Dogkennelhillbilly

The best way to avoid getting drawn into distracting investigations into illegality is to not do illegal stuff in the first place. It's not foolproof but it works most of the time. Johnson should try it.

Were you under the impression that ULEZ alone was going to fix London's air quality problems? Because no-one ever said that.

No, it's not. ULEZ was designed to reduce usage of older, dirtier vehicles inside rhe zone - which it has done very successfully, by 37%, at a stroke. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ulez-expansion-tfl-diesel-polluting-sadiq-khan-north-south-circular-b971107.html?itm_source=Internal&itm_channel=homepage_banner&itm_campaign=breaking-news-ticker&itm_content=4 If it had been designed merely to raise revenue, it have been priced cheaper so that more people continued driving in and paid extra. The price wasn't just plucked out of the air. No-one ever said that ULEZ was going to fix all of London's traffic and pollution problems and that we would never need to do anything else.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The tunnel is being financed by a private sector > consortium - they will be paid back over a 25 year > period with that money being generated by > user-charging. Yes - the private sector will get paid no matter how many people use it. The Mayor will be torn in two directions: to reduce traffic for environmental and congestion reasons on one hand, and to induce and maintain traffic to keep paying off the construction and maintenance cost on the other.

On one hand, big infrastructure is always expensive and if the previous tunnel is any guide, it'll be in use for another 120 years. On the other hand, it might be better simply to reduce demand to match existing supply by increasing vehicle tolls on the existing crossings, or even just let the private sector build the tunnel at its own risk.

mrwb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there any actual data on the impact 20mph limit > has had v 30? Yes - including a 75% reduction in fatality risk if someone is struck at 30mph compared to 20mph. https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/drivers/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf The point of putting the speed camera outside the school is that it's where lots of kids will be crowding twice a day.

I look forward to OneDulwich and the Freedom for Drivers Foundation posting their support for the measures under consideration! 🤣

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > malign forces MaLiGn fOrCeS Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well I wouldn't bracket you in the "reasonable > person" category oooOOOOOOooooohhhh!!! Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We can compare death raters per capita across > Europe as a useful comparison - and the UK does > not come out of it well To be fair a lot of that's partly because we started the pandemic with a huge amount of obesity, poverty and chronic health conditions generally, all of which is pretty bad for covid survival.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or its via the vivacity monitor they note and the > review of the data collated by those monitors is > done by the company supplying them rather than the > council? Traffic counts in this country aren't typically done by having people sitting on street corners with clipboards any more. It's cheaper, more reliable and safer to stick up a digital video camera for a while and then do the counts based on the video (either manually with a real person or using AI). It's mostly contractors that do it because they have the cameras and software and staff. https://tracsistraffic.com/services/traffic-surveys/ is just one example. You do still have manual counts where things are a bit trickier eg I noticed a traffic survey of buses under the bridges at Peckham Rye Station a couple of weeks ago which was being done manually. Could be the video cameras couldn't get a good view, could be the survey was interested in not just number but specific maneuvers into the stops...?

I don't think anyone is under any obligation to post anything on this thread. Saying "x is staying quiet on this one" might just be another way of saying "x has better things to do with their time this week than bicker online".

Brideshead Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1st world (or should that be East Dulwich) > problem? > > Impolite comment in a park? lol Aren't you the guy that chucked a massive tantrum over a number of weeks because you couldn't get a free newspaper and you thought a librarian was rude to you?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm not sure you are so important that someone is > going to search every household on the road you > live, I don't think so either, thankfully, but from the behaviour of some councillors recently and some lunatics harassing Council employees, it seems the bar for being attacked and harassed online is pretty low these days. If you think that someone's opinion is determined by where they live and you want to see everything through that lens - up to you, friend.

jazzer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Press who are publishing these "stories" > surely must know who the "leak" in No. 10 is, they > just need to let the cat out of the bag. You don't burn your sources

I'm touched you're taking such an interest in my home address, but I'm going to have to disappoint you by telling you your assumptions are completely wrong. Considering the small but hyperactive number of headcases, vandals and oddballs that are going around smashing things up and pursuing hate campaigns against people on Twitter, I think anyone would be mad to give away too many identifying details on here. As for LTNs being Southwark's answer to the Berlin Wall... thousand people were murdered by the troops of Stalinist East Germany trying to cross the border. I await Godwin's Law reaching its natural conclusion on this one...

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope it's Sept data - EDG East > Jan 2019 - 8140 > Sept 2021 - 11007 > > Gilkes Crescent - 0 What date in January 2019? What's Gilkes Crescent got to do with anything? It was closed to stop rat running years (decades?) before LTNs

I don't have one but I think apps like Google Maps and Strava can measure the distance between pins pretty accurately if you can't find an old style wheel

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------ > I believe the problem is the classic UK problem, > which is poor design and build standards in this > country. The design and build standards in the UK a hundred years ago - which is when most of the houses around here were built - were pretty good.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Its a bit like suggesting that cigarettes with > filters are better than roll ups... ...and then making your neighbours smoke them!

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Estate agent - "Fox Lane is a sought-after road > currently falling within the ltn (Low Traffic > Neighbourhood Scheme)." > > Ka-ching! Christ, if we're going to use estate agents' advertising as proof of anything... 🤣

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > that is a well-known distraction > technique, it's called "policy perfectionism". > Push for "perfect" solutions that are equitable to > all, cause inconvenience to no-one, removes 50%+ > of cars from the roads, drops pollution by 50%+ > etc etc. Basically stuff that does not exist and > and never could. Similarly the people (not heartblock, to be fair) saying "oh, I'd LOVE to take the bus, but TfL just needs to make it better and more convenient for me". That ignores buses can't improve much while private cars are clogging up roads, and at some point these people are gonna have to get their arse along to the bus stop. There is no solution that does not involve a little effort. It's also allied to "concern trolling" - dressing up your real motivations in the guise of caring for others. For example - the residents of multiple car owning mansions on Dulwich Village suddenly being struck by a deep commitment to racial justice, as articulated by Tristan and Clive.

With hospitals knee-deep in COVID cases, it's not a good day to have an asthma attack or heart attack. Taking it easy for one day seems reasonable. It's not the advice that's shocking - it's the fact that we are normalised to air that breathing it while running is dangerous.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It seems that many of the wealthy want the > privilege of...parking for 3 cars Striking that no-one wants pollution or congestion but no-one wants resident parking zones that limit car ownership and short trips. People spend thousands a year on cars, fuel, insurance and maintenance, but lose their minds about ?80-150 to pay for a year's parking on the public property outside their house. Someone (maybe even you) mentioned how much better transport was in northern Southwark. A big part of that is that residents are poorer and parking is strictly limited. In the leafier South the residents are richer, own more cars, and mostly enjoy free unlimited parking at taxpayer expense.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Today London is on a high pollution alert - what > does this mean? Maybe it means on high pollution days in a climate emergency private car movements should be prohibited for most people. We should be maintaining the basic minimum quality for breathable air for our kids and triageing road space allocation for those who really, really need it. Retention or removal of one LTN won't solve London's air quality but heartblock is right to point to the micro problem on EDG (which existed before LTNs). There is one microsolution that would have a big impact on this road: stop the parents of the private schools located on it from driving their kids to and from the campus.

There's oftwn an inverse relationship between the states and the bile so local politics can be savage (as this thread shows). Coincidentally the Tories have just announced their candidates and their policies are as follows: 1) LTNs are bad 2) LTNs are bad 3) Labour is bad because of the LTNs https://www.dwnconservatives.com/news/dulwich-conservatives-announce-candidates-dulwich-village-ward So whoever wanted their single issue candidates here they are. Interesting also that one of them was also the driving force (no pun intended) behind the recently-formed "Dulwich Alliance" and the "Dulwich Village, College Road and Woodyard Lane Residents Association", both of which have been issuing statements against LTNs.

To me...to Roux...