Earl Aelfheah

Before we start getting into a debate about the detail of the data we do have (which I’m very willing to do.. the second document gives a six- month average for the first half of 2023 and is marked as unratified values without bias adjustment / subject to change in 2024), can we first clarify where the figure of a ‘trebling in pollution’ comes from? Because it feels like there are some fairly obvious double standards when it comes to scrutiny of different statements in relation to evidence around the impact of the Dulwich LTN. …as in there is zero scrutiny of regular, unevidenced claims made in opposition of the LTN.

No they haven’t stated that. But then I’m sure they would dispute that it is their policy to ‘monetise car ownership’. They have stated however, that their strategy is to move away from favouring cars and instead, free up space for walking, public transport and cycling. Obviously the details of each individual scheme and whether / how it contributes to their ‘streets for people’ strategy need to be consulted on. But whether these open meetings, made up as they are of a small, self selecting and unrepresentative sample of people, mainly opposing change, actually achieve much is highly questionable.

These consultations are an expensive and divisive waste of time imo (and by the sounds of it, in most others too). The council have stated their intended direction for roads and transport and stood for election on it. When it comes to the details of specific schemes, they should undertake targeted consultation- speaking to experts, looking at data etc. They should bring together groups of people that consist of a representative sample of the local population, as well as using professional polling to understand local views. They have experimented with the use of 'citizens juries' in relation to climate change and it seems to be a much more constructive and useful way to form policy informed by input from the public. These types of events just entrench opposition amongst those that turn up. They are unlikely to change the councils position, because it is such a small, self-selecting sample, of those typically opposed to whatever change is being proposed. Ultimately, I think they'd be better off doing more targeted consultation, and then taking action and standing on their record when elections come back round.

Wow, is that real? Smart dress code policy? Get to 🤬

I’ve provided the site IDs (the SDT numbers) and given the location of the monitoring equipment. It's all publicly available data. Southwark publish an annual report with all the NO2 readings. You can easily Google it. But may I ask why you’ve not even questioned what data there is to back up the claim that pollution has ‘trebled’ (where, over which time period etc)? I think the Data dashboard you're referring to related to vehicle counts, not pollution levels.

I mean it is objectively a minority who respond to consultations 🤷‍♂️ …and it will definitely be a minority who turn up to this event If a majority of local residents do turn up to the meeting, then I'll happily stand corrected.

More people have been taking to cycling. it's also worth investing in improvements to infrastructure for existing buses, pedestrians and cyclists, which this schemes seems to do. I haven't 'spread lies' what a ridiculous and offensive thing to say. There are people on here saying they don't want bike lanes / more routes for bikes and that 'Cyclists seem to think they can just take over roads'. The ambivalence to cyclists (often outright hostility) across this section of the forum is well documented. You have also said multiple times that you think cyclists are dangerous and called for the use of bikes to be more strongly regulated. You have even said: "...if there were much greater numbers of cyclists I'd probably stop cycling. On the few occasions I have been out cycling and there have been lots of other cyclists on the same route it has felt quite dangerous and unpleasant" For me to paraphrase that as some people not wanting to encourage more cycling, is hardly a stretch. It's certainly not 'spreading lies'.

People who are fine with the changes aren't going to bother going. Those vehemently opposed will. Ends up being an opportunity for an angry minority to shout at councillors. Feels fairly pointless.

How have you concluded that there has been a trebling of pollution? The data I've seen suggests pollution (NO2) has been dropping across the area: SDT Location 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 139 Lamppost (2139 - L29) Grove Lane 33.2 24.1 27.5 18.6 136 Lamppost (2160 - L12) adjacent to Dog Kennel Hill School 33.8 20.2 23.9 22.3 20.1 138 Lamppost (2127 - L11) Pytchley Road 31.1 24.7 27.4 25.9 23.4 114 Lamppost No 1 Goose Green / East Dulwich Road 37.4 31.6 33 22.6 25.2 25 21.8 161 Lamppost 2120-02 adjacent to 8 East Dulwich Grove 29.2 25.3 162 On the southern downpipe at Harris East Dulwich Primary School, Lordship Lane 23 22.1 151 Junction of Townley Road & Lordship Lane Lamppost ( 2300 - 01) 28.6 18.6 22 20.1 17 97 Barry Road 37.5 37.3 32.5 24.3 26.8 24.4 23

The change to the number 40 (i.e. no longer going to London bridge) was a long time ago - I think more than 5 years ago?

Sounds like a fairly rare point of agreement on this thread. Suggest people email their councillor suggesting the use of professional polling to establish a representative picture of local views on changes in future, and ensure minority views do not dominate the discourse.

Conspiratorial stuff aside, I absolutely agree that the council should use professional polling to get a proper idea of local sentiment (as I already said). Wherever representative polling does take place it shows most people want less priority given to cars and support for things like LTNS. I have absolutely no doubt that a representative sample of those living locally would show a large majority in favour of retaining Dulwich square.

Personally, I would like to see Southwark using professional polling to establish a representative picture of local views and to ensure that minority views do not dominate the discourse. I believe that this is now recommended by central government.

Just for a little balance, the 'review' was undertaken by anti-LTN campaign groups and looks at the responses to online consultation exercises. These exercises are not remotely representative. Polling involving representative samples, consistently show majority support for LTNs.

If you're concerned about speeding in the local area, you can email [email protected] and get involved in helping to do some community monitoring. You will quickly sese the problems of commonplace / normalised speeding and get a sense of the types of vehicles involved (it's not push bikes).

I started this petition about 10 years ago in relation to the Heygate 're-development' (which was corrupt to the core imo). Unfortunately it didn't change anything. But the stats quoted are still shocking. Southwark ended up making a loss on the sale of a hugely valuable piece of central London land and turfed many, many families from their homes in the process. It's the same story - you have massive property / development companies, who manage to completely out manoeuvrer / run circles aorund councillors, often destroying communities and doing very little to make properties more affordable or address the housing crisis. Rather, they add further 'heat' to an out of control, international 'property investment' market. We need more council housing - high density, but mid rise imo.

It might work as some sort of community space. Perhaps a softplay (easy access from the south circular, with parking), or arts centre. Or much needed housing. ... would like to see the skatepark retained.

I think Pablogrande is right here. You can't stop in a loading bay in order to go into a shop and buy something - even if you're going to load it into your car afterwards. So unless there is confusing / non-compliant signage or some other grounds to appeal I suspect you're unlikely to overturn it.

I'm surprised at how relaxed everyone appears to be about the works. They've been designed for: “capturing about 6 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of surface water and releasing it very slowly” in the park. This has been done at taxpayer expense, to mitigate an increased risk of houses flooding, caused in no small part by the failure of Thames Water to invest in a drainage and sewage system in dire need of upgrading / modernising, and unable to cope. Thames Water have paid out millions in bonuses and dividends since privatisation, run up huge debts, and are now on the brink of bankruptcy. Meanwhile we are paying for their under investment in the drainage and sewage system. The park will likely be waterlogged more frequently and for longer.

There has been roughly 30 casualties as a result of collisions around that junction in the last 2 years. It depends how narrowly you want to define the area you're interested in of course. Based on data here

Have you asked tried asking ChatGPT?

Thanks, done!

Considering how nascent AI really is, should we be alarmed that is is already showing an ability to deceive and to self replicate? It's a genuine question, i don't know much about this field, but just feels like we're running headlong into what could potentially be quite dangerous technological developments. 🤷‍♂️

Ok, so you think I've talked down to people. Perhaps it would be fair to provide an example. It's interesting how people rant in really general terms about 'cyclists', make wild claims with zero evidence to back them up, but as soon as one tries to discuss the danger motor vehicles represent, using data, it's 'talking down to everyone'. This is the problem, speeding and dangerous driving is completely normalised.

Who is talking down to everyone else and how?