Rockets

Where have we seen this before....I do wonder if this has sent shivers through other councils who may worry they also have unlawful LTNs.....could this be a watershed moment and councils will finally start being forced to listen to constituents....#lookingatyousouthwark The WDAG spokesperson added: "This ruling sends a clear signal to all councils nationwide: communities will no longer tolerate top-down, poorly conceived schemes that ignore local input, which prioritise revenue over real solutions to issues like pollution. A WDAG spokesperson said: "We are delighted with today's ruling, which clearly demonstrates that Lambeth Council failed to fully consider the impacts and effects of the LTN on local residents and businesses. "Lambeth Council chose to spend public funds fighting the very community it exists to serve, rather than sitting down with us to find a workable, locally supported solution. "Meanwhile, over 700 residents and businesses had no choice but to raise more than £50,000 just to have their voices heard."

BBC News - West Dulwich low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) unlawful, High Court rules - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg4178plvdo

By default anyone who leaves a Glastonbury (parking) sticker in their vehicle window should have it removed and crushed! There are some cars around our way that have a plethora of them in their window - clearly keen to let everyone know how frequently they go!

So Ex- by your reckoning the sweet spot for works is June and July then? One wonders then why so much of the non-essential works always seems to happen at the same time in March.... When did the Dulwich Square works commence......they finished in November/December didn't they? Ahem.....

I think the issue is that Dulwich Square has probably had more council money spent on it than any other equivalent sized-area in the borough - the £ per square foot of tax-payer's money buried within it must be astronomical so people do have a keen interested in what happens there. There clearly will be disruption caused by the building of the new house in the garden so let's see and hope that it is kept to a minimum - the council has a lot of ROI to generate from that space.... 😉

Maybe it is but if it gets approved let's see if anyone has any issues with the disruption it could well cause.....watch this space....

Malumbu......err sorry - it was a legitimate question. You use the Square don't you - surely there will be disruption - the entrance to the building works will be beyond the threshold of the road narrowing and very close to the cycle parking? Not sure how you have managed to take that and link it to Reform - I can't imagine even they would run on a ticket based on the outrage caused by the building of an additional house in the garden of a house adjacent to Dulwich Square 😉 Apparently the application was rejected once and some of the neighbours are not at all happy about it.

Do you not think it is going to cause some challenges given the building works are taking place in the garden of the property and I presume access for the works will be through the back gate that is adjacent to the Calton Ave entrance to Dulwich Square which will probably lead to builders vans and unloading vehicles being parked nearby?

Ex- come on, you know what essential works are - if a water main bursts or the gas/electricity supply is cut - you need to get in there and fix it immediately to reconnect supply/repair the damage. Three lots of changes to the pavement layout are not "essential" and should never have been scheduled to happen at the same time cutting 3 of 4 arterial routes into and out of Dulwich. Surely you be pragmatic enough to agree with that? The timing of having all 3 at once was a disaster and responsibility for that lies with the council and I still believe two of them happened as the council needed to spend surplus as the end of the year.

Ex- I am challenging you as you are suggesting it is a myth that the council ramps works at the end of the financial year to spend any surplus and you claim it is actually because of the weather....but I am still trying to determine why so many non-essential works (like the DV, Melbourne Grove and A205 works) all seem to have started around the same time in March - hardly the most predictable time in terms of weather. I was not putting words into your mouth but posing a question...

Are any of the Dulwich Square supporters concerned that the plans for a two-bedroom dwelling (in I presume the garden of) at 1B Court Lane might lead to significant disruption during the building works?

But they need to do all of them at the same time around the close of the financial year cos MArch and April are always such dry months 😉 - what's the catalyst for that then? So are you confirming then that if there is a surplus is can be spent any time after the close of the financial year for the council?

But surely some council bright spark could have worked out that putting temporary lights and contra flow on three of the four arterial routes in and out of an area probably wasn't the smartest decision and would create significant congestion. Ex- how much of that was likely driven by the need to spend the council road budget surplus around fiscal year end? Is there a date where end of year budget works have to commence?

Stop being faceatious. Clearly a burst water main (of which there have already been many, some of which led to the closure of the A205) is more essential than the removal of a pedestrian refuge to facilitate an advanced cycle lane box...or do you think they are equally important?

No just trying to determine who is accountable for this mess....the person who is signing them all off to happen at the same time....I know how much our council loves accountability it's like councillor kryptonite...;-) I love the fact you cited the usual "go to" of "find another route/way" and I love you cited a trip to central London. Of course we all have multiple options to get in and out of central London and those pesky PTAL scores are brilliant in central London so we can pick and chose. I doubt there are many people driving from Dulwich to central London (unless they are doing so as part of their job). The challenge I think many of us Dulwich residents feel is that, for example, during the A205 or Dulwich Village works, there is clearly no easy alternative mode/route because each day the congestion was a bad as the previous day. Whilst those on the pro-active travel lobby, like your good self, will always say, as you just did, there is always another way sometimes reality dictates there is not - the further you get out of London the more reliant people become on cars and I would suggest those using the A205 are traversing east to west and vice versa rather than north to south and vice versa. The council has admitted that east west routes are limited. Throw in the plethora of LTNs around the surrounds of the A205 and you can see why problems occur. I think the council do actively turn a blind eye to congestion as they have convinced themselves it is a weapon from the nudge toolkit. One suspects if they were properly monitoring pollution levels they would be encouraging the works to be done more quickly or at times of least disruption because they would be held accountable for any increases. The fact you have leant so heavily on the "find another way" narrative leads me to believe I am on to something. If this is the thinking of other active travel planners and lobbyists then you can see why many could be led to believe that such works are welcomed to try and make journeys intolerable for vehicle users. Please also do not overlook the impact of this on public transport. As I said previously exam weeks start next week and a lot of schools in the area are massively concerned by disruption to pupils travelling on public transport that these works (especially the A205) are creating. But clearly the council aren't too concerned.

Very poor management. I thought it was incredibly short-sighted/incompetent for Southwark to let the A205, Dulwich Village/Red Post Hill and Melbourne Grove non-essential works to all take place at the same time. It's almost as if they like the disruption, congestion and increased pollution that comes with it. Perhaps they are happy that those on the Peckham Rye side of Dulwich now get their fair share of works-induced traffic hell...... Who is responsible for this within the council?

That's a lot of temporary lights going in. More traffic chaos around Dulwich....will it ever end?

It does seem to be the go-to position for many on this issue; if someone doesn't dare agree with your particular view of the world then accuse them of being a facist...it always seems to get played when people are losing an argument...even Sadiq Khan has pulled from this ludicrous playbook at times....

No one is arguing that there are not benefits to cycling, of course there are. But what you are doing here is exactly what every cycle lobbyist does when someone points out that there are significant issues with cycling and some cyclists, which is: 1) say well we dont kill/injure as many people as cars 2) say the problems are not cyclists but e-bike/Lime bike users 3) say everything about cycling is brilliant there are no downsides 4) say we must do nothing that could hinder cycling growth 5) say there is a war being waged on us and we have had nothing to do with it - it's the awful drivers that are the problem! Look at Cycling UK's response to the perfectly sensible suggestion of a change in the law to police the very worst cyclists: Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK said while the charity supports "a proportionate and evidence-based approach" to updating the law, "it's crucial that any legislative changes do not discourage people from cycling, particularly at a time when promoting active and sustainable travel is vital for our health, environment, and economy". Read any article by the usual cycling activist media and you can play cycle bingo and tick off each of the points in every article. Never once will they acknowledge any sort of issue. I would argue that a couple of the biggest hurdles to.cycling growth right now are: 1) cycling's negative perception and 2) bad cycling. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that's not the case is helping no-one. The cycle lobby needs to change tack quickly before it's too late.

Trying to pigeon-hole the dislike of cyclists to a "noisy minority" is myopic. The problem goes far wider than that and I often find that cyclists are disliked/despised by anyone who isn't a cyclist. And that speaks volumes. And your comment on cyclists as a homogeneous group is again highlighting one of the problems. People don't segmentise different groups of cyclists, if they're on two wheels they are a cyclist. Peter tries to aportion part of the blame onto e-bikes and he has a point but the general public still buckets them as cyclists. Until such time as many of the most vocal cycle lobbyists start looking inwardly about the problems cyclists are causing then there will never be any progress. Accountability is key and at the moment there is none; it's everyone else's fault.

Yes, the very forum I suspect to which he refers to here (good to know he checks it regularly to check no-one has libelled him! ;-)) My local area has a thriving community website mainly based around things such as recommendations for plumbers and restaurants, or people selling sofas. But every now and then I feel the need to scan its pages to make sure a near-neighbour hasn’t libelled me. Why? Cycling, of course. It's an interesting article in that it apportions blame onto everyone other than cyclists...even suggesting that bad cyclists are just bad drivers on bikes. Perhaps when the likes of Peter Walker and Jeremy Vine take a long hard look at their role in creating the culture-war then there can be progress in addressing it. Cyclists have a perception problem and until we look inwardly to address some of the problems that are of our own creating then no progress will ever be made and we will remain one of the msot despised groups. Blaming everyone else is not going to address the root cause of the problem. The majority of the problems are of our own making.

Are you saying that holding cyclists to account is the nuclear option and we presume you dont support this move by the government? And are you really suggesting that cyclists should not be policed but that time should be taken to "understand" why they cycle like that? Is there any other example where an approach of "understanding" is applied in a similar circumstance or do you just want cyclists to be excluded from any sort of regulation? To be fair it's this type of cycle-myopic approach which means I suspect there will be more stringent policing of cyclists - way too many think they sit outside of the law and the rules of the road do not apply to them. I do wonder whether the contagin effect is at play here - the red light jumper research I found suggested that was a big risk and there does seem to be a big problem now with it - bad cycling is contagious but at least when this law gets passed then bad cycling will be punished accordingly. Given the fact that the existing law was drawn-up in the late 1800s for horse-drawn carriages it is about time it was grought into the modern era.

Therein lies the point. If you now dont stop at a red light and do seriously harm someone in the process you will face serious consequences for your actions something you would not have done previously. Oh I do, whilst others are seemingly struggling with the notion of accountability, which is actually the point here. Ride or drive dangerously and kill or injure someone in the process then expect to have the full weight of the law thrown at you. As much as you might fight and scream against it if this is passed then it is a step in the right direction to making the roads and pavements safer for everyone and I very much suspect the beginning of tighter enforcement and policing of cyclists. Dangerous cycling is clearly a growing problem that the government and local authorities will have to deal with.

Mal, your use of the cow analogy really demonstrates the problem here. Cows dont make conscious decisions to behave in a way that might endanger humans and no cow has ever been charged with an offence against a human. Other humans on bikes can make concious decisions that can harm other humans. And this is what this is about: holding cyclists accountable for their actions. You cite your experience of Hyde Park yet in Regent's Park a pedestrian was killed by a cyclist doing a speed over 25mph yet his defence was "I cannot be held responsible because the speed limit does not apply to cyclists". And he got off because of exactly that. Now he wouldn't be able to play that hand and anyone who has any modicum of interest in road saftey would agree that holding cyclists accountable for their actions is as important as holding every other road user accountable for theirs. You may not agree with it but this is incredibly important as those who are injured, maimed or killed by cyclists cycling dangerously will be able to get some form of justice and it may just make some cyclists think twice about cycling irresponsibly. And i suspect this will be the tip of the iceberg and we will, finally, see authorities taking bad cycling seriously. Not before time.

Malumbu, nudge tactics are talked about quite openly amongst the council and active travel lobby as a tool in their armoury. This thread is not now about victimised motorists but about the massive increases in congestion and pollution being caused by ill thought out and badly planned non-essential works taking place over incredibly long periods all at the same time. As someone so concerned about pollution surely you can acknowledge that what is going on across Dulwich (and beyond) at the moment with regular queues of traffic trying to negotiate these roadworks is not a good thing.