first mate

?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

Perfect.

Seems plausible enough.

Other large sectionS of the park are given over for recreational use by children, parents and younger people: football, other sports, adventure playground, large children?s playground and you?d begrudge one tiny area being set aside for those, probably older, who want something more sedate? Your provocative use of language indicates you are trolling again but just in case you are really serious then think again.

Yes, perhaps one or a handful of residents supported by pro CPZ campaigners from outside the area. My only point is that the ?interference? of outsiders charge cuts both ways.

Indeed, a final say like should the hours be time limited or all day but the fact that there will be CPZ at all is a result of all stages of consultation.

Not sure that is the case and if it was why would the extremely well informed SC urge members outside of borough consultation areas to get involved and submit?

Well, hitherto, consultations in favour of CPZ have been bulked out by cyclists well out of the area. Southwark cyclists and LCC actively encourage their members to participate in CPZ consultations much further afield.