dougiefreeman

rahrahrah you missed a bit.. ?Ltns reduce car use and increase active travel for the select few streets that have been lucky enough to become an LTN but this has only been possible by increasing congestion and pollution and making active travel more dangerous on the roads immediately outside those LTNs.?

I have a feeling there are many members of the EDF that avoid the 'our healthy streets' thread for a number of reasons - many of them understandable. However, that may well mean that they are unaware of some of the facts surrounding the results of the recent 'consultation' carried out by Southwark Council. So in order to open the conversation on what (I believe) is quite a serious issue, a new thread seems appropriate. And this thread should focus not on whether you are or are not in favour of LTNs, but whether you feel that the way the council have responded to the consultation is appropriate, fair, unfair, dishonest, illegal, corrupt or anything else. To open this up - the council have recently delivered newsletters displaying the results of the consultation but with the main focus seemingly being on the fact that most of the respondants agreed with the objectives of the council to reduce traffic and clean up the air of our streets. However, there is one glaring ommision (unclear whether this is deliberate or not - thoughts and opinions welcome on this) and that is the fact that the overwhelming majority of respondants (two thirds) stated that they were not in favour of the LTNS and their preference was that they were removed and the roads returned to the original state. Alarmingly, there is absolutely no mention of this whatsoever in the newsletter. It is only when you delve into the report and check the data that you see this. You can find the report here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101517/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultation%20Report.pdf For what reason would Southwark have omitted this in their newsletter? Then we come to the fact that, despite this overwhelming preference for the LTNs to be removed, the council are seemingly ignoring it and opting to retain every single measure albeit with some minor adjustments. Do you believe this is a just outcome? Should the council be allowed to ignore this part of the consultation? Do you feel they are pushing forward their own agenda? What can be done about it? Or do you feel that this is a legitimate response? Do you feel that councils can make decisions like this in certain circumstances? Do you feel the ends justify the means? Or perhpas you're stuck in the middle, and maybe are in favour of the LTNs yourself and would love to see them retained but not at the expense of a proper democratic process?

This whole operation just smacks of cllrs' disdain for the objectors in this review. The idea that they know better and have the 'correct' ideology for how southwark should be moving forward is a trump card and gives them carte blanche to do what they want regardless of the overwhelming objection. It appears that Southwark Coucnil are trying to use this 'new government guidance' as a sort of get out of jail free card for ignoring the review findings. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/active-travel-schemes-supported-by-government-funding Perhaps might be worth a letter to transport sec to clarify if bypassing democracy is part of the gov guidance?

Every single measure - overwhelming preference for removal and returning to previous state. Every single one. Yet, astonishingly (if wholly unsurprisingly), council choosing to ignore the community and go their own way.

I personally don?t care whether a hundred thousand cyclists turned up all living in SE22 (or all living in Kent) for the flotilla, it?s quite frankly irrelevant as it is not in any way representative of the real world day to day normality of road use in the area. The fact is most active travel is made on foot. And in my view any measures that are put in that cause greater levels of pollution and/or congestion jeopardise the health and safety of all those making those active journeys. I don?t believe there is any validity in the notion that removing LTNs is wrong because it would be putting more cars on side streets and so anyone pushing for that must ultimately have the goal of more cars on side streets. UNLESS you also accept that the very implementation of the LTNs in the first place put more cars on side streets (LL, EDG etc are hardly bigger than the ?side streets? that have been filtered - they?re still residential roads after all). The scheme is a failure, completely unfair and should be replaced with something else entirely (with proper consultation with all residents). Cue the ?ah so you just want to go back to loads more cars on the road - you?d rather just do nothing..? brigade. No, of course not. But I don?t believe that the ideology of cyclists and the environmentally conscious should somehow trump the rights to clean air of a selection of unfortunate residents. If you cannot give clean air and quiet streets to everyone, then your scheme needs work. If you are giving wealthy residents clean air and quiet streets at the expense of a selection of (arguably less wealthy) residents then your scheme is not fit for purpose. There is simply no acceptable excuse for forcing these measures on people. Until a fair solution can be found, air pollution (as horrific as it may be) should be shared equally by all residents as it is all of our burden to bear (not just an unfortunate selection).

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No I didn't. I said "a small number of idiots > blocking the right turn for cyclists with their > bags and placards." It's my view that you are being completely disingenuous here. You have taken what you said out of context. As a refresher: legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seems to be an anti LTN protest at he closed > junction this morning. In response, rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep, a small number of idiots blocking the right > turn for cyclists with their bags and placards. > > ?Open the roads? they say, whilst obstructing > their use for the many families passing through. > 🤦‍♂️ To me, this reads very clearly as a direct response to legal's post and even more clearly as an attempt to smear the protest with your comments. (For anyone who wants to check, the posts were on pg221. Heck, I've even attached a screenshot) Since then, it has been pointed out to you that these 'idiots' have genuine reasonable concerns (which they have raised but have been ignored by the council) and that your insult was out of line, and you have moved heaven and earth to dodge retracting or apologising for your comment. And throwing in the occasional straw man (suggesting that the protest caused real danger to you and your daughters).

> I didn't initially make a big thing about this, > although I thought it was dangerous and > inconsiderate at the time. But seeing as I got > roundly attacked for simply suggesting that there > were a 'few idiots blocking people turning off the > main road', I feel it's reasonable to defend the > comment. > > I'm genuinely amazed that there are people who > think it's reasonable, but I can only assume that > they don't understand the junction / road layout. Sorry, but you insulted a group of elderly people protesting about a scheme that has severely affected them. And then proceeded to repeatedly argue the toss and refuse to retract your insult. In my view that is the definition of ?making a big thing out of it?. If you?d wanted to , you could have cleared this up in post #2..

As posted above - the signs on the planters clearly state 'Pedestrian Priority'. So anyone moaning about cyclists being blocked by pedestrians.....

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Come on Northern, you can choose to continue on > a > > route or not. Aside from issues of > inconvenience, > > no one is forcing RRR and his/her children to > > continue moving forward on their bicycles into > > 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' to > > children is quite obviously a tactical > > confection. > > > > > > northernmonkey Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > How was there a choice to turn up first mate? > > Was > > > the protest advertised in advance? > > Bikes turning right have to pull into the middle > lane. You have one lane to your left going > straight on and another on your right approaching > you. You are sandwiched between to lanes of > traffic. If people block the entrance to the > square, then it's not possible to turn right, or > go 'straight on'. You are left stranded in the > middle of two lanes of traffic. If you don't > understand this, then you clearly don't understand > the road layout. Utterly ridiculous to claim you are 'sandwiched' between two lanes of traffic. It is a very large cyclist only filter lane at least 6 foot wide. How often do you have a cyclist only filter lane at a junction in London? This junction is safer than most and is not in any way dangerous (unless another road user does something dangerous).

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting that there are different views on the > ?shared space? v ?filtered road? status of the > closed junction. I thought the latter as that?s > how the road traffic order works - it?s a > prohibition of certain types of traffic isn?t it? > (Need to re-read). I assumed that cyclists would > have right of way. Interesting. This sign says otherwise... Apologies for the dreadful picture quality - screenshot of google streetview.. But it says 'Pedestrian Priority'

RRR, saucy, DC.. correct me if I'm wrong but you all seem to be under the impression that cyclists have right of way at this junction? My understanding is that it is a shared space and so pedestrians have just as much right to be there, standing wherever they happen to stand, as cyclists. Of course it can be argued that a pedestiran standing between a planter causes a hazard for a cyclist, but how is that different from anywhere else in London? There are hazards if you go out cycling - you need to be vigilant and adapt to the circumstances as you arrive at them. The idea of having to wait to turn right being a strange and perilous concept is bemusing. You use the roads, you accept the fact you may occasionaly have to wait. Are you going to brand anyone and everything an idiot for blocking your exit? I can think of multiple occasions in the last week where I've had to wait a while to turn because the exit was blocked. If you're not comfortable waiting in between traffic then maybe cycling on the roads isn't for you. Additionally, that right hand filter lane is a full car width wide and practically a bus length long so I would argue not a dangerous place to wait by any stretch until the exit is clear. And being only 8 feet away from the crowd, it is not inconceivable that you couldn't have just shouted 'please let us through'. Did you try that? RRR, all this to try and distract from your clear and complete lack of empathy for those who have been adversly affected by the LTNs.

Think you?re fighting a losing one here rahrahrah. Would it not just have been easier to roll back the initial insult you made rather than continue heating this up? Regardless of whether people left a few bags on the ground, publicly labelling them all as idiots isn?t going to make you any friends and IMO just serves to weaken your argument.

I think Rockets and ex just summed up really well in polite civilised terms the main points of the opposing views. After pages and pages of mud slinging this is certainly refreshing to read. My personal take is that LTNs have been tried, but they have created at least the same problems with air pollution that they replaced (just in different areas). I believe it?s worse because there is so much more idling now. Before, fhe traffic in the area most definitely flowed more freely - albeit using a wider variety of roads. It should now be the people who decide which is the lesser of two evils? I reckon the consultation will show most in favour of removing them.

char1i3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Longest thread ever on the EDF. > > I sold my car five years ago and only cycle or > walk round the neighbourhood now. If I need to > drive to the dump or out of town I use a zip car > or getaround shared car. > > I am happier and richer by not having a car. > Cycling is quicker. Walking is nice. And now the > highway code has been updated to prioritise > cyclists more. The LTN is great, less traffic is > good. > > Why can't we all just give up the car? Amsterdam > is a great city. We could be like Amsterdam. > > > Charlie We could be. If London wasn?t 7 times the size of Amsterdam?

So any idea when we get to see the results of the consultation? Have they said a timeframe?

Newsflash ?Closed road has less road related injuries? Perhaps now they could run the same study on the roads taking all the strain - LL, EDG etc.

@rahrahrah "Can we see the alternative proposal that "reduces traffic, improves air quality and promotes active travel"? Have they* published it?" Their proposals were published - easily obtainable by visiting their website. If you're arguing that their proposals don't actually encourage a reduction in travel, improvement of air quality and promoting active travel, then I would argue straight back that the councils proposals are exactly the same. They may claim they are, but their measures are ill-thought through, divisive and I don't believe they are doing anything to improve air quality, reduce traffic or promote active travel. So really, it's a moot point. If the council aren't willing to listen to all residents openly (i.e. a full proper consultation from scratch) then unfortuantely the only way forward is to force their hand. Returning to the original state appears to be the only way to do this, unless you have another suggestion?

Huge thanks to fairTgirl for her input having written the vast majority of the information that I presented in the video. Excellently spoken as well during the meeting. Here?s hoping for a fairer approach by the council moving forward 🤞

First time I?ve agreed with you DKHB - definitely don?t ask binary questions. However, the council do actually need to ask us something.... rather than just press ahead with their own agenda...

For anyone that wants to watch the presentation - it's available here:

cwjlawrence Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Dougie - my apologies if I have made my points > badly or that they're unclear. But, please don't > suggest that I have a complete disregard to > others. That is not a fair comment. I completely > respect your position and points of view and I > hope that the opposite is the same. Apology accepted ;-) No, fair enough - I'm only going by what I'm reading into your comments on here so apologies if I have mis-construed your views - I do of course respect your position also. > Hence, my point that we need to make it > difficult for people to drive their cars which is > probably through direct or indirect taxation - > which in itself discriminates against people who > can't afford this additional cost. > The problem with this is that, certainly in a wealthier area like Dulwich Village, many of the un-necessary journeys are conducted by people who can afford higher cost of driving. The convinience of driving to the shops, gym etc will outweigh additional costs for many of these residents and so higher taxation will do little to curb such journeys. And then making a journey physically take longer or more difficult just adds to the stresses and costs of those who actually need to make them. Most tradesmen / musicians like myself have no other option and can't afford to buy a brand new vehicle so they just have to suck up the additional cost. Meanwhile, you've got people driving round park lane and mayfair in ferraris and lamborghinis for no purpose whatsoever and you can chuck all the extra costs in the world you want at them and it'll make no difference. There has to be a better solution than this. Wouldn't camera enforcement of timed closures / congestion charges with exemptions for those who genuinely need to use vehicles be a fairer option? Or something along those lines... Just to give you an example from my own personal experience, if I am booked to perform at an event in central london requiring me to take my stage piano and speaker (it is very rare that a piano is provided for private events simply as most venues don't have them) I am hit with double ULEZ, congestion charge and diesel parking surcharge amounting to ?50-60. I can't afford to change a perfectly good economical (60mpg) car until we absolutely have to (next Oct) and so I've just been taking the (ever-increasing) finanical hit because I also can't afford to turn down the work. I really think incentivising people to use alternative means of transport is a much better approach. Taking a bus or train to do a short journey must be the more convinient option - but I don't believe making genuine journies hell is a reasonable sacrifice to acheive that. I think that's the cheapskate option. If the council work with TFL (rather than just continously saying 'public transport ain't our responsibility - that's TFL' whenever PT is brought up in a discussion) then huge improvements could be made to our area which would drastically change peoples' behaviour.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'If I can do it, everyone else can' is a negligent > position to take and one that should be challenged > strongly in my view. > > It depends on the person who hears it. Person A > will say ?Hmm. Maybe s/he?s right. Let me make a > concerted effort to cut down on some, not all, > journeys at least three days a week.? Person B > will say ?How dare people conclude that I can be > like those who?ve reduced their car journeys. I?m > offended and will make no effort to cut down > because I feel maligned and slighted (even though > the poster has literally no idea who I am and vice > versa).? Person C will say "I wish I could but I can't because of xyz" And that is why we need a more open approach.

cwjlawrence Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but if I can > reduce my car journeys by over 95% then I think > that the majority of our community can too. And here is the crux of the problem. You, like the majority of the rest of the pro-closure lobby have decided, without any data, that it is perfectly possible for nearly everyone to stop using their car and either cycle or walk (or maybe use PT). It appears you have a complete disregard to the countless different issues that many many different people have. Just to give a few examples: ? The disabled or immobile ? Tradespeople, construction workers all of which have heavy tools needed for work ? Freelance events people with heavy equipment needed for work ? Musicians - again with large instruments needed for work ? Delivery drivers ? People who live in areas poorly served by public transport You will undoubtedly say to me "but loads of people make un-necessary journeys too and so they need to be stopped" You are quite right - but it doesn't seem a sensible approach to penalise / punish all the people using a vehicle for genuine purposes just to stop that. There IS a better and fairer approach. 'If I can do it, everyone else can' is a negligent position to take and one that should be challenged strongly in my view.

@cwjlawrence I think your understanding of my (and other pro-removal of the LTN people's) viewpoint is skewed. We do not believe that things should return to the status-quo. We are all in complete agreement that our ultimate goal is to drastically reduce pollution across the whole of London. However, we do not agree that this is achieved by closing roads as, aside from the science and data showing historically that measures like this just kicks the can down the road, we can see it with our own eyes 6 hours a day every day of the week. Melbourne Grove and Court Lane are both lovely and traffic free, but at a huge cost to Grove Vale, East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. All of which have schools, homes, businesses etc So many many more children breathing in substantial extra fumes so that those select few streets can enjoy more peace and cleaner air. Promoting active travel is of course important and it is fantastic to see so many people walking and cycling (I am one of them). However, just because one family / household is able to do this, does not automatically dictate that all other families / households should be able to do this also. There are a whole host of reasons why people need to make journeys by car - and these poeple need to be listened to and consulted AS WELL as families / households advocating for walking and cycling. The data shows that cycling is not the answer to reducing vehicle use - for a multitude of reasons. Public transport is the only thing that can really make the difference when it comes to the sort of numbers we need to achieve in the battle against the effects of climate change. And so that is why I (and others) believe a one-size-fits-all ham-fisted ill-thought through measure like southwark council's here is not a fair or sensible approach. We are campaigning for the LTNs to be removed so that a proper consultation can be conducted that works with the entire community to make change for the better that benefits all (and not just a select few). This should include: ? Low emmissions schemes (ULEZ set to hit the whole area in Oct 2021 - this should have a huge impact on Nox emissions levels) ? Working with TFL to significantly improve local public transport including additional bus routes for more streets without adequate transport, increasing frequency of busses and offering real incentives to get people out of their cars ? Promotion of cycling / walking and other active travel including making roads safer / adding cycle lanes where possible ? Timed camera-enforced road closures for school streets ? Working with schools in the area to promote alternative means of travel (particularly independent schools) ? Possible exploration of higher taxes on private hire car firms There needs to be a level of comprimise so that certain demographics are not dispproportionately affected whilst the super-affluent streets benefit greatly. We understand that the council felt they needed to push these measures through quickly so that they could get funding from the gov in time. But given the transport sec himself has shown signs of backtracking on this, it really is clear to me (and 2600 others) that these measures should be reversed now and a proper consultation set up.

Agree Dulwichgirl82 All the rhetoric I've read from RahRahRah, Nigello, Exdulwich and the few vocal others on here seems to have been roughly following these ideas: 1) Something has to be done - this is better than nothing 2) It doesn't matter if this something causes worse pollution / congestion for some Dulwich residents because the something is better than nothing (and then a bit of mis-direction firing a question back along the lines of 'WHY DO YOU WANT NOTHING? DO YOU LIKE POLLUTION?' etc) 3) We have to get rid of cars out of London, period. Literally any problems that that ideology causes is worth it - no exceptions. 4) We don't care that other residents are suffering. In fact we don't really believe they are suffering - this is all just moaning because people are desperate to drive everywhere. I really don't understand why the pro-closure people are so reluctant to listen to the residents who are being adversely affected by these road closures. Why can't you just listen to them? I don't live on any of these roads - so am largely unaffected either way* - but I really feel for residents and businesses who are suffering as a result of these road closures. And I feel very strongly that a council not consulting residents beforehand is just wrong on all levels. *This is of course unless I have to make an unavoidable journey in the car, in which case getting out of Dulwich is taking significantly longer at peak times due to the added congestion