first mate

Well Labour councillors were touting train improvements as part of their election pitch, so let's see what they come up with!

Hopefully we can now have a proper, democratic consultation on LTNs. I think the vote for Labour has not been one generally in favour of LTNs but a response to recent events on the national stage. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Labour win in Dulwich Village, in a contest widely > touted by ?One? supporters as a referendum on > LTNs. Hopefully we can now focus on making > improvements to existing schemes rather than > trying to scrap them in favour of more traffic, > and look to make further improvements to local > transport and environment.

Not a helpful or clever comment. Many of us who object to the mode and manner of implementation of LTNs locally are also regular cyclists. It is just that we see things as they are not as we would wish them to be. Please stop negative characterising of anyone that dares to query the efficacy of LTNs in the area. Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes damn those cyclists with their healthy > lifestyles and low carbon/emissions. Why isn't > Southwark more like the outer boroughs? You don't > see Bromley introducing 20mph on their roads, > encouraging active travel and introducing other > restrictions on hard working motorists. They have > it right there, bikes are for children and public > transport for poor people. Sadly I know people > who think like this.

Well, his career in politics will be somewhat curtailed if he does not get in, so...

The council has all the legal tools it needs to enforce dogs on lead in certain areas of the park like footpaths, since PR is under PSPOs. I wonder why the don't? alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lebanums Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It clearly says round the lake that dogs should > be > > kept on a short lead. I was fearful of this > when > > the goslings had hatched. I did say to a few > > owners who had their dogs off leads to be > mindful > > that there were goslings around, but I got a > blank > > stare back. > It?s the same in Sydenham Hill Woods, clearly > stated at all entrances that dogs must be on a > short lead March - September (bird nesting season) > but universally ignored. I?ve stopped asking dog > owners to follow the rules as they just ignore you > or claim their dog is somehow fine to be off > lead. > > Of course since there is no enforcement anywhere > it?s all a moot point.

Dogs do not have a moral system or sense of what is right or wrong; the problem is the humans that own them. Lynne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't waste your breath. Lebanums. According to > their owners,no dog ever did anything wrong.

Only in DV?

No, not when you have a hill either end of ED and the main flatter route out of the area is viewed as 'iffy'.

I really think it is an issue and will make some people think twice about the wisdom of active travel(walking or cycling). With the cost of living crisis and pressures all round theft will be on the rise. Avoiding certain routes or not cycling at certain times is a practical solution but does not make cycling feel like the flexible and attractive transport option it is painted to be.

Yes, as dependence on cycling increases thieves will learn to identify the more expensive models and it is not so difficult for a young male to intimidate a lone woman. Does anyone have some useful advice as to what more vulnerable cyclists can do to protect themselves?

Mr/Mrs Waseley, I think most objectors are not anti all LTNs in principle but anti the lack of proper consultation and thoughtful implementation. Many of these LTNs were shoehorned in under emergency measures in lockdown. We are no longer in lockdown or emergency measures; time to review and reconsider the real efficacy of our local LTNs, not least with a proper and transparent process of consultation.

But it is not "opposed in principle"- that is your negative spin, it is simply stating the blindingly obvious, that currently LTNs in this area, in the way they have been implemented, are not working as well as was hoped and for some have made congestion and pollution very much worse.

They were/are but so are many other breeds. The key point is that the owner should not have had the dog off lead in that area. In fact, IMHO dogs should not be off lead on any of the footpaths in the parks...this would solve so many potential problems. Dogs can play off lead in the field areas.

There are PSPOs in place on PR which allow an owner to be fined and ordered to keep their dog on lead. There are mechanisms in place but they are not used. No need to go for a wholesale ban but the owner of this dog should definitely be held to account and educated. I hope the parent goose and goslings are going to be okay? The problem is that if the parent is badly injured the whole family are vulnerable to other predators. CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogs should be banned from this park altogether. > > Let them have Goose Green which has already been > turned into a giant dog toilet by selfish owners > and keep the rest of our parks clean and safe.

I doubt SL will be removed but tactical voting may help to increase scrutiny and accountability. The Lib Dems do not seem to have taken a clear position on LTNs. Does anyone know what Michael Green's stance is?

Mops this is disgraceful. I cannot imagine how upsetting and intimidating this must feel. It is appalling but not surprising to learn that your local councillor has not intervened but has instead opportunistically used your complaint to further a pet agenda. I very much hope that the SNP meeting can help and support you. Have you spoken to your neighbours? Is there anything you could do as a group?

If true, it does seem a bit of a contradictory position. To fly abroad for a holiday is a choice, after all. However, a link would be fair. Glad the Rye has been left spotless.

The plan seems to retain 5 onsite parking spaces for commercial use.

You misread the post and misrepresented the poster. Time to put that cognitive bias away. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shouting and screaming at councillors about > attempts to reduce car use and people raising > awareness of imminent climate breakdown *slow > handclap*

A slight aside but for that reason I do not understand how common land can be licensed for private use by the council ( Gala festival. gabys1st Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My understanding is that the Common is common land > so can't be stopped from camping and that they > have porto loos. > XR wda thought pretty obvious want more wind > turbines and building insulation. > Wdnt a Peoples Assembly allow for the above to > happen if enuf peeps wanted them to?

What is meant by ditching pets? I feel reasonably sure this is not a call for mass abandonment or euthanasia but just want to be clear. I suspect fuel poverty and the unravelling energy crisis is more likely to cause a shift in behaviour than any amount of direct action.

I rest my case.

What a very patronising post. Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Community bonds to support low emission bus > services deserves a thread of its own. There are > many on this thread that seem to have a lot of > free time to post on why the LTNs are bad. Their > time could be better spent on initiating a > community bond scheme in this area. Not a dig but > a challenge 😊

Not sure we are debating though? I think we are disagreeing about how effective XR type direct actions are. Do agree with much of your second para though

If it is a matter of only inconveniencing people then okay but once you stop people going to a relative in hospital I think a line begins to be crossed. I thinks the latter risks spilling over into doing harm.