Jump to content

first mate

Member
  • Posts

    5,033
  • Joined

Everything posted by first mate

  1. What is the relevance of this? OD have asked some questions that a number of people would like to see some answers to. The Cabinet member in charge of streets took OD and the questions seriously enough to have a meeting with them. Why do you think a poster on this forum would have access to the number of meetings councillors have had with any groups? I also agree with Heartblock, that attempts to make something of the fact that some OD founders may be Tories and one may have been in PR is a bit so what? I don't know if that is the case, but if it is it does not invalidate interest in and support for the questions they are asking. Even in the HOC members across the parties can find common ground on single issues.
  2. It felt a little like Cllr Williams took advantage of his position as Chair. Not a good look. As for Cllr Rose, banging her hand on the table to make her points and spouting phrases like "I am sorry you are not aligned", and "mansplaining", it all seemed quite aggressive and defensive. Listening carefully to her answers, for the most part they were not specific to the questions about Calton Rd, but a generalised and self congratulatory word salad about her great work in the borough. My overall feeling was this is not a group of people who have any intention of truly listening to perspectives that do not "align" with theirs.
  3. Ah, so a consultation that was not really a consultation as the biggest stakeholder of all- local residents- were not consulted en masse. This is all so slippery and anti democratic.
  4. What's the source? That sounds most unlikely. I think we'd all remember taking part in a consultation of that nature, especially with a result that was in favour! Funny how we all remember the ED CPZ consultation which was overall not in favour.
  5. I agree. Definitely more cycling on pavements going on, including on those without dedicated cycle paths. In an earlier post elsewhere, someone observed that cycling on pavements had been more or less decriminalised. If cyclists begin to feel more 'entitled' about cycling on any pavement then, yes, there will be more injuries.
  6. One minute you seem to argue permits are so affordable meaning people won't give up their cars. In order for people to be incentivised to relinquish their cars you have to admit that permit prices will have to be hiked by quite a way then, to make them unaffordable? Which is it? Club cars are still going to take up a part of that the freed up road space, sounds like Cllr Rose had quite big plans in that direction. So all a bit circular in a way. EA it's not an entitlement it is the product of years and years of societal and infrastructure change. You cannot just snap your fingers and change it all overnight which is rather what this feels like. I also don't know if you did not see or just chose to ignore Pugwash' post above yours. There are very good reasons why sections of society rely on vehicle use and please don't, like some others on here, patronise by referring to elderly or disabled people you know who manage perfectly well on their e-bike. Great if they can but many cannot.
  7. The cost of many things will go up. Any kind of building work, maintenance, visitors... So in a cost of living crisis Southwark Labour are doing their utmost to load on more costs for everyone.
  8. Cllr Rose stated that the whole raison d'etre for CPZ is to "incentivise" car owners to give up their cars. Therefore, even if the costs seem reasonable and affordable to you now Mal, the assumption has to be that they will keep raising permit and parking prices until people sell their cars, or their stated reason for doing this will have failed. The other point is will there be less cars? Rose said they would use space freed up by private cars to build a much greater club car offering. So not sure there will necessarily be less cars. What there will be is a greater opportunity for the council to monetise public space, a bit like Rose wants to do with our parks.
  9. In the same scrutiny session Rose alludes to a challenging meeting with Nunhead residents on CPZ. She says the meeting very well attended. However, despite this resistance the stated intention is to plough on, indeed, Rose says she is determined to see the changes implemented. No mandate, forced changes residents do not want. This is not democracy. As a complete aside, I see Cllr McAsh now describes himself as socialist and not marxist...
  10. Watch from 44.24. Catherine Rose explains how they intend to collect car data to be able to charge according to weight and size of car. She acknowledges that electric cars are heavier, so don't think owning one will save you from charges. Later in this section she alludes to the difficulties of bringing residents over to accept CPZs. She also talks about 'when' the whole borough is CPZ, not "if". She says that it will be easier to collect car data and refine charges once everyone is paying for a permit. If you can be bothered to watch the whole piece, Rose earlier explains that permits and CPZ charges are and will be used to "incentivise" a reduction in car ownership. In short, they intend to charge so heavily you will be forced to give up your car. They also have their sights set on electric cars. Again, there was no mandate for any of this. This was the last session on the subject. The June scrutiny session was cancelled. Suggest we look out for the July session, with Cllr McAsh in the hot seat.
  11. It would be illegal for the council to spray with anything that caused injury to pets. Ask what the weed killer is that is being used and/or raise with your councillor.
  12. In the last scrutiny session in May, when Cllr Rose was still in charge of streets (now Cllr McAsh) borough-wide CPZ was certainly referred to as a matter of 'when' not 'if'. As others say Council has no mandate for this and there has been no consultation since the last in ED where 68% were against.
  13. It may also be worth remembering that Cllr McAsh promised that only streets that wanted CPZ would get CPZ.
  14. Of course ED does not need CPZ. Southwark Council need it. They have multiple environmental and climate related boxes to tick and CPZ helps them do just that while simultaneously providing the perfect greenwashed disguise for their need for revenue. Just remember a council that really, genuinely valued the aforementioned would never consider hiring out its parkland for very large commercial, environmentally polluting events.
  15. I think the HF ones look much nicer. I'm not wild about the lime green colour. I have not tried one yet as have my own non powered bike. Do the Lime bikes give quite a lot of assistance? The attraction is in getting up the significant hills either end of ED😊
  16. Okay, I know I was one to raise the issue of her behaviour but with hindsight I have little doubt the individual feels awful. It must be pretty embarrassing for her. I'd prefer to focus on the bigger picture. The key thing here is the questions being asked about local LTNs and specifically data used to justify them. I really hope Cllr McAsh has the courage to really look at this carefully and ensure data is up to scratch and has been handled independently and impartially by those involved in collection and analysis.
  17. Interesting to see efforts to wrench the thread around to 'who are One Dulwich?' and 'some if you must be hand in glove with them' but not a single peep about the quite extraordinary behaviour of Dr Anna Goodman caught on CCTV surreptitiously taking down an anti LTN poster in a local shop? I don't know how many times it has to be said, but I do not think anyone on this thread is actively involved with OD. A number of us are interested in hearing answers to questions they have posed to the Council via James McAsh. OD have rather usefully asked questions a lot of us would like answers to. Whoever or whatever they are does not invalidate those questions. So do those of you who are so interested in exposing OD as dodgy or shady or whatever it is you have in mind, not the least bit bothered about what Anna Goodman did, given her fairly central role in producing data to support LTNs?
  18. Disagree. The behaviour looks considered and calculated rather than impulsive, she initially holds herself back when another shopper enters and pretends to be doing something else, before returning to take the poster down. Surreptitiously removing posters displayed in shops or deliberately trying to get threads lounged. Similar behaviours in a way. Hmmm. Totally accept, not every pro LTNer will behave this way. Roll on Cllr McAsh's response on missing/flawed data etc.
  19. You mean a number of us posting on this forum? Has it occurred that is because none of us are members? Don't know what you mean by a fake forum name? I have posted on here under the same name for many years. if you want to know about OD's funding and internal structure then ask them. I doubt you'll find the answers from anyone here. Again, Cllr McAsh met with them and listened to what they have to say, so he at least feels they have questions which need addressing. I think we have now probably established that those querying local LTNs on this forum are mostly not Tories, not petrol heads, do cycle and walk, do care about the environment.
  20. I do not believe the majority consistently questioning the efficacy of local LTNs on this forum are members of OD. Despite the terrible things that organisation is alleged to be involved with by some on here I would query if an elected Councillor would agree to meet them, if all those allegations were true and evidenced. Anyhow, many lobby groups attract the odd extremist and crackpot... The salient bit of information is that Cllr McAsh has agreed to look into the missing data aspect, among other things. The purpose of this thread is to let others know and update on progress.
  21. London Cycling Campaign and therefore Southwark Cyclists are in some sort of a partnership with Lime (not sure of exact nature of this just going by LCC website). Can those organisations put pressure on Lime to come up with solutions to pavement cluttering etc?
  22. Well, to get this back on thread, Cllr McAsh has stated he will look into the data. He gave OD a hearing. Some of us feel that is a positive step. I also felt Penguin made a great point in an earlier post.
  23. I wonder how many who are pro LTN and who live in an LTN continue to own or use a car?
  24. Going off piste again Mal.
  25. Well, if all those who are pro LTNs locally (and according to some you are in the majority) sells their car today that should make a big dent in local car use and ownership. I assume that Mal, Earl, Ex etc.. all gave their car use long ago. If more follow your example, which really they should if they are in favour of LTNs, we should very soon see a major reduction in car ownership and use. As you say, leaving the roads clearer for those that really do need to drive as well as for buses.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...