Rockets

PollyGlot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some local residents had the opportunity to > discuss LTN matters with a Councillor today. This > was none other than Margy Newens, who is Deputy > Community Champion for the South Area. > > One of the first questions presented to her was > "What is the PRIME purpose of the LTN measures?". > > Her emphatic and unequivocal response was "TO > REDUCE TRAFFIC". No mention of pollution!! > > She apparently failed to understand that pollution > would be reduced if electric cars were exempted > from the LTN penalties ( as is the case with taxis > and buses) and that if they were exempt, then that > would accelerate the adoption of electric cars and > bring about rapid reduction in pollution. > > She was unaware that the statistics provided by > Southwark on their website are 20 months out of > date! > > What hope do we have when our community has > representatives like this? We have to frame her response in terms of what the underlying objective for Margy Newens was: To reduce traffic......for her constituents..... It's been clear from day one that that was the only objective and that this was to be achieved by any means necessary - even if that meant that other councillors' constituents had to absorb the displacement. I am glad she has put that out there as if the council cannot prove that this has happened area wide to a significant degree then the scheme will have been a complete failure. One wonders then whether any councillors will admit they were wrong and take actually responsibility for their mistakes - I very much doubt it. The amount of money the council has wasted on this is absurd.

OMG - has anyone started to fill out the review documents - talk about lose the will to live!? Firstly it re-stats the affirmation that these measures were brought about as part of the Covid response to aid social distancing and then asks a load of leading questions (all of which are linked to the success of such measures) - not one question addresses whether there have been any negative impacts associated with the closures. Astonishing. Of course you can leave comments but they don't measure comments. I started filling it out, trying to be as balanced as possible and then found myself getting more and more annoyed by the blinkered questions as I could see how the council were going to try and manipulate the results. It appears the only way to voice any concern may be to strongly disagree with all the assumptions made in the review.

The article doesn't explain what the kerbs are and does say that the researchers think the number could be massively higher. Is it just me or do a lot of the Guardian's articles seem to be a little light on detail.....an attention grabbing headline but that's about it, as you read down the article so the headline becomes weaker and weaker. Of course, the point the Guardian or the cycle group researchers who did the research miss is that all those modal filters weren't dropped in at once or caused the type of displacement chaos we are seeing in many areas that have these new ones (like Dulwich). But these articles do little to try to establish what is actually happening and are written from a position of justifying why they shouldn't come out - and that is an important distinction and why they are just part of the pro-LTN propaganda machine. I am still chuckling at the childish and pointed Laurence Fox reference.....;-)

Come on Ex- you work in the industry and you know that when you read that Guardian article that it is both really clutching at straws and scraping the barrel at the same time isn't it.....25,000 thousand modal filters that include bollards, kerbs, planters and gates......since the 1960s....... Peter Walker's article is clearly manipulated to make the reader think that there are 25,000 LTN like filters in place across the country but the inclusion of kerbs would, no doubt, include any kerbs installed to facilitate a bike lane, or a drop kerb to allow buggies to be pushed across the road - which of course, don't have the same displacement tsunami effect of closing the DV/Court Lane junction...... I think we can safely file that one to the "Peter Walker Propaganda" file....at some point I am hoping even the Guardian editor must have turn to Peter and say...."Peter...really!!!???" ;-) I also love how he drops the name of Laurence Fox in there....just to ram home the anti-LTN supporter trope....

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Envelope update - there is nothing on the outside > of the envelope to indicate it's from Southwark or > anyone else, and just says to "The Resident" (with > specific address). Postage paid, 1st class. As > mentioned I thought it was one of those estate > agent "do you want to sell your house" things. My they really seem to be going out of their way to bury this review and try to ensure people miss it. Ironic isn't it that they send out all other comms from the council with their logo plastered all over it.....perhaps this was another one of those council LTN oversights.... It will be very interesting to see how widely this leaflet is distributed....they mess up the first one royally....ahem, perhaps that has always been the plan!

flippit Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rockets > > I'm fascinated your heads-up on the tracking > stickers. But to work surely they would need to > transmit some sort of signal by a device that > required a power source and would that not be > easily seen. If they work them I want one for my > Ribble then if someone takes it, I want to find > it. I got the impression from our friends that these were something the thieves targeting bikes had created rather than them being available (I will ask them though - I believe it had been stuck on the bottom of the frame so was out of sight). You can get GPS tracking devices for bikes but they are deliberately large so they could not be hidden.

I think the unique ref numbers were part of the initial plan when the council were hoping to be able to focus the review on those living within the LTN area only. A lot of people saw through that plan, and remember it was Cllr Williams who referenced the unique ref numbers in emails. It is clear there is still an element of this approach indicated by the blue shading area which I can only presume is the official "review area" and I suspect the residents there will be given a heavier weighting, this eliminating the voices of those living on the displacement routes. The council engagement plan references those on the boundary roads (but nothing beyond) so I suspect they will not be taking the views of those living east of Lordship Lane as strongly as those within the LTN area. This is why they have not distributed/failed to distribute the leaflets beyond the blue shading area. It's clear what they are doing here, the engagement plan is very open ended and we probably won't find out until they present the results of the review bit it does look as if it is now a case of collect as much data as possible to find a way to positively present the results. Legal - does it indicate anywhere on the envelope that it is from the council?

I honestly don't think the council have the first clue how this review will run. They have created a rod for their own back and I suspect are struggling to work out how they judge whether it stays, goes or gets massively adjusted (or are trying to work out how they spin the monitoring numbers). On a walk today I noticed a lot more of the new green Clean Air For All posters in windows around Dulwich.

I think the reality is, unfortunately, that if someone wants your bike enough they will get it. I am looking at an Asguard bike store at the moment but it seems from most forums that they will only slow the thieves down or might deter them if they think it will make too much noise. Ground anchors seem to be good to slow them down and definitely worth doing if you go for something like an Asguard. There is also an argument that something like an Asguard attracts thieves as they presume an expensive bike is stored within it. Bikes are very attractive to thieves at the moment. A friend of ours had a cargo bike stolen and, as they had it property marked, when they go it back (it was found in a shipping container with hundreds of other bikes), it still had the tracking sticker on it that the thieves had stuck to it. Apparently they stick them on the bikes to be able to follow them to where they are stored and then go to steal them.

Maybe it's just reflective of the impact of them in the local area and the fact lots of people have questions and point to raise about them - it is different people starting them each time so not as if some of us usual suspects are creating threads for the sake of it! ;-)

But Rahx3 the beauty of the forum is that when people stop posting (i.e. the thread runs its's course) then the thread drops down - it's self-policing in it's own way. Lots of the threads, although linked to the same issue, are discussing different elements of it and Admin is good at dealing with those that are truly duplicative.

Rahx3 they most definitely should but e-bikes and e-scooters do come with a whole host of unique challenges. As someone who has visited Munich a lot I am shocked by the numbers of e-bikes and e-scooters that are left in clusters all over parts of the city - I believe a lot of that was due to rapid re-regulation and a host of operators rushing in to try to make money so hopefully London's approach will be more controlled.

Very much agree - Inside72 was something else everything a local hostelry should be!

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Storage is an issue. We are a household of 4 > cyclists with no car. We have two in a bike > hangar. Our cargo bike is currently parked in the > living room, looking out enviously at the car > spots out front. We have requested a new hangar > that can house a cargo bike from > cyclehoop/council. I'll see if I can dig up the > link to request a bike hangar on your street and > edit it in here later -- you can add in that you'd > like one to accommodate a cargo bike in the > notes. > > Ah - here is all the info in this tweet thread: > > https://twitter.com/cyclehoop/status/1380092582705 > 909761?s=20 > > Also - if you don't have space for a cargo bike > but need to move things occasionally, the guys at > PedalMe can carry anything for you - including > fridges as well as doing house moves by giant > cargo bikes and they are often cheaper than the > man with the van enterprises. Otto2 - completely agree that storage is a massive issue (not just for cargo bikes) and one the council has failed to adequately address and they massively missed an opportunity to enable more modal shift to cycling. Look at the stats - back in 2018 68% of all local journeys in Dulwich were by foot or bike but only 3% were on bike. If we are a typical family then I think I know why - we walk all the time to Lordship Lane and have never thought of cycling - why? Because there is no where to park our bikes. I really wish the council had analysed the data they had in 2018 and looked at why so few of those local journeys were on bike and made infrastructure changes then things would be a lot easier for families like ours to use bikes more. We have been trying to get cycle hangars on our street for years but to no avail - you have to question whether this was a massive missed opportunity by the council. Cargo bikes are a great solution and allow people to make that change. Yes, they are expensive but against the cost of owning and running a car they aren't - if you can make the shift. And that's where so many people will struggle due to the lack of infrastructure provided by the council. Even though cycle hangars can store a cargo bike it looks like they take up numerous spaces from the twitter thread you linked that could store normal bikes (correct me if I am wrong) and there are not nearly enough cycle hangars to satiate the demand for normal bikes yet alone cargo bikes. The council really should have been doing far more over the last 18 months to provide cycle infrastructure rather than throwing money at closing roads and the infrastructure to police that.

Heartblock - well said. I am sure some are upset by the use of the phrase but it comes as no surprise that many of the most vocal pro-LTN advocates are using it as an excuse to attack the organisation behind it and to deposition them and their position. That's fair enough and it is to be expected but they need to be careful they don't overdo it as DA has apologised and reprinted the posters and as they say - they're is no such thing as bad publicity! The thing about posters such as these, regardless of message, is that they are a very good viral marketing tools and once one goes up others feel, if they agree with the message, that they want to show their support - especially when people think that they are not being heard or listened to. I have been very pleasantly surprised by how many people are displaying the poster, it really is starting to show the numbers of people who oppose the closures and I very much suspect many of the advocates for the LTNs really don't like it and are focusing on the use of the phrase as an attempt to attack the group behind the message and the message they are delivering. The council failed to deliver information on the review to the majority of Dulwich residents but DA and the other groups are doing an amazing job to drum up awareness and support despite the best efforts of the council! The review is going to be fascinating.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shame to see Pickwick Estates doubled down and > underlined the tone deaf slogan > > https://twitter.com/unceyj/status/1392753883370360 > 833?s=21 But Northern - please see above. They didn't underline the message did they?

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure that anyone putting up a tone deaf poster > is 'deserving of an apology', rather they should > have a think about whether it was good judgement > to put it up in the first place. > > It is possible to support a campaign and yet still > exercise some judgement as has been stated > previously. No, you're missing the point. Bels123 made an accusation against Pickwick Estates, a well established local company, that was wrong in relation to "doubling down and underlining the tone-deaf message". Surely that requires some sort of apology or retraction as it was completely inaccurate? We have seen many on the pro-LTN side attack local businesses, lobbying for boycotts etc, so I am sure Bels123 would want to put the record straight on that error.

Bels1233 - That's all well and good but I think you owe Pickwick an apology because it is clear they did not "double-down and underline the tone-deaf message" as you claimed in your post.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shame to see Pickwick Estates doubled down and > underlined the tone deaf slogan > > https://twitter.com/unceyj/status/1392753883370360 > 833?s=21 Bels123 - did you check whether that underlining was done by Pickwick or the person who posted the picture to draw attention to it? Take a walk past Pickwick to check for yourself - whilst you're there, I am sure you will want to pop in and apologise to them for your post because there is no yellow underlining on the poster in their window.......;-)

DKHB - to be fair the same accusation of being "self-centred twonks who don't consider the impact of their actions on others" could be levelled at supporters of the LTNs! #justsayin The bottom line is that lots of posters are appearing all over Dulwich and it is a very visual reminder that it is, much to the annoyance of some, anything but a small vocal minority who oppose these measures. The council ought to be taking note......

Thanks DKHB??you just illustrated my point perfectly???.by default then are you suggesting Labour MP Rupa Huq is a white supremacist?

Genuine question: was there a backlash when Labour MP Rupa Huq used the phrase during her LTN presentation to a government minister in Westminster a few weeks ago which, in their apology, the Dulwich Alliance has cited as their inspiration for the use of the phrase? You can do a google search for Rupa Huq LTNs and see the speech where she says it. Whether the Dulwich Alliance were right or wrong to use the phrase is a debate that could rage forever but the important thing is that they have apologised and changed the poster - its the type of contrition and openness to correct a wrong that some of us would love to see from the council in relation to LTNs!

Siduhe - a great post - I think a lot of people feel the same way. I also thought it was interesting what Cllr McAsh said - it would be interesting if he shared more on where he thinks the measures may need improving - but it is an interesting change in tone - from an agnostic position/very much supportive to one of admitting that it need amending. I wonder if the council are seeing the monitoring data starting to come through and it is, indeed, showing what many of us have been saying about displacement for a long time. I very much suspect that the review will focus the council's mind on the need for changes and action - as I sense that a lot of people are going to use the review to finally be heard (or at least try to be heard through the official channel now given by the council).

Does anyone know why a no through road (except cycles) sign has gone up on Goodrich as you head up just before you get to the school?

Legal - I think something has to be done to relieve the throttling of east west routes across Dulwich so they have to look at the Court Lane DV junction and reopen some part of it (I had heard the council was exploring some one-way element). I think they will also have to remove the restrictions through Dulwich Village and Burbage. Melbourne Grove and Townley will probably end up staying in place.