first mate

Indeed, what a very simple but effective way to massively improve the look and feel of the high street and also create more space on the pavement. However, get this is not a sexy or innovative intervention...

Crime rates in London are perceived to be higher than in Copenhagen. People feel safer to walk the streets alone at night than they do in London. Copenhagen has a lower population density. It has been observed by a number of posters that the school run is a central contributing factor to traffic load at certain times of the day. That, it seems, is a nut still to be cracked. We can make an assumption that the majority of parents are likely to be young and in reasonable health, so what is stopping them either have their children cycle to and from school or cycle with their children to and from school?

Boohoo, the current measures are not working. Perhaps this sort of radical change cannot happen quickly in the way you would like, unless, that is, one is willing to treat some other person's/ child's health as collateral damage - which seems to be the case. A notable issue is school traffic. It is ironic that we keep hearing about children's lungs but some of the biggest 'offenders' in the polluting stakes are their parents. Unless the school system is modified so that only local kids go to local schools, I cannot see how the regular stream of polluting school drop-offs will ever change. LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rosamund Kissi Debra - "Asked why I don?t > support > > LTNs? Bcos its slowly poisoning my kids & > > thousands more due to daily exposure to toxic > air. > > I?m a mum of 3 & love them equally never > choose. > > Supporting such a scheme means you support > > #lungapartheid. If your rd is clear, congestion > > has moved elsewhere" > > So what do you suggest? What is the alternative? > How do we encourage people out of their cars for > unnecessary short journeys? What will London look > and feel like in 20 years if we go back to what we > had? How well will children e breathing then? > What about the health of their children? I > understand that change isn?t easy and appreciate > we must work quickly to resolve the issues that > have emerged but I need a response to the above > if we are to go forward.

Thanks for this ll- required reading. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s96603/Air%20quality%20part%20two%20draft%20review%20report.pdf legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark Air Quality report part 2, April 2021 > now up on the website in advance of tomorrow > evening?s meeting. Haven?t read it yet. > > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s9660 > 3/Air%20quality%20part%20two%20draft%20review%20re > port.pdf

Sidhue and Penguin, From your posts it is clear there is a big problem with traffic on sections of Underhill at various times of the day and this is the result of LTNs. I suspect not many are being dissuaded by this.

Thanks Nigello. One more point, it is about need not want, there is a real distinction which, if you were or have ever been in similar position, you may better understand. No victim mentality here; a bit of crass and unnecessary point scoring on your part. Why not go away and have a careful think as to whether you really know as much about this area as you feel you do.

Shortage of GPs is a fact, I think politicians of all persuasions are well aware of this. I disagree that you can generally see a GP if you need to, perhaps you have been lucky enough not to require one out of hours for a complex condition but not everyone is so fortunate. The 111 service is a joke and also increasingly dependent on nurse practitioners and less clinically qualified staff. I also disagree with your insinuation that I may have been involved in asking for a GP when a nurse practitioner or similar would have been adequate. How can you possibly be so sure? My experience and that of others I know has clearly been very different from yours. For single factor, simple conditions you may have a point for anything else you are way off base.

I think there is possibly a model that is being pursued to substitute GPs with practitioner nurses. I believe this idea was initiated/ mooted many years ago by Concordia which now runs the Tessa Jowell medical centre. The NHS is being run down, there is a shortage of GPs. It seems a fair few changes have been slipped through in the name of Covid.

Can you "cut legally through Brockwell Park" in a car?

Rockets, I believe you, I also believe those who actually live on the road.

Very interesting. Completely contradictory views of traffic levels and car speeds on Underhill road yesterday morning. Both can't be right! I know which version I believe.

legal, look forward to hearing how you get on with all that and agree with all you say. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Laura, I'm with you. > > I emailed to ask who was on last year's climate > emergency steering group. No answer. Submitted > FoI. No answer. Escalated FoI in accordance with > Southwark policy. Twice. No answer, no answer. > > So I've complained to the ICO. If the council > won't even answer a simple question about who they > have been speaking to, the chance of getting more > detailed info is, I suspect, zero. > > I agree that the council shouldn't have made the > declaration / set the target if they don't believe > they have sufficient powers to do the things > required to achieve it. If they do believe they > have sufficient powers, then there should be a > plan.

Perhaps the Council would have little to gain by going after householders and heating? Car users are a much easier target and can be used to extract cash and if things go wrong or not quite to plan they can blame matters on the current government or the Mayor. What is your view on infill developments by removing and building on green areas on housing estates?

LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed > and accept that the current LTNs are not perfect. > I have seen some of the rubbish on Twitter and > have to say most of the aggressive behaviour comes > from the anti LTN side. If not aggression than > being economical with the truth. But never mind > that if there are people who want to explore what > is best for Dulwich and best for London in terms > of making a meaningful contribution to the climate > emergency then let?s do it. > > However, discussions needs a facilitator who is > impartial and has the expertise in transport and > urban design to look at Dulwich and the wider > area. Such an exercise will only be successful if > there is broad agreement that something needs to > be done to reduce cars, short journeys and > encourage walking and cycling. I?ve not seen much > that is positive coming from the One Dulwich group > who seem to want the LTNs removed or for residents > to have permits which is a proposal I don?t > understand. > > But I honestly don?t think any of the bone will > happen even on World Earth Day so carry on with > your discussions. Consistently accusing those who do not agree with you of "aggression" is, I can see, a useful tactic but the evidence is clear on here this is simply not true or least no more typifies one side of the LTN debate than it does the other. To constantly accuse others of "aggression" is arguably passive aggressive. There seems to be a pattern here to try to demonise LTN naysayers (Daily Mail readers, aggressive, climate deniers, liars). The pattern is echoed in a recent post by Cllr McAsh, where he asserted that in his private chats on a visit to Nx road market everyone was in favour of recent developments but that at least one person in favour was too scared to come into the forum because of the "toxic atmosphere". Nice bit of character framing there too and seems to echo a general approach to those in support of the council handling of LTNs.

Removed

@ LTN said: "We have One Dulwich promoting the falsehood that ambulance services are being delayed, However, Darren Farmer gave evidence in March 2021 to Southwark's Environment Scrutiny Committee and stated that this was not the case. (Look it up)" @LTN, having "looked it up" Darren Farmer makes the point that LTNs in Southwark are impacting all blue light services as well as a raft of community health and care services. He is clear, the preference is for proper consultation (inferring that has not been the case) and cameras with timed closures, as in Islington, he says. I agree with Slarti, at this point Cllr Newens looks uneasy as does Cllr Rose. Heartblock, I also agree it is hard to align the council's OHS and cleaner, greener neighbourhoods stance with simultaneous plans for infill developments on housing estates, thereby reducing green space.

If it is okay for Melbourne Grove to be used as an occasional skate board venue, why not the "Square"?!

Goodness, how many times would you suddenly need to change sides on LL with your children? If shopping why not tether your bikes and walk? If not shopping, then unclear why you cannot use pedestrian crossings along with everyone else? hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But there were only horse and carts in Victorian > days. > > Things have changed and if you want to cycle with > your children along busy roads and suddenly change > sides you will have to either signal to change > lanes or use crossings.

No doubt there'll be some anodyne comment from councillors saying how very lovely the plants look- smiley face politics.

And, all courtesy of a labour council!

Hmmmm.

How can you be certain of that? Conditions can be put on developments.

You don't think they would have had any input at all into how that land was used? Yes, I know it is/was NHS owned but they do not operate in a complete vacuum.

Thanks LL. That makes sense. It is more the irony of the whole thing, as summed up by Alice. It is a farce and given promises that were apparently made to preserve the community garden shows you cannot trust this council.

On that site there are also charging stations for electric cars....why?