Rockets

Earl, Overhill junction not Underhill...you've used a picture from the Underhill junction. That's the TFL one at the junction of which probably explains why the bus lane finishes 4 car lengths or 20 metres ahead of the junction. Now compare it to the one at the council revenue trap at the Overhill junction....you see the difference? Two junctions 100 metres apart but two very different intentions from the authorities managing them...one is road management the other revenue generation. P.S. thanks for helping illustrating my point for me!

But you have to agree that the powers given to local authorities to issue PCNs for things like bus lane and yellow box infringements does seem to be being abused so they can generate more revenue from drivers. Does it not? Is it not slightly odd that TFL rules say one thing and Southwark rules say another…..100 metres further up the road and TFL rules apply….how on earth are motorists supposed to know whose rules apply and at what point….it’s utter madness….like the yellow line rules which always were easy to understand until local authorities were allowed to determine their own rules. Such high revenue generating traps are clearly being laid to catch unsuspecting motorists and using them for revenue generation to fund vanity projects like Dulwich Square. The positioning of the camera at that junction suggests the council knows exactly what it is doing and has designed it to catch people turning left onto Overhill. it is utterly shameful and someone really needs to be held to account. The fact that TFL gives some limited leeway for those turning left across a bus lane and the council doesn’t speaks volumes - just 100 metres up the road different rules apply….

Malumbu, when you drove in a bus lane were you 20 metres or four car lengths from the end of the bus lane and turning left into a junction off the bus lane? If so TFL would rescind any fine as they would deem that OK as you were turning left. Southwark Council says it is not OK and if you touch the line you get a fine. Why do you think that might be?

No Malumbu, a thread highlighting how Southwark council makes it's own rules in the pursuit of generating revenue from motorists and ignores the guidance set by the authority responsible for roads in London - namely TFL. Why do you think Southwark does that? I will tell you why, because I know you will never answer, because they do it to maximise the revenue generated by such cameras. Southwark Council is laying traps to generate revenue from drivers. In fact, they are entrapping drivers in their pursuit of revenue generation. It was this sort of behaviour that people were concerned about when the power to police was handed over to local authorities- that they would abuse the power they had been given and it is quite clear they are doing exactly that. Happy to discuss but I have a sneaky feeling you won't want to....

I refer my good friend to the bus lane camera thread in the other section for how the council set/bend rules to ensure maximum revenue generation. They may also recall the original placement of the signs on the entrance to Burbage making it impossible for drivers to see them as they approached from Gallery Road and the "errors" that led to signs being placed along Townley with the wrong operating times on them. But, as one of the lobbyists for these measures, perhaps you can tell us why times closures were necessary in Dulwich Village...what purpose/agenda were they serving? Here's what I think. The council knew there was going to be massive displacement of traffic from the DV LTN, as did the Village LTN lobbyists who helped them get it in place, and it was the quid pro quo to appease the council supporters.

Please do share...because for many of us who live here it remains an utter mystery..

Can anyone provide a reasonable rational for these restrictions being in place in DV at all....it seems utterly bizarre...and, I suspect, done to satiate the various lobby groups based in Dulwich Village?

They are designed with revenue generation in mind. If they confuse and that leads to more PCNs being issued then the council is happy as they then have more money to invest in, amongst other things, LTNs. I am amazed that there isn't an authority providing some oversight on the design of these things but since councils got the power to police these things they have been more than happy to set and bend the rules.

Hmmm, hold your horses Earl and Ex- I did some fact checking for you and according to Southwark’s latest Parking Report of the £17m surplus made from CPZ parking costs, PCNs etc over £2m of that was used to fund “LTN costs”, which throws your statement into some considerable doubt.

Absolutely. Clearly the council has laid a revenue-generating trap and I bet it is raking it in. The ludicrous thing is that if you did the same at the junction of Underhill 100 metres further up the road TFL would not have a problem with that. How are drivers supposed to know when there is no consistency? How can councils be allowed to set their own rules, over-zealously police it to levels not matched by TFL and not then admit it is about targetting drivers for revenue-generation?

🙂 Other interpretations may exist...

...so thought it might be interesting to post it here....#donshardhat.... https://www.londoncentric.media/p/london-transport-explained-in-nine-graphs-and-charts 9. Cycling is more popular after the pandemic but is still a niche form of transport. Cycling boomed in the pandemic, aided by the rush to invest in bike lanes and low-traffic neighbourhoods, which has pushed the number of bike journeys up by a quarter to 1.33 million journeys per day. Yet the overall picture is more mixed. Cycling remains a fairly niche way of getting around the capital compared to buses and the tube, while previous TfL research has shown it’s a mode of transport largely used by teenagers (who are short on cash and can’t legally drive) or older, richer, white men. Shaking the perception that it’s for those two demographic groups — potentially by embracing the ability of rental e-bikes such as Lime and Forest to entice new demographics into cycling — will be key to moving the dial.

Which are part of the council's stated approach on LTNs - they are intertwined...:-)

No it scores poorly because transport links are poor. As Bicknell rightly points out you'll struggle to find any reference to housing density in council reports about PTAL scores in Dulwich. In the 2018 Trnasport report for Dulwich the council cited poor PTAL scores for, in part, high car ownership. The council then stated that interventions should only happen in areas with high PTAL scores. Dulwich got interventions yet has poor PTAL scores. Why? Maybe because of the misleading lobbying folks like you did. There is clearly no clear case for them, per the council, in Dulwich Village.

....it's pinging anyone who even puts one wheel inside the bus lane as they turn left onto Overhill. TFL guidance is that they give you 20 metres or four car lengths grace if turning left into a junction across a bus lane but Southwark are not using that and issuing fines for the slightest infraction. Southwark's manta seems to be....If You Touch The Line You Get A Fine and a lot of people are falling foul of it as the gap from the solid bus lane line and the hash marks for the pedestrian crossing is really small (interesting that Southwark did not put a broken line ahead of the junction which some are suggesting is deliberate to create a revenue-generating fine hot-spot).

The council initially made changes to the junction that increased congestion and pollution (data from their own report back in 2017, I believe) There was an OHS consultation and the council failed to get enough local support to roll out new measures. These were in the days when they felt they had to respect local consultation feedback. Covid struck and the council saw the opportunity to make changes under emergency Covid rules (without the need for a consultation) - remember the closure was rolled out on the basis of "social distancing". They then partnered with an emboldened and empowered active-travel/cycle lobby/activist groups to fast-track their changes through ignoring the views of the majority of local residents. Of course I am sure some of the usual suspects will challenge this version of events but that's certainly an accurate summation of the timeline of events from someone who was paying close attention since pre-OHS days.

No, a common response when Rockets presents evidence that some steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. And a response Rockets uses when they refuse to get dragged into the usual death-spiral argument. I have made my point (very conclusively with evidence) to counter the position taken by others. Said others refuse to acknowledge the evidence. That's fine, that's their prerogative and I have been posting long enough on this forum to know that some will never change their behaviour and the denial approach is an often-used tactic. The problem is, as much as some would like, you can't rewrite history - it's there in black and white. Here's how these discussions go: - I say the council said something - Someone says no they didn't - I post evidence that shows the council did say it - People say no that's not right and then try to construct some ludicrous argument to take the discussion in a different direction. - Repeat ad nauseum Dulville, one presumes you are a resident of Dulwich Village, just tell me which parts of Dulwich Village have a high PTAL........ 🙂

Oh well Earl, we'll agree to disagree then! It's pretty clear what the council said and, as I said previously, they also cited the north of the borough in other documents. If you refuse to believe it thats up to you but the words written by the council in the document i posted are pretty clear and definitive. 🙂

Latest OneDulwich update. One Dulwich Campaign Update | 22 Dec Legal cases against London LTNs On 17 December, the High Court ruled in favour of Tower Hamlets Council after a legal challenge over its decision to remove three LTNs. (The Mayor’s statement highlights concerns about traffic displacement, delays to bus services and the impact on the emergency services and those with disabilities.) Meanwhile, in south London, West Dulwich Action Group in Lambeth are expecting to hear the date of their judicial review in January, as are Open Our Roads, who are challenging Croydon Council for introducing LTNs as a revenue-raising exercise. One Dulwich is in touch with both campaign groups. Dulwich Village junction re-design Although the redesign of the Dulwich Village junction has been completed, the concrete road block on Court Lane has still not been removed to allow emergency vehicles through. We have asked the Council to explain why. We have also asked why Blue Badge parking spaces have been moved much farther away from the shops, and why the Council has still not introduced signage, road markings or a speed limit to prevent collisions between cyclists and pedestrians. Separately, we have been advised in writing that the missing road sign for Court Lane will shortly be attached to the new lamppost outside 1 Court Lane. We send you our best wishes for the festive period, and our thanks for all your support in 2024 ENDS... Perhaps pro-LTN cheerleader in chief Jon Burke maybe sheds some light on why Southwark Council are so reluctant to allow emergency vehicle access at the DV junction....or is it just a case of too soon Jon....honestly....how rabidly blinkered do you have to be to post something like that?

🙂 #alwaysreadallthedocument

🙂 Pretty clear from the council and not at all embarrassing.....looks like some selective editing going on again by some... ..click the link to read for yourself.

It's like an episode of Scooby Doo...."darn it those pesky PTALs and council documents..." 😉 It's actually amazing how much of the pro-active travel lobby narrative is massively undermined by things previously published by the council...thank goodness for facts, historical council documents and good memories hey! #thethruthhurts

Ahem....see a few pages back.. this in relation to LTNs. My response is one of someone who made thier point very clear so doesn't feel the need to explain anything #oncebittentwiceshy 🙂

🙂

Which is an intervention is it not? Are CPZs not an intervention? Are they different because the council's narrative during the last CPZ consultation when they clumsily tried to convince people these were climate crisis interventions certainly made them one..... I think it is hilarious that the council desperately tries to create narratives to help justify what they want and yet it actually trips them, and their supporters, up because it often utterly contradicts what they have said before. History can be difficult when you try to manipulate an argument... It's most often the words of yesterday that do most harm to politicians....