Earl Aelfheah

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are you on an anti-cyclist agenda. As someone > who talks about how they used to cycle a lot it's > a little confusing. Your case would be stronger > if you stuck to the impact of LTNs rather than > make cheap comments for the pro car community. Isn?t it just. ?Used to? is probably doing a lot of heavy lifting. From previous comments I suspect in reality @Rockets drives an SUV, but stand to be corrected. It?s interesting that many of the ?clean air for all? placards along Dulwich Village, East Dulwich Grove and Half Moon Lane, stand in driveways with several large vehicles. But I?m sure that outside their vocal support for more through traffic on side streets, they are committed environmentalists, as the signs suggest.

Just your regular reminder that despite many of the unsubstantiated claims on this thread, the LTNs have increased the number of people walking and cycling, reduced traffic both inside the LTN and on boundary roads and made our streets safer.

It?s amazing how many people on this thread, who claim to be pro active travel, and fiercely concerned about pollution and congestion, also object to the ULEZ, to road pricing, to attempts to discourage the growth of massive SUVs, and oppose clarifying road rules which put responsibility on those in charge of fast moving heavy machinery to take special care around pedestrians and cyclists. Yep, the Dulwich Onesies are so genuinely concerned about the negative impact of too many cars, that they campaign not for a further extension of the ULEZ, or the removal of on-street parking, or for any of a myriad of other potential interventions which would help, but focus solely on increasing through traffic on side streets.

The situation with the post is getting ridiculous. We've also recently received some Christmas cards.

We don't need to guess about the impacts. There is data. It shows traffic down across the area (both inside the LTNs and on boundary roads), walking and cycling up and road accidents down. It also shows traffic on main roads trending down month on month. With the ULEZ also coming in to force, I suspect we'll see improvements in levels of pollution over time too. But none of it will make any difference to those who want to open up side roads to though traffic. Still, see you in another 100 pages of unsubstantiated nonsense.

... or when they claimed they shared the objective of reducing local car trips and reducing road accidents?

Do you remember when those in favour of opening side roads up to through traffic also claimed to be deeply committed to increasing active travel but claimed that LTNs would have no impact on numbers walking and cycling?

opening up side roads to through traffic would lead to a reduction in the number of people walking and cycling and an increase in car use. All the evidence shows it.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or maybe Rahx3 they will question why our supposed > leaders led us down the LTN garden path. Maybe > history will show us it was complete folly that > made things worse rather than better and did > nothing to deliver against its stated objectives > and was only installed because of political > pressure exerted by pro-cycle lobby groups. They have delivered against their objectives. They've increased active travel and they've reduced car use and for that matter, road accidents. There is no evidence that they have made 'things' worse.

Of course, you're right about an individual micro scheme. But I do think they'll question why we did so little to discourage car use generally. I certainly don't think that looking back, anyone would think that decisions which involve opening up side roads to through traffic, discouraging walking and cycling and encouraging car use, would have been a good call.

I suspect that future generations won't judge us for having done too much in trying to discourage car use, but rather for having done far, far too little.

As long as those who want the removal of LTNs are clear that it will lead to a reduction in the number of people walking and cycling and an increase in car use across the area. At least that is what all the evidence suggests.

.....

Think it might be to do with rents, yes. I agree it?s a shame.

Just red that thread by the Secret Barrister ?. It?s an excellent, and very clear appraisal of the issues. Thanks for sharing.

Just pedestrianise Oxford Street if they want to ?reinvigorate? it. Most provincial high streets in England removed traffic decades ago and yet London?s ?premier shopping street?, is still a congested, polluted, mess.

Heaven forbid anyone would want traffic calming measures!

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When they donlt align....where is the line? Who > gets to decide which laws and which values takes > precendence over the other? Ultimately, a jury of 12 do.

couldn't agree more re. the CPS. How anyone could think this prosecution was in the public interest is beyond me.

Blimey. That's a crazy Christmas. Sorry you had such a tough time Fox. Hope you're on the mend.

@cat - that?s a reasonable post. But ultimately, how is leaving the single market and the customs Union not going to make the country poorer. We?ve made trade with our biggest and closest market more difficult. We are now a solitary nation trying to negotiate trade deals from a position of weakness. In terms of influence - I don?t see how Brexit can possibly be considered to have made us more highly regarded internationally, or to have increased our power on the world stage. So how one can be said to have more control with less power, less influence and less ability to shape one?s environment, I don?t get. If you can explain it to me, I?m all ears. And of course there is then the very personal issue of having individual rights and freedoms restricted by the government. It is on any measure, hugely regressive. My sister moved to the EU as a young adult, where she got various jobs and eventually built a career, got married and is now expecting a baby. My own children, growing up today do not have the same opportunities. Of course it won?t effect the wealthy, but many people have had opportunities snatched from them. And for what? To make us poorer, more divided, less influential. If you can tell me how it doesn?t do those things, how we?re going to be richer, more powerful, less divided, and have more individual rights and freedoms resulting from Brexit, again I?m all ears.

The council haven't 'eroded the democratic process'. They've shown a degree of ineptitude, especially in their communications. But they have consulted and then they have taken a decision. They have explained that position. Ultimately, people can vote them out if they disagree.

@Rockets - I commented on the fact that there were (quote): ??a small number of idiots blocking the right turn for cyclists with their bags and placards?. I have apologised for saying ?idiots?. I was irritated by it at the time because I was cycling with my kids. You and a few others decided to attack me over this at the time. Saying variously that: I made it up - that there were only protesters on the pavement (not true, someone else produced photos). Accused me of not living in the area (I've been on this forum since '07) Of putting my own children in danger by cycling through the village Suggested that it was fine to block the entrance to the square from the main road anyway (even though apparently this also didn't happen). Called me a troll ...and yes, ridiculously tried to pretend that the quote above is me abusing the elderly. Apparently the accusation has now expanded to suggest that I have also insulted the disabled. People can see this thread and they can see that I have done nothing of the sort. It?s completely untrue. You have now gone back to again calling me a liar. There is a clear, demonstrable lie that has been repeatedly made in this thread. You have stoked it. And both times I have pointed it out, you?ve encouraged a personal attack on me. Your behaviour is pretty transparent and pretty cynical.

You're spot on Exdulwicher.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dougiefreeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Jenijenjen Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > dougiefreeman Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Seriously? > > I said there were a 'few idiots blocking people > turning off the main road' I explained the context > of this. > > There were a few people who decided to block my > daughter's exit from the main road (leaving her > stuck out in the middle of two lanes of traffic on > her bike). This was a few thoughtless people. > You've decided to say they were elderly and > disabled, although they weren't, to try and > reframe criticism of their inconsiderate and > dangerous behaviour as 'attacking vulnerable > people'. It's about as cynical as one can be. > > To say that I 'insulted the elderly and disabled' > is completely disingenuous, and completely untrue. I will apologise for referring to anyone as an idiot - not really necessary. I should have just said a few 'inconsiderate people'. The point stands however.