PollyGlot

Current closure may expire 24 June but will be renewed unless they get objections. Objections should be sent to [email protected] referring to Notice # 5779. 5779 was issued on the grounds of "public safety" There is no conceivable danger to the public because site clearance on the old S G Smith yard has been completed. It's now a vacant lot with no activity. Hence it's highly dangerous! RPT [email protected]

mr.chicken Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > We know that while traffic > grows to fill the roads, the reverse can't > possibly be true and nothing will make the total > traffic go down. The key words are in the title of the post and in the Council campaign ie "Our HEALTHY Streets". To me this means reducing pollution. This does not equate directly to reducing traffic. The strategy should be focussed on reducing the number of polluting vehicles and you do that by incentivising people to use EV and hybrid cars. You do this by exempting them from penalties. You then penalise users of polluting cars by developing the camera controlled areas further. It's not rocket science. It just make no sense with the current system of displacing traffic that concentrates pollution on certain roads.

Yes, I did and I raised a question about data collect relevant to bus performance - given that buses operate on main roads and these roads now have to carry the extra displaced traffic arising from the road closures. The response was vague and did not dispel the suspicion many of us have, about the accuracy and quality of the data which may or may not be available. It did nothing to increase my hopes that a sensible decision can ultimately reached on these measure ie one where final result is not biased towards the pre-established position of Southwark planners. Southwark's intention seems to be based on reducing traffic in LTN areas so that they can claim improvements there in traffic and pollution reduction. They then totally disregard the increased congestion, delays and pollution caused by the traffic displacement on to the main routes. Crazy! legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did anyone attend the streetspace online meeting > this afternoon? I planned to but unfortunately > had to be somewhere with poor mobile coverage/ no > data access. Just wondered what happened and > whether there might be a recording online.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi @PollyGlot > > Unfortunately sales of new SUVs now outnumber > electric vehicle sales at a rate of 37 to 1. See > link to article "the trend towards purchasing > bigger cars is threatening the UK?s attempts to > reduce emissions from the transport sector" > https://ukerc.ac.uk/news/suvs-sabotage-green-revol > ution/ > The article you refer to was written in 2019 and the stats therein were even older. Since then, the sales of electric/hybrid/alt fuelled vehicles has rocketed. See https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/Tipping-point-Alternative-fuels-outsell-diesels/8560 and https://www.carwow.co.uk/news/4647/new-car-sales Now the tipping point has been passed, the sales of electric/hybrid/alt fuelled vehicles will progress even faster. This trend will be further accelerated if EVs were permitted exemption from the LTN penalties. > > 1. Traffic displacement rather than reduction. > The idea behind the measures is that people will > opt for active travel if it's safe for them to do > so. There's been a significant increase in school > children cycling in the area. I see lots more > families cycling on the school-run now and it > would be a shame if they all went back to using > cars - which would just clog up the streets > again. Let have statistics please rather than just opinion. If you are young and fit then you may cycle but for many others cycling is just not an option be it health, disability, age etc and a simple consideration of where to store the bike. Not every one has adequate space. > > 2. Displaced traffic causing unacceptable > increases in pollution. > I would support any measures to improve congestion > on main roads. Dedicated bus lanes, remove car > parking blocking buses, 20 mph speed limits, ULEZ, > road pricing, and more protected cycle ways to > link up the safe routes. I note that you did not mention EVs here. Why? Also you fail to recognise that "congestion on the main roads" has been made WORSE by the additional displaced traffic. It's this displacement that is causing grief and additional pollution. > > > 3. Impact on local businesses. > It's impossible to tell what the impact on > businesses has been until we are back to normal > after the pandemic. > Claims that traffic measures have impacted > business more than Covid seems highly unlikely to > me. Go and ask Callow the locksmiths why they are leaving! Ask the other businesses there and see how they feel about it. > > > 4. Emergency vehicles are being delayed > Just everyday regular traffic congestion held up > emergency services **8,841** times in 2017 - You are avoiding the key point. It is the road closures that impede the emergency services. They cannot go direct to the incident. Plus because of the displaced traffic, they are held up even more trying to get there. > > > 5. Increase in crime (as stated by Cressida > Dick)because Police cannot gain access because of > the barriers. > See (4) and Cressida Dick stated that 'on occasion > it's harder for our officers to get down streets' > and that she was in conversation with TfL to > address any difficulties. Yes, because of the displaced traffic > > > 'Overall, the introduction of a low traffic > neighbourhood was associated with a 10% decrease > in total street crime. The decrease in crime in the last 18 months was due to Covid as the "dealers" stood out more during lockdown. Then it reduced because pubs and clubs were shut. > > In a previous post you mention that 'Southwark is > clearly spending millions on a problem that > receding fast'. > > Another ten years until petrol cars are phased out > is not imho fast enough. Nor will EV's solve > problems as outlined above. It's only 8 years until the ban and between now and well in advance of then, the %age of EV's will clearly exceed petrol and diesel cars and SUVs.

The LTN measures were obviously not thought through adequately by the council. Apart from the lack awareness of the rapid adoption of EVs, there has been naivety on unintended consequences. Some of these are:- 1. Traffic displacement rather than reduction. 2. Displaced traffic causing unacceptable increases in pollution. 3. Impact on local businesses. Take the case of Callow the locksmith who are quitting Dulwich as they are now located on a dead end street (Melbourne Grove). Others will follow- most likely some in Dulwich Village where they are suffering from the LTN measures. 4. Emergency vehicles are being delayed because their fastest routes are now blocked by the "permeable barriers". They have to find an alternative by hit or miss. 5. Increase in crime (as stated by Cressida Dick) because Police cannot gain access because of the barriers. 6. Increased danger to pedestrians crossing the road. I often see this near traffic lights where cars are stationary in a tail back whilst the other side is empty. When the lights change the tail back is still stationary but the other side becomes active immediately. I appreciate some of this may have been said before it is none the less valid.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well duh, trafic equals pollution atm to a very > high correlation > > Even electric cars will pollute, road dust, brake > dust etc It seems you share Newens' lack of understanding of facts, priorities and forecasts. Allow me to highlight a few key points further. 1. Trafic (sic) does not equal pollution and the proportion of electric vehicles is increasing rapidly. In 2020 over 10% of new cars were electric https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news-sales-figures/analysis-2020-uk-car-sales-hit-28-year-low-ev-market-grows. The percentage in London was even higher. see attached 2. The Govt. has ruled that ALL petrol car sales will cease in 2030. 3. With 2400 electric/hybrid buses, London has the highest percentage in Europe and all diesel types will be phased out by 2026. Buses used to be big polluters, not now. 4. Most of the "rush hour" traffic in Dulwich is parents on the school run some of which may have kids at 2 or more of the local public schools. This group are best able to afford electric vehicles and should incentivised to use EVs by allowing them through the "bus/taxi" gates free of penalty. These mums would buy EV's in a flash. I will add more later but the the facts show that "traffic equates to pollution" is no longer valid. Southwark is clearly spending millions on a problem that receding fast. It also illustrates the lack of understanding and vision that some Councillors have. Added later... 5. The LTNs actually add to the pollution because drivers have to do extra miles to find a way round the closures.

Some local residents had the opportunity to discuss LTN matters with a Councillor today. This was none other than Margy Newens, who is Deputy Community Champion for the South Area. One of the first questions presented to her was "What is the PRIME purpose of the LTN measures?". Her emphatic and unequivocal response was "TO REDUCE TRAFFIC". No mention of pollution!! She apparently failed to understand that pollution would be reduced if electric cars were exempted from the LTN penalties ( as is the case with taxis and buses) and that if they were exempt, then that would accelerate the adoption of electric cars and bring about rapid reduction in pollution. She was unaware that the statistics provided by Southwark on their website are 20 months out of date! What hope do we have when our community has representatives like this?

Talking about Blair, Q1 = are all Blairites discredited? Q2 = if David Milliband popped up tomorrow could he secure an overall majority for Labour?

Tom Smith Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I recently moved into a house with an established > pair of local foxes. Digging up plants, smells > etc. We bought one of these a couple of weeks ago > - not cheap and it is only a couple of weeks, but > so far it's had a 100% success rate - the only > time we've had problems since was the night I > forgot to turn it on: > > https://www.amazon.co.uk/Home-Defence-Scarecrow-Ac Foxes are territorial and mark their territory with urine. If you want them to move on then they need to be convinced that some other animal now dominates the teritory. You should "make your mark", as they say, in the appropriate manner.Do so daily for about a week and they will be gone.

Every credit to you for standing your ground against the person with the two labradors. It's a pity that more people bite their tongues when they see people abusing public property or throwing litter. I had a similar case last summer near St Paul's when I was at a bus stop and these two 'ladies' came along and started to wait at the same bus stop. They were both eating bananas. I could see one had just finished eating and I was intruiged to see what she would do next so I turned my back briefly so that it appeared as though I was looking to see if the bus was coming. I waited about two seconds then turned around to see that she has thrown her banana skin down on the pavement. I respectfully brought her attention to what she had done. I am pleased to say she picked it up and put it in her bag.

Code off ethics with estate agents? Pull the other one. It's about 40 years ago and I was selling a rental property in Colchester that I had. I was living in the Antipodes at the time and selected an estate agent and put it on the market during one of my bi-annual visits to the UK. After about two months, of zero interest from buyers, I eventually accepted an offer about 10% below the asking price. Three weeks later, I made an unscheduled visit to the UK and went to check the property and would you believe when I opened the door, I came across a young couple inside in the process of redecorating the lounge. I asked what was going on and they said they were buying the flat and they were just redecorating. I was apoplexic. This was even before contracts were exchanged and therefor weeks before completion. It was plain that the agent was complicit in tipping off a friend or relative and then manipulated matters to screw me down on the price. I sacked that agent for deceipt for allowing someone full time access to the property. Charged him for redecorating costs and appointed another agent who secured me the full asking price. Have never trusted an estate agent ever since.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Despite what "experts" like Heseltine and Prince > Charles say, there's no evidence from real experts > that grey squirrels have a deleterious effect on > bird populations: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8 > 448000/8448807.stm and the beloved reds (don't get > me wrong, I adore them too) are just as > significant predators on eggs and fledglings > (though both only really go for eggs when there's > a scarcity of other foods). In truth, the best > thing one could do for wildlife of all sorts would > be to allow large areas (such as Mr.Heseltine's > garden)to return to their natural state I think you are getting away from the central issue and that is that the Grey Squirrel is deemded to be vermin by law in the UK. It is an invasive species (from the USA) which has displaced the native Red Squirrels. It is larger and more aggressive than the Red and hence has displaced it throughout most of the UK. Furthermore it carries the squirrel pox virus to which it is immune but is fatal to Reds. Closer to home, it is a host for ticks infected with Lymes's disease. This has a serious effect on humans if infected. Consider these articles... http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/grey-squirrels-can-spread-lyme-9090382 http://www.northernredsquirrels.org.uk/squirrels/squirrel-pox-virus/ So your "adorable" friends are not quite as adorable as you might believe. Next time you find a tick, you can guess where it came from. Meanwhile, here is the petition. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170446

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Just carry on making a tit of yourself. I've other > things to do. Byeeeeeeeeee! Me thinks Jah Lush is a typical bully. Lots of swearing, posturing and bravado. But like all bullies he quits when he gets a real challenge.