first mate

A bit pots and kettles coming from you Mal. Nigello and Cancerian have fair points; cycling responsibly and taking care round other road users and pedestrians is in everyone's best interests, I do not see that as anti cycling. The cycle lane through Dulwich Village needs sorting, the road surface is awful and in low light may be problematic for some.

I am interested to hear Earl's answer. Also exactly what is Earl's area of expertise?

I have no idea, but not so difficult for one of them to stand to the side and record. In an odd way at least if they were doing it for social media it might explain the motivation, albeit misguided. Others may disagree, but that feels less worrying than a desire to intimidate. I think comparable games like "knock down ginger" where children run away and/or momentarily stick their tongue out as cheeky gesture, have a different vibe to what is described here.

I really do wonder if they are filming these episodes for social media?

This is the truly embarrassing aspect of it all.

What I am interested in is a potential breach of process. I understand that for some on here the end seems to justify the means. Let's not forget there was a clear majority against a CPZ at consultation and the council's own online document in June stated that the revised proposal was subject to (further) consultation.

Does anyone know when the statutory consultation to which the revised MGS CPZ proposal is subject will be taking place? In terms of process, is it okay for a Cllr to announce the revised CPZ has "been agreed" if the statutory consultation has not yet taken place?

We are now mid August and still no sign of the statutory consultation for the revised MGS CPZ proposal, which Cllr Charlie Smith has announced is now agreed. What is going on? Are they just going to impose the reduced CPZ without further consultation?

Have a look at the Melbourne Grove South CPZ. Southwark decided to make MG North a CPZ and then an LTN. Now they are also making the rest of MG, and few other streets a CPZ this coming October, despite a majority against in the last consultation. The details on process are a bit unclear. Wording in a document on the matter I viewed online in June stated the new reduced CPZ would be subject to statutory consultation. So far there has been no further consultation but Cllt Charlie Smith recently announced it had all been agreed. If anyone can explain, I'd be grateful. Anyway, reasons for blocking the road are all part of this grand scheme.

Southwark Council, not Rockets, is responsible for the local filter or LTN, whatever you are calling it now. Southwark Council insisted on a hugely expensive change to local Road and pavement layout in Dulwich Village. The rationale was to make streets safer, greener and have somewhere people can socialise. I would observe that in leafy, Dulwich Village, with its parks, restaurants and wine bars, the last two points were redundant before the changes were even mooted. That just leaves safety...

You have not really addressed my point. "weak" correlation is more or less insignificant. Therefore, when Southwark claim 'causation'- 'this LTN will make your street safer', how has that been demonstrated, aside from the notion that removing cars reduces vehicle collision stats? Safer more pleasant streets is a primary driver for LTNs.

So what you seem to be saying is the filter (love how you are now calling it a filter and not an LTN) has no correlation with crime and safety either way? Other than, of course, the incredible conclusion that removing cars probably reduces collision stats. What then do we make of Southwark's assertion that LTN's make for 'safer' streets?

This intervention cost millions, it was extremely expensive. A major part of the rationale was to make the streets 'safer'. Those in favour now seem to be arguing that although this LTN may be less safe in regard to certain, specific types of crime, overall it is no worse than most London streets. Given the amount spent on all this, that is a rather astounding conclusion.

In similar vein, elsewhere, data or reports or research, 'suggest'; 'broader trends', 'on average'. Yep, everyone is at it.

I am wondering if this is on the local SNT radar and if monitoring the park has been made a priority- the aim being to avoid escalation and copycat behaviour? I also wonder if any of this stuff is being posted on social media for 'larfs and clix'?

@Earl Aelfheah you will continue to argue about the stats and each of us will decide whose interpretation we find more convincing. However, you also said: "Putting aside what a PCSO may or may not have said to Rockets," this is effectively calling another poster a liar. Unless you can prove it then I think you should withdraw. @Alice and @headnun Thanks for that info. Really good to know more police to be out and about and, as said earlier, perception of crime is a thing too. @Glenham That's a shame. How many shops have closed in the area now?

This does seem to boil down to interpretation of statistics; with Rockets citing specifics and Earl broader trends, with Earl carefully referring to 'road danger', but not 'street theft', to make the point that the roads in the area under discussion are safer because there are fewer 'collisions'. Again, I think Rockets was pointing to correlation not causation. The point was made by another poster that the latter would be very hard to prove. What is not fair is to accuse the other of lying.

@Earl Aelfheah said: "So what we have is an individual making stuff up." Which bits specifically are they making up? That is quite a step from saying you do not believe what someone says. This time you are, once more, accusing others of lying.

Why then do you think police were knocking on doors in this specific area and talking to residents about it?

@Earl Aelfheah you said "The claim is that the police are stating that a 5 year old traffic filter is responsible for increased crime. Something they have said to Rockets and to no one else remarkably." What is your evidence that the police are stating this? I felt what was being suggested was correlation rather than causation. What is your evidence the police have only had this conversation with Rockets?

Thanks Moovart, but in terms of process I am not clear what has happened to the 'subject to statutory consultation' aspect of the new, revised version of the CPZ, after it was rejected at the last consultation. Earlier in the thread, some posters suggested that they were just a bit behind on the process but Cllr Smith's piece suggests it is a done deal? I agree, monitoring speed on Barry Road and Lordship Lane is essential- but this thread is about the revised CPZ and I doubt the CPZ will do anything to tackle speed. If anything, it may lead to more frustrated drivers driving round looking for spaces.

Cllr Charlie Smith has written in SE22 magazine that the MGS CPZ is now approved, but there is no mention of consultation. In the Council generated document I saw online in June it said this was subject to statutory consultation. Does anyone know if there will be another consultation, or not?

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!