Rockets

The LTNs are doing what many of us feared they would, creating a car free nirvana in some areas whilst creating car hell around it. The traffic on the A205, Croxted Road, East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane, Underhill Road is awful, especially since the most recent lockdown lifting, and I very much suspect that the change in narrative from some councillors about some roads being built to handle more traffic is a clear sign of the way they are going to try and justify the hell they are creating for the large majority of their constituents......

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Upcoming cycle hangars and various double yellow > lines etc > > https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3771087 Ah the usual double-yellow line extension pre-cursor to a CPZ review is in play (squeeze the parking spaces to try and create parking stress to get people to vote for a CPZ): (n) add new or extends existing lengths of DYL 2m (unless otherwise stated) in ATHENLAY ROAD, BELLWOOD ROAD, BORLAND ROAD, DUNSTANS ROAD (3m), ELCOT AVENUE, FELLBRIGG ROAD (4.5m), FRIERN ROAD, GOODRICH ROAD, GROSVENOR PARK (1.5m), IVYDALE ROAD, KELLY AVENUE, MELBOURNE GROVE, OVERHILL ROAD, SHENLEY ROAD and in three locations on UPLAND ROAD;

Malumbu - I hope you aren?t feeling left out - rest assured if I see something you say that I think is spot on I will let you know. I have not seen anything yet but keep going...don?t lose heart! ;-)

But 22,500 drivers have not missed a two 20mph signs in a 6 week period. You have to admit that those numbers suggest that something isn't working.

What is more shocking to me is the fact that the LTN debacle is happening under Labour's watch - they seem to have lost leave of their senses and are behaving more like Tories with their head in the sand approach. It demonstrates to me how far they have become separated from the voters and they are seemingly repeating the same mistakes at a local level that led us to have to live under this Tory government for another 4 years - putting far-left ideology and party politics ahead of listening to what voters are saying to them.

Bicknell - you are spot on. The council is playing a numbers game and trying to drum up as much positive support for the LTNs as possible (often from outside the area) whilst at the same time making a shambles of delivering leaflets to households who live within the area that are living with the displacement caused by the LTNs. They must know that in a fair fight they lose. They are probably terrified of the review heading in the same direction as the 68% of residents who opposed the CPZ and know full well they would struggle to justify keeping the LTNs if a similar result was seen this time. They probably also know from the data they are seeing from the roads that displacement and increased congestion and pollution is happening and so they need to have an overwhelming number of people supporting LTNs to have a chance of keeping them. They are doing their utmost to try an skew the results in their favour.

Cllr McAsh, Nor do I think the Tory approach to ripping out LTNs and bike lanes is the right approach. But then again nor do I think the Labour approach in Southwark to LTNs and the amateurish way they have been implemented and the self-serving way you refuse to acknowledge the obvious flaws in the implementation is the right approach. You're both as bad as each other, putting party politics and political ideology ahead of properly addressing the issues. Maybe one party will take their head out of the sand and come up with a plan that actually delivers. Despite your claims that 18,000 leaflets have been delivered it is quite shocking how few people have actually received them - if seems the distribution has been, perhaps, deliberately flawed, And I understand that the council is now claiming the lack of and flaws in distribution cannot be rectified due to the rules of campaigning ahead of the Mayoral election. How convenient. Perhaps you could confirm which streets were on the distribution list and are supposed to have received the leaflets. I have heard that, bar Underhill Road, no-one east of Lordship Lane received them. Why? Your council is very deliberately trying to influence the outcome of the review by trying to gerrymander and restrict awareness. Either that or the council is utterly incompetent and incapable of executing an area-wide leaflet drop. The fact both Pro and anti-LTN groups are having to fund leaflet drops to draw attention to the review speaks volumes. It is reflective of an electorate having to take matters into their own hands due to the council's failings. And that should be ringing alarm bells within the council.

Interesting to see Dulwich Square coalition discussing emergency vehicle access - is this an admission maybe that there is a problem with no emergency vehicle access? And on the subject of fines (this may have been posted previously) but did anyone see the headline on Southwark news: https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/exclusive-southwark-council-rakes-in-2-5-million-from-four-ltn-cameras-in-dulwich-and-walworth-in-first-three-months-of-issuing-fines/ 22.500 fines totally ?2.5m in just over 6 weeks - how wonderfully socialist of our "socialist" council. One hopes the council may be forced into action over their pathetic efforts (pathetic in terms of execution not money generation I hasten to add) with the cameras in Dulwich and Walworth. It makes you wonder whether the council might need some external intervention to right their sinking ship - Cllr Williams seems to have lost control of his councillors - does anyone have any confidence left in their abilities to lead and deliver on behalf of their constituents?

They have to do a better job of communicating with everyone on this. We are all aware of the review but many people have no clue it is going on and so will not have an opportunity to give their input. I suspect the council is more than happy with this as they know this is going to become a numbers game and if the weight of public opinion is against them then it becomes more and more difficult to justify. It's clear that everyone who lives on one of the roads on the pulldown menus (but remember the fight many of us had to put up to have our roads added) should also receive the leaflet as a matter of course.

It speaks volumes that the Dulwich Alliance is having to do the council's job for them and distribute leaflets - I am still hearing from a lot of people across the area who have not yet seen anything from the council - it's almost as if they are trying to keep the review under the radar!!!!

snowy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Snowy - they also publish the Cyclist magazine > - > > you forgot that one!!! ;-) > > > > And Viz and a load of PC mags - so they aren't > > just a petrolhead publishing house!!!! > > Straight in with a classic bit of whatabouttery! Snowy your list had a distinct element of confirmation bias to it so for balance I added some of the titles you had missed!!!! ;-) #whataboutteryindeed!

Snowy - they also publish the Cyclist magazine - you forgot that one!!! ;-) And Viz and a load of PC mags - so they aren't just a petrolhead publishing house!!!!

I saw the bin team on our street doing exactly the same thing this week - at each house they emptied the caddy contents into the big brown bin before taking the big brown bin to the bin lorry.

Otto2 don't you agree that research published by someone who was a trustee of the London Cycling Campaign, supporting a narrative and viewpoint socialized by said LCC, somewhat negates the impartiality of that research? It's more than a conflict of interest and adds real weight to the suggestion that it is part of the cycling/pro-LTN propaganda machine? Do you have anything to suggest this is not the case?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Between 2012 and 2018 Prof Aldred was an elected > trustee of the London Cycling Campaign and on the > research paper they cite their (her) conflict of > interest as being funded (i.e. paid by) active > travel intervention bodies. She is committed and I > have a lot of respect for her, but we all need to > be aware of confirmation bias in any research. The > same collected raw data has been re-analysed by > other authors, which point to the negatives of > LTNs on residents living on boundary roads, shown > to have a higher density population and are areas > that are impacted by inequality. Spot on! As an ex-trustee of the LCC that is most definitely a major conflict of interest, yet when quoting Aldred's research the Guardian seems to repeatedly ommit that key point. As I said before - all part of the cycling propaganda machine and important to view all research from that group in that light.

snowy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ffs. It says it on the web page of the report. Snowy- your first post said it the funding info was on the first page of the report and you then edited it to say it is on the web page of the report. Who funded it as I could not find the funding info on the report itself but it sounds from your post that it was not on the actual report but the web page the report was hosted on. Do you have the link to the web page where the funding source is quoted?

Malumbu - I do know how paid research works - it appears you do not. And I always find the most sanguine approach is to determine who funded said research before reading as it gives you a very good idea on the likely conclusions the report will arrive at. Which brings us back to my opening gambit - does anyone know who funded the Aldred research?

Apparently from May 7 councils are being expected to start meeting in person (certainly to hold council meetings in person). Cllr McAsh mentioned it on twitter a week or so ago in relation to the govt forcing councils to do so - it may not be long now before the council and councillors will be expected to start meeting their constituents again. https://twitter.com/mcash/status/1375220703994204165?s=19

Otto2 - no I said her research is being used as part of the pro-LTN propaganda machine. Just out of interest, who do you think funds her group's research? The first thing anyone should do when presented with research is try to ascertain who funded it.

It's hardly an attack on character but an attack on activist research being presented as balanced and impartial. Aldred,Monk, Walker, Boardman are all part of the cycle propaganda machine - there is nothing wrong with that but their output should be treated and viewed as such.

No but I take activist research with a large pinch of salt and that's what Aldred is - an activist researcher. And it gets presented by other activists like Peter Walker at the Guardian as some sort of impartial research. It is clearly anything but: far more subjective rather than objective. The fact the last round of research published in the Guardian was not caveated that it had yet to be peer+reviewed speaks volumes. Also no one from the Guardian ever feels compelled to either ask or publish who paid for the research.....probably because the name of that group or organisation would be of so familiar and part of the cycling propaganda machine. I would read what legal discovered...it's all very revealing on the tactics being employed by the likes of LCC to meet their objectives.

Has the piece of work that Aldred et al grabbed recent headlines in The Guardian had the peer review completed yet? It's pretty clear to me that Aldred et al have a very cosy relationship with the pro-closure lobby groups and other vested-interest groups like LCC- the materials legal uncovered are pretty compelling in that regard.

Funny how the focus is heavily on cars when gas boilers are thought to be responsible for up to 14% of all emissions. In cities gas boilers are the biggest producer of nitrogen dioxide.

But at what cost - is what is happening on the displacement roads worth it or should we all just consider this as collateral damage for a few quiet roads? If all roads became quieter it would be justified but they are clearly not and one roads' gain is another roads' loss and that is not equitable. I am sure you will all agree with that too. It was clear from the outset that there were going to be massive knock-on effects of these closures and the council had no idea what problem they were trying to solve (and what was causing it) and put measures in that have backfired extra-ordinarily. I do often think about how many of these councillors would be reacting to these closures should this have been implemented by a different party in leadership - I suspect they would be standing with those of us who think the measures are totally unfit for purpose.

But Cllr McAsh - we don't care about the distribution of wealth on mains roads across inner London we care about the distribution of wealth on the roads your council's measures are diverting traffic from and to. How do the stats weigh when comparing Court Lane or Melbourne Grove to East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane? That's what you should be focussing on. I find it incredibly disingenuous when you quote stats from across inner and outer London to desperately try to prove a point when your focus should be what is happening in your own back yard. It is clear your measures are displacing traffic from some of the wealthiest roads in the area to some of the least wealthy. Have you listened to the testimony of Felicia from the Lordship Lane estate given during the Dulwich Hill LTN meeting - if you haven't I suggest you should? She is living with the direct consequences of your actions and there are many more like her. That is not equitable. You know, I know it, the council knows it but you are desperately trying to cling on to your badly designed, ill thought out socially unjust LTN closures. Will any councillor stand up for what is right?