first mate

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.

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.

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.

It may also be worth remembering that Cllr McAsh promised that only streets that wanted CPZ would get CPZ.

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.

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😊

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I wonder how many who are pro LTN and who live in an LTN continue to own or use a car?

Going off piste again Mal.

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.

They don't accept existing conclusions because they assert data is missing and therefore re-evaluation is required. This is pretty standard stuff and no mystery to it. As I said, were Cllr McAsh sure they were incorrect about missing data I doubt he would waste time looking into it.

Great ciggie analogy Spartacus, perfectly illustrating unintended consequences of well intentioned interventions. As we know, vaping now under major scrutiny and possibly not the safe option it was meant to be.

If, as the name indicates, OD are interested in the impact of local LTNs and have asked for data only around that, that certainly does not imply they accept all the other research. That is quite a leap; because I don't focus on and question all your research output on a subject you can safely conclude I accept it!? OD assert the local data is incomplete and therefore results not necessarily valid. Cllr McAsh is to look into this, something I doubt he would do if it was the open and shut case you suggest.

Don't know how you concluded that? Who is "they"? Any of us might support the idea of LTNs in principle, who would choose congested streets over those that are not? However, success varies according to area. Thus far, the negative aspects of local LTNs are being written off as either lies, imaginary, cognitive biases or driven by a political agenda. Holes in data have been identified by OD, thus far Cllr McAsh has not denied this is the case. Many of us look forward to his response.

What has been asked for is data specific to the ED area. Citing research that draws on other boroughs, other counties and even other countries does not really help persuade, especially when that data contradicts what some are experiencing. It has been said that some LTNs seem to work well while others don't. The missing local data that OD has asked for and which Cllr McAsh has said he will look into should give a much more accurate picture of what is going on locally.

In your view EA, shared by some, and which you are of course entitled to voice. However, many do not agree with you and there lies the rub. Presumably that is why Cllr McAsh decided to meet with OD.

It was certainly news to me that Cllr McAsh had met with One Dulwich. I am interested to hear what his responses are to the various questions raised and will look here for that update. I am sure we can all agree that for LTNs to work locally they have to benefit all, not just a few.

There is absolutely no obstacle to anyone posting a thread on a subject of interest. If others are similarly interested they will respond; that is democracy. Why not lead by example JJ and start a thread on a compelling subject that you feel is not being addressed and start a stimulating discussion? As P68 says, there are threads on various aspects of traffic and road infrastructure because these things seriously affect the lives of residents. Anyway, back on thread, did Cllr McAsh say where he would respond in two months time? Will he email One Dulwich or meet up with them again?

Why are certain posters so very desperate to shut this down...again? As Rockets said, so long as some residents have an issue with local LTNs that impact them negatively a thread will keep appearing because this is a local forum. You are not being forced to read the thread so kindly stop trying to censor others. I am also heartened that Cllr McAsh met with One Dulwich. Thank you Rockets for posting on this. Admin please look out for deliberate attempts by certain posters with form to get this new thread lounged. FWIW I am an ED resident with no ties to One Dulwich.