Rockets

Dodging bikes is now becoming a daily sport for many in Dulwich. Is it a lack of cycling education/ignorance or pig headedness? Are these folks even aware of the rules? It seems not many are aware of the rules as I have yet to see a single cyclist give way to pedestrians at junctions (I am sure there are those that do but the majority don't).

Ex- was he forced to, as in the Tories said, you have to extend ULEZ or, when he was told you need to commit to generating revenue to pay back the bail-outs he offered up ULEZ expansion..."committed to" could be accurate in either context. Or did the Tories know the only way to generate that revenue would be ULEZ expansion? As part of the settlement, mayor of London Sadiq Khan has committed to generating between £500m and £1bn additional revenue a year through measures such as road user charging. This would involve extending the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to cover all of Greater London by 2023.

Many people have provided more details for them and still the post remains with no sign of a retraction. What a weird world some of these people live in, talk about self-centred and blinkered. They really aren't helping themselves.

And Southwark Cyclists really don't help themselves with tweets like this in relation to Anna Goodman taking down the anti-LTN petition poster and taking it home with her - talk about tone deaf and a ludicrous "justification defence".

Well Mal, go to the lounge then...be our guest...;-) The point I am making is that transport is becoming a sticky issue in London. Clearly the Labour candidate feels he has the best chance to win if he takes a position of resisting ULEZ expansion, no doubt because his advisors have told him a lot of people have concerns about it and he increases his chances of winning by doing so. But this is at odds with the mayor from within his own party and it put the leader of their party in a difficult position. Now for the mayor it is a concern because if there is similar discontent in other areas where ULEZ is being expanded to that could be bad news for him as people may vote against him on the basis of this. Now, how does this relate to the CPZs? Well, and its not too difficult to work out, LTNs caused discontent but those impacted enough to try and do something about it weren't in the same sort of numbers as any car owner who feels the council are taking the p**s. And a large majority of people in the Dulwich area have cars. So what of there is a protest vote against the mayor in the mayoral elections because Sadiq's transport policies are disliked. In the same way there was a large anti-Tory protest vote in the last council elections it could happen in the mayoral elections. This type of thing has, historically, been to the advantage of the Lib Dems who prosper during protest votes when people become fed-up of the two leading parties. At the national level the sentiment is anti-Tory but I sense a growing apathy towards Labour and much of it the catalyst for is transport policy. Does that help explain it for you? But Mal, extending ULEZ is down to Sadiq is it not? Any politician will tell you people have short memories - he is responsible for extending ULEZ and the wrath is aimed at him - I actually saw a very unpleasant sign on a buildong company van from Bromley recently saying F**k Sadiq.

Transport is becoming a bit of a political hot potato in London. Keir Starmer refused to be drawn today on whether he supported Ulez expansion or not because the Labour candidate in the Uxbridge by-election wants it delayed and Sadiq Khan doesn't - its all going to get very interesting in the run up to the mayoral election next year. BBC News - Uxbridge by-election: Keir Starmer won't say whether he backs ULEZ expansion https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66124191

Earl, what I have learnt over my time on this forum is that many on the pro-LTN side love to dish it out yet aren't so comfortable when it gets played back to them. You searched for a few posts that did nothing to back up your accusation against me and tried to concoct a narrative to try to attack me (and you comtinue to do so) - which failed, and is failing, miserably. But we have seen this time and time again from many on the pro-LTN lobby - if you can't debate then go on the attack. I have also learnt that you'll invariably find some posts that undermines their position. I have also learnt that hypocrisy is strong amongst many on the pro-LTN side.....

Southwark cyclists and LCC are stakeholders and have been the go-to lobby group the council actively engages. Remember the Peckham Rye LTN suggestions (can't remember what phase that was) and the fact the council prioritised input from Southwark cyclists over the emergency services and rejected emergency service input? I suspect the council's refusal to make DV permeable for emergency services was because of pressure from lobby groups. And look how long it took for them to see sense - utterly shameful. These are the things that created the imbalance that so many local people are angry with (and led to the very existence of One Dulwich and them getting over 2000 sign-ups) - the council only initially engaged with and took counsel and guidance from groups that supported its vision.

And it was clear during those infamous online council meetings about the Melbourne Grove closures that some folks (I suspect CAD) had been given "front row seats" and given the mike to herald the closures as part of the council organised filibuster whilst anyone else who had a question was forced to the chat...that they then subsequently closed for other online meetings.

Yes sorry they stood to be councillors, you're right they were candidates who did not become councillors. I do think our council has a respect problem - that video probably goes some way to show why Will Norman had to step in to intervene between Southwark councillors and TFL after the treatment of TFL staff by members of Southwark Council reduced them to tears. There seems to be something very wrong with the way Southwark council interacts with people - there seem to be a few unsavoury characters who seem to think it is OK to treat people appallingly if they don't agree with them.

DKHB - but what do you mean by members - it's not a private members club? When you sign up by giving your email, address and postcode they don't then try to upsell you to ask you to become a "member". So really not sure what you are getting at? Do you mean the founders of the campaign or something else?

Ha ha...that's hilarious...they spoke to 1,025 people across the whole of Southwark. Young Advisers provided a lot of responses and they are 9 to 18 year olds....and students (many of whom don't live in Southwark) made up a big proportion of that 1,025 as well - 52% of all the street surveys conducted were by people who don't live in Southwark. Is this a joke - is that what they are trying to claim was a consultation ? Do you think they have to had "notified" residents of this move and are trying to cover their backsides and have dug up this obscure document as "proof"? The actual Movement Plan makes one mention of area-wide CPZs (Page 18) and states that, as part of the delivery plan, borough-wide parking controls would be introduced in 2025. Moovart - was this response to an email you sent them about the CPZ consultation - if it was would you be happy to share it?

Probably a good time to post the latest BarbyonaBike rogue gallery of cyclists.....some classics here: 0.27 that was close! 0.41 Dulwich Library the favourite bike light jumping spot 3.54 Using pedestrians as a chicane on a crossing on a jacked Lime bike 5.16 Is the Full Kit Wally lost? 5.21 The one handed cycling cricketer whilst using the phone onto the pavement is some skill! 6.23 Is that a baby or a doll?

DKHB - the two Tory councillors did take a petition to the Southwark Cabinet in December - you can see it here, they don't mention One Dulwich - they are there representing the resident associations. Gotta love Cllr Williams' "you're failed Tory councillors" opening salvo - this is the problem - this council, and the councillors, doesn't like anyone telling them they are not right or that people may have an opinion different to theirs. Granted they are Tory councillors but if you treat fellow politicians like this what hope do us residents have when we voice an opinion that doesn't synch with theirs - politics and the process of politics is supposed to be based mutual respect but the way they treat the two bringing the petition compared to the way they treat other people presenting is very stark? 34.34 Cllr Williams fires the opening salvo 43.44 Cllr Williams is so dismissive and well worth watching for a few seconds more for a giggle for the Cllr Rose mansplaining moment - she honestly looks like she may kill them during the whole of their presentation.

Earl, I suppose that would be because a shed is not a means by which people get around their city and country - so yes, putting one in the street would be considered quite odd. But what if the van or car does move as it is the main means for someone to get around to work or doing their job and they already pay tax and road tax? And yes First Mate, many of the biggest proponents of these measures seem very confused at times as to which side of the debate they are on....Earl tried to dig up my supposed defending of SUVs (which was nothing of the sort) and you have a quick look at some their own posts and you see some like this: Please don't tell me that this will mean more speed bumps?! I have an old Fiesta and going over one of those bumps, even at 15 mph is uncomfortable. It seems many of them want some measures but not all, well not any that might inconvenience them personally.....;-) If the council did make a decision on borough-wide CPZs in 2019 then I am amazed (not amazed) they didn't have it as one of their manifesto pledges at the time of elections. If they did decide it and kept it from the electorate then that is another matter all together and very serious.

Does anyone know - are the council required to hold this consultation as statutory or non-statutory?

And the last consultation on CPZs didn't give the council the mandate they needed (65% of respondents rejected the plans) to roll out CPZs across the whole of East Dulwich so they have learned from that and manipulated the latest consultation process to ensure no-one has a path to object. This is local council "democracy" in action and it's shamefully brazen - they really don't care one jot for the views of their constituents (unless they need your vote of course). No doubt early next year they will come knocking on our doors asking us to support Sadiq in the mayoral elections (probably be the only time we will see them between now and then).

If One Dulwich goes into bat on the CPZs then I suspect those 2,000+ local people who registered their support against the LTNs will grow significantly - One Dulwich's seat at the table may get bigger - that'll irk a few people and send them into an even more frenzied attack mode ! 😉

One presumes the council is not going to run any public meetings about the CPZs - they seem to be shying away from fronting the constituents since Covid - is there a pre-requisite for them to hold public meetings around consultations? Interesting comments on electric vehicles and the "heavier" issue which is very much aligned to their "particulate" narrative which is their new go-to to avoid them having to fully embrace electric vehicles. In that light it is interesting the pricing for different vehicles in the CPZ: £224.64 a year for a ULEZ compliant vehicle £149.76 a year for a hybrid £74.88 for an electric -

Looks like a few big zone areas but no info on how they divide it up - I suspect they will divide the area into smaller zones (which I believe is the model other boroughs in more central London follow).

Unfortunately leaving the two questions blank and then leaving comments does not register with the council at all - they disregard comments and focus on the results only - this is why they have very deliberately left off any way to register a "I don't want/think we need CPZs". They have clearly learned from the previous CPZ consultation where that question was on the documentation and 68% of East Dulwich residents said they did not want a CPZ and this forced the council to implement them only on the streets where there was positive endorsement and support (but even then they forced it on a street that clearly voted no). I wonder what the legal precedent is if a previous consultation did have a mechanism for responding no and a new one doesn't - perhaps we should lobby to say that due to the, ahem, "council oversight" 😉 in not having the option to say no then the results from the previous consultation should carry over in that regard? The council is really playing with fire on this and is treating their constituents with utter contempt. LTNs were one thing but the majority of people in East Dulwich own a car so this will shine a lot of light on the underhand tactics the council is happy to play to get what it wants. If this was not part of the councillors' manifesto during the elections how can they say they have a mandate for this without a proper, democratic consultation? Perhaps someone in Cllr McAsh's ward could address this directly with him?

And Labour went out of their way to make sure they didn't mention anything about LTNs or Healthy Streets in their election push. So maybe the reverse applies that as they didn't lead on it does it mean the CPZ plans weren't part of their manifesto and no-one was given the chance to vote on it?

The consultation document that the pamphlet leads you to is, once again, designed to give the council the positive outcome they desire. Here are the only two questions on parking restrictions on your street - it comes as no surprise to anyone that nowhere can you click: I do not want a parking zone. Again like so many consultations before it if you don't want parking restrictions you are forced to leave your comment in a comments box that then does not get registered by the council. The brazenness of it is beyond belief. 4. What would be your preference for the days of operation of the new controlled parking restrictions? Monday to Friday Monday to Saturday 7 days a week 5. What would be your preference for the times of operation of the new controlled parking restrictions? All day (e.g. 8:30am - 6:30pm) Longer hours (e.g. 8.30am - 11pm) Part of the day (e.g. 11am to 3pm) 24 hours

DulvilleRes - but it does nothing for the claims of her impartiality does it? You can't behave like that if you want to be perceived as impartial in your research. Rush of blood to the head, impulsiveness is no defence - it is not the behaviour of anyone who should be trusted to report impartially on LTNs. Also, the bigger story is her admission that she has been "engaging" in LTN issues locally - if that means campaigning positively for them then it is a huge conflict of interest and one she should have been smart enough to recuse herself from and steer well clear of. You can try to brush it under the carpet all you like but what she did has given all those who have suspected that her research is tinged by pro-LTN bias a smoking gun in the form of video. And why do the media report on it - cos it is a "gotcha" the classic "don't bring me a story about a dog biting a man but one of a man biting a dog"? Of course the Torygraph and Fail report on it because their readership relate to it and click on it. The same is true on why Peter Walker and the Guardian would report on her findings at length to celebrate LTNs and why they didn't report on her indiscretion. Media is not impartial and writes stories, not based on the newsworthiness, but whether it resonates in their echo chamber. Given we had a Southwark pamphlet dropping through our door today announcing the plan for borough-wide CPZs in the next year I suspect the noise will ramp again. And guess what....yup...the council is running a consultation on CPZs....and guess what...it's as skewed in it's questions as the last ones have been.....here we go again....

Mal, no what this thread shows is that slowly but surely the playing field is starting to be levelled and some of the things we have been saying, that many of you have been challenging us on for tne last three years. are being proven to be 100% true. And the downfall has been concocted, accidentally, by the very people who were instrumental in plotting and executing LTNs in the first place - it looks like the power, and the unwavering support from their supporters, went to a few people's heads and they couldn't help themselves and showed their true colours (TFL bullying, Turney Road submission debacle, Anna Goodman). The last few months haven't been the greatest for the pro-LTN lobby - the house of cards is looking a little precarious right now.