first mate

Perhaps it's one of those alternative 'facts'.

I guess for the conspiracy theorists on here at least if the One Dulwich updates appear largely on a thread called One Dulwich updates, it means you can hold your noses and ensure you don't click. For others, it means they know where they can read the updates. Some forumites may not be aware of One Dulwich, it might be a welcome surprise.

Hang on, given current trends in cycling behaviour locally the risk to pedestrians might increase if more people cycle as they are doing. For the most part, cars do not routinely drive on local pavements, nor have I seen a cars running red lights with the same frequency, locally; granted that is just what I have seen.

As I said, LTNs, CPZ, Dulwich Square, One Dulwich, all interlinked, so any could pop up on many of the threads really.

I feel sure it would be easy to get an app that provides a beep, when a speed limit is exceeded. So you do not have to carry the phone in one hand at all, you just need to be able to hear a beep. That aside, many cyclists mount their phone onto the handle bars. As we know, hire e-bikes already have speed limiters. That said, if cycling speed is not an issue, I wonder why that is? On the contrary, far from disincentivising cycling, a bit more structure and regulation might make it feel a bit less like the wild west, where anything goes. This evening, counted 5 cyclists, two of them younger teenagers by the look of it, running red lights at dusk.

I reckon if One Dulwich were being awarded and proclaimed as anti LTN and CPZ campaigner of the year by something like the 'London campaign for increasing cars on our roads', plus enjoying multiple meetings with local Dulwich Councillors and then seeing their vision turned into a reality as the cash strapped council ignore local consultations against but somehow find resources to build lots of new roads with free parking, then yes, I think we would all want to take a closer look. As it is, One Dulwich is a voice, a perspective, that is all. It feels to many locals that the imposition of many of these road changes has been extremely undemocratic, high-handed and paternalistic.

20mph is largely self-enforcing; intermittent/ random enforcement works in other scenarios, so can work in regard to cycling too. Small children are likely to have an adult to guide them, though is toddlers can cycle over 20mph then that is impressive! Older children can make use of a mobile phone with speedometer app but training by some of your fave organisations might also help here. No reason why parking wardens could not be trained up to ticket traffic offences like jumping red lights as well as speeding 20mph zones, cycling on non cycle pavements. I think 20mph zones can be controlled via bye laws? Just don't see how applying the same speed limit to all road users would makes roads more dangerous, nor can I see how it would deter people from cycling? One of the most risky aspects of cycling I have encountered while cycling is having another cyclist zoom past, at close quarters, with no warning at all- these are generally, but not always, e-bike users. You already know about my experiences as a pedestrian on the receiving end of careless/ reckless cycling behaviour.

Perhaps you count yourself among them; But the Dulwich Society Transport sub-committee Chair was allegedly not that open or transparent, as when they were named in this forum I believe admin was asked to remove their name. No problem with that, of course, but it rather shows that some are not as open and transparent as you would have us think.

Well maybe not the best way to make your point Earl, it just looks a bit silly. I think largely threads have been recreated when they were locked. Aside from that, I think you have issue with interlinked topics being mentioned on multiple threads. You object because you feel LTNs, CPZ and Dulwich Square are all completely discrete entities that are completely unrelated. Whereas, we have shown they are all interlinked.

Just noticed that Earl, one of the posters who has complained long and hard about there being multiple threads discussing LTN, as well as repeatedly stating that related changes are 5 years old and to desist, has just now started another thread about LTNs?! Bizarre.

Yes and by some accounts in quite recently, which makes inclusion of that information all the more relevant.

People are free to subscribe to any groups, whether One Dulwich or those with influence/ contributing to the agenda of the Dulwich Society Transport sub-committee. Posters are also free to contribute to threads, however hard you try to censor those views. The above is relevant to this thread because One Dulwich gives voice to those locals who object to/question imposition of an agenda by a council seemingly overly influenced by cycling lobby groups like LCC.

Because, as just explained, they are all interlinked and One Dulwich addresses those links.

Thing is, as we now know, CPZ, LTN (and Dulwich Sq) all interlinked, so showing how LCC in cahoots with Labour has successfully managed to get both measures installed locally, against the will of the majority of residents consulted, can be placed in threads on local CPZ, LTN or Dulwich Square.

Clearly the pro-LTN branch of The Dulwich Society. Are you a member of the Travel and Evironment sub-committee per chance? Are you a member of the Labour Party as well? This is fascinating and the plot thickens….read on…. Now remember back in June there was a thread on the shenanigans taking place at the Dulwich Society which you started Dulville Res? Now we know the chair of the Dulwich Society Transport sub committee was also awarded London Cycling Campaign campaigner of the year- presumably for helping ensure Dulwich Sq, the 'LTN' and CPZ impositions happened. Wondering how many other pro LTN/CPZ/Dulwich Sq posters on here are members/ involved of the Dulwich Society transport sub committee?

No, the truly shocking campaign/harnessing of social media, has been through an LCC campaigner of the year who also happens to be Chair of the Dulwich Society Transport Sub Committee. That committee seems to have been hijacked by LCC supporters with local Labour Councillors in attendance, to get things, like Dulwich Square 'done'. I would not be surprised if at least one of that sub committee has been posting here on these threads.

What a waste of paper and plastic too.

I'm thinking about how to spend that gigantic Council parking surplus- 20 mph can be done borough by borough. Sometimes you do sound awfully similar in your messaging to cycle lobby groups like LCC, plus you work in transport and you do not live in the borough.

The value of One Dulwich is that it is managing to articulate concerns of many local residents. As the council override consultation results it is quite useful to have a voice with a different perspective and which challenges the council and cycling lobby agenda. I think One Dulwich reflects what locals think, rather than telling them what to think. At the end of the day, we all make our own minds up. I would add that sometimes LCC might as well post on here as messaging from certain posters is very similar.

Are you a member of affiliated to LCC, Earl? It seems a number of posters on here closely reflect the LCC agenda and advisories, so in a way, maybe LCC stuff is already being posted;

Interesting. The cycle lobby on here are desperate ( for reasons I do not understand) to avoid having 20mph speed limits apply to all road users.

I'd love to know how many are LCC members. As we know, LCC asks members from all over London to get involved in local traffic consultations and influence others via social media. My guess is some may also be very close to the council;

That is the born again cyclist for you.

Given all the concerns raised here about motorists, I 'd guess young children are not going to be cycling alone, so the majority will have an adult with them. Older children will almost certainly have a mobile phone and the ability to download a GPS app. I thought 20mph could be set and controlled by local bye laws? Snowy, not sure what the relevance of batteries running out or unicycles is? I'm also waiting for you to dig out that information you say you have, but don't have time to find, on the case discussed by Rockets?

Hang on, we are talking about Southwark, yes? Do you have evidence this alleged IP address fiddle in another borough also applies to the majority consultation result against the Dulwich Village CPZ, and historically, the majority against CPZ in East Dulwich? As we know, many LTNs have been imposed, with zero consultation. I'd also add that many of these consultations are also open to skewing by LCC, who positively encourage members all over London to get actively involved in consultations for areas they live miles away from.