Rockets

Ah and that is the budget that is swelled by the LTN fine bonanza I presume?

In a recent article on whether the council were prioritising gritting for some road users over others Cllr Rose said: “Regrettably after more than a decade of cuts to council funding we’re unable to grit as many roads and pavements as we'd like to, but we do provide salt bins so residents can clear their own streets.” Does anyone know, where the funding for gritting comes from because I would have presumed it was from the council's roads budget which is being massively topped up by the LTN fine revenue?

Clean Air Dulwich making another run on the tone-deaf award of the year. Lordship Lane businesses have been massively impacted by the LTNs (that CAD lobbied for) and now they want to turn what's left of free parking for the shops into bus lanes.... Someone ought to remind them that it was the LTNs that they so love are what is the major cause of public transport delays throughout the capital..... Not sure what planet this group lives on but it is certainly not one that is supportive of the fragile Lordship Lane shop ecosystem ...perhaps they want to see more Joe the Juices replacing independent shops that thrive on the Lane being a destination shopping location...

Labour went out of their way to avoid mentioning LTNs in their campaigning during the local elections so utterly disingenuous for Cllr Williams to suggest the election was won on the subject. Revisionism politics at it's finest, I will give him that!

Cllr Williams was bang out of order for what he said at the beginning - wholly unprofessional but what do we expect from our councillors - everyone knows they were the Tory candidates but it's almost as if Cllr Williams wanted to pre-load the answers and discussion with "but you're Tories" when they made it clear they are residents? Anyone who needs to get a dig in early like that knows that they don't have a rational argument to counter and it is actually shocking that Cllr Williams felt it necessary to take it down that path (although I actually think the two Tory candidates should have had one less of them and one of the resident association leads instead so Cllr Williams couldn't play his card). But both of them make very clear and rational arguments that deserved a response from the councillors. Instead we got Cllr Rose not appearing completely convinced in the stats she regurgitated as she filibuster'd from her prepared comments...and her "mansplaining" moment is just embarrassing and very cringe-worthy - her body language is so aggressive - the banging the table beforehand (but given what happened with TFL this seems to be the go-to place for councillors when faced with people who don't agree with them or oppose their view of the world - shout, scream and make accusations to try to unsettle their opponent). The council may not be on the ropes but they are heading towards them in regard to Dulwich Village closures and you can see why they continue to hide and not engage residents in regard to these matters - they are terrified of facing residents with a view that is opposite to theirs because they have no answers - it's why neither Newens nor Leeming bothered to attend the RA meeting - again they felt, as Cllr Williams did, the need to attack the motives instead of having the conviction and guts to attend and engage. Shameful, cowardly and politically weak behaviour and it will catch-up with them all eventually because it is clear they can't make this issue go away.

Can't help but ponder whether the Turney Road closures might be part of the war the councillors are waging with TFL - those closures came completely out of the blue, seemingly at the behest of no-one, so I wonder what the catalyst was and whether it is the councillors trying to assert their authority?

Yes the fact that Will Norman stepped in to try and get the council/councillors to stop upsetting TFL staff and now Dale talks about the councillors still "wanting blood" is a very worrying sign. It suggests that the disfunction caused by the toxicity between council/councillors and TFL is still very much there and, ultimately, it is us who suffer when two public bodies fall out so spectacularly as it hinders their ability to deliver programmes. I wonder if more will be uncovered in the coming weeks in relation to the 10-tonne block - could be a goldmine of info waiting for an FOI if parts of the council thought it was the wrong thing to do. Does anyone ever hear from our local councillors any more - have they provided any commentary on any of this?

It is a really difficult one isn't it? Firstly the person should not have parked their car there and should not have harassed the person taking the picture. But, taking a picture of someone's car is suspicious in itself no matter how you plan to use it - unless you are a police officer or parking attendant - and if you are caught you may incur the wrath of the person whose vehicle you are recording - because they have no idea who you are or for what purpose you are taking the photos of their car. Naturally they will likely jump to the (at best) "you're going to report me for bad parking and I will get a £65 fine" and you probably have to sell a lot of fish and chips to pay a fine. It's one of the downsides right now of the, sometimes over-zealous, "Citizen Police" approach many are taking right now and the way people are being encouraged to shop on people acting in a bad way (the upside is of course people change their bad behaviours because they know that any member of the public can shop them). The Barbyonabike person in Dulwich Village is doing a great job reporting people who park badly by filming them but then was surprised when someone remonstrated with them a few weeks later because they received a £65 fine because of their reporting. Don't try to police if you're not the police because they (and parking attendants) have the uniform to protect them.

So if Dale is disparaging of his own council's consultation plans are we to assume that, as head of Highways for the council, he doesn't get any input into the process of initiating a consultation or the right of review or veto? The tone of his email suggests councillors (or someone else) is determining highways strategy and proceeding with these consultations no matter what the input of the people with responsibility for them. Do we know who was the architect of, and who are the local champions for, the Turney closure plan? It seems all is not well in Southwark council right now.

I would prefer not to have idiots on any/in mode of transport and think we should all be doing our utmost to protect all road and pavement users from all of them - I don't want to be hit by an SUV and I don't want to be hit by a bike. But we legislate and try to protect people from idiots in cars but are somehow supposed to turn a blind eye to idiots on bikes. And, as a cyclist myself, I hate to admit it but there are far more idiot cyclists around than there used to be. And the fact you don't want to protect pedestrians in the square because it might be inconvenient for cyclists speaks volumes - these are shared spaces and mixing cyclists and pedestrians is like mixing oil and water - especially when you only want to prioritise cyclists over everyone else. On a recent trip into London (train to Victoria and walk to Soho before you start shouting about which mode of transport) I was walking up Regent Street St James and went to cross on the pedestrian crossing in front of the Vue cinema. Green man came on and I started to cross and had to stop suddenly to avoid being hit by a cyclist who had jumped the red light. He then proceeded to cycle on and off the pavements around Piccadilly Circus choosing to jump from road to pedestrian crossing to avoid having to wait at the lights outside Lillywhites. In the same week my wife was in the car and had stopped at the pedestrian crossing at Overhill and Lordship Lane and saw a cyclist jump the red light and run into a mother and her two young children who were crossing - sending them all crashing to the ground. And these are not isolated incidents. Below is a great example from barbyonabike who is probably well known to many in Dulwich (many of whom may have received penalty points for parking illegally in Dulwich Village and being photographed by him) and as much as he hates bad car drivers he hates bad cyclists too. These are not things being reported on Clean Air For All Dulwich that you can challenge as fake - this is a shocking reflection of how bad some cyclists are in the area and why people are massively concerned. Some classic moments in this video, with some superb examples of terrible cycling by Dulwich folks at 0.05/0.40/2.48/3.27/3.54/5.24 and , I especially like the one at 6.26 when the bad cyclist abuses the Barbyonabike who is obeying the rules of the road....this is what we are dealing with constantly in Dulwich and something has to be done. Perhaps we can start a local rogue's gallery of Dulwich cycle offenders based on these videos alone....anyone recognise themselves - come on admit your crimes! ;-) I challenge anyone to watch that video and suggest all is well and that pedestrians are getting the protection they need from cyclists. The point is - DV/Calton is a still junction and, per the Highway Code, pedestrians have priority over cyclists so cyclists should be stopping to let pedestrians use the space. But, very few cyclists seem to realise that, under the new Highway Code rules, they have to give way to pedestrians at junctions and few are doing so at the junction so we need to force the issue and I think making all cyclists dismount is the only way to do it. Much of the problem is the way the council has created that cycle speed lane through the middle of the junction. It should be broken with a stop and give way line at the point outside Knight Frank - would you agree that that is a good compromise if you refuse to agree with Cyclists Dismount?

Which doesn't work for cargo bikes, bikes/trikes for the disabled, recumbents and, depending on the setup, some bikes with kids in/on/on tow. It's also a total pain if you're using cycle shoes with cleats And it's pretty much unenforceable. Sorry Ex- I was forgetting the first rule of active travel - do nothing that even slightly inconveniences cyclists and build everything around their, and only their, specific needs.....

Northern - yes, absolutely without a doubt speeding bikes, e-scooters and mopeds are the biggest danger to pedestrians right now at that junction. Are there cars that drive through the junction? Yes, there are, but I have never seen any going more than walking pace - often with drivers looking utterly confused by the signage and realising that they may be getting a fine (just look at the plethora of videos CAD has posted - all the cars are crawling through the junction far slower than a lot of bikes fly through it) - even those who have deliberately covered their numbers plates are driving slowly due to the layout. The weekends are terrible for having to dodge "Olympic" cyclists bombing down Calton - it's that sound of an expensive cogset and cassette approaching at speed that strikes fear into many residents using the junction! And yes I did see the report of the collision with a child on Clean Air For All Dulwich but I also heard about it from my neighbours (although I cannot vouch for where they got the info from). Would you not agree that making cyclists dismount would be a sensible approach to ensure safety for all users of the junction - given the challenges always associated with mixing active travel types in a confined area - especially one that is at the bottom of a hill?

Ex- I am absolutely keen on a crackdown on illegal driving (and anyone who crosses the threshold of the junction will get a ticket which should be disincentive enough for all but the most hardened rule breakers) but Clean Air Dulwich have been campaigning, and lobbying the council and councillors, for a return of the old measures (the physical barrier) and a return to the permanent closure of the junction which whilst stops an vehicular traffic also restricts emergency service access and impacts response times. And in equal measure I am keen to see a clampdown on pavement-riding, RLJ cyclists etc but the issue there is cyclists can jump red lights without any fear of fine or retrospective action for their law breaking and can do so scott-free - which is why there is such a huge problem with it at the moment. I have never seen CAD say anything about the biggest issue at the DV junction which is speeding cyclists (I read that there was an accident involving a child and a cyclist at the DV junction a week or so) - just an almost obsessional fixation with cars driving through the junction (at much slower speeds then cyclists go through it I hasten to add). My personal opinion is that junction needs to be a cyclists dismount area (especially for anyone coming down Calton Avenue) as it is incredibly dangerous at the moment and that is the feedback I left when I responded to the consultation. I note today that CAD has been talking again about the coaches (but they must read this forum as they have clarified that they accept that these coaches mean a reduction in private use!! ;-)) and they say that the "the Foundations' coach service create a hostile and dangerous environment for sustainable, active travel" which is exactly the way many pedestrians feel cyclists are making the DV junction - but CAD never mentions this yet purports to be a mouthpiece for local parents - I think what they mean to say is they are a mouthpiece for local cycling parents.

The Tweets don't say that at all. You've made a leap of logic so big you could probably commute to the City on it... Errrrr...I will just leave this here.... If you pitch one short I will knock it out of the ground.....;-)

Malumbu, not sure how you think you set the trap for me….you fell into the trap of posting research without actually looking at it or exploring the narrative around it…not for the first time I hasten to add… and I just responded with a thread on the reasons why the results probably need to be questioned and analysed more deeply.;-) it is a bit odd that the boundary roads assessed are actually within other LTNs don’t you think? The problem with much research on LTNs is their findings are often skewed towards a pro -LTN agenda (see most Aldred output). Do we know who funded the Imperial research BTW? Malumbu, please don’t go - we love you here (except for the times you get rude to other users!)

Malumbu, I don't need to post anything because someone on the pro-LTN side will always be silly enough to take the bait and publish something lauding the reports without doing any background checking or research as to whether the reports are standing up to any scrutiny, thereby proving multiple points those of us on the anti-side are making.

And if this is indeed the case then it is, yet more, irrefutable evidence that there is a concerted effort by some to mislead the public as to what is actually going on.

Ha ha, I wondered how long it would be before someone said, "look! look!, LTNs are brilliant because this study." As always it's the detail that tells the true story and once you scratch beneath the surface you learn that all is not what it seems....you should know this by now Malumbu and should really do more research before posting...... The boundary roads they are using for this study are.....wait for it (and even you will be able to grasp the issue with this).....actually within neighbouring LTNs....... Malumbu, I will await your detailed response.........

But it is about compromise isn't it? If you want to get people out of cars you have to accept that they have to use other forms of transport and the fact there are more school buses is a sign that people are heeding those calls, is it not? Would you rather fewer coaches and more cars? Surely more people using school coaches is a good thing? You have to be pragmatic and accept that there will be times where you have to accept less than perfect situations, don't use social media to scream for change and then when the change happens scream "but not that type of change" just because it doesn't embrace the type of change you had in mind. Same applies for the need for emergency services to have access to Calton/DV which is why I find it difficult to comprehend why Clean Air Dulwich are lobbying to have it permanently closed again. In terms of whether I would cycle my children down the road I can't comment because it is not a route I use at that time of the day with my kids so can't comment on how problematic it might be but what I do often is adjust my route to avoid potential problem areas - I take the pragmatic compromise approach which remains an option for anyone who feels it is dangerous. And let's be honest if you are cycling that part of Townley you are coming from or heading to Lordship Lane which suggests a high degree of cycling confidence.

Clean Air Dulwich does seem a little confused and their posts recently make me wonder whose interests they are looking after and who is actually behind it. Currently their two strategic goals seem to be: 1) Prevent emergency vehicle access through the Calton/DV junction by closing it to all vehicles again 2) Prevent school buses from dropping and picking up children at Alleyn's/JAGS etc. When I see the below recent examples of their posts I do question what their motives are and whether Clean Air or Dulwich are really at the core of their concerns or whether they are just moaning for the sake of moaning - one presumes from the tweets that they are cyclosexuals (with credit to Jeremy Vine who coined the phrase petrosexuals which applies just as well to Cyclo-obsessives as well as car obsessives!).. The way they carpet bomb and troll all of our local councillors must really become wearing for them as the content and message is all over the place and all a bit lunatic fringe. Does anyone know who is behind it and what their aims are?

Malumbu - you're really positioning yourself as not a very nice person - just chill - live and let live - go for a bike ride or something, get some fresh air and take a deep breath - as I said before if you don't want to read my "lengthy repetitious posts" I am not going to be bothered/offended - to be honest you don't live in Dulwich nor Southwark so really perhaps the reason you find some of this content posted here so irksome is because you're not the target audience for it!!! ;-) #sorryIcouldntresist. But in all seriousness your post (even though I did laugh that you were critical of my tomes and then counter with an epic one of your own) does throw up some good points and it is all about how vested the companies providing the services are to get their house in order. I walked along Pall Mall today and from St James' Palace to Waterloo Place I counted 18 e-bikes littering the pavements - many of them abandoned mid-pavement. Forcing providers to only allow them to be parked in bays may have to be the way forward - but that works counter to the business model and the appeal of the bikes.

#savedbysadiq.......ahem....that's one way to spin a U-turn!

We are a hungry and thirsty bunch in Dulwich aren't we?!

Great news but you have to ask why the sudden U-turn by Sadiq - did he suddenly find some money stuffed down the back of the sofa at City Hall? Or was this him using Londoners in a political tug of war with the Tories?

Malumbu - no need to be rude. Try to keep it civil. If you can't be bothered reading then don't - trust me, I won't be offended. Anyhow I thought you had exiled yourself to the lounge - was it my posts that dragged you back? ;-) My trend may be to write detailed responses - yours is to deflect attention when you don't read something you have a response to or agree with.