northernmonkey

That is entirely your choice, but I?ve seen more than 3 different posters on here trying to suggest either that the Conservative Candidates are ?independents standing on a conservative ticket?, or having some idea that they?re actually independent candidates which is very much not the case.

Bic Basher- you keep referring to independents. There aren?t any independents who have announced they are standing. The only announced candidates to date are the Tories. The Lib Dem guy who expects to stand has been on twitter, but last I heard he wasn?t confirmed.

Just don?t kid yourself you?re not voting Tory!

I?ll take that response as ?there is nothing to indicate that these Tory candidates aren?t Tories!? Whilst it might not matter if you?re not in their ward, the idea of presenting Tory candidate or trying to position them as ?centrist? just because they?ll campaign to remove LTNs is a dangerous and slippery slope.

What policies do they have that show they?re ?centrist? @heartblock? The only policies they suggested were fighting to remove LTNs and fixing the postal service (something that they had no remit over). There is nothing to suggest that they are ?Tory light? so let?s not pretend that in voting for them you won?t be voting for Conservative councillors - they are part of the local association with all that entails

Just to be clear- they are not independent. Nor are they independents standing on a Conservative ticket. They are standing to be conservative councillors as members of the Conservative party. Their main policies appear to be ?remove all LTNs? which will appeal to some, but let?s not confuse the issue. They are not independents, they are Tories Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have no intention of voting Tory or Labour at > the election in May. Both parties are equally as > bad as each other. > > From the interview on LBC in the week, I > understand some anti LTN candidates will stand in > Village Ward in an attempt to kick Labour out of > the ward using protest votes. There was a mention > of people also standing in other Dulwich wards > affected by the LTN, although I can't see one > winning in Dulwich Wood for example where it only > affects a tiny part of the ward however > frustrating it is to have Labour Cllrs pushing > through the Dulwich LTNs.

No- they aren?t

It?s not a snarky debating point - it?s a factual and important one. Just because a majority of respondents said one thing that 100% isn?t the same as what one dulwich have said which is ?a majority of those living and working? kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For clarification this was in reply to > northernmonkey's post about the DA announcement. > Still getting the hang of this.. > > kissthisguy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's a gauntlet, and from their perspective, a > > reasonable one, given the circs. Making snarky > > debating points doesn't acknowledge the > > substantive: significant community rejection of > > what is, to all but the most ardent, a > > poorly-designed set of hastily-implemented, > > unconsulted schemes. It'll be interesting to > see > > what promises, fudges, etc are proposed by all > > three parties!

One Dulwich showing yet again their inability to differentiate between people who responded to a consultation vs residents in total. Denominators apparently not their strong point!

I see that we all want more data - it?s one thing that we do all easily agree on. Putting aside congestion vs counts. Where is the data showing northbound increases on grove lane such that you are clear that the grove Vale decrease can?t be true please?

Didn?t you claim above that it was- you stated quite clearly that traffic had increased and that it wasn?t just southbound, The grove vale reduction is from the latest monitoring released by the council. It doesn?t include the data you mention though as far as I know.

What is the northbound only increase for grove lane south (assume just past the lights at the top of dog kennel hill) for September 2021 please. I haven?t seen the data split out in that way so interested to see the scale of the increase you note.

Sorry what - traffic is down 14% on grove vale and you?re claiming that?s because it?s more congested so not counted? You?ve got to see that written down that sounds insane?

One of the problems of trying to correlate traffic falls and air pollution falls precisely is that there isn?t a 1:1 correlation. Pollution isn?t static, it moves around. It?s affected by the weather, the buildings, tree cover etc. pm2.5 is caused not only by road traffic by locally by burning solid fuels. What is clear is that by reducing traffic we reduce pollution and yes, that?s by eliminating journeys. But as noted above there is no data that shows pollution has increased on the areas suggested in this thread

One thing that would help re bike thefts is removing the ease of second hand market place selling. Eg all online sales could have to enter the frame number and prove it wasn?t registered as stolen. If this was a precondition of selling on eBay, gumtree, marketplace then it would make it less easy to flip bikes. Would also increase understanding from purchasers that you can and should check that a bike isn?t stolen before buying.

How are you judging whether it?s busier heartblock? Whenever I go down ashbourne I don?t see a single car.

Why are you so sure that the number for September isn?t actual?

Yes you?re missing something - but you?re probably looking at the wrong document as there are a few. Was just looking at this myself to understand what?s going on with the different numbers. Just to also add that it talks about September but then in the table also has figures for October which isn?t intuitive. The main report - think it?s page 29 has a table and shows October.

The latest data is really encouraging. What?s even more clear is that in the section of east dulwich grove where there is charter east dulwich / children walking to school, traffic has actually fallen 20 % year on year. This really is excellent and shows how much difference the measures have made.

The comments just aren?t true though. Here is a better analysed article that has Indix actual data included https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/transport-politics/2021/12/cycle-lanes-dont-cause-congestion-but-theres-money-to-be-made-in-pretending-they-do

Doesn?t seem to be a diversion on yet - maybe they cancelled the crane because of the weather warnings

Yes, I?ve seen the note. But these businesses aren?t breaking their leases no matter how much you?d like to blame the LTNs, their leases are up for renewal and the renewal price is too high for them. The question about whether the LTN means that they have less trade is still there but really, the note didn?t seem to indicate that the landlord was offering to renew on the same ongoing basis. Will be interesting to see what business moves in instead.

And yet - their note in the window said their landlord had put the rent up. Or actually said the landlord was unreasonable. The same happened with the barbers opposite, but they did re let quickly so perhaps GM?s landlord thought they could do the same and make more money?

Yesterday dulwich college had entrance tests for 11 plus and 16 plus, NCC auditions and sports - there was so much extra traffic

Where did you get that from Rockets? Whilst I guess it?s not impossible, it would seem unlikely on a road that is partially restricted