exdulwicher

CCTV footage is subject to GDPR but the Regulation just says that footage should be kept "as long as necessary" which in practice means about a month is "standard". As it's under GDPR, you're allowed to request footage of yourself: https://www.gov.uk/request-cctv-footage-of-yourself. Of course, that doesn't necessarily extend to footage of an identifiable vehicle although technically, the vehicle doesn't identify the individual. As you'll know the date and time you were in the car park, it should be a relatively trivial matter to find that footage, it's not like there's days worth of video to go through.

Nowhere in the above statement have I made any allegation against any individual on this forum or anywhere else. I posted a link from Lambeth Council which explains why they've removed 1/3rd of the "anti" comments from the Railton scheme as there was clear evidence that it was duplicate statements designed to rig the outcome. I pointed out that Hackney had done the same and there's a further link in there to another road closure scheme which had the same efforts to swing the result. There are "elements of the anti-groups" that do this. There's a pattern to it that crops up time and again on these surveys, not just in Southwark or London but nationwide. At no point did I say anything about any individual. If you've taken it personally, I apologise - maybe I should have said "elements of the anti-groups" originally rather than just "the anti-groups". The point remains that consultations which seem to be held up as some sort of gold standard of democracy, are far from it and the results should be used carefully alongside empirical data.

1) They're legally obliged to have consultations. They are not legally obliged to treat it as a referendum although it's usually a good way of getting a "sense check" of feeling. Interestingly, you can often see the tide of change as measures bed in, people get used to it and so on. 2) Consultations are not the SOLE answer to the scheme. They will be used together with data from the traffic monitoring, footfall, other engagement with schools / businesses etc. 3) Consultations are a known target for gaming. Lambeth found about a third of the respondents against the Railton scheme were duplicates: https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s133594/Appendix%20E%20Oval%20to%20Stockwell%20Consultation%20Report.pdf (page 69 where they talk about data analysis). Hackney found exactly the same, they discarded about 1/4 to 1/3 of the "anti" responses because they were suspicious. It's known that Ealing and RBKC had the same but unfortunately the council or whoever was doing their consultation didn't apply the checks. There was another well-publicised case in Newcastle: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2021/02/18/consultation-rigging-trolls-get-councils-goat-over-bridge-closures/ There's a certain irony in the anti-groups complaining that the council are undemocratic while simultaneously rigging the survey...

The data seems to broadly stack up against most other LTN stuff. I don't doubt that there's a few inaccuracies in it, especially early on when monitoring has only just gone in but do note that it's also offset against the radical shift in travel patterns over the last 18 months. To a certain extent it's also dependent on what (if any) monitoring has been done before that to form the baseline. Methodology - well it's all fairly standard stuff. Traffic counters, pollution monitoring, trendlines from TfL. I mean there's nothing in there that's massively radical, it's not like they sent the Hamlet kids out into the road and asked them to keep track of things. Engagement - most councils are crap at this. That's partly because most stuff they do, very few people give a toss. You might get a few complaints if you move bin day or bump up the charge to remove garden waste or there's significant change to the social care but the critical thing is that all of those are limited to a small % of the population and it's relatively easy to deal with on a case by case basis. Traffic (and especially parking) - well if you want to cause a riot, just say you're going to remove a parking space. Everyone will pile on. Councils rarely know how best to respond to this and a lot of the response is on an emotional level which is far more challenging to deal with. Again, factor in stuff like working-from-home, staff absenteeism from Covid isolation and the responses can be delayed which is assumed to be because they're wondering how to cover things up. It isn't because as a general rule cover-ups, while they sound impressive, require far too much effort and competence for any level of Government (including councils) to pull off successfully. None of this is unique to Southwark by the way.

We're going around in circles though. We demand the data. /data is presented No, not that data! Also it's wrong and massaged and it doesn't cover x, y and z and it wasn't done at the right time and it wasn't left in place long enough and the person who wrote the report from it is biased and...and...and... If you think it's fake / massaged / biased / flawed / out of date, you need to respond to Southwark Council with your reasoning behind it, not post "it's massaged" on a forum with nothing to back up your assertion. I mean, literally every piece of "pro" data has been called into question and the poster asked to justify it so surely that works the other way around? Justify your assertion. We're into conspiracy theory levels of data bias now, to the effect that no matter how much proof is presented to say that, broadly speaking, LTNs work and can form a positive part of a raft of measures to reduce vehicle usage, nothing will ever be sufficient. You'll always be able to find a negative, even amongst a load of positives. What's presented will always be not quite what was asked for. It's classic distraction and confusion tactics. Muddle it all up, spread misinformation, make a few allegations (it's massaged, it's biased) without ever really backing them up. Before you know it, no-one has a clue what's going on! Especially if someone has managed to add percentages up incorrectly...

Experimental Traffic Orders can be put in at any time. Section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It's not an abuse of power at all, it's specifically within legislation. It's actually a far better way of doing things than endless rounds of consultations and what ifs and modelling and "well we think x.." and then spending ??? rebuilding an entire junction. Get on and do it, monitor it, decide if it has or hasn't had the desired effect and then either remove it, adjust it or make it permanent. Answers via a mix of consultations and real life "we can see what is happening and why".

As DuncanW says above though, most of these are not in the gift of councils to deliver. ICE vehicles will continue to be sold up until 2030 which means that potentially there'll still be some on the roads by 2050. Even if you manage to swap all 2.6 million cars in London ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/314980/licensed-cars-in-london-england-united-kingdom/ ) to EV overnight, it does nothing to solve congestion, parking, road danger and the associated KSI stats and it brings with it the extra concerns over charging. There are already issues of charging cables trailing across pavements which is a trip hazard to pedestrians, especially blind/partially sighted and disabled. EVs are PART of the solution to reducing pollution at source albeit a lot of that pollution gets shifted elsewhere in terms of mining and extracting the materials to make batteries, disposing of used batteries etc. One car per household - desirable certainly but to achieve that you have to promote modal shift so that the parent who used to drive the kids to school now feels the roads are safe enough for the kids to walk/ride and can eventually get rid of the car. The thing is that cars are extremely expensive, many will be on lease deals so it's not a case of saying "OK, there's an LTN here now, get shot of it". Might take 2+ years for that to happen but it's certainly achievable for many. You can guide it a bit as well by ensuring that all new-build has only one parking space, has good active travel provision etc. Sadly, the Government are moving the other way by installing charging points in all new builds... Road charging is (usually) a regional or national policy so Congestion Charge for example. The only way you could put a charge on EDG by itself would be to have it as a private road (like the upper half of College Road). Buses - again, it's not a bad suggestion at all but someone has to pay for it. If it's council run, does it tie in with Oyster? In which case you need agreements from TfL. If it's got it's own contactless payment system that needs a separate IT infrastructure and people aren't going to be willing to pay two sets of fares. If it's simply free and it's run as a circular hop-on-hop-off, then the council have to foot the bill for it which is going to be the cost of the buses, drivers, maintenance, storage etc as well as running it. And then you run into Cost Benefit Analysis, usage, what routes it will do, what the demand is likely to be. Cost for a new bus route is in the order of ?250,000 for the first year and we still run into the issues of buses getting down some of the roads. Realistically, if you put a couple of circular bus routes in, how much traffic would it take off EDG / LL? There's already buses on both. Pick up of rubbish - again, councils have had their funding slashed over the last decade. Why do free pick-ups on the odd occasion someone wants to get rid of a sofa when it can be a service that raises some revenue for the council. The alternative is a raise on everyone's council tax for a service that most people would barely use. LTNs are a relatively cheap easy intervention, easy enough to remove or tweak as required and they work (or they're supposed to be used in conjunction with) cycle lanes / routes, parking restrictions to drive the modal shift required. You're focussed on EDG (which is fair enough if you live there) and after an initial spike, traffic levels are trending downwards again. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review The answer to that, to get less traffic, is to have MORE restrictions, not "open the whole lot up again". There's a area-wide decrease offset by a slight increase in a couple of locations. Rather than trade significant reduction elsewhere for "return the streets to the status quo where everything was jammed", there needs to be something done to further reduce traffic along EDG in particular. Your ideas of segregated cycle routes, restriction on parking, bus lanes etc were very good and a lot of that is within the councils powers (or at least, council with TfL) and is fairly cheap and quick(ish) to implement. You've got the right idea about campaigning for less traffic (which brings with it less pollution, less congestion, less road danger) but the wrong target for it. Edited cos I forgot to put the streetspace link in!

It's like internet dating! I've got this vision of people meeting up in Dulwich Square*... "Hi, are you Rockets...?" *sorry, couldn't resist... ;-)

Believe me, if there actually was an All-Powerful Cycling Lobby? and they had paid stooges within Southwark Communist Council, the world would look a very different place. Thing is, there's never really been a need for a Car-Advocacy organisation. The entire human way of life has been built around the car for the last 60 years, leaving a few campaign groups for various "minorities" (cycling, walking, disabled) and similar fringe groups (like climate change for example). Naturally, most of these could be dismissed as leftie, hippy, socialist do-gooders. It's only fairly recently that people have realised that yes, we need fewer cars / fewer car journeys and more thought given to the environment so it feels a bit like an imbalance. Bottom line is that most of the campaign groups are quite experienced at dealing with intransigent councils and local Government so they're already in a position to do that - although how often the council listens and actually does anything for them is quite variable. Most residents who are not especially invested in anything in particular and just get on with life don't really engage with any aspect of local Government other than kicking up a fuss if the bins aren't collected. Nearly half the eligible voters don't even bother to vote in council elections. That's a genuinely good idea, I'd be up for that. I think ultimately, most people on here want the same things - less traffic, less pollution, safer streets. There's just some differences in opinion of how that should be done.

Formulae get adjusted all the time to take into account differences in gathering the data, new modelling, timeframes and all sorts of other factors to allow accurate comparisons. A lot of statistical methodology involves some built-in adjustment for (eg) small datasets, very large datasets, non-normal distributions and so on. You can also do large scale data transformations; so if one set of data follows a logarithmic curve but you want to use it alongside another set of linear data for example. It's like saying that something cost ?1000 in 1970 and then adjusting to inflation to show that today's price would be nearly ?16,000 (yes, that is correct, I just ran it through a calculator). It allows an accurate comparison that the person in the street can get their head around. The figures haven't been manipulated, they've been explained more clearly.

Alternatively, try reading the full report here: https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s17060/Travel%20in%20London%2014%20Overview.pdf Page 3 & 4. Look at the whole paragraph, not the one section highlighted by people opposed to cycle lanes. Cycling illustrates this duality, with figure 2 showing data from limited cycle counters around central and inner London. The standout feature is the relative increase in weekend cycling ? typically doubling relative to pre-pandemic, although with large variation, emphasising the increase in ?leisure? cycling. Weekday cycling shows a different picture, typically close to pre-pandemic levels. However, this reflects a large-scale reduction in commuter cycling, in line with other modes, making this relative resilience especially noteworthy. Firstly, it's data from a limited number of cycle counters around central and inner London - they're the vertical digital things you can see alongside some (but certainly not all) of the CSHs, ticking up as cyclists pass. Weekday cycling reflects a large-scale reduction in commuter cycling, in line with other modes, making this relative resilience especially noteworthy Quite astonishingly, in the middle of a pandemic where people have been told to WFH, cycle commuting into a central London office is down. Who'd have thought it?! Same with those trains and buses running at 20% capacity... It's worth noting that cycle hire comment too: Excepting the strict lockdown periods, Santander Cycles (which mostly serve central and some parts of inner London) enjoyed record patronage during the pandemic and continues to see patronage above pre-pandemic levels. This is especially remarkable given overall reduced activity levels and demonstrates the utility of cycle hire for travel around central London under pandemic conditions. You can continue to cherry pick data and find certain sentences that back up what you want to hear but it's somewhat at odds with your continued call for data, data, data from everywhere. And as it mentions, it's data from cycle counters in central London, it's got nothing to do with Dulwich. All it really shows is that there's less weekday cycling in central London which given the office closures and other restrictions of Covid isn't really earth shattering news requiring the immediate removal of all cycle lanes. Added to which, the data since March 2020 is all over the place and will likely take another couple of years to even out.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/transport-politics/2021/12/cycle-lanes-dont-cause-congestion-but-theres-money-to-be-made-in-pretending-they-do As I mentioned previously. Journo clickbait. The Inrix report is here: https://inrix.com/scorecard/ - doesn't mention cycle lanes causing congestion. Peter Lees, the Operations Manager at Inrix put out a statement clarifying that the headlines had not accurately represented what the report said and actually went further quoting an unnamed journalist saying that the cycle lane comment would "get more readers". Same with the scooter thing. INJURIES! DEATH! = Clicks and comments = ad revenue. Journos don't care, they've got their headline and their readers. Facts come a distant second. There's a lot of money to be made in culture wars. The fact checkers are doing their work, correcting the narrative but no-one cares anymore. Opinions formed, people move on.

Did Kings go to the papers and say "please help us, we're overwhelmed with scooter injuries and maybe you can do something about it"? Or did some hack ask them "how many accidents from scooters?" and they've said "196 in 2020" and the hack has generated a clickbait title with the appropriate degree of wailing and gnashing of teeth? I strongly suspect the latter... As I said, there's no context at all.

Accident data is tricky to compile accurately since a lot of it relies on reports to emergency services and/or admission to hospital. A lot of what is out there is already split out into categories, eg workplace accidents, road accidents and so on. Couple that with the way they're reported and how some accidents are lumped together (slips, trips and falls for example does not immediately distinguish between tripping on a pavement slab or falling off a ladder). So finding an absolute highest cause of accidents is very difficult. H&S Regulation only really applies in the workplace - so the slips trips and falls cases get more complicated when you consider that a roofer falling off a ladder is a workplace injury but the pedestrian tripping over a pavement slab is not. The article from King's reckons 196 injuries in 2020 so the Government figures (483 injuries nationwide and 1 death) raises the question of reporting standards. Did Denmark Hill really treat 40% of ALL scooter injuries in 2020?! Seems high...? 196 is given as a number with no context as well. On it's own it seems high but how many scooters are in use, what mileage has been done (to give an injuries per mile scootered)? I suspect that will be very difficult to come by since private e-scooters are illegal on public roads. The legal private hire companies operating e-scooters claim that more than 165,000 trips have been made since the trials launched so (assuming their figures and the Government injury ones for a moment), 483 injuries out of 165,000 trips is about 0.3% of trips - seems pretty safe! If you factor in the illegal journeys as well, that % drops even further - however we're still left with the potential under-reporting since there's a discrepancy between what one London hospital reports and the nationwide figures from Government. There's also no context given to any other injuries that Kings treats - I suspect that 196 fractures from scooter accidents is a tiny proportion of the overall number of fractures that Kings treats per year. The 2020 road death figures show a drop because of Covid but there were: 1460 road deaths across the country (346 of those were pedestrians) 22,069 seriously injured Most years, deaths sits at around 1800 or so, about 5 deaths per day with about 30,000 seriously injured. Again, reporting methodology changes a bit but the numbers are adjusted to cope with statistical changes and external factors. Doesn't seem to stop drivers killing 5 people every day. The average cost per road traffic death is about ?2m by the way, made up of of vehicle and property damage, emergency services costs and insurance costs. If you'd like to complain about the costs to society, you're looking at the wrong target with scooters...

That was part of the reason although it was more relevant to the pavement widening schemes. LTNs were put in to prevent or mitigate the risk of a car-led recovery. The fear being that lots of people who used to travel on P/T would be afraid to do so because of crowded conditions and would instead make the journey by car which would lead to a vast and unmanageable increase in traffic everywhere. There's still the minor problem of a global climate catastrophe. You know, that thing caused by burning fossil fuels.

There's a few in the UK. Cardiff has had one for decades on the main road north of the city centre. Overhead gantry with red ❌ and green ⬇. During the changeover, the middle lane remains on ❌ in both directions for about 15 mins. Steep fines for driving in it under ❌ conditions. There's an awful lot that can be done with more intelligent traffic signalling. My pet bugbear is driving along at night, deserted roads and coming to a set of lights they go red. Stop, wait for maybe 2 mins while the opposite set go green (nothing there to go through), pedestrian phase goes green (no one around to cross) and then finally, your set goes green again. A few sensors and some basic AI would solve all of that. On the continent, a lot of quieter lights (junctions in small towns etc) go to a phase of flashing amber overnight. It basically means no-one has right of way, slow down, be careful etc and on quiet streets it works very well. If the system senses traffic overloading it, it'll revert to normal traffic light status. You can do similar with speeding. Drive to the law and you get a wave of green lights; if you speed between them the lights turn red forcing you to stop. Road design facilitating and rewarding good behaviour.

Points failure somewhere around Streatham this morning. Given that the line through North / East Dulwich comes in from either Caterham or Beckenham Junction, which area would you like Southern to listen to with regards their service? Because the line goes through Surrey, Bromley, Croydon, Lambeth and Southwark... It's nothing to do with the councils, it's between Southern, Network Rail and DfT and is largely dictated by the realities of staff shortages due to isolation / Covid. It's not solely a Southern issue either; rail services nationally have been cut for the same reasons. It'll come back to normal in time but right now it's a reaction to situations entirely beyond anyone's control.

They were already too full before that - pollution on EDG was already above legal limits and you cannot seriously say that there were never traffic jams before LTNs because there were. Routinely, day-to-day. Problem is, if you're engineering on a highways basis alone (without considering behaviour) then you will always end up with congestion somewhere no matter how much you try to keep vehicles moving. It's why tinkering with a junction here and a set of lights there is almost always doomed to failure. In terms of impacts though, you always see the worst of impacts once an active travel scheme goes in and before things improve. With a highways engineering scheme (like building a new bypass) you see the best of it when implemented before gradually, almost imperceptibly, things return to status quo as more people choose to drive (because it's easier, because "the roads are quieter" or because there is simply no other option been made available). Active travel scheme goes in - short term (and yes, 18-months is short term) disruption as everyone adapts - improvement New road goes in - short term (again, 18 months) improvements and people going "gosh, isn't it nice in the town now the bypass has been built?!" - regression to norm. Problem is that councillors are not experts in this and most councils and Governments are extremely reactive to short term news items without ever considering longer term impacts - for many of them they won't be here to see or be held accountable for anything long term. That's when it becomes purely a political football rather than an engineering plan.

Have you emailed Southwark? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/guide-to-parking/dropped-kerbs-and-driveways?chapter=5 And if so, what was their response - simply "get a road safety audit" without any info as to what it is or where to apply for one or did it lead into a planning permission thing regarding driveways, access etc? You don't say what road you're on (which is fair enough) but if it's TfL controlled (ie a main road) it'll come under Section 278 for Highway works https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/transport-assessment-guide/highway-work and you can read TfL's info on what a RSA constitutes here: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-road-safety-audit-procedure-may-2014-sqa-0170.pdf If it's a residential street under council control, it's their planning officers. Might vary a bit depending on what it's to be used for. If it's to access a driveway in a car or if it's to allow disabled access (ie for a wheelchair) - turning circles, road markings, existing parking etc get considered as well as things like how busy the pavement is. Email Southwark - sorry I can't give anything more than that (and apologies if you've already done that - if so some more info on their response would be useful).

There's a bit of a catch-22 in that though - the busier the road the more likely it is to need repairs / resurfacing simply due to the wear and tear it's getting but the more difficult it is to do it due to the disruption (not just to traffic but to residents not being allowed to park there for a long time, maybe not having direct access to their house for a bit, noise etc). That's not EDG in particular, it's any major route. You end up in a cycle of patchwork repairs which are quick and easy to do without causing days/weeks of disruption. But they do have the downside of being very reactive - pothole appears, gest worse very quickly and then needs urgent patching but without addressing the underlying issues such as water ingress or subsidence that caused it in the first place. There are funding aspects to it as well. And yes, there's a long debate that you can have about the long-term costs of constantly doing minor repairs vs doing a large-scale job once...

Dog's Trust are worth a look: https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/rehoming/fostering/ They have lots of kennels all around the country - Uxbridge and Basildon are the nearest ones to SE London. Scroll down on that link and they cover off the basic questions. You'll have to go through a homecheck and a discussion as to what sort of dog you're after plus your experience so they can pair you with a suitable dog. If you're after a specific breed, it's worth a search on Facebook as there are a few breed-specific rescues. Generally, they try to get dogs adopted rather than fostered though as they're more volunteer run and don't have the time or resources that places like Battersea and other proper kennels have.

Much as I had to divide people up like this, it doesn't matter if you're pro or anti LTN, the issue is not really about owning a car. it's about where and when you choose to use it. Plenty of people are in a situation where they cannot just give their car up - maybe they're half way through a lease deal, maybe the car is so old that it's not worth anything to sell and it should just be kept until it falls apart... Many people genuinely do need a car for some journeys or circumstances. The problem is that the "anti" group have two answers: Pro LTN / own a car = you hypocrite! you give up your car first! Pro LTN / do not own a car = lefty hippy eco-warrior who can't possibly understand what life is like for those who NEED a car! It's not that simple - it's perfectly possible to own a car (and to need one occasionally) but choose not to use it to drive 500m to the school or half a mile to the gym. Being in favour of less traffic does not automatically mean "thou shalt never own or use a car again". Such polarised views aren't helpful to the debate. Besides which, modal shift takes time to come through - that person who currently owns a car may be using it less and less to the point where, a year or so down the line they will realise it gets so little use that it's more economically viable to just hire one when needed. https://findingspress.org/article/18200-the-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-and-other-active-travel-interventions-on-vehicle-ownership-findings-from-the-outer-london-mini-holland-programme (I'm sure that naturally, the fact it was written by Anna Goodman and Rachel Aldred will drag out the naysayers - however there's a good summary here with numerous other links in it: https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/making-streets-people-friendly-the-rise-of-car-free-communities/ )

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/ is good for tracking - unlike FlightRadar it covers most military stuff as well. Click on the icon, it shows you flightpath plus ID info.

You mean this one? https://eastdulwichgrove.com/content/uploads/2021/07/East-Dulwich-Grove__-LTN-Survey-Results-3.pdf The one that went along EDG and polled the residents there. 236 residential properties along there (quoted from the report itself), 127 responses so a 53% response rate. 84% of the responses were to reverse the LTNs, 84% of 127 people is 106 against. 106 out of 236 is 44%. Obviously there's no way of telling the opinion of the 47% who did not respond but you can't claim "80% of those polled". 236 properties were polled and responses received from about half of them. At absolute best (assuming a perfect survey which it wasn't) you could state that 44% of people in EDG are against the current traffic control measures. That's before you come to the questions asked which were (this is copied / pasted directly from the questionnaire): A) Make the present temporary road closures and timed camera restrictions permanent. B) Replace closed road junctions with timed camera enclosures around the school day start and finish, removing delays to emergency services. C) Reverse the schemes and return the roads to pre-closure with no restrictions. That is a *terrible* set of questions. especially B Replace closed road junctions with timed camera enclosures around the school day start and finish, removing delays to emergency services. That's a leading and biased question right there. It implies that there are delays to emergency services (without specifying what they are, how long they are and why they are directly attributable to LTNs rather than any other cause) and further implies that removing LTNs will fix the delays. The word "closure" is very misleading too. The roads aren't closed, you can access all of them with a vehicle. They are however filtered to prevent you driving through while still maintaining through access to bikes, scooters, wheelchairs, pedestrians... It's a terrible survey but once again OneDulwich have been very good at putting out the "80% of people are against LTNs" without specifying that it's 80% of 126 respondents to a biased survey of people on one road. You don't get to pick and choose data the way you are. You cannot blindly dismiss anything from TfL and Southwark Council (as well as numerous other related reports from the likes of Professor Aldred et al) as fixed, biased, out of date, not relevant to Dulwich, not from the location you want it from while simultaneously blindly accepting anything from OneDulwich. Same with the summary leaflet from Southwark Council where every dataset showing traffic reductions was questioned, rubbished and denied but where the one dataset showing an increase (EDG, 26%) was taken as gospel and widely quoted as proof that the LTN has FAILED and needs to be removed immediately. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review I'm not saying that the council have been perfect in any of this but the level of conspiracy theory and confirmation bias now is at such a level that pretty much any suggestion from the council that things are broadly positive will be met in much the same way as Donald Trump met the news of his election defeat.

I'm not sure that even the most pro-LTN people are suggesting that LTNs are THE answer. They're not, they are ONE OF a suite of measures to reduce traffic. Some complementary - it's quite difficult to do X without doing Y in some areas of traffic design, some can be standalone and there's an element of needing stick and carrot as well. Is it equitable that the roads are too dangerous for kids to ride to school? Is it equitable that people who do not own cars find it difficult getting public transport because it's held up by private cars taking up proportionately vastly more road space than any other for of transit? Is it equitable that car owners get massively subsidised public space to leave their vehicles - space that then cannot be used for any other user? Is it equitable that car owners (in spite of the "I pay road tax, I pay fuel duty" argument) are vastly subsidised by the public purse - some of that subsidy in the form of addressing pollution-related issues? LTNs, broadly speaking, work pretty well and they're a cheap and easy thing to implement at short notice - they can also be cheaply and easily modified or removed at short notice. There's nothing special about Dulwich in terms of LTNs or traffic, the principles are exactly the same as anywhere else - you have to remove as much of the traffic as possible, you have to enable and empower active travel. If you don't remove the traffic, you can't push active travel unless you're also putting in segregated bike lanes because, much as there will always be a few folk who can tolerate riding in traffic, most people can't or won't. And a comprehensive network of bike lanes takes years to put in and also attracts just as much vitriol as LTNs. Same with all the other nice ideas like trams, extending the Tube line, changing every car to electric, autonomous cars... It's all stuff that won't happen before 2040, if at all. Extending the Santander Cycles scheme - that might come by about 2025 or so with a bit of luck. Pollution on a lot of London's roads has been above legal limits for years and you don't lower it by "spreading it around a bit". If you removed every LTN in the area tomorrow, the air pollution on EDG would still be above legal limits because it was well before the introduction of LTNs. Hardly "clean air for all". You can't start bleating about woodburners or buildings being worse - maybe they are in terms of air pollution but equally no-one has ever been run over by a speeding woodburner, nor is there a queue of them outside my house in the morning rush hour. You can argue semantics about cars being fine but PHVs and vans being not fine (?) but it's still splitting hairs. You just need less traffic. That addresses air and noise pollution, road danger and congestion all at once.