Earl Aelfheah

I tell you what, I've answered every question you've posed to me on this thread so far, so before you deflect any further, why don't you address the simple questions I've put to you several times first. Here, give them a go: Who has been pressurising the emergency services and how? Do you genuinely believe that people are partially covering their plates and driving through the square due to inadequate signage?

Yup. It involves listening before decision are made. It's not a referendum. Personally, I think it's good that 3,000 angry people don't get to dictate public policy, but we'll have to agree to disagree I guess (as an aside, if you actually look at the detail of the responses from the original consultation, they are all over the place. People saying they want to stop rat running, but also don't want to restrict through traffic for example). The council took account of the responses to the consultation, alongside data, expert opinions, commitments they made to the wider electorate etc. Then they made a decision and stood for re-election on the basis of their actions. You may not like it, but that's our system. Any chance you're willing to defend One Dulwich's claims now?

Perhaps not. But I would return to the question I posed above: We have a system of representative democracy and if you want to debate it's pros and cons, start a thread on it. …and still no one willing to defend the claims in One Dulwich’s latest missive? Come on, there must be someone? 😂

They have. They asked in the original consultation. I’ve talked about it above. Around 3000 people (57% of a self selecting sample), were against the scheme. But the point you seem to be struggling with is that it wasn’t a referendum. We don't routinely have referenda on matters public policy in the UK (Brexit aside). We elect people to make decisions and then we judge the quality of those decisions in the round, and either re-elect them, or kick them out. That’s representative democracy. It’s not a good idea imo, but happy to listen if you do want to make the case for the routine use of referenda in matters of public policy. Not so much if you just want to use it selectively for a single issue you feel strongly about. Still ducking the question I’ve posed to you more than once now on claim of inadequate signage and intimidation of emergency services I note. I actually think the majority quietly support the local LTN. The local elections suggest that most people either support it, or don’t feel strongly enough either way for it to stop them re-electing those who oversaw the implementation (even though opposition voices touted the local elections as a referendum on the LTN). Polling across London suggest most Londoners support them generally. Again, I don’t believe in routinely holding referenda on matters of public policy. There are many reasons for this but that's another thread. Hopefully any sensible person reflecting on it for a second will understand the reasons why it wouldn’t be desirable. As above, if you're just interested in using it selectively for a single issue you feel strongly about, I'm not really interested. ....Still waiting for someone to defend One Dulwich’s claims as laid out above. 🥱

Pot holes feel like they’re becoming more of an issue (based purely on my perception, don’t know what data there is). Even worse outside London imo. I suspect as Mal says, heavier vehicles are part of the problem (both SUVs, but also EVs which are generally heavier than ‘conventional’ cars), but regardless the council need to be more on it. You can use the fixmystreet app to report them (and other street maintenance issues).

What other matters of policy would you have decided by referendum, or is it just the one you feel strongly about? 🙄 We live in a representative democracy for good reason. After Brexit I thought this would be even clearer. We’ve had local elections since the LTN came in and those who introduced it were returned to office. You may want to revisit a debate that finished 3 years ago, but it isn’t going to happen. You need to move on. …still no one willing to defend the claims in One Dulwich’s latest missive I note. 😂

@Rockets : No one has changed the definition of 'consultation' or 'referendum', or switched the terms. They are different things and have different meanings. You can even check this in a dictionary if you're not sure about it. Regarding the most recent consultation (at least the one I assume you're referring to), it was about the design of the Square. It was not a consultation on the existence of the LTN itself, despite (again rather desperately and a little embarrassingly) some people pretending it was, and encouraging others to do the same. As for One Dulwich, I think what vexes people has been very clearly articulated, and very conspicuously ducked by those cheerleading the latest missive: Firstly, they're claiming that people are accidentally driving through the square because of bad signage / lack of clarity. This is both ridiculous and ironic. Ridiculous because no sensible person could possibly believe it to be true, and ironic because they've objected to any updates to the layout (instead trying to turn a consultation on the design into a rerun of the LTN consultation itself, which closed several years ago as noted above). Secondly, they've claimed that someone has been pressurising the emergency services, yet fail to say who, or how. You seem to have suggested it may be the involvement of the 'far left' 😄 Anyway, It's all very tedious. If you want to improve signage, engage in that conversation, instead of trying to reopen debates that have finished. If you're going to claim intimidation of the emergency services, you probably want to give details and have some evidence. And if you think someone can drive through the square by mistake, you may want to question what you consider to be safe and competent driving. 🤣

I believe around 57% of the 5,538 people who were part of the self selecting sample making up the original consultation, opposed the LTN. So just over 3,000 people. This was around 3 years ago now. I think there’s something like 40,000+ living across se22 and SE21 🤷‍♂️ The LTN is a minority interest at best. Whilst it’s an obsession for a small number on the transport thread who strongly oppose it, I suspect most locals quietly approve of the improvements made to that junction. …and we still haven’t heard who has supposedly been pressurising the emergency services and how (are we seriously going with the far left / the commies)? Is anyone willing to stand up and support the 'One' claim that people are partially covering their plates and driving through the filters due to inadequate signage? Again, it all sounds a little ridiculous / desperate. Feels like it may be time for them to start coming to terms with the changes.

Check the link I provided above. It gives a very full account of where the push for LTNs came from, (in brief, central government). The consultation did not show that the majority of local residents were against the LTN. Not for the first time, you’ve confused a ‘consultation’ with a ‘referendum’. The outcome of local elections (which many opposed to LTNs excitedly promoted as a referendum on the scheme at the time…until they lost), suggests they are actually quite popular. All the polling on LTNs generally, also shows strong majority support across London.

LTNs were pushed by the Conservative government (as was ULEZ). They were one of several active travel measures which were a condition of the TFL funding settlement post Covid. £69m of direct borough funding (per year) was also provided to support more localised investment in walking and cycling schemes across the city and to accelerate the roll-out of LTNs…but we all know that Boris Johnson and grant shapps are secret commies 🤣 I’ve no idea. I do know that people are covering their plates and driving through, and that’s probably an accident waiting to happen (although clearly down to signage 🤣). The emergency services have agreed the changes, so I would assume that on balance they think it’s the right move. Whilst ‘One’ are suggesting the emergency services have agreed the changes under pressure, they wont say what sort of pressure, or who it’s coming from 🤔. Perhaps it’s the commies again 🤣😂

Right. A roadblock that attentive drivers might accidentally miss 😂

You haven’t answered the question… who has been pressuring the emergency services and how exactly? We all know the answer of course.. no one. As for anyone driving through Dulwich Square without realising that they’re not meant to - well they should t be behind a wheel at all frankly. I have no idea what the ‘far left’ has to do with Dulwich LTN either 😂

I have no doubt that local people are genuinely involved (and personally can understand their not wanting to publicise their involvement). That said the proliferation of One groups across London and the degree of co-ordination suggests it is more than just a local grassroots group. I’m not really that interested, except that many of their supporters do bang on about transparency and accountability. I would be interested in the substance of their latest missive. Who has been pressurising the emergency services and how? Who genuinely believes that people are partially covering their plates and driving through due to inadequate signage? Sounds a little ridiculous / desperate. It feels like it may be time for them to start coming to terms with the changes tbh.

This is quite a serious allegation. What evidence is there of this? Pressured how and by whom? This is quite a spin on ‘it’s been agreed with the emergency services’. They think the vehicles pictured driving through with partially covered plates are the result of ‘poor signage’ 🤔 If it is as they say ‘small numbers’ driving through the square, that doesn’t suggest that the signage is unclear. I mean who honestly believes it’s possible to drive through there without noticing the signs / planters (assuming you’re driving with due care and attention)?! 🤨 Also, haven’t ‘One’ opposed any improvements to the layout / landscaping and signage proposed by Southwark? It’s all a bit desperate. At the height of the LTN ‘controversy’ a number of co-ordinated ‘One’ groups popped up across London. It doesn’t feel like a local grassroots movement, but has all the hallmarks of astroturfing. The lack of transparency about it’s funding / sponsorship and structure does not help with this impression.

Cars are getting bigger and heavier (new cars have become so bloated that half of them are too wide to fit in parking spaces designed to the minimum on-street standards. The average width of a new car in the EU and UK passed 180cm in the first half of 2023, having grown an average of 0.5cm each year since 2001). Speed enforcement is also pretty rare in practice and according to DfT stats, under free-flowing traffic conditions, 50% of car drivers exceed the speed limit on 30mph roads. Hopefully we'll see regulation to stop the car bloat arms race, and perhaps moves to use the same geofenced speed limiters deemed essential for electric hire scooters, but not currently SUVs. Would certainly be more effective and cause less noise, pollution and damage than speed bumps. Also the cost gets passed to the manufactures, rather than public authorities.

Nope, Sparticus started a discussion about the relative costs and revenues associated with car use, which is relevant to ULEZ (a charge on car use). I responded to him because I didn't agree with his point. Your standard knee jerk response to any debate about motor vehicles of 'but what about bikes', is not relevant. You seem obsessed with some imagined, binary opposition - bikes vs cars. Bike lanes have got nothing to do with ULEZ. You're engaged in the dictionary definition of whataboutery. It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by ULEZ is reinvested back into London’s transport network. Again, if you have evidence of law breaking you should probably share it.

This is the definition of whataboutery. How does that relate to a rebuttal of the claim that cars are cash cows? You're obsessed with turning any discussion related to motor vehicles into a discussion on push bikes. It's such an obvious distraction tactic. If you can't defend a position, try and switch to a different topic. What have bike lanes got to do with ULEZ? It's embarrassing.

@Spartacus The benefits of private car ownership accrue primarily to the owner. Some of the direct costs are borne privately too (such as purchasing the car, fuel etc). But many other costs are borne by the public purse. Taxes attempt to recoup some of this. This is so obvious that it doesn't really need stating, except where someone is claiming that cars are some sort of cash cow and trying to minimise, or ignore the externalised costs in their calculations. I've mentioned land use (as just one aspect alongside many others), because land has a value. Huge amounts of public land are given over to people to store private vehicles. If you're discussing the cost of private car ownership, you can't ignore or discount some of those costs just because you've decided you want to. But this is really just another distraction from the topic. The conversation was about ULEZ. If you don't think there are costs to air pollution which are borne by someone other than the driver of a high polluting vehicle, you're wrong. Yet again, your argument seems to be that it's outrageous for the state to try and push some of that cost back to the individual generating them. This seems massively entitled to me; "I want to use any car I choose regardless of the additional costs that choice might impose on others, and I better not be asked to pick up the bill". You've stripped my comment of context, very obviously and very cynically. It's boring. I made this comment in response to Spartacus' suggestion that cars were a massive revenue generator / cash cow. I was pointing out that actually there are lot's of externalised costs which most estimates suggest are greater than the amount raised in taxes and gave a few examples. This was just one. My point is that car drivers constantly fight against attempts to reduce the subsidy that they receive and ULEZ is a classic example. If you choose a car with low emissions, it costs the state less (in managing the health impacts for example) than if you choose a high polluting car. So the question is do you socialise that additional cost, or do you follow a policy of 'polluter pays'. The latter seems to be obviously fairer.

Can't dispute the point, so engage in whataboutery. I haven't called for road charging generally, just challenged the idea that revenues from car taxes cover all of (the suggestion is more than) the costs they externalise. They clearly don't (and car storage is one part of that equation, along with health impacts associated with inactivity, road injuries and deaths, congestion, climate change, air quality etc). I did suggest that the owners of highly polluting vehicles should pay something towards the additional costs that imposes on everyone else. Happy for the same emission standards to be applied to bikes 🤣.

Nope. The 20 minutes on average is from the same RAC Foundation report. The Department for Transport's latest travel survey says 35 minutes. Either way, most cars spend most of their time not moving (at least 90%), Probably more in London.

No, you’re speculating / making assumptions. I’m using figures which come from research by the RAC Foundation The issue is simply that there is a cost to land use. Sparticus wants to talk about costs and revenues. It is a statutory requirement that any net revenue generated by ULEZ is reinvested back into London’s transport network. If you have evidence of law breaking you should probably share it.

According to research by the RAC Foundation, there are about 25 billion car trips per year, and some 27 million cars, suggesting an average of just under 18 trips per car every. Since the duration of the average car trip is about 20 minutes, the typical car is only on the move for 6 hours in the week: for the remaining 162 hours it is stationary – parked. Since there are 168 hours in a week, the typical UK car is parked 96.5% of the time. In London I suspect there are many cars which fail to move from one week to the next. So it's difficult to see how anyone can really argue that significant amounts of land are not given over to car storage. It is undeniably true that this is the case. What is not true is that motoring is a net positive revenue generator. It may be if you completely ignore the substantial externalities of motoring, but this is clearly naïve economics. All serious attempts to estimate the true cost of motoring conclude that it is subsidised (although by exactly how much may reasonably be debated). As for the £130m - it is all reinvested in transport. It. You're suggesting that it's fairly for the marginal costs of high polluting vehicles should be borne by the tax payer, not the polluter. That is wild imo.

They don’t pay the full cost of driving though, despite the moaning. Private cars are effectively subsidised. The amount of land given over to cars, the cost of deaths, injuries, air pollution, greenhouse gasses, congestion etc., these costs are largely externalised and when added to investments in road building and maintenance outweigh the revenues obtained by motorists, probably very substantially.

Well we wouldn’t want to increase investment at all then Best to follow a principle of polluter doesn’t pay and socialise the costs.

At least a small part of the externalised costs are being pushed back to the polluters, and more money can be invested in public transport.