first mate

Yes, I agree with that. Having a little river running through would be wonderful but probably incredibly expensive.

So if you pedestrianise part of LL and many side streets disallow traffic, how would you make necessary journeys that could not be undertaken via active travel or public transport?

Maybe, but so what? It is not unreasonable for a local business to use local roads to get from A-Z. I would hardly call it a cut through. The local business is construction and construction is a fact of life in the city. By far the biggest construction effort in the area is the Charter School and Health Centre. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The slight irony is that very large delivery > > vehicle may well be for the Charter School > build. > > > Or simply cutting through from the Jewsons next to > ED station.

The slight irony is that very large delivery vehicle may well be for the Charter School build.

Might it simply be that his destination and therefore route has changed?

Abe, no the condition was for deliveries to be on Lordship Lane, a condition which is not adhered to but vans seem smaller. I?d imagine deliveries are more difficult whichever route. However, the really telling thing is the way planning and council were clear that traffic levels were not a concern- a very different stance from the one adopted for OHS purposes.

It wasn?t so long ago, but certainly prior to Covid and OHS, that the council justified the opening of LL M&S by stating it would not produce an increase in traffic or parking since most people would use active travel; the council stated traffic levels and parking in local streets around M&S were really not an issue at all. Very hard to make head or tail of the ?official? narrative and ?evidence? on traffic. It is incredibly inconsistent.

?No ones saying cars should run freely anywhere, but I didn?t think we lived in a society where people?s health was considered collateral damage. The space for people to walk and cycle benefits some, the worsened traffic harms others.? This is the central contradiction. The stated aim is to reduce or even completely remove motorised vehicles because they are harming our health. In the meantime, it is viewed as completely acceptable to harm health by blocking or slowing down emergency services, actively harm the freedoms and well being of vulnerable sections of the community, cause major levels of stress by limiting necessary journeys and modes of transport. If you object you are labelled a ?petrol head?, ?entitled? and told you have a ?choice?. I am tired of the myopia and fanaticism of the pro cycling, pro CPZ lobby and most of all this dogmatic council. The current interventions are not working overall. Proper consultation is needed immediately. Lets have properly considered and monitored interventions for the good of the many, not the few.

I think there is a longstanding relationship between sectors of the Labour Party in particular and a stated aim to rid London of private car ownership by 2030. The socialist hue of labour councils and councillors may be a factor in how fanatically they pursue this agenda see https://www.fleetpoint.org/carandvannews/car/privately-owned-cars-should-be-banned-from-london-by-2030/ It seems Southwark has signed up to this agenda with zeal and cycling organisations will have been useful allies and organs of promotion. Hence S?wark Cyclists central role as a ?stakeholder? and consultee.

In our case the startling similarity between Southwark? HLS scheme and current LTN measures, the former already being pushed well before Covid struck, begs a few questions.

Sue is quite right to complain. Complacency and hoping things will all work out is not the way to go. It seems the result Sue was seeking is better training of delivery staff by Tesco. At no point does she ask for the guy to get sacked. The notion that we should not complain if we witness irresponsible and potentially risky behaviour is wrongheaded.

Me too.

What a surprise. The sudden price hike, I mean.

Do the Council always shut down petitions once a certain number is achieved? I guess they ran the risk of many more people signing and an even bigger figure would be bad PR for their LTN approach.

Oh lord, he is the very last person you?d want involved.

I think the figures have been corrected as the numbers signing went up then down again, so the existing figure is probably genuine. People can share an IP address.

Yet more inane stereotyping.

Slarti b?s assertions are worth further scrutiny though.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=500000049 2222

It does seem likely the council have justified certain interventions with misleading stats and you are quite right to question and pursue this. The idea that only those with qualifications in traffic management can ?understand? sounds a bit desperate. slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > What I like is the prospect of OneDulwich - > entirely unqualified in traffic management and > > environmental monitoring - bickering over > pollution measurement methodologies. > > The OHS agenda and the subsequent so called > "Covid" measures have been driven by the local > councillors. Do they have any qualifications in > traffic management, or indeed related disciplines > such as engineering? From linkedin they seem to > be a Digital Content consultant (whatever?) and a > sugar trader. > > AS for the council officer who has been key in the > helping the councillors with OHS and the so-called > Covid changes: he has based the justification for > teh closures on a 47% increase in traffic through > the DV junction. This figure is totally > misleading, with base figures taken during > re-building work on the DV junction in Sep 2017. > He has also defended the strange traffic stats for > Calton Avenue, used to support the DV junction > closure, whilst unable to explain the > discrepancies with the earlier TfL survey. If he > is qualified in traffic management why is he > behaving in this way? > > I do find it odd that his email signature has no > details of his professional qualifications but I > will be happy to hear what they are. > > Onedulwich has supporters who are engineers and > professionals used to assessing figures (eg I > studied Maths and Statistics and have worked > analysing numbers for many years) and we also have > an experienced traffic engineer for advice. We may > not all be qualified in traffic management but we > are able to recognize when people are trying to > pull the wool over our eyes.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=500000049&RPID=772834242&HPID=772834242

What is the latest on the Southwark Road Closure petition? I cannot now seem to get the links that were working to direct to the right information, instead they are linking to a Southwark minutes and meetings, which is very odd. Can someone post up a link that works and latest count please?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDispl > ay.aspx?id=500000049 > > 2069 now Heading towards 3000

Wow, is that really true? Presumably Melbourne residents doing this were probably against CPZ? Cannot believe anyone would vote in all day CPZ and then go and park for free in a neighbouring non CPZ street. However, if this is happening in any numbers it makes you wonder if it was a majority who wanted CPZ in Melbourne Grove?

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=500000049 2069 now