first mate

Apologies I keep referring to Earl as 'he', I see that others do not. I got the impression that Earl was casting doubt on the assertion that police had visited homes in Dulwich Village, advising on a rise in some types of crime in the area and that a potential link with LTN's was mooted. Since Earl has cast doubt on any of this, I wonder if they have checked it out with the local SNT? The pollution aspect is, within this thread, a red herring, as you well know. The interest here is not in stats for LTNs generally but this specific LTN- if it even is one, and you have cast doubt on that. You and Rockets will continue to disagree on how the stats are interpreted but I am more interested in the fact that police have felt it necessary to visit households on streets in and around the locale and, it is said, considered the possibility that quieter streets post 'LTN' may have facilitated an increase in certain types of crime in this specific area. I guess we could add that if, as is suggested by your last comment on crime in the area compared to other areas locally, there is no evidence crime rates are down either what do we make of the rationale that this LTN would make for a 'safer' environment?

I also noticed that Earl had suddenly slipped in pollution. At least now he seems to accept that the police were knocking on doors and warning or advising about crime in the Dulwich Village area. Presumably they would not do this if crime in the area was reducing? Limited resources and all that. A key rationale given by the council to install this LTN was to make the area 'safer' (how was not specified; it was vague). Would the police really make the effort to go round knocking on doors just for the fun of it? If certain types of crime are up in that area is it fair to assert streets in the LTN are safer?

Nothing like a spot of exaggeration to plump up a rebuttal. What is much more likely is the police went round urging residents to take care, noting that there seems to have been a rise in certain types of crime in the area and- in the course of a doorstep chat the LTN as a potential factor may also have been mentioned. I see nothing unusual or far-fetched about that? As you say, proving the LTN is a contributing factor (or the obverse) is well nigh impossible, but would not stop people making a potential link, whether residents or police. Just stop drinking Tango in Vanity Square then!

Yes, I think people walking or cycling at night may benefit from street lights. But let's stay on topic. This thread is about a specific LTN in Dulwich Village- although confusingly, the council ( and Earl) say it is not really an LTN. The Melbourne Grove South LTN is proving a smashing little speed rat run for local delivery e-bike riders (sorry 'motorbikes' which, along with cars, are meant to be blocked). Have not visited Vanity Square for a few weeks. What's the bike/ red light situation like? Are more beginning to heed light changes?

I didn't though; but you implied it. As for your confirmation bias 'slur' what's that saying about casting out the mote from your own eye.

Yes, agitated and angry and some resorting to personal attacks, accusing others of exhibiting 'pathological' behaviour and implying they are lying. With emotions running so high you might almost think some were/are closely involved in the research in question;)

I do not know how old you are, but if you are clearly an older person ( please forgive if not the case) I think what these kids did is even more despicable. It seems clear this is not just misguided hijinks.

The unintended consequences of Southwark's multiple, simultaneous roadworks seems now to have affected bin collection in some areas.

Also, just to add, the threat to kill someone's dog and try to kick it, is an additional extremely unpleasant layer. I have noticed a lot of the burst water balloons lying around in the park too- that is not great for the environment either.

I agree, the people in the park office seem to be invisible. Quite why we need a park office I am not sure. Perhaps it is to do with all the maintenance and upkeep for which there will be organisation and admin. It may be expensive but I do think funding some sort of regular park safety oversight should be a priority. Southwark to want young people to use the park, as do we all, but there probably does need to be some sort of supervision for everyone's sake.

The big difference, other than increasingly flaking paint, seems to be graffiti. The question is, will that/ can it be controlled?

There will always be kids pushing the envelope as the saying goes, but having some boundaries should help most understand what they can and cannot do. I think dedicated, daily park wardens is exactly what is required...with a hotline to SNT teams on the beat. Is there no way money made from Gala or from Park parking fees can be diverted to provide that funding? I feel it would be a really good use of money. The principle aim being to maintain the park as a safe and relaxing environment for all. If funding really cannot be found I wonder if there might be funding to at least train volunteer park wardens?

Completely unacceptable. They need to fund a proper, permanent park warden presence or this sort of behaviour will get worse. Parks should be safe for all to enjoy and being assaulted and threatened by teenage gangs may put more vulnerable people off using the park altogether. If they are prepared to threaten to hurt an animal then where might it lead? This does not sound like kids just being silly; lobbing water bombs at each other is one thing, but targeting complete strangers out for a walk and minding their own business and trying to kick their dog is, in my view, no laughing matter. A group of 15 teenagers can be intimidating, not to everyone but for some it can be, especially if their behaviour is aggressive.

CPZ stands for Cat Pee Zone; they never move on and the streets are literally awash with widdling felines.

Here come the thought police.

@Earl Aelfheah ? Polite reminder, this thread is about: Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

Thank you but now I am really confused as to why Earl was making a huge issue about a requirement to pay for it, or even more strange, suggesting we should steal it from a reference library?

Not sure what your last comment means? Aside from that, I take it you think the possibility of holding a consultation over the school holidays when lots of people are away, is a great idea?

Unless those with access to the actual research can show that is not the case? Does anyone know how this research has been funded? If the funding is wholly private then I understand why it is not available for the public to see; if it is partly funded by public money then we should not have to pay to scrutinise it.

Forgive me if I try to get this thread back on subject; does anyone know if there are plans for a statutory consultation around proposed MGS CPZ? This was slated in the last council documents I have seen for June/July. It would be a cynical move for this to happen when lots of people are away on summer holidays.

Still no news about the statutory consultation for the proposed reduced MGS CPZ- as per recommendations approved by the Cabinet Member in June. has anyone heard anything about this?

There is a third option, that someone who has been able to access the research in full, and who seems well-versed in the contents, answers questions about methodology. In fairness, you have shared some information but seem reluctant to share other bits. It is also slightly frustrating and counterproductive that the research that apparently underpins and justifies council policy and decisions around LTNs is so very hard to access. If the research was in any way partly funded by tax payer money, then it should be publicly available.

If we are referring to the same study, the conclusion is: "LTNs in London reduced road traffic injuries among all road users inside the LTN areas, with no evidence of overall impact (and for cyclists and motorcyclists a benefit) on boundary roads. Is this the study and conclusion you refer to?

Thanks Earl, how is London defined? How many boroughs included, how many -if at all- not included? Within those boroughs included how many roads in total and out of that figure how roads included and how many not? No, you suggested that I could go to a reference library and then "steal" a copy. I would never do such a thing and find it offensive that you suggest I might. Similarly, I would not rip down materials posted on private property because I did not agree with or wanted to block the content.

Perhaps the OP already has, hence her question?