Rockets

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...

Interesting to see a plethora of "cycling increased massively in 2020" noise at the moment from the cycle lobby's usual suspects - interesting timing given lots of councils are reviewing their LTN strategies. Those lobbyists seem less keen to discuss what has happened to cycling in 2021 which is now well below the 5 year rolling average. It seems the cycling uplift and the modal shift that so many harped on about was an uptick built solely on the period of the first major lockdown and has now completely evaporated.

And a bit like the M25 protestors the councillors have created more congestion and pollution in their quest to highlight congestion and pollution and supposedly try to solve the problem. Both groups display a blinkered, narcissistic attitude without any empathy for anything other than their own cause.

I think that is very much the point. The communication on this, and other issues, is woefully, and deliberately, misleading - very much a case of "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". The council present things as fact yet omit the facts they don't want to have to acknowledge. They prioritise their ideology over pragmatism. They are doing it with the in-fill of the greenspace in Peckham. They did it with Cllr Leo Pollack after he was found to have been aggressively trolling his own constituents under a false Twitter handle. The council is out of control and doing exactly the things most of them have spent their political lives proudly campaigning against and berating other parties for doing.

Oh my....Richard Leeming....very undignified responses on this thread.

I recently held on the phone to DMC for an hour and 15 minutes to be told that all the appointments had gone and I either needed to call back at 8am the next morning or I could book an appointment via their website. I was not able to book an appointment any other way. I went to their website to book an appointment, answered a load of questions only to be told by an automated response that I had to call the practice to book an appointment.......it really is ridiculous. Can you walk-in at DMC to get an appointment - I may try that? Is this just a DMC issue - are others having similar issues at other practices?

People were given a choice to register their support for option a, b or c. They voted (as in the verb), whether it was a vote (as in the noun) is a subject of continued conjecture. If people were not registering their vote for which option they support then it begs the question what was the point of the consultation/review and does it now make any future consultations completely meaningless and worthless - the consultation was touted by the council as a way for people to "have their say"? Also you need to remember that the council has, seemingly, made a decision to continue with the DV closures on the basis of the votes of those on Court Lane and Calton. So they can't have it both ways - but as we saw from the CPZ consultation they do like to have their cake and eat (regardless of what the majority being impacted think).

It is shocking (perhaps it is not) that the council only referenced the fact that people are supportive of the strategic aims of Healthier Streets on the leaflet that dropped through our doors and completely omitted any reference to the fact that the significant majority want the LTNs removed. A number of people I have spoken to had received the document and had assumed (on the basis of the stats the council published below) that people had voted for the measures not against them - when you tell them the truth their responses are usually unrepeatable on a forum such as this! It is a shocking, deceitful and an utterly manipulative, omission. The majority of respondents (55%) were supportive of the overall aims of Streets for People as set out as priorities in the survey. In particular, a majority of respondents (77%) agreed that improving air quality and road safety on the street where they lived was an important priority. The largest level of support in the survey (82%) was for improving air quality and road safety for local schools. Was the omission deliberate or another unfortunate "oversight"?

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmm. Feel free to continue to think you were > voting for or against LTNs but you weren't. You > were being consulted. > You've been consulted. They've spun the results. > You don't like the outcome and by all means > protest. But just like the *whispers* CPZ, this > wasn't a vote with a binary outcome. So where we are now then is council's ask us "tell us what you think and what you want us to do" (which at the end of the day is what a consultation is) and when they offer residents the option to say they would like the measures removed and when 65% respond saying that's what they want, they then say, nah...we, the elected officials, don't want that so we will continue on the path we want to follow. There are elections going on in Russia at the moment that are following a similar path....be careful what you wish for. If you think what is happening now with the LTNs is some sort of balanced and fair democratic process you are wrong. It is funny how people are coming on now and questioning the results of the consultation and putting a load of ifs, buts and maybes. The facts speak for themselves - 65% of residents who live within the consultation area replied saying they want the LTNs removed. Immediately. No ifs, buts or maybes. I think what is actually happening here is that many who wouldn't listen to people saying "most people don't want/like this" and refused to acknowledge the weight of public opinion now realise the small vocal minority are, in fact, those supporting the LTNs.