absolutely nothing. The DV junction is as non-permeable now as it was when the road closures went in. And now, in documentation that Southwark has posted as part of the review LAS and MPS have both stated that the DV closures led to delays in responses to blue-light incidents (where, I am sure you appreciate every second counts). So it doesn't look good for the council as the question still remains: why did they ignore the input from the emergency services about the DV junction for 14 months? Any ideas? Here is a suggestion for you: I think the council have resisted doing it because if you make that junction an emergency access route you cannot have the "party in the square" nonsense and that grandstanding event has been more of a priority than emergency vehicle access. And are you really suggesting that emergency services had access around the DV closures by mounting the pavement? Once I stopped laughing at that absurd suggestion I tried to imagine being in the back of the ambulance and the driver saying, hang on for a second patient (let's imagine they have a back injury for example), we're just going to bump up and down the pavement for a moment or two whilst trying to avoid pedestrians as we navigate our way around this road closure.

300 respondents to a consultation on the cash machine in DV and our councillors mobilise into action...... 3612 of their constituents say remove the LTNs in another consultation and they...........ignore them....

My point was they ignored it from the moment they received it - which was July 2020 - not sure where you interpreted my note as my suggesting they actively ignored a letter from the future...maybe it was wishful thinking on your part. They ignored it for at least 14 months (and it will be more given the changes being suggested won't be in for some time)....that's horrendous and a complete dereliction of duty by our councillors and the council. Lives were being, and are still being, put at risk by their stubbornness and refusal to open the DV junction to emergency vehicles. It's clear from all the comms sent by LAS recently that LAS (and MPS for that matter) are reminding Southwark that they have been telling them this since July 2020 - they are the type of comms that go in ahead of a public enquiry so everyone know where the responsibility lies. Why did the council ignore the advice of the emergency services? Was it that they felt their strategic goals with LTNs were more important than the needs of the emergency services? Are they so disorganised that they didn't read it? Or was it another "oversight"?

Raeburn - how on earth am I mis-representing facts? Maybe you should be asking yourself why the council has ignored numerous requests from emergency services to not have non-permeable barriers in place....that letter was sent to Southwark in July 2020 - why it has taken 14 months for them to act upon it? DV/Court Lane has been permanently closed to emergency services since the measures went it. I also refer you to this from LAS to Southwark that Southwark posted as part of the review....LAS has been telling Southwark the measures have been causing delays in response times and reminded them when LAS reviewed the new changes Southwark is proposing..... ? The proposed scheme to create a cycle and emergency access lane would improve the emergency vehicle access/egress into the area and will be an improvement on the current hard physical closures that the ambulance service have been unable to access since the implementation of the scheme last summer, that has resulted in a number of incidents of delayed ambulances being reported to Southwark Council. Additionally, look how LAS refer Southwark back to the letter they sent in July 2020.....a subtle reminder that the council chose to ignore the July 2020 letter. Why, despite numerous requests from the emergency services, has the council not allowed emergency vehicle access at the DV junction for 14 months? This has clearly endangered Dulwich residents' lives. Increased permeability of the scheme is required as a number of hard physical closures still exist within the scheme, the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust formally wrote to all local authorities in London including Southwark in July 2020 to request the greater use of soft camera enforced modal filters instead of hard physical closures to ensure emergency access/egress to areas is unimpeded, although improvements have been proposed we would kindly request that further soft closures are included as part of the overall review of the Dulwich scheme. You can find it here if you think I am making it up or "wilfully misrepresenting facts" - https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101521/Appendix%20F3%20-%20Emergency%20Service%20response.pdf

If this letter was sent to every council from London Ambulance Service in July 2020, I wonder if Southwark will ever tell us why they ignored it - LAS makes it clear any immovable barriers need a 3.5 metre gap to allow emergency vehicle access at all times - Dulwich Village continues to have none? Perhaps LAS's view and input was outweighed by the "strong views" on the other side of the argument (per Cllr Rose).

But Rahx3 - there is increasing evidence that LTNs don't work. Take a close look at the council's own Dulwich LTN review and it's clear they are not delivering as intended - in fact, it looks as if they are making the problem far worse rather than better. We can't just hang on to these measures on the promise of what might happen - it isn't happening and it won't happen. We were told let them bed in, well we have and things haven't changed. Our local councillors are continuing to wilfully ignore the majority of residents (and remember these are the people who should be benefitting the most) so we have to find someone who will listen.

It was a rally to show support for the council?s LTNs. Were there many people there?

I also see Helen Hayes is due to be attending a ?Speak up for climate change? event on Saturday 9th October at Herne Hill Baptist church. Might be worth attending to help draw her attention to the nonsense policy her councillors are pursuing in regard to LTNs. She has been unwilling to be drawn into it but this might be the chance to show the weight of local opinion.

Looks like Southwark are getting some attention from the Torygraph...Cllr Rose's comments are beyond parody....

Malumbu - I am a functional cyclist not a fanatical cyclist and the problem is cycling has been infiltrated by fanatics and fantasists who believe that cycling is the only solution to London's problems and pedal, no pun intended, misinformation to force their agenda. The recent "2020 saw the biggest rise in cycling" narrative is a prime example - when other data is showing those increases have evaporated.

But DC is an electric metal box better than a petrol or diesel one?

DC - but surely if that electric metal box isn't polluting as much as the old petrol/diesel metal box then that is a good thing is it not? No-one wants to sit in traffic so there is a reason they do and a million more reasons why they can't, don't or won't walk, cycle or get public transport. What you seem to be saying is the metal box is the issue not what the metal box emits in terms of pollution? Have a great evening - isn't it nice to be able to go out again?

Ok DC, now put pragmatsim over idealism. Firstly congestion, CO2 emissions, climate change and social equity are all wrapped up in my definition/effect of pollution - so I am not separating those out. They are all about limiting the impact of emissions from cars and are all intertwined. A line of congested electric vehicles is doing far less damage to the environment than a line of petrol and diesel vehicles - would you not agree? Likewise, surely an electric car has far fewer CO2 emissions than a petrol or diesel vehicle? And one would presume that electric vehicles would do far less overall damage in terms of climate change? Social equity - it depends whether you mean living with the impacts of cars or accessibility. If it is living with the impacts then given lower emissions the impact would be lower, especially along roads where population density is highest. At this point there isn't a huge amount in terms of accessibility but new business models are being developed (like Car Clubs) where more people can get access to cars without having to own one. Road saftey - yes, that is always going to be an issue but according to the European Road Safety Observatory we have one of the most densely populated countries in the world but have one of the world's best safety records. And there are new technologies like ADAS and CV2-X that will make the roads even safer for everyone who uses them as your car will always know where it is in relation to people, bikes, cars and other things on or at the side of a road and will be able to anticipate potential incidents and take evasive action before the driver does. These technologies are easier to implement in electric vehicles. The car is one of the most popular forms of transportation for a reason and just saying we have to stop using them is not the answer. They are always be going to be cars and whilst you take a position of the car is bad you don't ever actually deal with the issues created by cars. A lot of people are saying bikes are the solution - but clearly that isn't going to cut it and during the last 18 months, since the pandemic began, bikes saw a huge increase and then equally huge decrease in usage. It seems people are voting with their feet and whilst bikes were good for pottering to the park with the kids during lockdown they aren't the solution in a big city when life starts returning to normal. Even pre-lockdown this trend is prevalent in places like the Netherlands - whilst the Dutch love their bikes they love their cars in equal measure and own more cars per capita than us in the UK - I suspect they own more bikes per capita too. So, putting my pragmatic hat on electric vehicles seem to be a major part of the solution for the most pressing need which is climate change - yet many on the other side of the fence disagree but I can't find a rational explanation why except people living by the mantra of two wheels good/four wheels bad. Perhaps can you enlighten me as to why you are so averse to electric vehcile?

DKHB - why are electric cars not the panacea? Surely they massively reduce pollution which is the key issue we are trying to address, is it not?

So there was one fossil fuel car launched at the show.....my hasn't Dacia's launch massively slowed the rate of progress to the electrification of cars? I wholeheartedly apologise for daring to suggest that all the launches were electric. So let me rephrase what I said....all, bar one car launched by Dacia, were electric and the world's leading car brands that account for the large majority of sales went fully electric with their launches. Happy now - I suspect not! ;-) Redpost - before piling on I would suggest you pay more attention to the thread...DKHB linked to the article - I just quoted something from that article that DKHB used as proof that not all cars launched were electric.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought Rockets qualified his statement by > saying not a single petrol or diesel car > "launched". > > Is it the case petrol and diesel cars were > launched? You've just referred to cars "at" the > show...not the same thing. > > Anyhow, I guess the point is it may be more > accurate to say the majority of cars were > electric. I don't know, I wasn't there and do not > follow car events, but to incorrectly quote > Rockets and then on that basis accuse him of > talking cobblers is a bit much. DKHB is so keen to throw in an aggressive "gotcha" that they failed to actually read what was written in either my post or the article they link to. I love the fact that the article they link to talks about all the electric cars that VW, BMW and Mercedes launched at the show - and all the concept cars being electric. Not a single mention of any launches of anything other than electric, in fact I am struggling to find any references to a single petrol or diesel car in the article - thereby highlighting my point even more strongly. The article does talk about hybrids (in relation to there being a worrying lack of infrastructure to accelerate the total transition to electric as quickly as people would like and that manufacturers are putting pressure on govts to improve electric infrastrucutre) but that's about it for anything beyond electric. In fact the article says: In many ways, it feels like the sheen of ?newness? around the concept of electric cars as a whole has well and truly worn off; now they?re the unquestioned stars of events such as this and there?s a whole raft of other novel concepts and ideas to get used to. The car industry has gone electric - that is most definitely not "cobblers".

But this is the point isn't it - people need to get around in vehicles. Electric cars reduce pollution and measures like LTNs are, ostensibly, designed to reduce pollution - for every electric car that replaces a petrol or diesel car there is a reduction in pollution. Surely that and the fact that all manufacturers are switching exclusively to electric is a good thing, is it not? Buses, taxis and delivery vehicles are all turning electric - electric seems to be the clear way forward. The car industry is slow to change but it is changing. They design cars 3-5 years ahead of going on sale so the pace of change is slower than people would like. But, it is changing, but it seems for some it is not enough. You mention nuclear power stations - it wasn't that long ago that people were protesting about having nuclear power and you can guarantee that some of those people are now protesting about the impacts of climate change. Sometimes you just have to put pragmatism ahead of idealism. Speaking of which... When I watched this piece of performance art from the spokesperson for Insulate Britain I saw so many parallels with the unwavering fanaticism displayed by many around LTNs - we're right, you're wrong, we don't care about what you think or the negative consequences of our actions, this is our righteous path and we will not deviate from it (let me also be clear that the GMB presenters don't cover themselves in glory here either) but this spokesperson, who laughably hasn't insulated his own home, does his cause not good but will no doubt be idolised by his supporters:

I saw that the same tactics were used in Munich a few weeks ago around what used to be the Frankfurt Motor Show (which is now in Munich). Protestors blockaded all of the motorways and roads around Munich to protest at the motor show coming to the city and they caused utter chaos but someone pointed out to them that there was not a single petrol or diesel car launched at the show - everything was electric. I didn't realise Insulate Britain are campaigning for better insulation of homes - a worthy cause as that is it is all a bit fringe and to do what they have been doing is all a bit lunatic fringe - is this a splinter group from XR? ;-) Were they not happy that XR weren't focussed enough on homes leaking energy.....my goodness me...